Prosecutor in Gabe Watson case has a history of connections to colossal screwups, including acquittal of sleazy lawyer Bill Swatek on perjury charges

Gabe Watson

Birmingham was the site of international legal intrigue late last week as Gabe Watson was acquitted of murder in the honeymoon drowning death of his wife, Tina Thomas Watson, on a 2003 diving excursion off the coast of Australia.

The trial received global media attention, but the outcome should not have been a surprise; the notion of prosecuting Watson on a capital murder charge in Alabama for events that took place in Australia--he served 18 months in prison there after pleading guilty to manslaughter in 2009--was dubious from the outset. But the surprise came from Jefferson County District Judge Tommy Nail, who granted a motion for acquittal before the case went to a jury.

Such motions are routinely filed but hardly ever granted in criminal cases. That Nail granted this one speaks volumes about the weakness of the prosecution's case. And that is fitting, given that Don Valeska handled the case for the Alabama Attorney General's Office. Valeska has a long history of overreaching in some instances and blowing slam-dunk cases in others. One of his blown slam dunks has had a profound impact here in the Schnauzer household.

Valeska was the prosecutor in a 1981 perjury case against Pelham, Alabama, lawyer William E. Swatek. As regular readers know, Bill Swatek is the person most responsible for the 12 years of legal misery that Mrs. Schnauzer and I have endured. Our headaches might never have come if Valeska had won a conviction against Swatek 31 years ago. But the prosecution managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in that case, allowing Swatek to return to the "legal profession" and earn regular suspensions and reprimands for violations of ethical standards.

To be fair to Valeska, a conviction would not necessarily have meant the end of Swatek's legal career. A conviction on a felony charge would automatically have caused Swatek to be disbarred. But contrary to common belief, a disbarment is not permanent. Under the rules of the Alabama State Bar, Swatek might have been allowed to return to practice within five years.

A conviction, however, probably would have led to one of two outcomes: (1) Swatek would have had to find another way to make a living for at least five years and might never have returned to the law; or (2) Swatek might actually have learned a hard lesson and become an ethical lawyer upon his return.

Neither of those outcomes came to pass. Because of the acquittal, Swatek received only a 60-day suspension of his law license. And based on our own experiences, we know the "slap on the wrist" did not cause Swatek to change his ways.

How did Valeska manage to blow the perjury case against Bill Swatek in 1981? The answer to that question is unclear. But court documents and published reports show that the evidence against Swatek was overwhelming. Following is an excellent summary of the issues at hand, from a September 1981 article by Jane Aldridge in the Birmingham Post-Herald. The headline: "Hard Legal Battle Ensues Around Lawyer." (You can check out the full article at the end of this post.)

Don Valeska, an assistant attorney general, said three attorneys who had been invited by Swatek to use his private office for conferences with their client in a civil suit, discovered their conversations were being taped.

Valeska contended they took the tape, confronted Swatek with it, but that he declined to comment on it at that time. Later during investigations by the Birmingham and Alabama State Bar Associations, he denied knowing the conversations were being taped. His client, John Bailey, said he did the taping.

Valeska declared the tape itself, which he said contains statements by Swatek at the end, proves that he knew about it.

Valeska was right about that. I've checked Swatek's disciplinary file at the Alabama State Bar--it's about a foot thick, by the way--and it includes a transcript of a conversation between Swatek and Bailey that was caught on the tape. Following is a portion of that transcript: (You can check out the full transcript at the end of this post.)

William E. Swatek and Johnny Bailey on cassette tape taken by Paul G. Smith from Swatek's office on May 30, 1979:

Swatek: "Testing . . . one . . . two . . . three . . . four . . . five . . . "

Bailey: ". . . 'cause that's the one probably to use, or do you want to use that one?"

Swatek: "I'd rather use this one, 'cause you can't hear it at all, and I can stick it down under the desk and . . . "

What do we learn from this snippet:

* Bill Swatek voice tested the tape recorder--"Testing . . . one . . . two . . . three . . . "

* Bill Swatek determined which tape recorder to use after Bailey asked him about it;

* Bill Swatek determined where to place the tape recorder.

And yet, as we showed above, Swatek testified under oath before multiple bar associations that he knew nothing about the tape recording, that his client did it on his own.

