'Ballot Security' in Wisconsin Has Civil Rights Workers Wary

It has brought to our attention that "(s)enior Justice Department officials told civil-rights organizations they plan to deploy hundreds of poll monitors in November to prevent voting-rights violations and deter fraud (Perez, Wall Street Journal, September 9. 2008).

In light of the Wisconsin DOJ/GOP's efforts at voter suppression (that now looks to fail) and the McCain Campaign project sending misleading absentee ballots to voters, the presence of U.S. DOJ officials at polling places has civil rights groups nervous, though it's not confirmed that the DOJ officials will be in Wisconsin at this point.

As Evan Perez writes in the Wall Street Journal:

Some critics of the Bush administration said the Justice Department appears to be giving equal weight to preventing vote fraud and enforcing laws aimed at helping minorities cast ballots. 'For the department, the focus should be on voter access,' said Kristen Clarke, voter-participation co-director for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. 'It does seem the criminal division is spending some of their capital on vote fraud, which is disconcerting.' ... In the 2006 election, the department came under criticism from Democrats and some judges for pursuing cases involving Democrats that courts later ruled should never have been brought.

The U.S. DOJ pursuing voting so-called fraud cases in Wisconsin that should never have been brought is not a new development in Wisconsin. As Scott Horton lays out in Harper's (Sept. 7, 2007):

We know that (US Atty) Steven Biskupic, the U.S. Attorney in Milwaukee, was initially put on a list of those to be fired by Karl Rove’s office. Then suddenly Mr. Biskupic got deeply engaged in a series of truly dubious cases, all of which had a distinctly Rovian political flavor. First, Biskupic became one of the nation’s most enthusiastic participants in the 'voting fraud' fraud. He brought an array of insane cases, including one against a grandmother, which were detailed by The New York Times in an acid review of Biskupic’s mercenary political style. These cases generally involved voters who made honest mistakes about registration, but were prosecuted anyway (with many convicted). The targets were always Democrats who were from the major threat communities publicly identified by Rove—minority groups from the inner city. And the prosecutions were transparently pursued for purposes of voter suppression (i.e., an arguably criminal agenda).

The recent creation of a state nonpartisan task force charged with investigating voter fraud allegations (announced in mid-September) and chaired by Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm and Wisconsin Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen, co-chair of McCain’s campaign, does not assuage concerns that one political party, the GOP, dedicated to voter suppression as one tactic of its electoral strategy, will prove successful in disenfranchising 1,000s of Wisconsin voters.

Chisholm is an honest DA, but I do not understand why he is trucking with dishonest players investigating fictitious voting fraud when even U.S. Attorney Stephen Biskupic concluded that no widespread fraud existed in the 2004 election.

Van Hollen, Chisholm, and anyone claiming an interest in fair elections ought to be conducting an investigation into McCain's dirty-trick absentee ballot applications stunt.

The fact that even the Milwaukee police department (not known for it judicious investigative techniques as its unwise forays into federal election law and voter fraud show) has been discredited and knocked down so hard it ought never be able to stand does not inspire confidence in those simply wanting to cast a vote because the GOP has not renounced its commitment to keeping the wrong-voting people from casting their ballots.

To help fight voting suppression and its allies, the nonpartisan Election protection coalition (http://www.866ourvote.org/) is a great resource.

Readers are invited to post other resources in comments. The stakes are high.

The ACLU and NAACP hit the state voter fraud task force on Sept. 17.

ACLU, NAACP Object To Discriminatory Election Enforcement In Wisconsin (9/17/2008)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: liberty@aclu-wi.org

The ACLU of Wisconsin and Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP are deeply troubled by the apparent discriminatory focus of the "election fraud" task force set up by Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen and Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm.

The formation of a voter fraud task force only in Milwaukee County reinforces an unsubstantiated perception that City of Milwaukee residents are more prone to commit election fraud. And, regardless of intent, a racial subtext is barely below the surface, given the fact that Milwaukee is the only majority-minority city in the state.

The truth is that voting irregularities can and do happen throughout Wisconsin - but when they do not occur in Milwaukee, they are called "mistakes" and not "fraud." There was, for example, no law enforcement outcry when earlier this year we learned that hundreds of voters in Oconomowoc voted at the wrong polling place for years, in ways that likely influenced local election outcomes. There is no evidence that voting errors in Milwaukee are any more grounded in "fraud" than were the voting errors in Oconomowoc.

Nor does unlawful voting only occur in Milwaukee. To the contrary, the clear majority of allegations of vote fraud in 2006 occurred outside the city of Milwaukee, in dozens of communities around the state.

The ACLU and NAACP also question involvement by the Milwaukee Police Department in any election task force until such time as there is public disclosure of the role of officers in publishing a biased report earlier this year on the 2004 election making recommendations they had no authority to make, without the approval of their superiors.

The much ballyhooed, but practically non-existent, phenomenon of voter fraud does not warrant the development of a "task force" anywhere, but certainly not just in Milwaukee. Indeed, as law enforcement officials recognized this morning, the City Election Commission has made great strides in promoting fair and transparent elections, and the creation of a "fraud" task force only undermines faith in those elections. State and local officials should focus time and resources on facilitating election administration, not frustrating the rights of persons lawfully entitled to vote.

