Was AG Eric Holder Mistaken, Misleading, Or Evasive In His Answers To Congress About Siegelman Case?

Eric Holder

(Updated at 11:55 a.m. on 5/16/13)

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder yesterday said it's his understanding that former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman has an active appeal and therefore is not eligible to have his sentence commuted.

As a journalist based in Birmingham, I have followed the Siegelman case closely since this blog began in June 2007--and I am not aware of any active appeal on Siegelman's behalf. Former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, who was codefendant in the case, has an appeal pending before the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta, but that was not filed by Siegelman's lawyers.

If Siegelman has an active appeal, it has escaped my attention. And that raises this question: Is Eric Holder mistaken or did he intentionally make a misleading statement to Congress and the American people? I have sent queries to Siegelman's legal team, seeking clarification about any appeals, plus their response to Holder's statements. We will update this post as new information becomes available.

(Update: Joseph Siegelman, the governor's son, released the following statement on a progressive listserv in Alabama: 

Yes, my dad is appealing [Judge Mark] Fuller's denial of a new trial. Nonetheless, Holder does appear to be hiding behind those in-house guidelines to avoid dealing with the case head on.)

Holder's remarks came in response to questions from U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) in a House Judiciary Committee hearing. A video of the exchange can be viewed at the end of this post.

Debra J. Saunders, of the San Francisco Chronicle, strongly criticized Holder's performance in a piece titled "Eric Holder has a bad memory on pardons." From the Saunders post:

At Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., asked Attorney General Eric Holder if he would push for a presidential pardon for former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. “The president could pardon him now,” said Cohen as he pressed Holder.

Holder responded that Siegelman is not eligible to apply for a pardon because he’s currently serving his sentence, and a commutation not possible because he has an appeal. Cohen rightly noted that those are Department of Justice rules, but they do not constrain the president. Holder agreed: “The president’s pardon power is close to absolute.”

Cohen then noted that Ron Rodgers, a pardons attorney with the Department of Justice (DOJ), is a George W. Bush appointee--an apparent reference to the fact Siegelman was prosecuted under the Bush DOJ. Cohen then asked about Rodgers' apparent ethical lapses. The unasked question hanging over this exchange: "Why in the hell is Mr. Rodgers still in his position, with authority over the Siegelman pardon process?" From the Saunders piece:

Is your Pardon Attorney Ron Rodgers under investigation for withholding information? Cohen asked, referring to an Inspector General probe.

Holder answered:

“There were some difficulties in connection, I don’t remember what the individual’s name was, about information that was I guess relayed to the White House from the Pardon Attorney’s office, but I think corrective measures have been put in place so that kind of mistake would not happen in the future.”

The individual’s name — and Holder should know it – is Clarence Aaron, who outrageously was sentenced to life without parole for a first-time nonviolent drug offense. And Holder should be outraged that Pardon Attorney Ronald Rodgers withheld vital information on Aaron’s case. The only corrective measure that can prevent a repeat would be to remove Rodgers from a position for which he temperamentally is unsuited.

Saunders closed her post with a cutting critique of Holder's record:

By the way, none of the 16 Puerto Rican national terrorists pardoned by President Clinton — with an assist from Holder — had applied for pardons. But that didn’t stop Holder at the time. But then this Attorney General never has been overly preoccupied with any notions of justice.

Steve Cohen got to the heart of profound issues raised by the Siegelman case--and he never received much of a response from Eric Holder:

Numerous legal experts have said this was a grave injustice . . . Can you assure me that you will review his case because in my opinion . . . an innocent man is in jail, being deprived of liberty? Nothing is more important than liberty; taking your liberty is probably the harshest thing the government can do to a person. We have taken this gentleman's liberty, and I believe we need to look at that case."

Judge Dorothea Batiste Alleges In EEOC Complaint That Scott Vowell Unlawfully Changed Her Rulings

Dorothea Batiste

A retired Jefferson County presiding judge, who is white and male, routinely changed rulings of a black, female circuit judge, according to a complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Circuit Judge Dorothea Batiste, who is under suspension from the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC), makes the allegations against J. Scott Vowell, who served on the bench from 1995 until his retirement at the end of 2012. Batiste alleges that Vowell orchestrated JIC complaints against her in retaliation for rejecting his sexual advances, which started about three months after she took office in January 2011.

The JIC complaint against Batiste is based mainly on her alleged abuse of contempt powers in domestic-relations cases. But Batiste alleges in her EEOC complaint that Vowell took no action against a white female judge who made ample use of her contempt powers in the domestic-relations division. (The full EEOC complaint, with exhibits, can be viewed at the end of this post.)

In essence, Batiste alleges that Vowell unlawfully served in her cases as an appellate judge, a role that goes far beyond the duties of a presiding judge under Alabama law. If proven, Vowell's actions could make him the target of lawsuits for acting outside his jurisdiction. They might constitute criminal contempt of court and could even rise to the level of criminal acts under state and federal law.

How brazen was Vowell? Batiste spells it out on page 2 of her EEOC complaint:

Even back in 2011, but continuing on into 2012, Judge Vowell would make a point of upsetting me by finding cases where I had issued rulings and, without telling me in advance he was doing so, then would enter documentary paperwork to change my rulings. In addition, Judge Vowell took cases away from me, without my permission or knowledge, to favor certain litigants, some of whom were his friends. This included certain lawyers. When I found out about this, I was quite upset and told him he should not be doing this--that it was not right, nor ethical, and it had to stop. In reply, Judge Vowell said, "I don't care what you have to say."