The indisputable truth? Bill Swatek lied under oath during an official bar proceeding. That is perjury, and Swatek was guilty.

So how did a Jefferson County jury decide to acquit? God only knows what went on behind the scenes to cause that outcome. But under the facts and law, Bill Swatek (an "officer of the court") committed perjury and should have been disbarred.

Tina Thomas Watson

Are we being too hard on Don Valeska about the outcomes of the Swatek case and the Gabe Watson case? Perhaps. In the Swatek matter, I see nothing in the record that indicates Valeska made any blunders that led to the acquittal. I can think of only one explanation for the outcome: Somebody in the system--judge, jury, bailiff, custodian--was tainted somehow. In the Watson matter, it was not Valeska's decision to bring the case in Alabama. That decision came from former Attorney General Troy King, and his successor, Luther Strange,  allowed the prosecution to proceed.

Was Valeska acting as a "good solider" by moving forward with the clod-headed decisions of his superiors at the Alabama Attorney General's Office? The answer probably is yes.

Here, perhaps, is the take-home lesson from all of this: We can study the arc of Don Valeska's 30-year career as a prosecutor and see much of what is wrong with our "justice system." And these problems hardly are limited to Alabama. (See prosecution of Simpson, O.J.)

In 1981, Don Valeska failed to get a conviction in a case where a single sheet of paper shows the defendant was guilty beyond all doubt, not just reasonable doubt. In 2012, Don Valeska failed to get a conviction in a case that was so weak it never should have been brought--and probably was only brought because statewide officeholders wanted to score political points with the public.

Over a 31-year span, Valeska's career is bookended by two prosecutions that featured monumental screwups. That tells us that our justice system has been a sewer for a long time--and the stench is only getting stronger.

Here is a Birmingham Post-Herald article, from September 1981, about the Swatek perjury case:


Swatek Perjury Article


Here is a transcript of tape-recorded evidence in the Swatek perjury case:


Swatek Perjury Transcript

We've been writing for years about corruption connected to the Swatek family, and surprise, that largely was the focus of Day 1 in Mike Hubbard trial

Tim Howe
(From al.com)

No one could have known it at the time, but when Legal Schnauzer started in June 2007, it essentially presaged the opening day of the Mike Hubbard trial.

Quite a few of our early posts documented the corruption that had been swirling around Pelham attorney Bill Swatek for years. Swatek filed a bogus lawsuit against me on behalf of our criminally inclined neighbor, Mike McGarity, and the unlawful rulings of Shelby County judges in that case prompted me to start this blog. It also drove my wife, Carol, and me into an ugly conservative world populated by GOP dirt bags like Karl Rove, Bill Canary, and Bob and Rob Riley.

What does this have to do with the Hubbard case? Well, the only two witnesses called as the trial opened yesterday were Tim Howe and John Ross, both partners in the Montgomery-based consulting/lobbying firm Swatek Howe and Ross. The chief partner, Dax Swatek, has not testified, but he is on the state's extensive witness list.

This is a story of apples not falling far from the tree.

Speaking of trees, Dax Swatek comes from a decidedly unwholesome family tree. His father is Bill Swatek, whose record of sleaze in the legal profession dates back some 35 years. (See here, here, and here.) His late brother, Chace Swatek, was a lawyer whose body was found beside a Pelham highway after he reportedly had died from huffing. His sister, Barret Swatek, could be called a fading Hollywood actress, but she never had much of a star to begin with. Perhaps her most significant claim to fame is having dated producer Mike De Luca, who is known for engaging in fist fights, drunken driving and public blow jobs. Barret Swatek puts her conservative family values on display by dating guys like that.

As for the Hubbard trial, it started with two witnesses who have strong ties to the dysfunctional Swatek clan. Not surprisingly, the witnesses testified to acts that were so corrupt that they were almost comical. What do you know . . . Bill Swatek's law career is filled with corrupt acts that are downright comical.

Bill Swatek

Tim Howe took the stand yesterday and promptly admitted to using a pass-through company to funnel money to Hubbard--but ol' Tim made the unilateral decision to skim five percent off the top. How very Swatekian of him.

John Ross testified about a meeting designed to create a favorable position for his client, American Pharmacy Cooperative Inc. (APCI). How favorable was the proposed legislation to be for APCI? It would give the company a monopoly on Medicaid prescription in Alabama. That's pretty favorable.

