Scott Beason

Republican legislators acted with racist and political motives when they testified for the prosecution in the federal Alabama bingo case, a U.S. District judge says in a new ruling.

Sen. Scott Beason (R-Gardendale) and Rep. Benjamin Lewis (R-Dothan) drew harsh words from Judge Myron Thompson. The public likely will focus on Beason’s role in the story because he has received national attention for sponsoring Alabama’s strict and controversial immigration law. But Lewis, now a state district judge in Houston County, is a close ally to former Governor Bob Riley and was appointed to a judgeship by Riley. Democrats have pointed to that appointment as a possible quid pro quo in exchange for Lewis’ no vote on bingo legislation.

Considering Lewis’ close ties to Riley, and Riley’s close ties to current House Speaker Mike Hubbard, Judge Thompson’s ruling could be seen as a full-blown condemnation of the Alabama GOP. Reports al.com:

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson in an order today lambasted two key prosecution witnesses in the State House vote-buying case as being motivated by political ambition and racial prejudice.

Thompson said Republicans Sen. Scott Beason of Gardendale and former Rep. Benjamin Lewis of Dothan had ulterior motives when they assisted investigators in the case. Beason and Lewis were key prosecution witnesses in the case, in which VictoryLand owner Milton McGregor and others were charged with offering and taking bribes to try to get a gambling bill approved in the Alabama Legislature. The two Republicans said they approached FBI agents after they felt gambling interests made improper offers to try to secure their votes on the bill.

Ironically, Thompson ruled for the prosecution in the order–while thrashing the prosecution’s two key witnesses. At the crux of his order, Thompson found that statements of alleged co-conspirators could be admitted at trial. (See the full order below.)

The public, however, is likely to remember Thompson’s words about GOP legislators:

“The evidence introduced at trial contradicts the self-serving portrait of Beason and Lewis as untouchable opponents of corruption. In reality, Beason and Lewis had ulterior motives rooted in naked political ambition and pure racial bias,” Thompson wrote.

“The court finds that Beason and Lewis lack credibility for two reasons. First, their motive for cooperating with F.B.I. investigators was not to clean up corruption but to increase Republican political fortunes by reducing African-American voter turnout. Second, they lack credibility because the record establishes their purposeful, racist intent,” Thompson wrote.

Those words pretty much shoot holes through the GOP’s contention that it is driven by a desire to bring “honest government” to Alabama. A federal judge obviously is not buying it. From al.com:

Beason wore a wire for the FBI, and the recordings picked up a conversation among Republicans talking about the effect a gambling referendum would have on voter turn-out during an election.

They talked about how “every black, every illiterate,” would be taken to the polls on “HUD-financed buses.”

In another conversation, Beason used the word “aborigines” to refer to people at Greenetrack, a casino in predominately black Greene County.

Thompson said such statements “demonstrate a deep-seated racial animus and a desire to suppress black votes.”

Racist rhetoric, political hi jinks, voter suppression? Yep, that’s the kind of “honest government” Alabamians can look forward to from the GOP.
Bingo Order–GOP RacistsRoger Shuler, a regular contributor to The Public Record, resides in Birmingham, Alabama. A 1978 graduate of the University of Missouri, Shuler worked 11 years as a reporter and editor for the Birmingham Post-Herald before working 19 years in several editorial positions at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). He blogs at Legal Schnauzer.

Ted Rollins, the head of Charlotte-based Campus Crest Communities, helped his company complete a $380-million Initial Public Offering (IPO) late last year. And a South Carolina divorce-court judge found that Rollins belongs to one of the nation’s wealthiest families and has the use of multiple private aircraft. But Rollins managed to get the divorce case unlawfully moved to Alabama, and the resulting judgment means that his ex wife and two daughters  qualify for food stamps.

Sherry Carroll Rollins said she and the girls now are on food stamps–and have been for some time. That’s because Alabama Circuit Judge D. Al Crowson ordered Ted Rollins to pay only $500 in alimony and $815 in child support–a monthly total of $1,315. Our research indicates that is a shockingly low level of support for a man of Rollins’ means, a CEO whose family owns Orkin Pest Control and other highly profitable enterprises.

As a comparison, we recently reported that football star Terrell Owens pays $5,000 a month in support of one child. In other words, Ted Rollins pays less than one-fifth what Terrell Owens pays–for twice as many children. Owens is a rich fellow, by most standards, but it’s doubtful his net worth even approaches that of Ted Rollins.

Did Ted Rollins get a sweet deal in Alabama? You be the judge. Is this is a sensitive topic for the CEO? Well, he threatened to sue me last week because of my reporting on Rollins v. Rollins.

How did Ted Rollins, who regularly flies around the country on private jets, manage to get a support judgment that might be expected for a janitor, a school teacher, or a journalist? We are continuing to investigate that question. But one answer appears to rest with a CS-41 form, an Alabama child-support document that is signed under penalty of perjury. (See the front and back of the Alabama CS-41 form below, followed by Ted Rollins’ CS-41.)

Ted Rollins stated under oath that his income was $4,166.67 a month, from employment at Reynolds Mortgage and Investment Co. of Brentwood, Tennessee. That comes to $50,000.04 per year–and Rollins listed that as his only income.

The CS-41 is dated April 27, 2005, and published reports show that Campus Crest Communities already had started at that point, with Rollins as CEO. The South Carolina court found that Rollins was president of St. James Capital LLC, an investment firm he founded with his uncle–R. Randal Rollins, chairman of Rollins Inc. in Atlanta. The South Carolina judge found that the Rollins family is “extremely wealthy.”

When Rollins v. Rollins was moved to Alabama, Ted Rollins suddenly no longer was involved with St. James Capital. You read that correctly: When his divorce case commenced in South Carolina, where jurisdiction clearly rested, Ted Rollins was president of St. James Capital. When the case unlawfully shifted to Alabama, he suddenly had no ties to St. James Capital. How intriguing! How convenient!

What happened to Ted Rollins’ interest in that company, plus his interest in Campus Crest and other ventures? They seemingly vanished when Rollins v. Rollins took center stage in Shelby County, Alabama.