-30-

Death of 1960s Navy Airman Focus of Jailed Vet's Plight

Airman Gary Holland

The death of Airman Gary Holland on February 5, 1969 continues today to cause hardship and despair.
Holland was crushed to death by a C-54 aircraft at a Naval base in Naples, Italy.

Holland's death causes despair today because former VA General Counsel attorney and VA national Director of Compensation and Pension Services, Renee L. Szybala, helped engineer the prosecution of Gary Holland's (pictured above-right) fellow airman, Keith Roberts, by US Atty Stephen Biskupic.

The crime?

Roberts was for over a decade "tenaciously pursuing a claim for benefits" related to his actions at the death scene where he was on line duty at the same airbase as Holland.

And Roberts was convicted of five counts of wire fraud for receiving disability funds related to his diagnosed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

U.S. Atty Stephen Biskupic's office convinced a jury that Holland and Roberts did not have a friendship, and Roberts who was on line duty at the base at the time of Holland's death exaggerated his efforts to save Holland.

A thin reed for a federal prosecution.

The truth is the VA just wanted to shut Roberts up and the VA found a useful tool in U.S. Atty Stephen Biskupic who was willing to the do the administration's dirty work that demeans veterans for seeking help with PTSD in this “culture of trauma,” that the Pentagon says is really just veterans' “personality disorders” and lack of faith in God for veterans suffering after service.

As Roberts’ attorney Robert Walsh states in his Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) Supplemental brief (where Roberts' disability claim still remains as he fights in the federal criminal appellate court simultaneously) filed in July 2007:

“Ms. Renee Szybala, who responded to the (Roberts') letter for the (VA) Secretary, then appears to have had a direct involvement in orchestrating the efforts to commence criminal proceedings against the appellant in Federal District Court when she knew his appeals were pending at either the BVA (Board of Veterans' Appeals) or this Court (the CAVC).”

Szybala, who since has moved on from her position as Director of Compensation and Pension Services, was responsible for managing the network of VA Regional Offices across the country.

Roberts' defense attorneys unearthed in discovery e-mails language suggestive of Szybala's complicity in the prosecution of Roberts. Delivering compensation was not high on Szybala's mind, the e-mails suggest.

In an e-mail of January 27, 2005 from Debi Bevins, Special Assistant to the former (VA) Secretary Jim Nicholson, Bevins asked Szybala: “Is there any truth to what Keith Roberts alleges in this e-mail?” referring to Roberts’ allegations of VA fraud and violations of his due process rights, and Roberts declarations of his rightful entitlement pertaining to his experiencing what the VA calls "stressors.”

In the same e-mail, Bevins asks: “Have we heard any news on the prosecution of Keith Roberts?”

Szybala replies in part in an e-mail dated January 27, 2005 that: “Of course not (there is no truth to Roberts’ allegations). But he (Roberts) may be confused and believe it. I have known of and been dealing with Mr. Roberts’ complaints for several years now, dating to my time at OGC (VA Office of the General Counsel) as explained in the message below. … In the interest of full disclosure, I also have a letter on this case from the American Legion, dated October 15, 2004 (asking for Vasil’s report), to which I have not yet responded. The fraud for which Mr. Roberts’ service connection was severed was uncovered, investigated, and reported by the OIG (Office of the Inspector General). To respond to the Legion’s letter, we need to confer with the OIG and have had trouble connecting. When we do we’ll ask them the question about the prosecution, too. My guess is, however, that this case would not interest a U.S. Attorney. …”

Several points made in this and subsequent e-mails obtained by the defense and not presented at the criminal trial (though successfully made part of the record of appeal at CAVC after efforts by atty Robert Walsh) are critical and raise questions about the legality and propriety of the prosecution instigated by the VA.

No testimony or evidence was presented at Roberts’ trial pertaining to Ms. Szybala’s statement that Szybala had been dealing with Roberts’ allegations and complaints for several years and that Szybala stated that “… he (Roberts) may be confused and believe it.”

This is significant because if Roberts believed the VA claim that he was pursuing and Szybala assumed Roberts’ believed his claim, this discredits the principal allegation of the government’s criminal case that Roberts devised a “scheme” to formulate misrepresentations with the intent of defrauding the VA, the alleged crime for which Roberts now sits behind bars.

Walsh, Roberts attorney at the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit as well as CAVC, made this lack-of-intent argument in the appellate brief and at oral arguments in October 2007.

In fact, the US government in the person of Barbra Nehls of the Milwaukee VA Regional office, wrongly claimed at trial that Roberts’ benefits were reduced based upon the VA’s determination that Roberts’ statements of facts from 1969 formed the basis of the VA decision to grant or deny benefits.

This is a material misrepresentation of VA procedure: The determination of PTSD-related benefits relies upon medical evidence (such as being diagnosed by five different medical professionals that a vet has PTSD, as Roberts has been) and the existence of an in-service stressor (such as the reality that a man was crushed to death by a C-54 aircraft while an Airman was on duty), per 38 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 3.304(f). All a veteran has to achieve in first-person testimony is corroboration, not verification.