When Ross learned from a lobbyist that Hubbard was taking boatloads of cash from APCI, he was angry because of the obvious ethics problems that presented. Was Ross concerned that he had rigged the Medicaid system to benefit one company, his client? Was Ross concerned this might be a bad deal for Alabamians. Based on news reports of yesterday's proceedings, the answer appears to be no. Ross, it seems, was concerned because Hubbard's actions had increased the chances of someone getting caught. Again, how very Swatekian.

How bad is Bill Swatek, who could be called the "Father of All Corruption Described So Far in the Hubbard Trial"? I've written dozens of posts on that subject, but here is my favorite story.

In the late 1970s, Swatek represented a Pelham policeman named Johnny Bailey in an employment case. During depositions, Swatek allowed opposing counsel to use his office for what they thought was a private meeting. But Swatek surreptitiously tape recorded them. The opposing attorneys found the running tape recorder and confronted Swatek with it. He eventually told multiple bar committees that he knew nothing about the recorder, it had been his client's idea to use it. Swatek was charged with perjury, and somehow was acquitted at trial, even though the following section from the audiotape was presented to the jury:

William E. Swatek and Johnny Bailey on cassette tape taken by Paul G. Smith from Swatek's office on May 30, 1979:

Swatek: "Testing . . . one . . . two . . . three . . . four . . . five . . . "

Bailey: ". . . 'cause that's the one probably to use, or do you want to use that one?"

Swatek: "I'd rather use this one, 'cause you can't hear it at all, and I can stick it down under the desk and . . . "

Swatek obviously knew about the tape recording. He decided which recorder to use, where to place it, and he tested it. He clearly lied under oath to the bar committees about it. But still a jury--which almost had to somehow be tainted--found him not guilty.

No wonder partners in the Swatek Howe Rowe firm think they can get away with anything. No wonder Mike Hubbard thinks he can be found not guilty.

Below is a portion of the transcript from Bill Swatek's 1981 trial. Don't be surprised if something just as nutty emerges from the Hubbard trial.

Swatek Perjury Transcript by Roger Shuler

Russia scandal and false statements to Congress could lead to discipline for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, possibly putting Alabama State Bar in the spotlight

Victoria Vuletich
(From cooley.edu)

The Russia scandal engulfing the Donald Trump administration could put Attorney General Jeff Sessions' law license in jeopardy and provide possible grounds for his removal from office, according to a Michigan law professor.

Victoria V. Vuletich, professor at Western Michigan University's Cooley Law School, said Sessions' statements to Congress, failing to disclose his communications with a Russian ambassador, could make him subject to bar discipline. That means the Alabama State Bar could play a central role in a scandal that threatens to bring Sessions' political life to an ignominious close.

The Alabama State Bar is known for its rightward political leanings and lack of strong ethical underpinnings. We have seen evidence, though, that the bar will suspend a lawyer for making false statements under oath. Would the organization impose discipline on perhaps its most prominent member? We have doubts, but Vuletich says the bar could wind up with an obligation to examine Sessions' statements to the U.S. Senate during his confirmation hearings. Says Vuletich:

As a licensed attorney, Attorney General Sessions must adhere to Alabama Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c), which states that it is professional misconduct for an attorney to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Failing to disclose material information can be deemed fraudulent and dishonest if the statement would lead the listener to a different conclusion than if the information had been disclosed. If a complaint is filed with the Alabama legal disciplinary agency, it is likely that Attorney General Sessions would be subject to, at minimum, a pubic reprimand and possibly suspension of his license to practice law. It would be highly inappropriate to have a sitting Attorney General be the subject of professional discipline.

Could Sessions serve as attorney general without a law license? We have not been able to find a clear-cut answer to that question, but it appears the answer is yes. Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon had their law licenses removed and remained as president. Members of the U.S. Supreme Court are not required to be lawyers. We suspect Sessions could remain as AG, even without a law license. But how bad would it look?

Attorney Bill Swatek, who has family
ties to Jeff Sessions

Vuletich suggests she would find such an outcome deeply troubling -- and she is not a lightweight on such matters. From her bio:

She is a frequent presenter on legal ethics issues. Professor Vuletich is former chairperson of the American Bar Association (ABA) Center for Professional Responsibility Continuing Legal Education Committee. She was a member of the ABA Standing Committee on Client Protection 2004-2008. She is a member of the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility Policy Implementation Committee.