The material in bold strongly suggests that Vowell was not just discriminating against Batiste--he also was acting to favor certain litigants and lawyers with whom he was friendly. If proven, this represents a gross obstruction of the justice process and indicates that Vowell probably has knowingly been involved in the hunting-club corruption that has infested Jefferson County divorce courts for years.

Multiple federal lawsuits have been filed over hunting-club issues, with Samford University law professor Joseph Blackburn playing a leading role for plaintiffs, but the cases have been dismissed on dubious grounds so far. In one federal case, Blackburn represented himself as a plaintiff, claiming his divorce from U.S. District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn was tainted with corruption. In another, Blackburn served as an attorney for a number of Jefferson County residents who alleged they were victims of a rigged divorce-court system.

We have written extensively about the hunting-club issue, noting the apparent efforts of federal judges to dismiss the cases and deny discovery, contrary to law. Here are three key posts we've written on the subject:

Courts Try to Sweep Hunting-Club Corruption Under the Rug in Alabama (May 8, 2012)

Here Is More Evidence That Federal Judges Are Trying to Hide Hunting-Club Corruption in Alabama (Aug. 13, 2012)

Why Were No Opinions Issued On Appeals of Alabama Hunting-Club Lawsuits? (Sept. 4, 2012)

The public record shows that, at the very least, Scott Vowell allowed hunting-club corruption to fester on his watch as presiding judge. But Batiste's allegations, if proven, indicate Vowell actively took part in the corruption.

Scott Vowell

Alabama law states that the primary role of a presiding judge is to supervise judges and court personnel to "see that they attend strictly to the prompt, diligent discharge of their duties." (See Code of Alabama 12-17-24.) Circuit courts serve an appellate function over matters that originate in district or municipal courts. (See Code of Alabama 12-11-30.) But the domestic-relations cases before Batiste originated in circuit court, so Vowell had no authority to act on those matters. Appellate authority rests solely with the Alabama Supreme Court, plus the courts of civil and criminal appeals. (See Code of Alabama 12-2-7.)

Batiste's EEOC complaint indicates Vowell undermined her authority at almost every turn:

What especially upset me, starting at the end of the summer of 2011 and continuing into 2012, was that Judge Vowell (as he himself later has admitted in a letter) started meeting with lawyers representing litigants in my courtroom. [See Judge Vowell's letter admitting to it. Exhibit 1.] However, it also later became obvious that Judge Vowell was stirring up lawyers unhappy with their client's rulings in my courtroom. Of course, in a divorce case, one side is always unhappy, and frequently both sides. Both sides are usually quite unhappy even before they get to the courtroom.

As for use of contempt powers, Batiste says Vowell seemed unconcerned when such powers were used by a white judge. Batiste points to Circuit Judge Suzanne Childers, who became known for carrying a gun on the bench:

There is another example of disparate treatment given by Judge Vowell to a white female judge, namely [Suzanne] Childers, of the Jefferson County Circuit, Domestic Relations Division. She sentenced litigant Keith Muhammad to 325 days . . . for non-payment of child support, and he actually served it from October 6, 2011, to January 5, 2012. In fact, this judge issued such orders on a routine basis (sometimes putting 2 to 3 people in jail in different cases on the same day). Scott Vowell never complained about Ms. Childers to the AJIC. Instead, when she asked for extra help, Scott Vowell gave it to her. [See Exhibit 7].

Batiste Discrimination Charge by Roger Shuler

Did GOP's Luther Strange Commit the Same "Crime" That He Alleges Against Democrat Lowell Barron?

Lowell Barron

The Republican attorney general of Alabama has indicted a prominent Democrat for alleged violations of ethics and campaign-finance laws.

Public records, however, indicate the Republican AG has committed the same "crime" he is alleging against a Democrat. It all suggests the political prosecutions that plagued our state during the George W. Bush years have not gone away--their point of origin simply has shifted from the U.S. Department of Justice to the state attorney general's office.

AG Luther Strange accuses former state senator Lowell Barron, in an April 19 indictment, of illegally transferring $58,000, plus title to a 2007 Toyota Camry, to former campaign staffer Rhonda Jill Johnson.

According to press reports, the charges stem in part from Barron listing his payments to Johnson as "administrative" expenses. But a review of Luther Strange's 2010 campaign expenditures show that he made 14 "administrative" payments to MDM 27 Holdings Inc., a company owned by his former campaign manager, Jessica Medeiros Garrison. (Strange's campaign expenditures, from 6/10/2010 to 10/23/2012, can be viewed at the end of this post.)

The administrative payments, when combined with three "consulting" payments, total $207,015.26 to MDM 27 Holdings.

If it is a crime for Lowell Barron to transfer $58,000 or so to a former campaign staffer, wouldn't it also be a crime for Luther Strange to transfer more than $200,000 to a company owned by a former campaign staffer?