The CFR defines Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder; (PTSD) requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 CFR 4.125(a); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred (38 CFR 3.304(f)).

Officials from the Milwaukee Regional Office and Special Agent Raymond Vasil’s Inspector General’s (OIG) office were included in the series of e-mails including one e-mail from the OIG's Vasil dated January 27, 2005, stating: “The U.S. Attorney is interested in prosecuting. He is not 100% yet and wanted me to interview any additional persons I could find that were present when the original accident happened in 1969 … ."

The engineering of the prosecution is evident from the e-mails.

And the rushed, extraordinary prosecution itself that was challenged in Roberts’ supplemental brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) in July.

“As detailed in the brief, the conduct of the (VA) Secretary has been contrary to law, in bad faith, highly adversarial. There is an inference of impropriety by any number of senior officials in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,” reads the brief filed by attorney Robert Walsh.

And it bears repeating from the brief: “Ms. Renee Szybala, who responded to the letter for the Secretary, then appears to have had a direct involvement in orchestrating the efforts to commence criminal proceedings against the appellant in Federal District Court when she knew his appeals were pending at either the BVA (Board of Veterans' Appeals) or this Court (the CAVC).”

The two VA e-mails cited above are linked below.

- E-mail One

- E-mail Two

Roberts’ CAVC brief continues:


In this case the pursuit of the criminal conviction of this Appellant was ongoing during the entire pendency of this appeal. The (VA) Secretary appears to have willfully and knowingly circumvented the jurisdiction of this Court (CAVC) and his employees and agents made material misrepresentations of the precedent rulings of this Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit in open court, under oath.



Roberts' cases, one of many scandals of the VA under the Bush administration, remains under appeal both at CAVC and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit while the 39-years-old death of the young Gary Holland continues to haunt his fellow airmen.

[Much of the above piece has been previously published at this site and other sites.]

VA Outrages

Dedicated to Jimmy and Grover Cleveland Chapman. - Hello in There



Update: On a related note, see the NYT's Herbert's column on the new proposed GI Bill: "Politicians tend to talk very, very big about supporting our men and women in uniform. But time and again — whether it’s about providing armor for their safety or an education for their future — we find that talk to be very, very cheap."

via mal contends

The U.S. Dept of Veterans of Affairs (VA) has gone down the toilet.

This is what happens when the VA adopts the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) Dr. Sally Satel ethos that veterans need to just get over it, and not be enabled in a 'culture of trauma'.

From South Carolina, Paul Alongi reports:
An 89-year-old World War II veteran bought six bullets from a Greenville pawnshop on Thursday before fatally shooting himself outside a nearby veterans’ clinic, authorities said. ... "He felt like the VA turned its back on him and a lot of other veterans," Harriett Chapman said.

From California, Jim Holt reports: The VA demands 87-year-old Iwo Jima Marine vet return $3,000; vet received $84/month.

From Wisconsin, coming here tomorrow are the latest VA outrages on Vietnam-era veteran Keith Roberts.

And nationally, final arguments were made last week in the landmark veterans/VA class action case alleging systemic VA failure in denying returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans proper care.

The chickenhawks talk a good game, but when it comes to giving the troops respect and care, they are absent without leave. To all our vets, you're not forgotten: Hello in there.

Scott Horton on 60 Minutes Segment of DOJ Political Prosecution

Update: Rove is pictured at right mocking the jailed Don Siegelman. What type of man is Rove who would engineer the prosecution of an innocent man, inflict untold cruelty and damage to Siegelman’s family, and then laugh about it? Rove is today’s Republican, a man devoid of conscience and utterly amoral.

Scott Horton writes in reaction to the 60 Mintues piece:

CBS aired its long-awaited feature on the prosecution and imprisonment of former Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman this evening at 7:00. In a stunning move of censorship, the transmission was blocked across the northern third of Alabama by CBS affiliate WHNT, which is owned by interests of the Bass Family. Those who were in the zone of censorship or who missed it, can catch the whole segment here:

The CBS piece, for which I was repeatedly interviewed, came through on its promise to deliver several additional bombshells. The most significant of these was the disclosure that prosecutors pushed the case forward and secured a conviction relying on evidence that they knew or should have known was false, and that they failed to turnover potentially exculpatory evidence to defense counsel. The accusation was dramatically reinforced by the Justice Department’s failure to offer a denial. It delivered a fairly elaborate version of a “no comment,” and even that came a full twenty-four hours after it had conferred with the prosecutors in question. The gravity of the accusations made and the prosecutors’ failure to deny them further escalates concerns about the treatment of the former Alabama governor.


Republicans Lead the Attack

But the show was dominated by one of 52 former attorneys general from 40 of the 50 states who have called for a Congressional probe of the conduct of the Siegelman case, former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods. He leveled a series of blistering accusations at the Bush Administration’s Justice Department. With the Alabama G.O.P. this evening issuing a near-hysterical statement in which it characterizes the CBS broadcast—before its transmission—as an anti-Republican attack piece, it was notable that Woods, like the piece’s other star witness, is a Republican. Not just any Republican, either. Grant Woods is co-chair of the McCain for President leadership committee, and a lifelong friend and advisor to the presumptive 2008 G.O.P. presidential candidate. Woods is also godfather to one of the McCain children.