And that’s not all. Ted Rollins was a major player behind the Crescent Center, a development in Greenville, South Carolina, that offers 750,000 square feet of manufacturing, distribution, and office space. Rollins derived no income from that sizable project?

Based on his CS-41 form, Ted Rollins appears to be a regular working stiff, a guy making a relatively paltry sum of 50 grand a year. But the CS-41 goes beyond “salary,” requiring a declaration regarding many forms of income–the kind that wealthy people, such as Ted Rollins, often have. The instructions are found on the back side of the CS-41, under the title “Examples Of Income That Must Be Declared In Your Gross Monthly Income.” It’s pretty hard to miss. Here is what must be declared:

EXAMPLES OF INCOME THAT MUST BE INCLUDED IN YOUR GROSS MONTHLY INCOME 

1. Employment Income–shall include, but not be limited to, salary, wages, bonuses, commissions, severance pay, worker’s compensation, pension income, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and Social Security benefits.

2. Self–Employment Income–shall include, but not be limited to, income from self-employment, rent, royalties, proprietorship of a business, or joint ownership of a partnership or closely held corporation. “Gross income” means gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses required to produce this income.

3. Other Employment-Related Income–shall include, but not be limited to, the average monthly value of any expense reimbursements or in-kind payments received in the course of employment that are significant and reduce personal living expenses, such as a furnished automobile, a clothing allowance, and a housing allowance.

4. Other Non-Employment Related Income–shall include, but not be limited to, dividends, interest, annuities, capital gains, gifts, prizes, and pre-existing periodic alimony.

Ted Rollins is from an “extremely wealthy” family, but he had none of these sources of income, only $50,000 from a mortgage company in Tennessee? Does this “strain credulity”?

The bottom line is this: Public documents show that someone administered a colossal cheat job to Sherry Carroll Rollins and her daughters. Because of that, the Rollins household in Alabama now qualifies for government assistance, funded by taxpayers.

The story of corruption connected to Rollins v. Rollins goes beyond one family, two states, two courtrooms and a series of judges. Someone wanted to make sure that Ted Rollins did not have to pay a reasonable sum for the support of his ex wife and children. Someone wanted to make sure that Sherry Carroll Rollins did not receive a share of the “marital assets,” to which she was entitled under the law.

As a result, taxpayers are making up a tiny portion of the difference, in the form of food stamps. This helps ensure that Sherry Rollins and her daughters can make it through the month with something to eat. Does this situation trouble Ted Rollins? We’ve sent him questions in writing, but he has not responded–other than to threaten me with a lawsuit.

Moral of the story? Corruption in Shelby County, Alabama, is not just my problem or Sherry Rollins’ problem. It’s everyone’s problem.

Alabama CS-41 Form (Front and Back)

Rollins CS-41 Form

Roger Shuler, a regular contributor to The Public Record, resides in Birmingham, Alabama. A 1978 graduate of the University of Missouri, Shuler worked 11 years as a reporter and editor for the Birmingham Post-Herald before working 19 years in several editorial positions at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). He blogs at Legal Schnauzer.

Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama

We reported on September 8 that Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, was planning to indict a number of legislators and casino operators as an “October Surprise” designed to affect the November election.

That prediction became reality with news that an indictment of 11 individuals was issued this morning, and the FBI began making arrests. VictoryLand casino owner Milton McGregor, four state senators, and several lobbyists were among those indicted.

Canary, a holdover from the George W. Bush administration, has served under President Barack Obama for more than 20 months. She was a central figure in the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Her husband, Business Council of Alabama President Bill Canary, is a close associate of Karl Rove.

The U.S. Justice Department is spinning today’s actions as a legitimate probe focused on corruption connected to gambling legislation. But our sources have been saying for weeks that it is designed to affect the November elections. Polls show Republican Robert Bentley already leading Democrat Ron Sparks in the race for governor, and the arrests could help the GOP take over one or both houses of the Alabama Legislature, a long-stated goal of outgoing governor Bob Riley.

Reports the Montgomery Advertiser:

The indictment, which has 11 defendants, was released Monday as FBI agents made arrests at several locations across Alabama.

It accuses the casino owners and statehouse figures of conspiring to make payments and campaign donations to affect “pro-gambling legislation.”

VictoryLand casino owner Milton McGregor was among those indicted. His casino, now shut down, has more than 6,000 electronic bingo machines. Also indicted was Country Crossing casino developer Ronnie Gilley of Dothan and state Sens. Harri Anne Smith of Slocomb, James Prueitt of Talladega, Larry Means of Gadsden and Quinton Ross Jr. of Montgomery.

Our source said the indictments were scheduled for around October 1, and that date proved to be right on target. The indictments are dated last Friday, October 1, but were not announced until today, as arrests were being made.

The Justice Department, in a statement, said the accused acted “in a conspiracy to offer and bribe legislators for their votes and influence on proposed legislation.” Writes the Advertiser:

Also indicted were lobbyists Tom Coker and Bob Geddie, who represent VictoryLand; lobbyist Jarrod Massey and public relations executive Jay Walker, who represent Country Crossing; and Ray Crosby, an attorney for the Legislature who helped write gambling legislation.

The Justice Department said the indictment “alleges that Sen. Means, who had abstained from an earlier vote on the pro-gambling legislation in 2010, solicited bribes from McGregor, Gilley, Massey and others, and, in one specific instance, sought $100,000 in return for voting in favor of the legislation.”

The indictments resulted from a federal grand jury investigation in Montgomery.

The probe was announced last spring prior to the final votes on the bill, which died when sponsors could not line up the necessary votes for passage. Backers of the bill, mostly Democrats, accused Republican Gov. Bob Riley’s administration of derailing the measure with the announcement of the probe. While Riley’s state public safety director was involved with the announcement, federal authorities said the Justice Department was handling the investigation.

Means and Ross are Democrats, Pruett is a Republican, and Smith is an Independent. That appears to be a relatively bipartisan target list. But there is little doubt that Canary and her prosecutors went after Democrats and others who oppose Gov. Riley and his efforts to shut down gaming in Alabama. As we reported on September 8:

Our source, who has close ties to the Alabama legal community, says the plan is set to take flight around October 1 and might include an indictment of Ron Sparks, the Democratic candidate for governor. In other words, plans for a political prosecution that is designed to affect the outcome of an election might be taking place right under the Obama administration’s nose.