We have a hard time finding a distinction between Barron's "crime" and Strange's "non-crime." If anything, Strange's actions look more fishy than Barron's. Strange's payments to Jessica Medeiros Garrison are almost four times those involved in the Barron case. And deception appears to be involved in Strange's payments, which went to a holding company rather to Garrison directly. Barron made the payments directly to Johnson, and he reported them as required by law. If deception is part of this alleged crime, it's hard to see where any was present in the Barron case.

Barron once was one of the state's most powerful politicians, spending six terms in the state house before losing his 2010 race. He reportedly maintains a sizable campaign war chest and is expected to attempt a political comeback in 2014.

Is that the real reason the attorney general's office targeted Barron? Is this another case of a Democrat being indicted for standard political behavior in the Deep South? Joe Espy, Barron's attorney, touched on those issues in a recent report at al.com:

Barron's attorney, Joe Espy, said there was no denying the transactions took place between Barron and Johnson because they were a part of Barron's campaign finance disclosures. The issue is the interpretation made by Strange, Espy said, that laws were broken in those transactions.

"How could we dispute the transactions not taking place when we publicly disclosed them?" Espy said "Sen. Lowell Barron and his campaign publicly disclosed every transaction we're talking about. We don't dispute them. We said, 'Hey, we ran a campaign, these are our expenses and we paid this lady.' That's about as simple as I can make it.

"Does it take two years to bring charges against a man who is not a public official . . . who has publicly disclosed everything they bring out? Does anything address your common sense and tell you something is wrong? Every smell test I know, it does not pass."

Luther Strange Campaign Expenditures by Roger Shuler

The President Paints Himself Into An Ethical Corner By Voicing Outrage Over Evolving Scandal At The IRS

When Barack Obama said in January 2009 that he planned to "look forward as opposed to looking backwards" at the apparent crimes of the George W. Bush administration, reasonable observers knew that comment would come back to bite the president-elect some day.

That moment came yesterday when President Obama told reporters at a White House press conference that he was outraged over disclosures that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had singled out conservative groups for special scrutiny.

Obama went so far as to say that he would not tolerate a government agency that targets individuals and groups based on political affiliations. But those words ring hollow when you realize that Obama has tolerated exactly such behavior from the outset of his administration. The president's words are especially hollow here in Alabama, where we've held front-row seats to the political prosecution of former Democratic governor Don Siegelman during the Bush years--not to mention the politically charged Alabama bingo prosecution under the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ).

How serious are the IRS disclosures? A report from The Washington Post makes clear that they are ugly, indeed:

Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved with investigating conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear that the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

IRS officials at the agency’s Washington headquarters sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea-party-affiliated groups, the documents show.

IRS employees in Cincinnati told conservatives seeking the status of “social welfare” groups that a task force in Washington was overseeing their applications, according to interviews with the activists.

Obama reacted with understandable indignation. Reports The Post:

In a news conference Monday, President Obama said he learned of the investigating in media reports on Friday and has “no patience with it.”

“If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on, and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that’s outrageous,” Obama said. “And there’s no place for it. And they have to be held fully accountable.”

How can we square Obama's calls for accountability in the IRS scandal with his vow to ignore DOJ abuses? We can't. The president long ago punted his moral authority on abusive government actions--and there is no getting it back now.

Let's consider just a little of what we know about the Siegelman case--and it is only one of dozens of political prosecutions during the Bush years. We touched on the subject last week with a post about former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, who was released last summer after being imprisoned for almost six years in the Siegelman case. In an interview with HuffPost Live, Scrushy said government investigators made it clear that he could avoid prosecution by agreeing to testify falsely against Siegelman. Here is the quote from Scrushy:

The way our prosecution system works is through a "snitch process." I was asked to snitch on the governor, and they were going to let me out. But I would have had to lie and I said, "No, I’m not going to get up there and say a man did something he didn’t do." It’s a sad situation for our country.

Does the IRS scandal look bad? Yes. Does it compare with ongoing corruption in the U.S. Department of Justice, from rogue prosecutors to crooked federal judges? Not even close.

Since the IRS story broke last Friday, conservative voices have been squealing, calling for Congressional inquiries and the like. These are pretty much the same conservative voices who were silent when Bush adviser Karl Rove was anally raping the ideals that undergird our justice system.

No one, of course, should be surprised at such hypocrisy from conservatives. But we should expect far better from Barack Obama, especially on justice issues. So far, the president has failed to deliver at every turn.

Batiste Alleges Discrimination, Sexual Harassment Against Former Presiding Judge J. Scott Vowell

Dorothea Batiste

The former chief judicial officer of Jefferson County faces allegations of discrimination and sexual harassment connected to the suspension last month of a black, female judge.

J. Scott Vowell retired in January as presiding judge. But Circuit Judge Dorothea Batiste says that, before leaving office, Vowell launched a harassment campaign against her that included unwanted sexual advances. Batiste also alleges in a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that Vowell referred to her as "the colored Republican."

The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) suspended Batiste with pay amid allegations that she had abused her contempt powers. Batiste says in an affidavit supporting her EEOC complaint that Vowell led the campaign against her in retaliation for spurning his sexual advances.

Batiste was elected in November 2010 to a judgeship in the domestic-relations division, and she quickly experienced peculiar behavior from the presiding judge. From the Batiste affidavit:

By April 2011, Judge Vowell had become very flirtatious toward me. Although there are 38 judges total in the Jefferson County Circuit Court system, Scott Vowell started making it a practice to come see me at least once a week in my office. When he came in, the door would close behind him. 