Attorney General Woods has this to say about the Bush Justice Department’s prosecution of Siegelman: “I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square. This was a Republican state and he was the one Democrat they could never get rid of.”

In other words, not being able to beat Siegelman at the polls, Woods believes that his own party corruptly used the criminal justice process to take out an adversary. This is an extraordinary, heavy accusation. Not something that a senior Republican would raise easily about his own party. And the facts back the accusation up, beginning to end.

Crimes for Democrats, Fundraising as Usual for the G.O.P.

Start with the notion that the conduct that figures in the accusations is actually a crime. The basic charge is that businessman Richard Scrushy gave $500,000 to the Alabama Education Foundation, a vehicle Siegelman created to run a campaign for a state education lottery, and Siegelman in exchange appointed him to the state’s hospital oversight board.

WOODS: You do a bribery when someone has a real personal benefit. It’s that you’re exchanging an official public act for a personal benefit. Not, “Hey, I would like for you to help out on this project which I think is good for my state.” If you’re gonna start indicting people and putting them in prison for that, then you might as well just– build nine or ten new federal prisons because that happens everyday in every statehouse, in every city council, and in the Congress of the United States.

PELLEY: What you seem to be saying here is that this is analogous to giving a great deal of money to a presidential campaign. And as a result, you become Ambassador to Paris.

WOODS: Exactly. That’s exactly right.

Indeed, Karl Rove pursued financing for the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000 and again in 2004 by organizing a special elite status—called “Pioneers” and “Rangers”—for persons who donated or raised $100,000 or more for the campaign. These donors understood that if they wanted to be appointed to a government office, like an ambassadorship, they only had to ask for it.

So how many Bush-Cheney donors in amounts of one hundred thousand and more were appointed to government offices or to positions in the Bush-Cheney transition team? The answer is one hundred and forty-six (146). And in how many of those cases did the Justice Department initiate investigations of corruption? The answer is zero (0). The Justice Department’s rationale is that this crime is one that can be committed by Democrats alone. When a Republican does it, it’s normal campaign fundraising.

False Evidence

But even if we accept that it’s possible for the Bush Department to create a new category of “Democrats Only” Crimes, we still have the basic fact that the evidence on which the Siegelman conviction was secured was false, and was known by the prosecutors to be false from the beginning. Indeed, the evidence of this is now so overpowering that the Justice Department refused to answer charges on camera, just as it has resisted Congressional demands to turn over documents and wrongfully failed to comply with FOIA requests. The key testimony at trial came from a man named Nick Bailey, who, unbeknownst to Siegelman, was a crook. He never contested that fact. And he’s now in prison, where CBS interviewed him—notwithstanding the Justice Department refusal to authorize an interview. The prosecutors nabbed him and then told him he could get a light sentence if he worked with them to nail Siegelman, their real target. This very process is a perversion of the justice system, which as former U.S. Attorney Jones very properly says, requires that prosecutors investigate crimes and not people. But it gets still worse. Bailey testifies that he saw a check change hands at a meeting at which Scrushy’s appointment to the oversight board was decided. This is the evidence that landed Siegelman in prison. And it was false. And the prosecutors knew that it was false.

JONES: They got a copy of the check. And the check was cut days after that meeting. There was no– there was no way possible for Siegelman to have walked out of that meeting with a check in his hand.

PELLEY: So, Siegelman could not have had that check–

JONES: No.

PELLEY: –in his hand that Bailey–

JONES: It was–

PELLEY: –testified to seeing?

JONES: Absolutely impossible and they knew that, absolutely impossible.

PELLEY: That would seem like a problem with the prosecution’s case…

JONES: It was a huge problem especially when you’ve got a guy whose credibility was going to be the linchpin of that case. It was a huge problem.

So the Justice Department’s silence in response to the charges was masked with a platitudinous statement. They stated that Siegelman’s case was pursued and developed by career prosecutors, that it was based on the law, and justified by fair evidence.

Each of the statements is about as honest as Attorney General Gonzales’s statement, under oath, before Congress, that he just couldn’t remember any details concerning any decisions to fire eight U.S. Attorneys on December 7, 2006. Which is to say, they are false.

First, we know that the first two career prosecutors assigned to the case, including the most experienced prosecutors who worked on it, came to the same conclusion that Grant Woods did: no reasonable prosecutor would ever have charged this case. The Justice Department has consistently made false statements about the roles of the two earlier prosecutors, and their role only emerged in the last few months. It’s extremely noteworthy that throughout the history of this case, whenever a career prosecutor concluded that charges should not be brought, that career prosecutor ran into a bump in his career and was off the case. The message to the remaining career prosecutors was plenty clear. In fact it is clear that the career prosecutors’ views were overridden by political appointees driven by a strong partisan political agenda.

Second, they claim that the case was brought on a fair reading of the law. It was not, and indeed reasonable career prosecutors never would have acted on the basis of the reading they advanced, and a fair detached judge never would have allowed the case to go forward. This case offered neither.