So far, there is no word of an indictment on Sparks. But what does all of this say about the Obama administration? It already had a dreadful record on justice issues. And yet it backs a process where neither Gov. Riley nor any of his conservative backers who opposed gambling were apparently even investigated. We’ve seen no sign of a probe into the $13 million in Mississippi gaming money that reportedly was spent to help get Riley elected in 2002. Canary seems to have focused only on pro-gambling individuals, who tend to be Democrats or Riley critics.

And here is the huge question: Why is Leura Canary still in office in the first place?

What is this “investigation” all about? It looks like a thinly veiled effort to pay back Riley’s Mississippi gaming supporters–who reportedly laundered money through Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, and Ralph Reed–by shutting down competition in Alabama.

The George W. Bush Department of Justice (DOJ) was a nightmare. But this happened today on Barack Obama’s watch. That can only be described as shameful.

Originally published on Mr. Shuler’s blog, Legal Schnauzer.

Roger Shuler, a regular contributor to The Public Record, resides in Birmingham, Alabama. A 1978 graduate of the University of Missouri, Shuler worked 11 years as a reporter and editor for the Birmingham Post-Herald before working 19 years in several editorial positions at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). He blogs at Legal Schnauzer.

Glenn Feldman, a labor historian, has filed a lawsuit against the University of Alabama at Birmingham, accuding the college of trying to force him out because of a pro-business bias. Photo/UAB

The business dean at an Alabama university tried to force a department chairman to help unlawfully terminate a faculty member who has ties to labor unions and liberal politics, according to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court.

Glenn Feldman has taught labor economics and other subjects at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) since 1996 and earned tenure in the School of Business in 2002. But Feldman alleges in a lawsuit that Dean David R. Klock, who arrived at UAB from Cal Poly Pomona in 2008, has twice tried to fire him.

In one instance, Feldman states, Klock tried to get a key department chair, Lance Nail, to change his vote from yes to no on Feldman’s application for full professor. According to Feldman’s complaint, Klock told Nail, “We are going to fire this guy anyway, and it wouldn’t look good if we just promoted him.”

Nail, who since has become the business dean at the University of Southern Mississippi, refused to change his vote, and Feldman became a full professor on October 1, 2008.

But that, the lawsuit alleges, has not kept Klock from trying to run off Feldman. At one point, Klock said Feldman would experience “pain . . . considerable pain” if he insisted on staying at UAB.

Klock followed through on that threat, arbitrarily moving Feldman from a 12-month to a nine-month contract, cutting his pay by almost $30,000, and refusing to pay for Feldman’s benefits and family health care for three months in 2009.

Feldman served as director of UAB’s Center for Labor Education and Research (CLEAR) before Klock tried to shut down the center and kick away a $3-million federal grant in the process. CLEAR eventually relocated to Jefferson State Community College in Birmingham.

Why is all of this happening? Feldman says it’s largely because the university, apparently at the insistence of Provost Eli Capilouto, wants to appeal to a conservative audience.

According to Feldman’s lawsuit, UAB has “engaged in a pattern and practice of marketing the school and conforming it to an extent to attract conservative, affluent white students in order to increase the financial resources and reserves of the School of Business and its reputation to the conservative, pro-business community. . . . UAB and the School of Business administration has engaged in a long series of acts of creating a hostile work environment for those faculty who do not fit within this conservative, affluent, white atmosphere.”

Feldman, who is of Hispanic descent, alleges race discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract, First Amendment violations, and more in his lawsuit. He is seeking lost and back wages, compensatory damages, attorney fees and costs, and other relief.

This story hits close to home here at Legal Schnauzer because UAB is the same university that unlawfully terminated me in May 2008 largely because of my criticism on this blog of the Bush Justice Department, especially its handling of the Don Siegelman prosecution.

I have firsthand experience with the current corrupt UAB administration and its tendency to lie, cheat and violate both federal law and its own policies when it wants to get rid of someone who it perceives has upset the conservative applecart.

In an e-mail to UAB President Carol Garrison, dated November 30, 2009, Feldman painted a stark picture of life in the School of Business, noting that he hardly is alone as a target of harassment. Writes Feldman: “Most of those affected are suffering in official silence, too fearful of retribution to object–except in hallways and behind close office doors. But the climate of fear in the UAB School of Business is palpable.”

Feldman called on Garrison to take action. “Please intervene directly to stop the retaliation, retribution, harassment, hostile work environment, and disparate treatment that my family and I have been made to suffer for a long time now. I do not wish to make this matter more public and external than it already is.

“This whole sordid matter constitutes a disgraceful chapter in the history of what could be a great university. President Garrison, I call on you to do something concrete, tangible, direct, and immediate to correct it.”

Those words apparently fell on deaf ears because the threats and harassment continued, and Feldman was forced to file a lawsuit in May 2010.

That does not surprise me. Garrison’s own grievance committee found that I should not have been terminated, but the UAB human-resources director upheld my firing anyway–and Garrison refused to change it. We’ve presented considerable evidence here–and will be presenting much more–that Carol Garrison has a severely damaged moral compass. The Glenn Feldman story teaches us that some of her key lieutenants, such as Eli Capilouto and David Klock, also seem to be lacking in the ethics department.

How bad is it at UAB? You have a dean intentionally trying to corrupt the promotions process, in ordered to run off a tenured faculty member, and the president is made aware of that–and she does absolutely nothing about it.

You can learn more details about the ongoing rot at a major Southern university by checking out the Feldman complaint.

Roger Shuler, a regular contributor to The Public Record, resides in Birmingham, Alabama. A 1978 graduate of the University of Missouri, Shuler worked 11 years as a reporter and editor for the Birmingham Post-Herald before working 19 years in several editorial positions at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). He blogs at Legal Schnauzer.

R. Randolph "Randy" Brinson, MD

An associate of Alabama Governor Bob Riley threatened a Christian Coalition leader over gambling issues, according to a lawsuit filed in Montgomery County Circuit Court in May 2007.