At first, Judge Vowell engaged in small talk, such as, "How are you doing, etc.," and sometimes would give me a hug. One day however in April 2011, Judge Vowell came up to me. placed his body directly in front of me, and then put his arms down by my waist, with his fingers just above my buttocks area, and with his mouth near my ear, whispered, "Boy, you're a hot little thing, and you're looking good in that dress today." However, I brushed him off and stood there in shock. Judge Vowell left the room, without saying anything more."

Batiste discovered that, throughout 2012 and well into 2013, Vowell encouraged attorneys and litigants to file JIC complaints against her.:

Word had circulated in the divorce case industry around Jefferson County that, if one was unhappy with my ruling, all he or she had to do was go see Judge Vowell, and he would help the unhappy litigant file a complaint against me.

Scott Vowell

This behavior grew in part, Batiste says, from racial and political animus. She is black, and Vowell is white; she is a Republican, and he is a Democrat. From the affidavit:

In May or June 2012, it got back to me that Scott Vowell was derisively referring to me as "the colored Republican." Several people told me this when they called to express their support. They were quoting Judge Vowell.

Batiste soon found herself the target of numerous JIC complaints. Vowell, Batiste says, has long-standing ties to the JIC and the Alabama Court of the Judiciary:

It became painfully obvious to me that this burst of complaints . . . were so encouraged or inspired by Judge Vowell that it clearly reflected his efforts to retaliate against me for not caving in to his demands and sexual overtures months earlier. Scott Vowell is a very clever and intelligent man, and thus attempted to cleverly disguise his retaliation by making it look like the complaint really came from another attorney or litigant. While I do not object to my judicial conduct being scrutinized by the [JIC] or the general public, I greatly object . . . to how much Judge Vowell did to stimulate these complaints, especially for what I believe was unlawful retaliation, based on my rejecting his sexual advances.

Batiste Discrimination Charge by Roger Shuler

Settlement Agreement In Sexual-Harassment Case Points To Dishonesty In The Riley Administration

Melissa George Bowman

The settlement agreement in a sexual-harassment case under the administration of former Alabama Governor Bob Riley contains nonsensical language that strongly hints the governor's office resolved the matter in a dishonest fashion.

Melissa C. George filed the complaint against Riley communications director David Azbell, and it was settled for $53,000 in December 2003, according to a report last week from Bill Britt of Alabama Political Reporter. Britt's investigative piece included a copy of the settlement agreement and related documents, which can be viewed at the end of this post. (Melissa George since has married, and now is Melissa Bowman George; she serves as public relations manager for the Alabama Hospital Association.)

The settlement agreement itself is brief--less than three full pages--and it contains curious language that does not seem to add up. Here are key provisions in the agreement:

* George made a complaint of "harassment and discrimination" against a state employee, Azbell;

* George decided that "the best course of action to secure her professional future" was to leave her state job;

* The Riley administration agreed to "facilitate George's transition to the private sector" by providing a letter of reference from Chief of Staff Toby Roth, placing a copy of the letter in George's state-employee file, providing a re-dated version of the letter to any prospective employer, providing "only favorable and positive references" to any future inquiries regarding George's past employment, and ensuring that George was classified as eligible for re-employment with the state.

* George was allowed to maintain her state retirement account in the same fashion as all other employees who leave state service voluntarily and in good standing.

* George acknowledged that Riley and Roth "did not participate in, and deny any awareness of, the conduct giving rise to" the settlement agreement.

* George retained the services of Bobby Segall, an attorney with the Montgomery firm Copeland Franco Screws & Gill.

What is nonsensical about the settlement agreement? Let's consider what the Riley administration apparently would have us believe:

* Language in the agreement consistently indicates that George was an excellent employee. She was to exit in good standing, with only favorable and positive references, and she was eligible for re-employment with the state. And yet, it was George's idea to leave her position in order to "secure her professional future"?

* Higher ups in the Riley administration were unaware of Azbell's boorish behavior toward George, according to the agreement. And yet, the problem had become severe enough that George hired an attorney?

As a former state employee myself, with almost 20 years of service at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), I know this agreement almost has to include a heavy dose of horse feces, probably inserted at the insistence of the Riley administration.

State employees generally do not bring down mega salaries, but their jobs come with solid benefits that one does not lightly give up. We see no reason to doubt that Melissa George was an outstanding state employee; after all, she started in the press office under Democratic Governor Don Siegelman and was in the process of staying on under Riley. But we see plenty of reason to doubt that it was Ms. George's idea to leave her state position. Why would a state employee--who was good at her job--decide that "the best course of action to secure her professional future" was to quit? Answer: she wouldn't. That idea almost certainly came from the Riley administration. The implication in the settlement agreement is that someone was going to make Melissa George's work life a living hell if she stayed--and her professional future was going to be jeopardized by unjustified negative references. In other words, Bob Riley and Toby Roth bullied Melissa George into quitting a job that she probably enjoyed until David Azbell came along.

Here is another oddity: Riley and Roth could have helped George transition to another state job; any number of departments probably would have been happy to have her. But they wanted to make sure she was forced into the "private sector." Why?