Most recently, Professor Vuletich was a guest lecturer at Hertford College, Oxford University, United Kingdom.

As for the Alabama State Bar's history of imposing discipline on a lawyer for making false statements under oath, we are most familiar with a case from the early 1980s involving Shelby County attorney William E. Swatek. Here's how we described issues in the Swatek case:

In the late 1970s, Swatek represented a Pelham policeman named Johnny Bailey in an employment case. During depositions, Swatek allowed opposing counsel to use his office for what they thought was a private meeting. But Swatek surreptitiously tape recorded them. The opposing attorneys found the running tape recorder and confronted Swatek with it. He eventually told multiple bar committees that he knew nothing about the recorder, it had been his client's idea to use it. Swatek was charged with perjury, and somehow was acquitted at trial, even though the following section from the audiotape was presented to the jury:

William E. Swatek and Johnny Bailey on cassette tape taken by Paul G. Smith from Swatek's office on May 30, 1979:

Swatek: "Testing . . . one . . . two . . . three . . . four . . . five . . . "

Bailey: ". . . 'cause that's the one probably to use, or do you want to use that one?"

Swatek: "I'd rather use this one, 'cause you can't hear it at all, and I can stick it down under the desk and . . . "

Swatek obviously knew about the tape recording. He decided which recorder to use, where to place it, and he tested it. He clearly lied under oath to the bar committees about it. But still a jury -- which almost had to somehow be tainted--found him not guilty.

Swatek, in a criminal case that had to be fixed, was found not guilty of perjury. But the Alabama State Bar did suspend his license for acts of "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation." -- one of at least three times the bar has publicly disciplined Swatek. You will note the "dishonesty, fraud . . . " language is the same provision Prof. Vuletich cites from Sec. 8.4(c).

How is this for irony? Swatek's son, Dax Swatek, is a GOP operative who has worked for . . . Jeff Sessions, among others. And Bill Swatek, more than any other "human," has caused the legal agony my wife, Carol, and I have suffered for roughly 17 years -- mainly by unethically representing Mike McGarity, our criminally inclined neighbor in Birmingham.

Maybe karma will bring down Sessions, along with some of the Alabama dirt bags who have ridden his coat tails.

Below are two videos about Bill Swatek's disciplinary history:

Daniel Wims, president of Historically Black Alabama A&M, paid $220,000 to a lobbying firm to help him hang out with Tommy Tuberville and other GOPers

Tommy Tuberville (left) and Daniel Wims (center)

The president of Historically Black Alabama A&M University has paid $220,000 to a White-owned lobbying firm allowing him to pal around with U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) and similar MAGA Republican political figures, according to a report from Donald Watkins, longtime Alabama attorney and leading voice in online journalism. Why would A&M President Daniel Wims pay that kind of money for the "privilege" of hanging around Tuberville and other MAGA types? The answer to that question is unclear at the moment, but it seems Wims has forgotten, or never cared about, the heritage of the university he leads. That might be one reason Watkins has called for his ouster, by firing or forced resignation.

Under the headline "Alabama A&M’s Daniel Wims Paid Lobbyist $220,000 to Pal Around with MAGA Extremist Tommy Tuberville," Watkins writes:

Between October 2, 2021, and August 8, 2023, historically black Alabama A&M University paid Tripp Skipper’s lobbying firm, Skipper Group, $220,000 to pal around with MAGA extremist Tommy Tuberville and other MAGA politicians of his ilk. Tuberville, whose lips drip with racist comments about Black Americans, is one of the most despised politicians in the United States.

Dr. Daniel K. Wims, who is Alabama A&M’s MAGA-wannabe president, doled this money out at the rate of $10,000 to $30,000 per month for the joy of hobnobbing with Alabama’s loudest circle of MAGA politicians on campus and elsewhere.