Dr. Randy Brinson, chairman of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, states in the lawsuit that he supported a bill in the Alabama House of Representatives that would tax and regulate gambling and help fund Medicaid. Brinson’s support for the bill, sponsored by Rep. Marcel Black (D-Tuscumbia), drew heavy fire from Riley allies.

The most alarming fire came from Dax Swatek, who was Riley’s campaign manager in 2006. The lawsuit says Swatek had become a lobbyist for Jones Group LLC, a Montgomery-based public affairs consultant registered to lobby on behalf of Greenetrack Inc., an Alabama gaming facility, among others.

Swatek apparently was more than happy to take money from gambling interests. But he must not have liked the bill that Brinson supported. The lawsuit states:

Not only have negative comments been made about Brinson and the Coalition in the news media, Brinson recently received a personal threat from Dax Swatek during a phone conversation after the April 10, 2007, press conference held by Rep. Marcel Black concerning HB 527. In the conversation Swatek told Brinson he’d “better back off,” and said it in a threatening manner sufficient to alarm Brinson. As Swatek represents a powerful gambling interest with an enormous interest in controlling the state’s gambling laws, Brinson has taken Swatek’s threat seriously.

Brinson and the Christian Coalition filed the lawsuit against Swatek, John Giles, and a number of other parties, claiming the defendants unlawfully seized the organization’s Web site and member lists and interfered with its business relations.

Giles was chairman of the Christian Coalition of Alabama for about eight years until he was forced to resign in August 2006. Swinson became the new chairman, and Giles went on to form a group called Christian Action Alabama.

Under Giles’ leadership, the Christian Coalition of Alabama was steadfastly opposed to gambling. But the lawsuit notes that a 2005 Boston Globe article quotes conservative leader Grover Norquist saying that his organization, Americans for Tax Reform, gave $850,000 to the Alabama Christian Coalition, and the money came from an Indian casino in Mississippi.

The lawsuit goes on to note Bob Riley’s connections to gambling interests in Las Vegas and Mississippi–and to the money laundering operation of GOP felon Jack Abramoff.

The two sides evidently reached a quick settlement, and the lawsuit was dismissed roughly one month after it was filed. But the 20-page document offers a fascinating look at the seamy intersection between Republican Party politics, religion-based organizations, big-money gaming interests, and criminal enterprises.

We will be examining the lawsuit closely because it speaks volumes about the political climate in Alabama and other conservative strongholds.

Regular readers know that Dax Swatek is a major player in my personal story, largely because his father, Pelham attorney William E. Swatek, filed the bogus lawsuit that started my legal headaches. Evidence strongly suggests that the Swateks, or someone else with close ties to Riley, played a major role in my unlawful termination at UAB. And evidence also suggests they might have played a role in my wife’s unlawful termination at Infinity Property & Casualty.

A number of sources have told me that the Riley crowd is famous for such skulduggery. You can rest assured that will be a major line of inquiry when my wife and I file lawsuits against the entities and individuals who cheated us out of our jobs.

Here is one of many posts I’ve written that says a lot about the Swateks longstanding connections to sleaze. And we have addressed before the Riley crowd’s tendency to threaten those they see as opponents.

Consider this from a post I wrote last November:

I’ve called the GOP tactics financial terrorism. And I’ve experienced them personally. I’ve received more threatening anonymous comments on my blog than I can count. And they have not been idle threats.

After a February 2008 post about connections between U.S. Attorney Alice Martin and Alabama GOP political consultant Dax Swatek, we received an anonymous comment: “Nut case, yours is comong (sic).”

After an April 2008 post, we received an anonymous comment claiming that I was blogging at work, and my employer, UAB, needed to be notified. On the date in question, I was taking a vacation day, so I was not blogging at work–then or any other time.

Roughly a month later, I was fired at UAB, after 19 years on the job, amid vague allegations that I was blogging at work. For the record, UAB’s own IT expert testified at my grievance hearing that those allegations were not true. But did someone with GOP political ties get in the ears of UAB leaders and pressure them to unlawfully fire me? Sure looks that way. And evidence suggests it was all because I was writing a blog that was critical of the Bush Justice Department and it’s handling of various political prosecutions, including the Siegelman case.

Isn’t it interesting to learn now that Dax Swatek resorted to issuing threats against Randy Brinson and the Christian Coalition? And how do people like Dax Swatek and Bob Riley reconcile such threats with their efforts to garner the support of Christian voters.

“You’d better back off”? That sounds like mighty fine Christian language doesn’t it. But that’s how Bob Riley’s henchmen talk–and that’s how they act.

The Brinson lawsuit is perhaps the most insightful document we’ve seen about the Republican Party’s depravity during the eight-year reign of terror under George W. Bush. And GOP immorality continues to reign, partly because the Obama Department of Justice refuses to expose it.

Legal Schnauzer, however, is not afraid to expose it. We will be publishing the entire lawsuit and examining its contents closely.

This story was originally published on Mr. Shuler’s blog, Legal Schnauzer.

Roger Shuler, a regular contributor to The Public Record, resides in Birmingham, Alabama. A 1978 graduate of the University of Missouri, Shuler worked 11 years as a reporter and editor for the Birmingham Post-Herald before working 19 years in several editorial positions at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). He blogs at Legal Schnauzer.

DOJ whistleblower Tamarah Grimes

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) long ago proved that it should not be taken seriously, particularly in matters connected to former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

OSC did not help its already sullied reputation with a recent finding that whistleblower Tamarah Grimes’ allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in the Siegelman case were “unsubstantiated.”

OSC’s report is dubious on its face. It fails to address perhaps Grimes’ two most serious allegations–that U.S. Attorney Leura Canary remained involved with the case after her supposed recusal and that prosecutors pressured witnesses to remember events a certain way.

It is interesting to note that those two charges can clearly be substantiated–the first with e-mail evidence that Grimes provided to the Department of Justice, the second with similar accounts from a number of other individuals. Is that why OSC did not want to touch those issues? Does that raise questions about the validity of OSC’s entire investigation?