As for the notion that neither Riley nor Roth knew about Ms. George's problems with Azbell . . . I find that highly unlikely. I was the victim of harassment and discrimination from my UAB supervisor, Pam Powell, so I know what the complaint process is like in a state job. I verbally complained to Powell's superior, Dale Turnbough, and filed a formal, written grievance with human resources. I made numerous efforts to resolve the situation internally, as suggested by our employee handbook, long before lawyers entered the picture. I feel certain that Melissa George took a similar course of action, especially since her employee handbook probably read a lot like mine did.

It's certainly possible that Bob Riley, as governor, was not aware of Azbell's behavior toward George. But it's hard to believe that Melissa George went straight to an outside attorney without first trying to resolve the matter internally. And that means Toby Roth, as Azbell's superior, probably knew about the situation--and, like higher ups at UAB in my case, failed to correct it.

We are left with a portrait of an administration that did not take workplace harassment and discrimination seriously. David Azbell's treatment of Melissa George was bad enough. But Bob Riley and Toby Roth made sure she was victimized a second time.

Melissa George Settlement Agreement by Roger Shuler

From Bogus Lawsuits To Threats Via Telephone, JPMorgan Chase Abuses The Debt-Collection Process

Banking giant JPMorgan Chase has landed in the national spotlight for its abusive debt-collection practices. But this story is not new for Legal Schnauzer readers.

I've been reporting for almost a year about Chase's involvement in the personal debt-collection nightmare my wife and I have experienced. I've presented tape-recorded evidence and transcripts of telephone calls that show Chase and its affiliates repeatedly violated federal law in an effort to collect a credit-card debt they could not prove I even owed. We've reported on allegations in a federal lawsuit that Chase played a prominent role in cheating my wife out of her job at a Birmingham-based insurance company. We soon will be presenting evidence that Chase and affiliated lawyers have attempted to corrupt the federal-court system in the Northern District of Alabama.

Now, it appears Mrs. Schnauzer and I are not the only ones fighting back against Chase and its rogue debt-collection network. The attorney general of California last week filed a lawsuit, claiming Chase resorted to unlawful tactics in an effort to collect alleged debts from some 100,000 credit-card holders in the state. Meanwhile, the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, one of the bank's chief regulators, is preparing an enforcement action against Chase over the way it collects credit-card debt, according to a new report at The New York Times.

You can be certain the Schnauzer household will make sure that officials in California and D.C.--and anywhere in between--have access to evidence we have accumulated against Chase. It is, as our regular readers know, voluminous and irrefutable.

In California, Chase faces charges that it engaged in illegal tactics such as "robo-signing" and "sewer service litigation" to flood state courthouses with lawsuits that are not supported by facts. AG Kamala Harris takes a dim view of the practice, according to a report in The Los Angeles Times:

Chase's use of illegal robo-signing was “widespread,” Harris' office alleges. The practice involved automatic signing of various documents--some sworn--without reviewing the paperwork or bank records.

"Sewer service" litigation against borrowers was also used by Chase, the suit alleges. The bank failed to even notify credit card holders it was taking them to court, while Chase claimed they had been notified as required by law, Harris' office claims.

What effect does this have on California courts?

Chase, the lawsuit claims, effectively used California's judicial system like a "mill" to obtain default judgments and garnish borrowers' wages. The bank filed thousands of lawsuits every month from January 2008 until April 2011, the state claims. On one day alone, Chase lodged 469 such suits.

Chase also sought default judgments against borrowers who were military members on active duty, the suit claims.

“At nearly every stage of the collection process, defendants cut corners in the name of speed, cost savings and their own convenience, providing only the thinnest veneer of legitimacy to their lawsuits,” the complaint says.

In many cases, Chase uses lies, threats, and other violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) to scare consumers into paying money they might not even owe. These tactics are employed long before a case reaches the courtroom phase, and my wife and I have experienced them firsthand.

Several layers of bureaucracy often clog a path that flows from Chase to a consumer. In our case, collectors from the Birmingham law firm of Ingram & Associates communicated directly with us. Evidence in our FDCPA lawsuit showed that Pennsylvania-based NCO placed the alleged debt, from an American Express card, with Ingram & Associates. And JPMorgan Chase, via an investment arm called One Equity Partners, owns NCO. Evidence in our case also showed that Ingram & Associates had no documents to show I even possessed an American Express card, much less that I owed a debt on one.

Under the law, Chase had an "agency relationship" with NCO and Ingram & Associates--and that means Chase had "vicarious liability" for the wrongdoing committed against us. What form did the wrongdoing take? We presented a series of videos, including audio that was recorded from conversations with collectors, that lays it out:


* Debt collector for JPMorgan Chase unlawfully communicates with third party to an alleged debt 

* Debt collector for JPMorgan Chase unlawfully makes false statements to consumer

* Debt collector for JPMorgan Chase unlawfully directs abusive language to alleged debtor

* Debt collector for JPMorgan Chase unlawfully uses misleading and deceptive language with consumer


We also have presented transcripts that illustrate the misconduct in black and white. The California attorney general is focusing on debt-collection abuses that are designed to cheat consumers in courtrooms. But many consumers cave in to unlawful threats and harassment long before their cases ever reach a courtroom. In fact, evidence strongly suggests that Chase and other collectors engage in such strong-arm tactics because they know they don't have documents to prove a case in court.