Before going into politics, Tuberville made his living as head football coach at four universities (Ole Miss, Auburn, Texas Tech, and Cincinnati), with rosters filled predominantly by Black student-athletes. Still, Tuberville has developed an ugly habit of making public statements that drip with racism. But that does not seem to bother Dr. Wims in the least. It does, however, bother Donald Watkins:

Tuberville is best known for his racist remarks in October 2022 about reparations for descendants of slavery ("they think the people who do crime are owed that") and his May 2023 open embrace of white nationalists in the armed forces (“I call them Americans”).

Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s brand of racism has caused his own brother, Charles Tuberville, to distance himself from the Senator.

Yet, Alabama A&M’s President Daniel K. Wims continues to pay Skipper Group big bucks to maintain his place within Tuberville’s MAGA political orbit. In addition to his proud displays of racism, Tuberville is ostracized in Washington because of his blockage on high-level military promotions that require Senate confirmation. The leaders of both political parties in both Houses of Congress view Tuberville as a political buffoon. Tuberville is also universally regarded in Congress as ineffective and ignorant.

U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-Alabama) is three times more effective than Tuberville in bringing direct federal dollars to Alabama. Alabama is set to have more than $304 million in “congressional directed spending,” or earmarks in the U.S. Senate’s fiscal year 2024 appropriations bill. Of this amount, $232 million or 76%, was attributed to Sen. Britt. Only $72 million came from the efforts of Tuberville.

Watkins raises THE question at the heart of this post: What Does Alabama A&M Get for the Money It Spends on Skipper Group? The answer? Apparently, not a whole lot. Writes Watkins:

Skipper Group, which is headquartered in Auburn, Alabama, bills itself as a “government relations, business development, and public affairs firm. Its website claims that Skipper Group is “forward thinking, well connected, and cross-trained in multi-practice areas.” The lobbying firm also offers “targeted media relations and opinion leader education.”

Dr. Wims has bought $220,000 worth of lobbying services, targeted media relations, and opinion leadership education from this two-man firm, which was founded in 2013 by Tripp Skipper. Skipper is a former Congressional aide who worked in Alabama for devoted MAGA Congressmembers Mike Rogers (R-Alabama), Robert Aderholt (R-Alabama), and former U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama). He only worked as a Congressional aide in Washington for 2 years (1998-2000).

Tripp Skipper was a member of Tuberville's transition committee in 2020 and remains a "close advisor" to the Senator.

Skipper Group lists 20 clients on its website, including the Tommy Tuberville Foundation and Take Back Our Republic, an all-White group of conservative GOP election law reform activists.

Noticeably absent from Skipper Group’s website is any reference to historically black Alabama A&M as a client, even though the university is larger in size and asset value than listed Skipper Group clients like the Alabama Business Council and Take Back Our Republic.

According to the firm's website, Skipper Group has only raised $6.2 million in contracts for its group of 20 listed clients since 2017.

Alabama A&M has received some significant government funding in recent years, but published reports indicate that had nothing to do with Tuberville -- or Skipper Group, Watkins reports:

While Alabama A&M announced an $8.1 million U.S. Department of Transportation grant on July 1, 2023, to upgrade the Bulldog Transit System, this money came from President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure bill, which Tuberville vigorously opposed. Alabama A&M has won millions of dollars in other federal government grants this year through the hard work of dedicated university employees and without any help from Skipper Group.

Finally, Skipper Group also helped Alabama A&M get favorable news articles published in Yellowhammer News, which is considered the unofficial online news site for Alabama's MAGA Republicans. Yellowhammer simply repackages and republishes soft news stories and photos that appear on the university’s social media platforms.

Yellowhammer has not published one article about the U.S. Departments of Education's September 18, 2023 letter to Gov. Kay Ivey that put the state on notice about its $527,280,064 debt to Alabama A&M based upon the state's chronic underfunding of the university over the past 30 years. 

 Yellowhammer appears to be a Republican mouthpiece -- with little or no interest in objective news reporting. That's because it is closely tied to GOP lobbyist/consultant Dax Swatek, who has aligned himself with some of the state's most dubious political figures -- former House Speaker Mike Hubbard, former Business Council of Alabama President Bill Canary, and former Governors Bob Riley, and  Robert Bentley. Swatek also is tied as a lobbyist to scandal-plagued Alabama Power and Southern Company. He also has been a lobbyist for the Alabama Sports Council, which has played a central in reaching a new Magic City Classic contract, which appears to short-change the two Historically Black participants -- Alabama A&M and Alabama State.