The report becomes even more dubious when you consider OSC’s recent history. Federal agents raided the office of former OSC chief Scott J. Bloch in May 2008 amid allegations of improper political bias and obstruction of justice. The New York Times reported that agents were trying to determine if Bloch, a 2003 George W. Bush appointee, had hired an outside firm to scrub his computer.

Gee, where would a Bush loyalist ever come up with such an idea?

As we reported last November, substantial evidence indicates Bloch and associate deputy attorney general David Margolis did their best to sweep Grimes’ allegations under the rug and protect Leura Canary. And it appears that Bloch, before leaving office with the feds on his tail, removed Grimes’ most serious allegations–making sure investigators would not even look into them.

How bad have things been at OSC in recent years? Consider this article from governmentexecutive.com in May 2009. It provides a searing analysis of the agency’s woes:

The Office of Special Counsel is an independent oversight agency charged with protecting federal employees from prohibited personnel practices, particularly whistleblower retaliation. For an agency that must build a reputation for fairness with federal employees and other agencies, scandals like the ones during Bloch’s tenure can be especially harmful.

“There was a lot of damage done,” says former Deputy Special Counsel Timothy Hannapel, who served under Clinton-appointed Special Counsel Elaine Kaplan. “We’d tried to put the agency on a new path to credibility and . . . it was all just erased and in a drastic way, with the credibility of the agency at rock bottom.”

The agency’s credibility is “at rock bottom,” according to a former insider? And we are supposed to believe that OSC conducted a fair, thorough investigation of Tamarah Grimes’ charges?

Things do not appear to have gotten any better at OSC in recent weeks. With Bloch’s exit, William E. Reukauf became interim special counsel. Reukauf issued the report on Grimes’ allegations, and his biography raises questions about whether he was able to approach the task in an impartial manner.

Reukauf is described in press reports as a career Department of Justice employee. But he was elevated to the role of associate special counsel in 1985, under the Reagan administration. He was appointed interim special counsel by George W. Bush.

A source tells me that Washington, D.C., insiders say Reukauf is a “Bush flunkie” and has been one since at least 1983. Our source also says that Reukauf worked for President George H.W. Bush about the time that Bill Canary worked in the White House as a special assistant for intergovernmental affairs.

Consider this item from Bill Canary’s biography:

A former local elected official, Canary has an extensive background in the public policy and governmental arenas. In 1989, President George H. W. Bush appointed him to serve in the White House as special assistant to the president for intergovernmental affairs.

Canary, now head of the Business Council of Alabama, just happens to be married to . . . Leura Canary. Mr. Reukauf wouldn’t have issued a seriously flawed report in order to save the skin of his buddy’s wife, would he?

Tamarah Grimes was quick to point out the dysfunctional environment from which the OSC report sprang. Says Grimes:

The OSC report dated 9-29-09 is particularly egregious in that its conclusions are based on DOJ’s internal investigation. The gist of the OSC report is: Based upon information obtained from DOJ, in an investigation conducted by DOJ, we conclude that DOJ acted reasonably and within statutory limitations.

No one has been appointed as special counsel since former Special Counsel Scott Bloch resigned under a cloud of controversy late last year. Thus, based upon the OSC reports, it would appear that the Office of Special Counsel is a rudderless organization where no one is willing to stick his or her neck out for fear of reprisal.

After observing my fate and the fate of other whistleblowers, who could blame them? The irony is that the OSC is “the” whistleblower organization!

Grimes notes the high cost she has paid for bringing prosecutorial misconduct to public attention. She says change is desperately needed in the federal government’s whistleblowing procedures:

None of this is likely to change unless the public demands change from the only entity with the authority to investigate–Congress. Congress has oversight authority over DOJ.

Today my life and my career are in shambles for performing my duty as a federal employee, for telling the truth and speaking out. Tomorrow it could be anyone–for without accountability, there is no justice.

Will anyone hold Leura Canary and her henchmen in the Middle District of Alabama accountable? Does anyone in the Barack Obama administration, particularly Attorney General Eric Holder, have a clue what is going on in “The Heart of Dixie”? Will Congress ever carry out its duty and investigate the Bush DOJ?

We still are waiting for answers to those questions.

Roger Shuler, a regular contributor to The Public Record, resides in Birmingham, Alabama. A 1978 graduate of the University of Missouri, Shuler worked 11 years as a reporter and editor for the Birmingham Post-Herald before working 19 years in several editorial positions at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). He blogs at Legal Schnauzer.

DOJ whistleblower Tamarah Grimes

Leura Canary, the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, wrote press releases about the prosecution of Gov. Don Siegelman that were distributed under the signature of assistant prosecutor Louis Franklin. Also, Canary regularly had two assistants communicate her suggestions about Siegelman’s case to Franklin.

All of this took place after Canary had announced her recusal from the Siegelman case. And they are two of many stark examples of prosecutorial misconduct outlined in a letter dated June 1, 2009, from whistleblower Tamarah Grimes to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Eight days after writing the letter, Grimes was fired from her position as a paralegal for the Department of Justice in Montgomery, Alabama. So far, there is no indication that Holder has taken any action in the matter.

The complete Grimes letter can be viewed here.

Grimes tells Holder that Canary’s recusal claims were false regarding the prosecution of Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy in what became known as “The Big Case” in the Montgomery office. Patricia Snyder Watson, the district ethics officer and first assistant U.S. attorney, was a frequent conduit of information to and from Canary. Writes Grimes:

Mrs. Canary publicly stated that she maintained a “firewall” between herself and The Big Case. In reality, there was no “firewall.” Mrs. Canary maintained direct communication with the prosecution team, directed some actions in the case, and monitored the case through members of the prosecution team and Mrs. Watson.

Grimes said she regularly raised concerns with Watson about misconduct among prosecutors on the Siegelman case–to little effect:

Mrs. Watson advised me that The Big Case was the most important case in the office and that U.S. Attorney Leura Canary would grant prosecutors virtually unlimited latitude to obtain a conviction. Mrs. Watson told me that as a paralegal, I did not have standing to question the actions of a federal prosecutor, and that if Mrs. Canary found out that I had done so, I would certainly be disciplined for insubordination.