The following transcripts lay out such such tactics in stark detail. We will be sharing this information with various state and federal authorities:

Ingram NCO Transcript1 by Roger Shuler

Ingram NCO Transcript2 by Roger Shuler

Ingram NCO Transcript3 by Roger Shuler

Victim of Sexual Harassment Under Gov. Bob Riley Was Forced To Leave Her Job In Settlement Deal

Melissa George Bowman

The State of Alabama paid $53,000 to settle a sexual-harassment complaint against a prominent aide to former Republican Governor Bob Riley. The victim wound up having to leave her job as part of a settlement agreement.

Melissa C. George, who worked in Riley's proclamations office, filed the complaint against communications director David Azbell, according to a report yesterday from Bill Britt at Alabama Political Reporter (APR). Ms. George since has married, and now is Melissa George Bowman.

The story presents a number of parallels to my own experience of being unlawfully terminated from my job as an editor at the University of Alabama in Birmingham (UAB) in the midst of the Riley era.

The parallels emerge primarily from this fact that Bill Britt uncovered: Under a settlement agreement, Bowman was forced to leave her job, while Azbell quietly resigned. Azbell, however, has re-emerged as a communications consultant for Alabama Speaker Mike Hubbard, bringing down a state salary of $8,000 per month. Azbell also is a partner in the Birmingham political-consulting firm Swatek Azbell Howe &  Ross.

It looks like the victimizer came out better than the victim in this deal. Unfortunately, I've learned a thing or two about such office cheat jobs.

Melissa George Bowman now serves as public relations manager for the Alabama Hospital Association (AHA). This is from a 2012 AHA press release:

Prior to joining the Alabama Hospital Association, Melissa George Bowman was marketing director for Eastdale Mall. She was public relations director for the American Red Cross of Central Alabama and worked in the Alabama governor’s press office under two governors. She holds a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Alabama.

How this for irony? The words in bold indicate Bowman started her job in the governor's press office under Don Siegelman--and she was sexually harassed out of her job under Bob Riley.

Britt writes that rumors about Azbell and a sexual-harassment complaint have been floating around Montgomery for roughly a decade. The story now has moved beyond the rumor stage, with confirmation that a settlement was reached in 2003. Reports Britt:

The Alabama Political Reporter has obtained a copy of the Settlement Agreement in which the Riley administration offered a $53,000 pay-off to staffer Melissa C. George, an employee in Riley's proclamations office, to drop the threat of civil lawsuit, quit her state job and quietly go away. The Settlement Agreement, dated Dec. 17, 2003, was signed by Riley, Azbell and Riley's chief of staff, Toby Roth. It described Azbell as having "harassed" and "discriminated" against George. The document also states the neither Riley nor Roth were aware of Azbell's boorish behavior.

According to the settlement agreement, the State of Alabama paid $53,000 to George--with the stipulation that she leave her state job, but as part of the agreement Toby Roth was to write her a letter of recommendation on his official letterhead.

Based on my knowledge of employment law--and I have more experience with the subject than I ever wanted to have--it sounds like Melissa George Bowman settled for a low-ball figure, probably because she was under heavy pressure from seasoned politicians. That she was forced to leave her job says a lot about the way the Riley administration treated women in the workplace. In essence, Melissa Bowman was victimized twice--once by David Azbell and once by Bob Riley and Toby Roth.

No one involved with the case seems anxious to discuss it. Writes Britt:

Melissa George was contacted for this report but would only say she was not suppose to talk about it. However, there can be no valid confidentiality agreement when state dollars are used in such matters.

Telephone messages seeking comment were left for Azbell. He did not return the calls. George apparently provided the Riley administration with a lengthy written complaint documenting Azbell's alleged harassment. No records beyond the Settlement Agreement were found by the state archives. Roth refused to answer questions presented by the Alabama Political Reporter concerning the case. “It was the policy of the Riley administration to not comment on past employees,” he said.

Note the disingenuous tone of Roth's comment. Melissa George Bowman was not an employee of the Riley administration; she was an employee of the State of Alabama, and her settlement was paid with taxpayer dollars. Roth, Riley, and Azbell have obligations to answer questions about this matter. Riley himself should ensure that any related documents--internal memos, e-mails, etc.--are released to the public.

David Azbell

Had Melissa George Bowman filed a sexual-harassment lawsuit in federal court, she could have sued a number of people in their individual capacities--and any funds she received would have come from their personal pockets. It was Bob Riley's decision to hire Azbell, and it was Azbell's behavior that caused the problem. Why didn't the two of them pay from their personal accounts, rather than from taxpayer funds?

Feel free to hold your breath and turn blue while waiting for Bob Riley to reply to that question. Meanwhile, keep in mind that these are the Republicans who constantly assure us that they will be careful with our tax dollars.

The most vexing question is this: Why was Melissa George Bowman, having been harassed and victimized in the workplace, forced to leave her job? We don't know how long Bowman had worked for the state at the time of the settlement agreement. But even if she had just started, she would now have 10 years under her belt--and be vested in the state retirement system--if she had kept her job and chosen to stay with the state. Bowman likely gave up more than she received by agreeing to a deal with the Riley crowd. On the other hand, she probably is relieved to be away from that crowd.