Swatek, Riley, and Canary were among those named in indictments for Mike Hubbard's criminal trial -- along with Tim Howe and John Ross (both longtime members of Swatek's lobbying firm. Howe and Ross went on to become owners of Yellowhammer News.

If Swatek seems to have a knack for hanging around corruption, he comes by it honestly. His father, Pelham lawyer William E. Swatek, is both a slime bag and a lawyer -- and he gives people in both of those categories bad names. Bill Swatek is pretty much single-handedly responsible for the innumerable legal headaches the Schnauzer family has experienced. How low can this guy go? I tried to summarize it in a four-part series of posts, but still had to leave out a lot. (See here, here, here, and here.)

There is so much sleaze connected to Bill Swatek that it's hard to summarize it all. But here are a few highlights:

* He once sued a dead man in a dog-bite case;

* He was convicted of drunk driving in Pelham Municipal Court, but the conviction was overturned when Swatek appealed to Shelby County Court. How does that happen?

* He played a major role in my wife, Carol, being cheated out of the full ownership rights to her own home. That can't be done under the law, especially since Carol was co-owner, for 20-plus years, from the moment we bought the house. (Note: Former U.S. Judge Abdul Kallon, who was at the heart of the North Birmingham bribery scandal, played a big role in cheating Carol. That was before he gave up his lifetime position and bolted for Seattle.)

* Swatek once surreptitiously taped opposing lawyers and then lied about it to the Alabama State Bar. That led to a criminal trial for perjury, in which is defense was  that "he knew nothing about the hidden tape recorder that opposing lawyers discovered while they were trying to conduct a private meeting. Swatek said it was his client's idea to tape record the opposing lawyers." Do the facts support that contention? Not exactly. Swatek and his client, former Pelham cop Johnny Bailey, were caught on the tape discussing where to place the tape, and Swatek is heard saying, "Testing . . . one, two, three, four . . . five." So, they both knew about the tape, Swatek lied about it, and still was found not guilty. Again, how does that happen? You might call it a case of Swatek "lying in an effort to cover up lying" -- which would be an apt description of his legal career. Potential clients might want to take note: When pushed to the wall, Swatek tried to blame the whole mess on his own client. Charming.

* Swatek had his law license suspended for the perjury episode. He has been disciplined several other times.

* One of Swatek's former divorce clients, a woman, contacted me out of the blue and told me in detail about an affair she'd had with her supposedly "Christian" lawyer. She was quick to say she regretted what happened and noted that Swatek had done his best to ignore her when she needed help on other legal matters.

* My coverage of Bill Swatek includes one sad story involving his youngest son, Chace Swatek (also a lawyer), who was found dead near a construction site in Shelby County. I've heard from a number of people that Chace actually was  pretty likable guy. I feel bad about what happened to Chace and the fact he had to grow up with an ethically challenged father.

Let's return to the story of Dr. Daniel Wims and his penchant for hanging around MAGA Republican types. Writes Donald Watkins:

Although Skipper Group gets the big Alabama A&M lobbying bucks, Dr. Wims engages in just enough window-dressing to convince the university community that he is committed to black economic empowerment. Wims' so-called "commitment" is a mirage.

While Dr. Wims has paid Skipper Group $220,000 to lobby for the university, Washington-based Pine Street Strategies, has only been paid a measly $5,000 for lobbying. This money was paid on January 12, 2023. Pine Street is managed by Donald Calloway, a black lobbyist who has far more connections to Joe Biden's White House and Democratic-controlled Senate than Skipper Group.

Dr. Wims paid Dentons Global Advisors, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm, $7,500 on August 29, 2023. This payment was made to reassure MAGA politicos in Washington that Wims is committed to the Republican Party and its agenda. Dentons assigned Ja’Ron Smith, a former deputy assistant to President Donald Trump and MAGA Republican, to serve as the firm's public face on the Alabama A&M’s account.

What impact does this have on Alabama A&M? It's not positive, Watkins writes:

Dr. Wims is on a journey to change the socio-political culture of Alabama A&M. This is why Wims hugs and French-kisses MAGA Republicans when no one is looking. This is also why Dr. Wims tried to end the Magic City Classic, as we know it today.