Third, they claim that evidence was produced to sustain the charges. But the key evidence that the prosecutors brought forward was false, and they knew it was false. In this case proceeding on the basis of that false evidence was a corrupt wielding of prosecutorial power, pursued for a corrupt partisan political end—the elimination of a political adversary. They withheld the Bailey notes which would have demonstrated that his memory on this was conflicted or wrong and would therefore have devastated his testimony. There is mounting evidence that one or more witnesses were unethically pressured to give false evidence or face retaliation. This suspicion surrounds not only Nick Bailey, but also Jefferson County Republican Commissioner Gary White. Note the affidavit of his wife, which a federal judge in Birmingham stated only two weeks ago he found “established a prima facie case of impermissible conduct” by the prosecutors. The claim put forward there goes precisely to these facts. White was pressured to give false evidence supporting Bailey on his false claims about the meeting. It is suggested that he would be prosecuted if he failed to do so. He refused, saying the testimony would be false. And he was prosecuted. This seems to summarize the crooked criminal justice system that Karl Rove and his friends have promoted in Alabama.

This is Only an Introduction

CBS conducted dozens of interviews and has much more that it hasn’t shown. The additional footage concerns the Canary team—husband Billy who advised the campaign of Republican gubernatorial candidates against Siegelman, and wife Leura Canary, whose prosecution of Siegelman was essential to the G.O.P.’s efforts to secure the Montgomery statehouse. And they have much more on the inexplicable conduct of federal Judge Mark Fuller, appointed by George W. Bush, a former member of the Alabama G.O.P.’s Executive Committee, and a man who publicly stated that Siegelman had a grudge against him—but who refused to recuse himself from the case.

Take a minute and write or phone CBS News and demand that they follow up on the open issues they raised and didn’t bring to fruition. Use the message function located under “Contact Us” at the bottom of this page.

Off the Air in Alabama

I am now hearing from readers all across Northern Alabama—from Decatur to Huntsville and considerably on down—that a mysterious “service interruption” blocked the broadcast of only the Siegelman segment of 60 Minutes this evening. The broadcaster is Channel 19 WHNT, which serves Northern Alabama and Southern Tennessee. This station was noteworthy for its hostility to Siegelman and support for his Republican adversary. The station ran a trailer stating “We apologize that you missed the first segment of 60 Minutes tonight featuring ‘The Prosecution of Don Siegelman.’ It was a techincal problem with CBS out of New York.” I contacted CBS News in New York and was told that “There were no transmission difficulties. The problems were peculiar to Channel 19, which had the signal and had functioning transmitters.” Channel 19 is owned by Oak Hill Capital Partners, who can be contacted through Rhonda Barnat, 212-371-5999 or rb@abmac.com. Oak Hill Partners represents interests of the Bass family, which contribute heavily to the Republican Party. Viewers displeased about the channel’s decision to censor the broadcast should express their views directly to the station management or to the owners.

Misleading AP Report Filed

Hopefully the Associated Press editors will start paying close attention to the reporting that is moving over the AP wires with a Washington dateline about the Siegelman case. We now have the second straight AP story filled with highly tendentious and misleading statements which are carefully set out to mirror the attack line put out by the Alabama G.O.P., but using the wireservice’s own voice. Here are some examples contained in the story filed by Ben Evans:

In the program, Simpson made claims that she had not previously raised publicly, either in an affidavit that drew wide attention last summer or later in sworn congressional testimony. [But Simpson made the claims during the summer to four reporters I have identified so far, requesting that they not be used, apparently because CBS was promised an exclusive on the story. She also discussed them with a Congressional investigator. All facts suppressed by the writer.]

She said then-White House political strategist Karl Rove asked her in 2001 to find evidence that Siegelman was cheating on his wife. Simpson said it wasn’t the first time that Rove — who was active in Alabama politics before going to the White House — had asked her to find damaging information about opposing campaigns.

She had not mentioned Rove directly speaking to her previously [this statement is untrue]. In her earlier sworn statements, she said she heard party operatives running Republican Bob Riley’s campaign for governor discuss political influence behind Siegelman’s prosecution on corruption charges. She described conversations in 2002 and 2005 in which she claims Riley campaign officials suggested that Rove was pushing the Justice Department to pursue charges against the former governor to keep him off the ballot. . .

Rob Riley has not denied that Simpson had some volunteer involvement in the 2002 campaign but he and others at the top of the organization have disputed her accounts, beginning with the affidavit and later when her sworn account changed last fall in congressional testimony. She said then that Siegelman dropped his challenge to the 2002 vote count after being told the investigation of him would end if he did, a claim ridiculed by Riley campaign officials. . . [This sentence seriously mischaracterizes the facts. Simpson reported statements made by other Republican operatives, not any dialogue with Siegelman.]

The Justice Department — as well as the career prosecutors who handled the case — have insisted that politics played no role in the case, emphasizing that Siegelman was convicted by a jury. [This statement suppresses the facts that the two senior most career prosecutors did not support a prosecution, and wound up being taken off the case.] Congressional Democrats, however, have been looking into the case as part of a broader investigation into possible political meddling by the White House at the Justice Department. [This is tendentious and misleading, falsely suggesting that the investigations, which are bi-partisan and include internal inquiries within the Justice Department, are partisan in nature, all consistent with Alabama G.O.P. press releases.]