I can identify with Bowman's plight, and I think I know why she was forced to leave her job. Regular readers know that I was cheated out of my job at UAB in May 2008--and I have tape-recorded evidence that proves I was targeted because of my reporting on this blog about the prosecution of Don Siegelman, Bob Riley's chief political rival.

Not only that, I was reporting truthfully on court-related corruption in Shelby County involving Pelham lawyer William E. Swatek. If that name sounds familiar, it's because his son, Dax Swatek, is a partner with David Azbell in the consulting firm referenced above. The Swateks are certified members of the Riley mafia, and my reporting was stepping on some delicate toes.

What probably sealed my fate at UAB was a post on March 13, 2008, about Rob Riley (Bob's lawyer son) and his apparent conflict of interest in connection with a federal lawsuit that grew out of the accounting scandal at Birmingham-based HealthSouth Corporation.

I did not break the story--that honor went to Sam Stein, of Huffington Post--but my reporting on it almost certainly was not welcome news to the Riley crowd. Here is the gist of that 2008 post:

We know that current Governor Bob Riley saw his path to re-election in 2006 become much more clear with Siegelman out of the way.

Now, thanks to the reporting of Sam Stein at The Huffington Post, we know the Riley family benefited in other ways. Birmingham lawyer Rob Riley, son of the Republican governor, made a nice chunk of change from a civil matter that ran parallel to the Siegelman criminal case.

On January 13, 2005, Rob Riley suddenly was added as local counsel on a massive lawsuit against HealthSouth and its former CEO, Richard Scrushy. Riley represented the New Mexico State Investment Council, a relatively new player at the time in the HealthSouth litigation.

At the same time the civil case was unfolding, Scrushy was co-defendant in the Siegelman criminal case. And that, Stein reports, is how Rob Riley stood to gain financially.

Less than two months after those words were written, I was out of a job at a state institution. And Rob Riley, indeed, gained financially. As co-liaison counsel--with Doug Jones, of Birmingham's Haskell Slaughter firm--Riley took home a nice chunk of some $50 million in attorney fees awarded in the HealthSouth case.

Let's summarize: In spring 2008, I was writing in a supportive way about Bob Riley's chief political rival; I was reporting inconvenient truths about Riley-family crony Bill Swatek; and I probably was seen as a threat to Rob Riley's revenue stream.

Is it any wonder that UAB went to extraordinarily underhanded lengths to cheat me out of my job? Is it any wonder that I'm convinced someone connected to the Riley family made that happen?

That brings us back to Melissa George Bowman. Anyone with a sense of balance and fairness would have seen her as a victim, and they would have insisted that she not be penalized for reporting harassment. But the Riley crowd almost certainly includes any number of sociopaths--and such individuals lack any sense of balance or fairness.

Bowman's willingness to speak up about David Azbell made her a threat in Bob Riley's eyes. It meant she could not be trusted to keep her mouth shut about "family secrets." That meant she was a state employee who had to go--much the way I would later have to go at UAB.

Bill Britt's reporting on the Melissa George Bowman case speaks volumes about the Riley family's utter lack of ethics. It also says a lot about the paranoia that must be rampant among Riley insiders.

Richard Scrushy Shines Spotlight On Siegelman Case With Insightful Live Interview At Huffington Post

Alyona Minkovski at HuffPost Live

Former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy last night called on President Obama to pardon former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and for Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate  prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in the case.

"I don’t understand Eric Holder not cleaning this mess up, if he’s any kind of man at all," Scrushy told Alyona Minkovski on HuffPost Live. "All you have to do is read the e-mails between the prosecutors. If the president of the United States would look at those e-mails, he would pardon the governor and let him out immediately. I can’t believe he would let it go another day, with the corruption that is in this case."

It was Scrushy's second interview since being released last summer from an almost six-year term in federal prison. His first was with San Francisco-based radio host Peter B. Collins in April. I participated in the Collins interview, and helped arrange it, so it was encouraging to see that Scrushy is continuing to speak out about injustice in the Siegelman prosecution--this time before the Huffington Post audience.

Scrushy focused last night on a petition that he has pending before the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Scrushy's lawyers are seeking discovery on documents that they say will prove widespread misconduct in the case. Much of it, Scrushy says, focuses on Bush-era U.S. Attorney Leura Canary and members of her staff:

We have internal documents, e-mails between prosecutors, talking about having contact with jurors. We have Leura Canary e-mails, with her directing the case after she had recused herself. That is before the Eleventh Circuit right now. . . . We are asking for the rest of discovery to prove the additional corruption. . . . Why would Eric Holder not step in immediately and fire those people who were involved in this? Making contact with a jury . . . come on, help me, please! Tell me why they would allow any of these people to continue to work, and why has this case not been thrown out?

Craig Unger, author of the 2012 book Boss Rove: Inside Karl Rove's Secret Kingdom of Power, and Huffington Post justice reporter Ryan Reilly participated in the discussion. Unger did not mince words about the origins of the Siegelman prosecution:

Absolutely, it was political. Look how Rove came to power . . . the judiciary always has been part of it. When you control the courts, you get huge donations from corporations. He took over Texas courts, and he did the same thing in Alabama.