Dr. Wims' posturing for Donald Trump's MAGA movement is a misguided move by an elitist HBCU president who does NOT respect his board of trustees or university community.

Dr. Wims has hijacked Alabama A&M and is taking the university on a journey to a place where no historically black university wants to go -- Misery Land. As a people and as a university, we have been to Misery Land before. It was an awful place and a horrible experience.

Not one of Wims' paid-for new MAGA friends is going to help Alabama A&M University collect one dime of the $527 million that the state of Alabama owes the university! They see more value in building new prisons in the state with the $527 million owed to Alabama A&M.

Finally, in a classic display of 1950s-era second-class citizenship, Tripp Skipper will not even publicly acknowledge on Skipper Group's website that Alabama A&M is his firm's client. Tripp Skipper is merely taking big money from a historically black institution that is in the midst of a self-induced identity crisis.

Bits and Pieces for $50, Alex

We again interrupt our analysis of the Paul Minor case in Mississippi to bring you this bulletin on another busy day for justice-related news in Alabama.

King Artur vs. Teflon Bob
U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) and Alabama governor Bob Riley were sparring the other day via the U.S. mail, and now they are doing some verbal jousting over the phone lines. Sounds like the two might be coming to some kind of peace after reports about Davis' hiring for his Congressional office of an Alabama two-year college employee. Davis had said such arrangements are specifically permitted by House rules. Riley had said he does not support the practice of paying two-year college employees to work in the office of politicians. A couple of interesting points that came out of today's story:

* Riley acknowledged that he had used a Department of Defense employee for a short time in his Congressional office when he served in Washington, something The Birmingham News neglected to report in its original story. Davis said that's equivalent to his arrangement with former two-year colleges employee Gina Bailey McKell. Riley, whom we've come to know as "Teflon Bob" here at Legal Schnauzer, seemed to think there was a difference. Teflon Bob also had problems with King Artur's characterization of problems in the two-year system as a "partisan, political turf war." Gee, can't imagine why Davis might think Alabama Republicans could resort to partisan politics

* Love this quote from Teflon Bob about the two-year college scandal in Alabama: "The questionable and corrupt conduct that has been painstakingly uncovered is real. I applaud (those) who are working to clean up these problems and stop them."

Well, I've got news for you, Teflon Bob. Corruption in Alabama's courts, while they were overseen by one of your appointees, also was real. And I have zero doubt that it still is real. You went on national TV in November 2005 (to encourage a boycott of Aruba over that nation's handling of the Natalee Holloway case) and said you wanted to know about problems in Alabama's justice system. I took your statement seriously and sent you a lengthy e-mail, outlining the corruption I've experienced from Republican judges in our state. Your administration has done nothing about it. Why is that?

You say you want to stop corruption, but people close to you seem to do their best to encourage corruption and cover it up. Dax Swatek, your campaign manager, is the son of William E. Swatek, who has an almost 30-year record of unethical behavior in the legal profession (including some interesting problems in criminal court, which we will be reporting soon here at Legal Schnauzer.). This includes filing a bogus lawsuit against me. But William E. Swatek has repeatedly been the beneficiary of unlawful rulings by Alabama judges, costing me and Alabama taxpayers thousands of dollars. It appears that William E. Swatek's family ties to your administration have helped him become Teflon Bill--the sleazy Shelby County attorney who gets away with just about anything in Alabama courts. I realize we have separation of powers, and as governor, you don't control the judicial branch. But you certainly have the bully pulpit, and you could use it to shine a light on Alabama's corrupt courts. Why haven't you done it, if stopping corruption means so much to you?

And why not call for a commission to investigate the events of election night 2002 in Baldwin County? Wouldn't it be nice to assure Alabamians that you became governor in a honest manner?

Rapid Troy vs. the DAs
Alabama Attorney General Troy King continues to draw fire from the state's district attorneys. Rapid Troy the AG boy had yanked a death-penalty case from Shelby County DA Robby Owens, and the Alabama District Attorneys Association didn't take kindly to it. "The attorney general has no idea about these things because he has never stood where we stand every day," said Ken Davis, president of the DA group. "Many of our members were fighting for the rights of victims when the attorney general was still in grammar school." Ouch.