Also, about 50 former attorneys general — most of them Democrats, but including some Republicans — have asked for a congressional investigation into the case. [Highly tendentious formulation designed to avoid bringing attention to the fact that the effort is led by Republicans.]

60 Minutes DoJ Political Prosecution Update

From Larisa Alexandrovna

No doubt you have all seen the broadcast on 60 Minutes about the Don Siegelman case. It was excellent and out of the three major bombshells, two were delivered tonight. Here is what I have learned today to add to this drama and it demands that you take actions:

1. 60 Minutes is interested in doing additional add-on installments of this story. I have it on good authority that the show's reporters and producers have much more to tell about the duo of Bill and Leura Canary as well as more about the corrupt judge, Mark Fuller, on the case. The network has agreed to run one, maybe two more installments if there is interest shown by the public. You have to let them know you want more on Fuller, the Canary couple, and the trial itself.

You can contact CBS here:
ADDRESS:
60 Minutes
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019
EMAIL: mailto:60m@cbsnews.com;audsvcs@cbs.com
PHONE: (212) 975-3247

2. I am hearing very disturbing reports that I have not yet confirmed - but need your help to confirm - that parts of northern Alabama went to black screen during the Siegelman broadcast. Anyone in the northern districts of Alabama who had this happen, please let either me or Scott Horton know.

3. If you have seen the broadcast, then you now know that the key witness against Don Siegelman lied and that the prosecution was aware of it. There is more to the Nick Bailey story too. I have known for some time - but have not fully confirmed for an article - that Nick Bailey's brother was threatened with jail time by the US attorney's office (because he is allegedly as corrupt as Nick) if Nick did not testify against Siegelman. Based on the Bailey issue alone, Don Siegelman's conviction must be overturned. Moreover, US Attorney Leura Canary must be fired immediately and fully investigated. To accomplish this, you must demand that Congress respond to what is looking more and more like Soviet justice.

Contact your Congressperson here.
[Contact members of the Members of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary!]

And finally, happy birthday Governor Siegelman.

60 Minutes, Before Oscars, Don't Miss It!

Update: Writers on Siegelman and Rove scandal prepared to be attacked.

Before the Oscars, please watch the 60 Minutes segment on the Karl Rove-plotted jailing and smearing of an innocent man for the crime of being a Democrat in Alabama.

An anthology of political corruption, character assassination, and persecution of innocents will be on display this coming Sunday on 60 Minutes.

Contact members of the Members of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary!

The US Dept of Justice and the White House corruptly conspired to prosecute and convict a former democratic governor, Don Siegelman, because Siegelman was a political threat to the GOP in Alabama.

Banana republic? No, America under George W. Bush.

60 Minutes: Do not miss it this Sunday

60 Minutes: Do not miss it this Sunday!

Banana Republic DOJ

Scott Horton at Harper's has a great column on DOJ corruption.

###

U.S. v. Roberts

Further analysis of the U.S. v Roberts oral arguments will have to be pushed back until later this week.

In the meantime: - Accessing oral arguments. [Enter 07-1546 in the Case Number's fields by entering 07 in the "Year," and entering 1546 in the "Year Fragment's" field. Give the file some 45 seconds at least to load.]
###

Jailed Wisconsin Navy Veteran May Get Win

- Accessing oral arguments. [Enter 07-1546 in the Case Number's fields by entering 07 in the "Year," and entering 1546 in the "Year Fragment's" field. Give the file some 45 seconds at least to load.]

Navy veteran Keith Roberts (1968-71) is serving a four-year sentance for wire fraud for trying to help save his buddy, Florida native Airman Gary Holland, from being crushed to death by a C-54 airplane while stationed at a Naval air base in Naples, Italy in 1969. The government says he lied, and that his diagnosed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is based on lies.

Roberts is appealing.

Using one’s perceptions of the ideology, judicial integrity and past rulings of a three-judge panel as a means of predicting a ruling on a criminal appeals case is akin to a 16-year-old guy guessing the outcome of a first date with a 16-year-old girl: Conjecture seems a useless enterprise, and surprises and unpredictability are the rule.

But I’ve learned a lot about women and judges since being a teenager.

In the matter of Keith Roberts v. United States (case number 07-1546) appearing for oral arguments before a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit yesterday, I am cautiously optimistic that the conviction of the Wisconsin Navy veteran on five counts of wire fraud in 2006 will not stand.

One could offer a multitude of qualifications, but based on my reading of the briefs and the relevant administrative, case (cited by government and defendant briefs) and statutory law, Roberts has a strong case. [I ought to state my bias here against U.S. Attorney Stephen Biskupic who argued the Roberts case himself at oral arguments, for whom I harbor ill feelings for his obscene prosecutions of the innocent Georgia Thompson and the ridiculous voter fraud cases. In fairness, Biskupic is known by many in the legal field as a gentleman, although one who had a bit too much time on his hands at the office where ambition appears to have overtaken discretion.]