Unger also pointed at that the allegations against Siegelman and Scrushy never fit the definition of a crime under any statute:

What Siegelman was accused of isn’t really a crime. There are thousands of instances where people give campaign contributions and end up in political appointments. Pres George W. Bush appointed more than 140 contributors to be ambassadors and so forth.

Scrushy noted that he hardly knew Siegelman until they were locked up together, post conviction, for two weeks at a federal prison in Atlanta:

As a businessman in Alabama, I would run into Don Siegelman. But I didn’t hang out with him; he wasn’t my friend. We were locked up in Atlanta . . . in chains; they threw us in a cell together . . . like it was a dungeon. We spent two weeks together there. We spent a lot of time in prayer. We were on our knees a lot. We worked out together, we talked about our children, our wives, our lives. You learn about people.

Corruption in our justice system needs to be addressed, Scrushy says, and it needs to start with his pending appeal before the Eleventh Circuit:

I’ve done my time, what do I have to gain, other than the world knowing [I was] innocent?  But let’s get the governor out. I’m back with my family, back with my children . . . but I’m not the only person who has done time that was innocent. While I was in prison, I met a lot of people who are innocent, especially in the white-collar area. I met a lot of young men brought in on some of the most ridiculous . . . deals you’ve ever heard.

The way our prosecution system works is through a "snitch process." I was asked to snitch on the governor, and they were going to let me out. But I would have had to lie and I said, "No, I’m not going to get up there and say a man did something he didn’t do." It’s a sad situation for our country.

AG Luther Strange Directed A Steady Stream Of Cash To Company Owned By Former Campaign Manager

Luther Strange and
 Jessica Medeiros Garrison

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange spent more than $200,000 with a holding company owned by his former campaign manager over a 16-month period in 2010 and 2011.

Jessica Medeiros Garrison, who managed Strange's 2010 campaign, started MDM 27 Holdings Inc. in November 2006. Campaign-finance records from the Alabama Secretary of State show that Strange spent $207,015.26 with MDM 27 Holdings, from June 10, 2010, to November 30, 2011.

During roughly the same time period, the Strange campaign paid $33,245.07 directly to Garrison.

Is anything improper, or unlawful, about the payments to Jessica Garrison and her company? Why was the much larger amount paid to a holding company and not to Garrison directly? We still are examining those questions, but they seem particularly relevant in light of recent events.

The attorney general's office, under Strange's direction, indicted former state senator Lowell Barron on April 19 for allegedly violating the Alabama Fair Campaign Practices Act and the state ethics law. Barron is accused of illegally transferring $58,000, plus title to a 2007 Toyota Camry, to former campaign staffer Rhonda Jill Johnson.

Did Luther Strange make similar payments to Jessica Medeiros Garrison, his former campaign aide? Did Strange try to disguise the payments by making them to Garrison's holding company? (See first document at the end of this post.)

In general, the charges against Barron allege that he unlawfully put campaign funds to personal use. Is there anything personal about the campaign funds that Luther Strange transferred to Jessica Garrison?

We don't have an answer yet to that question, but we do see irony in the indictment Strange's office brought against Barron. According to press reports, the charges stem in part from Barron listing his payments to Johnson as "administrative" expenses. From a report at al.com:

The 2011 annual report says the campaign had an ending balance of just over $500,000 and included in the expenditures is a listing for Jill Johnson, who received $8,000 with a notation “administrative” work performed, according to the filing.

The 2012 annual report, which covers 2011 has a $50,000 expenditure listed for Johnson and the same “administrative” note in explanation. The indictment contends the check's memo line reads "severance/bonus."

Why is that ironic? Records show that Strange made 15 "administrative" expenditures to MDM 27 Holdings Inc. in roughly the same time period. And MDM 27 Holdings is owned by Strange's former campaign aide. (See second document at the end of this post.)

All but one of the administrative payments to Jessica Garrison's company was in the $10,000 to $30,000 range. The Strange campaign made three payments for "consulting" services, and those were in the  $9,000 to $12,000 range.

Records show that MDM 27 Holdings has a reporting address of 1705 Dauphine Dr., Tuscaloosa, AL. Jessica Garrison is listed as company president, with an address of 119 Main St., Mountain Brook, AL.

Garrison currently serves as director of the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), which is an affiliate of the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC). Garrison also serves in an "as counsel" capacity with the Birmingham law firm Balch & Bingham.

Strange has a history of trying to hide campaign-related financial transactions--and some of those activities have ties to RSLC, an organization that now employs Jessica Garrison. From one of our earlier posts on the subject:

We know that Strange takes hypocrisy on gambling issues to monumental dimensions. After all, this is the guy who has tried to shut down non-Indian gaming facilities, such as VictoryLand in Macon County and Center Stage Alabama in Houston County, while taking a $100,000 campaign contribution from the Poarch Creek casinos. This also is the guy who used the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) to help obscure the donation via a PAC-to-PAC transfer.

Did Luther Strange try to obscure his payments to Jessica Garrison, violating campaign-finance laws? In light of the Lowell Barron indictment, it seems reasonable for Alabamians to be asking that question.

Jessica Garrison Holding Company by Roger Shuler

Jessica Garrison Payments by Roger Shuler