Rapid Troy appears to be positioning himself as the "pro-death penalty candidate" for a future run at the governor's office. Look for him to return fire soon in this little intramural spat.

More BS in Shelby County
Speaking of Robby Owens, the Shelby County DA, Troy King is turning him into a sympathetic figure. Trust me, Owens doesn't deserve it. He claims to be about honor and integrity. Well, I was the victim of a felony assault last October by my Neighbor From Hell (NFH), and Owens' office has persisted in ignoring clear law and ruling it a misdemeanor. I wrote Owens a letter in January, outlining the facts and the law in the case and asking him to contact me promptly so the case could be prosecuted properly. I've never heard from him.

I refuse to sign a misdemeanor complaint for an offense that I know was a felony, so looks like NFH is going to get away with a crime. And Owens' says he cares about crime victims?

I will be writing about the assault in detail very soon here at Legal Schnauzer, but here is the short version of what happened: NFH took a roadside sign (which qualifies as a "dangerous instrument" under Alabama law) and swung it with two hands as hard as he could, hitting me in the back and leaving a bleeding abrasion (which qualifies as "physical injury" under Alabama law). There is no question he had intent to hit and injure me; no one else was in the vicinity, so it certainly was not a reckless or negligent act. Have doubts about whether or not this was a felony? Check out Code of Alabama 13A-6-21 and read item (a) (2). I've got a stump in my backyard that could tell this was a felony, committed by a guy with at least eight criminal convictions in his background, including violence-related and sex-related offenses, plus an offense that involved lying to a police officer. But Owens and Co. think they can't prosecute this guy? Good grief, Babec the lowland gorilla at the Birmingham Zoo could get a conviction on this.

(By the way, I'm tired of the cute nicknames for my neighbor from hell. The guy's name is Mike McGarity, and he works at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama in Birmingham. Best I can tell, his job title is "bar-code operator," whatever that is. You have to wonder how a guy with McGarity's criminal record was able to land a job at Blue Cross, which as a federal Medicaid contractor, is supposed to do thorough background checks on prospective employees. Much more about Mike McGarity, his "interesting" past, and his evidently lax employer coming soon. You'll see exactly what I mean about neighbor from hell.)

But back to Owens. You might recall this recent post about the death-sentence commutation of LaSamuel Gamble. That ruling, by Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner, is the one that got Troy King riled up at Owens, who testified that Gamble should be taken off death row in the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision related to sentencing for murderers who were juveniles at the time of their crimes.

Joiner said he made his ruling because it would be "constitutionally unfair" to keep Gamble on death row following the Supreme Court decision. Reading those words from Joiner almost caused me to have an attack of projectile vomiting.

Not because I have a problem with his ruling, which actually is based on the law (a rarity for Joiner). But Joiner is the judge who I've seen repeatedly make unlawful rulings in my case, always favoring Mike McGarity (he of the extensive criminal record) and his attorney, William E. Swatek (he of numerous ethical violations).

I know Mike Joiner to have zero regard for fairness and the constitution, and concepts such as due process and equal protection of the law. So I knew that could not be the real reason he commuted Gamble's death sentence.

But thanks to Robby Owens I think I have an idea what was behind Joiner's thinking. In this post yesterday Owens first said he supported the commutation as a matter of "honor and integrity." Then he turned right around and admitted that, in his mind, it really was a political matter. Owens said he was concerned that leaving Gamble on death row would turn into a rallying point for death-penalty opponents.

It's rare that you see a lawyer make such an unwittingly honest remark. But you can rest assured that Joiner was thinking along the same lines. That's an incestuous bunch down at the Shelby County Courthouse; they all think alike. And it's highly unlikely that Joiner's decision had anything to do with fairness or the constitution.

Rather, it was about laying low, out of the spotlight, a spotlight like the one being shined in the Jena 6 case. Joiner runs a corrupt little empire down in Columbiana, Alabama, and the last thing he wants is attention, particularly the kind that might come with leaving LaSamuel Gamble on death row.

Heck, Al Sharpton is in the neighborhood, just a couple of states away in Louisiana. It would have been easy for Sharpton and friends to stage a protest over the Gamble case on Main Street in Columbiana.

But J. Michael Joiner was having none of that. I imagine the mere thought of Al Sharpton outside the Shelby County Courthouse would cause Joiner to soil himself.