With the threat of disciplinary action hanging over her head, Grimes tried to ignore the misconduct. But it was hard to ignore overt negotiations of proposed testimony of key cooperating witnesses Nick Bailey and Lanny Young. The lead prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen P. Feaga, instructed investigators to meet with Bailey and Young frequently. Writes Grimes:

Mr. Feaga instructed the investigators how to approach the cooperating witnesses on a particular subject and specified what he needed the witness to say in order to support his prosecutorial theory. For instance, Mr. Feaga would say, “See if you can get him to say it like this . . . , ” “Ask him if he is comfortable saying it like this . . . ,” or “I need him to say it like this . . . .” The investigators would return from meeting with the cooperating witnesses to report to Mr. Feaga, who would send the investigators back with new instructions.

Grimes said she was not the only person concerned about prosecutors’ creative approach to the facts of the case:

I recall one of the investigators, FBI agent Keith Baker, commented on the conduct by saying, “There is truth, there are facts, and then there are “Feaga facts.”

“Feaga facts” apparently were present in what proved to be the key testimony against Siegelman and Scrushy:

I particularly recall one meeting in which cooperating witness Nick Bailey was persuaded to recall something that he claimed he did not actually recollect. The matter concerned a meeting between Governor Siegelman and Richard Scrushy, a check and supposed conversation, which eventually led to the convictions in The Big Case. Mr. Bailey repeatedly said he did not know and he was not sure. The prosecutors coaxed and pressured Mr. Bailey to “remember” their version of alleged events. Mr. Bailey appeared apprehensive and hesitant to disappoint the prosecutors.

After reading Grimes’ stunning letter to Holder, we are left with numerous questions, but these two jump out at us:

How could convictions possibly stand when the key witness clearly was coaxed into making statements regarding events that he did not actually recall?

Tamarah Grimes was fired eight days after writing this letter to Eric Holder. But the U.S. attorney general, our nation’s chief law-enforcement officer, apparently has done nothing about it. Why is Holder sitting on his hands when a DOJ whistleblower, who went right to the top with her concerns about prosecutorial misconduct, has clearly faced retaliation for speaking out? Does anyone in the Obama administration have a spine when it comes to matters of justice? Will anyone ever take steps to clean up the cesspool in Montgomery, Alabama?

Why has the Obama administration allowed Leura Canary to remain on the job?And here’s a really interesting question. Alabama’s two Republican U.S. senators, Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby, have objected to two highly-regarded nominees for the Middle District position–Michel Nicrosi and Joseph Van Heest. Why do Sessions and Shelby object so strongly to these nominees? Is it possible that a real federal prosecutor in Montgomery, Alabama, might unearth some unsavory activities related to Sessions and Shelby themselves? Why is Obama allowing Sessions and Shelby to hold the Middle District of Alabama hostage?

As John McCain once said, “Elections have consequences.” Well, Obama was elected president, and he should not allow Sessions and Shelby to hold up the appointment of a new federal prosecutor in Montgomery. He should nominate Nicrosi or Van Heest and move forward, kicking Leura Canary unceremoniously to the curb–where she belongs.

Roger Shuler, a regular contributor to The Public Record, resides in Birmingham, Alabama. A 1978 graduate of the University of Missouri, Shuler worked 11 years as a reporter and editor for the Birmingham Post-Herald before working 19 years in several editorial positions at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). He blogs at Legal Schnauzer.

In a document dated August 27, 2009, the government responded to a “Motion for a New Trial Based on Newly Discovered Evidence” that had been filed by Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy.

Prosecutors’ response contains statements that are clearly false related to several critical issues. Specifically, prosecutors make numerous misstatements about Karl Rove’s Congressional testimony. They also mischaracterize the contents of affidavits that were designed to counter the sworn statements of Alabama attorney and whistleblower Jill Simpson.

Regarding Rove, prosecutors state that the former Bush White House adviser denied contacting anyone at the Justice Department regarding the Siegelman case. In fact, Rove did no such thing. He either contradicted himself or used hedge language (“not that I recall,” “not to my knowledge”) in all of his answers to questions about his possible involvement in the Siegelman case.

Early in his testimony, Rove did deny contacting anyone at the Justice Department about the case. But when asked if he had contacted Noel Hillman, then head of the Public Integrity Section (which is part of the Justice Department), Rove hedged: “No, not that I recall.”

And as we reported on August 13, Rove certainly did not deny that someone working for him might have contacted the Justice Department regarding the Siegelman case:

When asked if anyone from the White House Office of Political Affairs (OPA), Republican National Committee (RNC), or Republican Governors’ Association (RGA) communicated with the Justice Department, Rove’s answer is “not to the best of my knowledge.”

Under questioning from House Judiciary Committee Counsel Elliot Mincberg, Rove also did not deny that he or someone working for him might have contacted any number of key officials in Alabama, including those working for the Justice Department:

Mincberg goes on to ask if Rove or anyone from any GOP-connected groups had communicated about Siegelman with:

* Any Alabama U.S. attorney’s office;

* The Alabama attorney general’s office or any other state law-enforcement agency;

* Bill Canary, head of the Business Council of Alabama;

* Bob Riley, Rob Riley, or anyone in the Riley administration; or

* Members of the media or press.

Rove’s answers were “not that I’m aware of” or “not that I recall.”

As we noted in our previous post, Mincberg hit Rove with a couple of “money questions,” which covered the entire Siegelman episode. Here was one of them:

Q Again, in the period of time between Governor Siegelman’s election and the end of 2002, did you or anyone working for you ever have any communications with anyone about a possible criminal investigation, prosecution, or illegal acts by Governor Siegelman?

A Not that I’m aware of.

The bottom line? Did Karl Rove, as the government contends, deny having contact with anyone at the Justice Department regarding the Siegelman case? Not even close.

What about efforts to counter Jill Simpson’s testimony? The government is deceitful about that, as well.