The defendant's case before the three-judge panel was argued by attorney Robert Walsh, a former VA staff attorney, who is also the attorney arguing Roberts' case involving the same transactions and occurrences before the Washington D.C.-based U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims (CAVC).
A decision favorable to the defense would represent a stunning blow to the Bush administration’s policy on veteran’s PTSD benefits, that has sought to marginalize veterans contending that veterans are to some extent responsible for their own conditions in that they had pre-existing personality disorders and, some administration figures have asserted, a lack of faith in God that would have assisted coping with PTSD.
A favorable defense decision would also likely draw the attention of the House Committee on the Judiciary that has been investigating selective and politically motivated prosecutions by the Bush Department of Justice.
Roberts was diagnosed by numerous government and private medical professionals as suffering from PTSD, for which the stressor event is contended by Biskupic to have been fabricated, constituting fraud.
Frustration with the VA drove Keith Roberts to phone the VA Inspector General’s office at Hines, Illinois, in November 2003 at which time Roberts spoke with Special Agent Raymond Vasil.
Roberts accused the VA of “fraud” in altering a transcript at a local hearing in the VA Regional Office in Milwaukee as the VA was in the process of determining the date from which his retroactive disability pay was to become effective, among other benefit issues.
At oral arguments Walsh knocked down that government's contention of fraud, arguing a lack of intent and asserted that only after Roberts' complaint of fraud was made did the VA look for inconsistencies in the veteran Roberts' VA claim file.
Walsh also asserted a cover-up of negligent conditions at the Navy air base that caused Airman Gary Holland to be crushed to death by a C-54 aircraft.
Following is an extended excerpt from Walsh's address yesterday that was interrupted just once with a question pertaining to Roberts' state of mind.
Look back here for an analysis of U.S. Attorney's Biskupic's address on Monday.
Said Walsh:

Nothing that a veteran says is going to be the basis of a PTSD award of benefits by the VA. They need a medical diagnosis and they need a verified stressor, and I have never seen, it's a total distortion (of VA adjudication procedures) in this (and made at the trial court) record, and any suggestion that any veteran can (hypothetically) just walk into the VA, file a claim and say, you know peace-time veteran, that 'I was here in the states and I was sexually assaulted and it's stressful and give me money'. And the answer is did you tell the Chaplin? Did you go the hospital? Did you confide in a family member? Do you have a contemporaneous letter? Do you have documentation?
‘No, I was embarrassed’. Then, the claim fails. Your own statement, no matter how compelling the argument and how tragic the circumstances is not going to be the basis of an award of PTSD.
Now, the VA adjudicated this, with all the King's horses and all the King's men for about 10 years. They conclude that this man has PTSD. They grant the award. And now they decide, after he's a whistle blower and he complains to VAIG (Department of Veterans Affairs Inspector General) (in November 2003). Now they decide that they are inconsistencies in the record. I submit to you that they are inconsistencies in every veteran's record, combat or peacetime. And that Congress has recognized that.
And that’s why VA benefits is a very paternalistic, claimant-friendly, non-adversarial system. It’s even more paternalistic that the Social Security benefits adjudication system (per the Veterans Judicial Review Act).
So, where’s the intent (for fraud)? The intent is to get some benefits because the man (the veteran) can’t work. Now, as far as wire fraud, when Congress changed the law and suggested that electronic funds transfer would be a permissible vehicle for pain (disability) benefits across the government, they made it elective. In the Social Security administration it was elective … VA general counsel in 1997 issued a(n) … opinion … (mandating) that everyone is going to have electronic funds transfer. ... every VA beneficiary … (is compelled to receive benefits electronically). …

This (case) is a remarkable event because we have the interposition of the Department of Justice right square in the middle of a VA benefits dispute, and effectively they (the DoJ) are litigating in the district court the same transaction and occurrence (as the VA).

And they (the DOJ) (said) ‘no, we’re not going to do that’ (at trial). The judge’s pre-trial motions and pre-trial conference were all predicated on the fact that I am not going to relitigate the veteran's (VA) benefit case. And then they proceed at trial, after they’ve denied many of the witnesses that Mr. Roberts attempted to call, they proceed to relitigate the 1969 events.

Now, they (the prosecution) also call for their witnesses, the individuals, the officers, the non-commissioned officers, who were in charge of the maintenance of that aircraft and who negligently removed the jacks, creating a situation which led to the unnecessary and accidental death of airman Holland.

And now to bring those people in, by the way who then retired from the military. So they have pecuniary (direct financial interest because of pension and other VA benefits) interest in the outcome of this case, having been subpoenaed in the court; they have to stick to their story that Mr. Holland caused his own death. He did not. (Prosecutor’s witness) Chief Stewart testified that the airplane was safe.

Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), the aircraft was not safe; it collapsed and killed a young man.
###

US Atty Scandal Broadens

Every politico in Wisconsin is familiar with the Georgia Thompson prosecution; a travesty of justice that has tainted Wisconsin’s fading reputation for fair play and impartial justice at all levels of government.

But being flushed out now is the scope of a program that the U.S. Dept. of Justice employed onto political opponents in key races across the nation, in which the infamous Georgia Thompson prosecution was but one ugly piece.

Scott Horton, a human rights attorney and writer at Harper's, has broken much new ground investigating DoJ political prosecutions including today's column linking Karl Rove to the prosecution of former Democratic Alabama governor, Don Siegelman.