In its response to the Siegelman/Scrushy motion, prosecutors state:

The Conyers Report itself acknowledges that the only other parties who should have firsthand knowledge of these allegations-Rob Riley, Bill Canary, and Terry Butts, as well as another person present with Riley on November 18, 2002, Matt Lembke-have all denied Simpson’s accusations including that such a phone conversation ever occurred, in sworn affidavits submitted to the House Committee.

In fact, Bill Canary presented no sworn statement to the House Committee. Riley, Butts, and Lembke did present affidavits, but they did not deny Simpson’s allegations or that a phone call took place.

Here is how we characterized the Riley/Butts/Lembke affidavits in a post dated October 23, 2007:

All three affidavits have a fair amount of what I would call “hedge” language in them–

Riley
“I have no memory of being on a phone call . . .”

“I do not believe a phone call occurred . . .”

“I do not believe that I have ever met or spoken with Judge Mark Fuller . . .”

Butts
“. . . nor do I recall, any conference call occurring with Ms. Simpson . . . ”

“As I recall, none of us were ever outside each other’s presence on that day . . . ”

“Again, I neither recall any such call, nor do I believe any such call/conversation . . . ever took place.”

Lembke
“I do not recall the phone call that Ms. Simpson claims took place between her . . . ”

“I do not believe that I was out of Justice Butts’ and Rob Riley’s presence for 11 consecutive minutes . . . “

So is the government’s statement accurate–that four key people denied Jill Simpson’s allegations and denied that a phone call even took place? Again, not even close.

To use blunt language, federal prosecutors resort to repeated lies in their efforts to prevent a new trial in the Siegelman/Scrushy case. And the lies are not related to an arcane, minor element of the case. The false statements pertain to the Siegelman/Scrushy claims of a selective prosecution–the very heart of the matter.

The government notes that the two essential elements of such a claim are: (1) Discriminatory effect (a showing that the government “has failed to prosecute others who are similarly situated to the defendant”); and (2) Discriminatory intent.

The falsehoods noted above come in the section where prosecutors try to counter the Siegelman/Scrushy claims that the government acted with discriminatory intent.

A reasonable person might ask: Why would prosecutors resort to lying in their argument about discriminatory intent in the Siegelman/Scrushy matter?

A reasonable person might answer: Maybe it’s because prosecutors know they acted with discriminatory intent and don’t have a legitimate answer for it.

Roger Shuler resides in Birmingham, Alabama. A 1978 graduate of the University of Missouri, Shuler worked 11 years as a reporter and editor for the Birmingham Post-Herald before working 19 years in several editorial positions at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). He blogs at Legal Schnauzer.

I reported earlier Wednesday about Karl Rove’s mysterious reference to an Alabama lawyer named McDonald and wondered if it provided any clues regarding the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

A source said the reference probably was to Alabama businessman and University of Alabama Board of Trustees member Sidney L. McDonald. But a second source says the reference probably was to Mobile lawyer Matthew C. McDonald.

Several published sources have connected Matthew McDonald to Rove, so it appears Matthew is the “mystery McDonald,” not Sid.

Source No. 2 says Matthew McDonald might be related to Sid McDonald, possibly a nephew. And like Sid, Matthew has solid ties to the University of Alabama. He earned his law degree there and served on the editorial board for the Alabama Law Review.

Matthew McDonald perhaps is best known for his role in the tort-reform movement. He is held in high regard by the Foundation for Fair Civil Justice, which deemed him a “legal reform champion” and stated:

(Matt) has been especially active in the southeastern United States, both as general counsel of the Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee, and as the widely recognized principal proponent of lawsuit reform laws passed in 1987 and 1999 in a region notorious for massive damage awards.

Matt also worked closely on the successful Alabama Supreme Court races from 1994 through 2002 that saw the election of fair and balanced justices to that court.

That last paragraph says a lot about McDonald’s connections to Rove. Those connections were made clear in a 2007 New York Times article:

An associate of Mr. Rove’s in the state, Matthew C. McDonald, a Mobile lawyer, said Mr. Rove had maintained at least a passing interest in Alabama affairs. The interest dated back to his pivotal role as a political consultant here in the 1990s, when he helped shift the state’s supreme court to the Republicans. Mr. Rove opened an office in Montgomery, and would fly in and out regularly.

Our earlier post was off base about Rove’s testimony and its possible connections to the University of Alabama. This latest information perhaps says something important about Rove’s mindset during his testimony.

Rove appears to have long-standing ties to Matthew McDonald, but “Bush’s Brain” could not recall his Alabama colleague’s first name, or whether he lived in Mobile or Birmingham? Does that say something about Rove’s level of candor throughout his Congressional testimony?

And here is the important point: Rove himself has identified Bill Canary, Kelley McCullough Robertson, and Matthew McDonald as three key contacts in Alabama. If a real investigation ensues, will it include an examination of the phone and e-mail communications of those three folks–along with others in Alabama who probably stayed in touch with Rove?

Do Canary, Robertson, and McDonald have information that will unlock the truth behind the Don Siegelman case–and the abuse of our Department of Justice during the Bush administration?

Below is Mr. Shuler’s report published earlier Wednesday.

One of the most curious moments in Karl Rove’s recent testimony about the Don Siegelman case came when the former Bush White House adviser was asked about his primary contacts in Alabama.

Rove mentioned two familiar names–William Canary, head of the Business Council of Alabama, and Kelley McCullough Robertson, former Southeast political director for the Republican National Committee and state director for Karl Rove & Co.

Almost as an afterthought, Rove threw out a third name–a “lawyer” named McDonald. Strangely, Rove could not seem to remember the person’s first name or hometown.

Which raises this question: Who in the heck is this McDonald person?

A source with strong knowledge of Alabama politics tells Legal Schnauzer that Rove probably was referring to Sidney L. McDonald, a prominent businessman from Town Grove, Alabama, and founder of DeltaCom Long Distance Services, the largest Alabama-owned telecommunications company.

McDonald has served in both the Alabama House of Representatives and the Alabama Senate and was one of the first members of the Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE).

Perhaps of most interest here at Legal Schnauzer is this: McDonald has served on the University of Alabama Board of Trustees since 1992. That’s the outfit that oversees the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). It’s also the outfit that almost certainly either pushed for, or approved of, my unlawful termination in May 2008.

McDonald now is an emeritus member of the board. But he was president pro tempore when the board hired current UAB president Carol Garrison in 2002. Garrison, of course, was in charge at UAB when I was unlawfully terminated and also has seen a lengthy string of human-resources problems surface on her watch.

Interestingly, Garrison was hired in the aftermath of a major HR headache–the forced resignation of previous UAB president W. Ann Reynolds, who wound up suing the Board of Trustees for age and gender discrimination. McDonald said at the time that discrimination played no role in Reynolds’ ouster. But Reynolds wound up receiving a nifty $475,000 settlement for her troubles.

One other note: McDonald also played a major role in the hiring of Malcolm Portera, the current chancellor of the University of Alabama System. Portera just happens to be a proud member of the Business Council of Alabama’s board of directors, which is run by Karl Rove’s close friend and ally, Bill Canary.

Our source notes that McDonald is not a lawyer, but he is close to the Alabama Republican Party and almost certainly is the person to whom Rove was referring.

If our source is correct, let’s consider what that might mean for our Legal Schnauzer story:

* A trusted source for Karl Rove serves on the University of Alabama Board of Trustees;

* Said source hired a chancellor who now serves on Bill Canary’s business-council board;

* Said source was president of the board when it hired Carol Garrison as UAB president;

* Your humble correspondent, a 19-year UAB employee at the time, happened to be writing a blog critical of the Bush Justice Department (on my own time), which we now know was hugely and corruptly influenced by Karl Rove;

* Carol Garrison, a virtual lapdog for Karl Rove’s trusted Alabama source, OKed my unlawful termination.

So Karl Rove’s Congressional testimony raises a number of questions that hit awfully close to home:

* Is the University of Alabama Board of Trustees essentially run by a bunch of Rove-influenced right wingers?

* Did Karl Rove’s apparent ties to Sid McDonald have something to do with my unlawful termination?

* If Karl Rove is found to have corruptly influenced the Don Siegelman prosecution, did a member (or members) of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees play a role in it?

* Will Congressional investigators present followup questions to Rove in order to determine the exact identify of this “McDonald” individual?

* If it is Sid McDonald, will investigators check his phone and e-mail records to see what communication he might have had with Rove regarding the Siegelman case and other matters? Could Sid McDonald be called to testify before government investigators?

* Would such an investigation reveal a right-wing conspiracy that runs throughout the University of Alabama System?

* Exactly how much influence do Karl Rove and Bill Canary have on the University of Alabama Board of Trustees?

As you can see, these questions are serious–they are not amusing in the least. But reading the testimony where Rove let the McDonald name slip is downright comical. It’s almost as if “Bush’s Brain” got bored or lazy or both and inadvertently tossed out a name that wasn’t supposed to be revealed. Then Rove immediately began to back track, suddenly unable to remember McDonald’s name, hometown, gender . . . you name it.

Here is the “McDonald” segment of Rove’s testimony:

Q Now you referred a few moments ago to contacts through friends and associates in Alabama, who would those be?

A Well, the person who ran my firm in 2000, Kelley McCullough, now Kelley McCullough Robertson, who came to Washington. She did not live in Alabama, but kept in touch in Alabama politics, and a lawyer in Birmingham — or in Mobile, named McDonald, you know, friends. I might have talked to Bill Canary, who is the president of Alabama Business Association, but I can’t recall.

Elliot Mincberg, counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, let the McDonald reference slide right on by. Maybe it’s time somebody checks into it.

Roger Shuler resides in Birmingham, Alabama. A 1978 graduate of the University of Missouri, Shuler worked 11 years as a reporter and editor for the Birmingham Post-Herald before working 19 years in several editorial positions at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). He blogs at Legal Schnauzer.

Documents released last week by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee leave many unanswered questions. But one thing is clear: Rove’s actions in the U.S. attorney firings give prosecutors solid grounds for considering a felony prosecution against him.

Will they actually move in that direction? Time will tell. But Scott Horton, legal-affairs contributor for Harper’s magazine, says the evidence is compelling:

The 6,000 pages of evidence released recently by the House Judiciary Committee make plain that (Rove) orchestrated the firings, and that in so doing he was driven by partisan political concerns. They also eviscerate his claims to have played only a “minor role” as a “conduit.” The documents and testimony make clear that Rove expected U.S. attorneys to use their office for the benefit of the G.O.P.—by prosecuting Democrats, squelching investigations of Republicans, or bringing bogus voting fraud charges that would adversely affect Democrats—or they would lose their jobs. This conduct invites the prosecutors to consider whether Rove and others in the White House were seeking to “corruptly influence” criminal investigations—a felony. That call is up to Nora Dannehy, the special prosecutor appointed by former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey to study the matter.

Horton does not seem convinced that Dannehy will act in an aggressive fashion:

All indications now suggest that she has concluded that enough evidence exists to make out charges against some of the actors—though it is far from clear that she will seek indictments. After all, not all crimes are prosecuted, a fact that may provide Karl Rove a good deal of solace.

Horton indicates that a felony case could be made against Rove, without even considering his actions in the Don Siegelman prosecution. That topic also was covered in documents released last week. One central figure in the Siegelman drama, Alabama attorney and whistleblower Jill Simpson, says she has no intention of letting Rove get off the hook with his “I don’t recall” and “not to my knowledge” answers.

Simpson knows what it is like to testify under oath about the Siegelman case. She did it before House Judiciary Committee lawyers in fall 2007. She says the committee needs to examine the telephone and e-mail records of key players, then come back at Rove with questions he can’t squirm away from. Says Simpson:

I hope we have not run into a dead end where Congress does not really investigate anything else, and this is over. After all, when I came forward I promised to march to Washington and testify and tell the truth. I also promised to do all in my power to see that (other) witnesses had to testify. I helped get Mr. Rove to testify, and I don’t intend on him being the last witness called.

Roger Shuler resides in Birmingham, Alabama. A 1978 graduate of the University of Missouri, Shuler worked 11 years as a reporter and editor for the Birmingham Post-Herald before working 19 years in several editorial positions at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). He blogs at Legal Schnauzer.