Weeks ago Horton had also uncovered the outlines of a DoJ scheme to use the DoJ machinery against major Democratic opponents and one tier of Democratic supporters, trial attorneys.

Writes Horton:

The (DoJ)scheme contemplated among other things that raids be staged on the law offices involved, and that the records seized not be limited to campaign finance—there was an acute interest in all politically oriented documents, in order to seize valuable intelligence on strategic planning from the enemy camp.

In today's New York Times, Adam Cohen, reports on a case in Mississippi where evidence points to the blatant political prosecution of trial lawyer Paul Minor.

Writes the NYT's Cohen:

Paul Minor is the son of Bill Minor, a legendary Mississippi journalist and chronicler of the civil rights movement. He is also a wealthy trial lawyer and a mainstay of Mississippi’s embattled Democratic Party. Mr. Minor has contributed $500,000 to Democrats over the years, including more than $100,000 to John Edwards, a fellow trial lawyer. He fought hard to stop the Mississippi Supreme Court from being taken over by pro-business Republicans.
Mr. Minor’s political activity may have cost him dearly.
The case fits a familiar pattern. The corruption Mr. Minor was charged with was disturbingly vague, as it was with (Wisconsin's) Ms. Thompson, whose only “crime” was awarding a contract to the lowest bidder, and Mr. Siegelman, who was convicted for fairly routine political behavior.
Mr. Minor’s prosecution, like the others in this scandal, gave a big boost to the Republican Party. The case intimidated trial lawyers into stopping their political activity. “The disappearance of the trial-lawyer money all but wiped out the Democratic Party in Mississippi,” Stephanie Mencimer reports in her book, “Blocking the Courthouse Door.”

The travails of Georgia Thompson, though revealed to be an innocent victim of a corrupt federal judiciary, continues to incite national condemnation:

Writes Cohen:

In Wisconsin, Ms. Thompson’s trial coincided perfectly with Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle’s re-election campaign, and Republicans tried to link Doyle to Thompson. Mr. Siegelman’s prosecution looks like it was timed to prevent him from becoming governor again. It may be that all three of these cases were simply attempts to use the Justice Department to get Republican governors elected.
Ms. Thompson was fortunate to get a good federal appeals court panel, which ordered her released. Mr. Minor and Mr. Siegelman may not be so lucky. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and many other key players in the United States attorneys scandal are gone, but Congress has a lot more work to do in uncovering the damage they have done to the justice system.

The House Committee of the Judiciary postponed today’s Joint Hearing on Allegations of Selective Prosecution: The Erosion of Public Confidence in Our Federal Justice System, but is expected to continue its investigations.

Wisconsin's Rep. Tammy Baldwin is the lone Wisconsin Democrat on the Committee.

The DoJ continues to stonewall the House Committee, but good government reporting in Harper's and the New York Times like that which contributed to the downfall of Richard Nixon may yet reveal the extent of the corruption of our national government under George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.
###

Human Rights Writer Blasts Bush

There is much to despise in the administration of George W. Bush. Its secret program for inflicting torture certainly leads the counts of the anti-democratic indictment of this reprehensible regime.

Scott Horton, a human rights attorney, writing at Harper's has written among the most incisive commentary on Bush's human rights violations, and has broken much ground uncovering the administration's corruption of the Department of Justice that has often functioned as a political machine using the power of the prosecutor on Republicans' political enemies.

Many agencies of government of been similarly corrupted and used for purposes that can only be labeled as indecent.

For those Americans, and there are tens of millions of them, for whom human rights, liberty and clean and open government remain the foundations of a decent society, acting against this administration is a moral imperative.

What the historian Norman Cohn called the "mood of passive compliance" that enabled the Holocaust and the rise of the NAZIs ought not allow continuation of Bush's atrocities that (though not comparable to the Holocaust) have claimed millions of victims, corrupted the foundations of a society, and functioned with the same levers of citizen disengagement.

Horton latest column can be read at We Do Not Torture.

###

Updated - Details Emerging on DOJ Program Targeting Trial Attorneys

Updated: John Edwards fundraiser acquitted on all counts, DOJ political prosecution goes up in flames

Journalists are breaking new ground in the GOP scheme to use the DOJ as a Republican machine to target a major tier of Democratic campaign money: Trial Attorneys.

If sufficiently flushed out and advanced over the next several months, the story, a pattern of at best questionable prosecutions, can be expected to become a major corruption scandal just in time for 2008 elections.

Follow the prosecutions. As in if you know of prosecutions that smell in your area by U.S. Attys, send tips to: scott@harpers.org.

Scott Horton, a human rights atty and writer at Harper’s, has been breaking new ground for months.

Horton’s latest piece, A Minor Injustice: Why Paul Minor?, nails Mississippi and the nexus of a corrupt Mississippi press and a corrupt GOP legal-political machine.

The actual charges filed were almost incomprehensible. Several public integrity prosecutors with whom I conferred told me they were unfamiliar of any similar case raising charges quite like these. They were called “strange,” and “perhaps unique.” Most public corruption cases revolve on a quid pro quo: a public official is asked to do something for some form of compensation or reward. But in these cases there is no quid pro quo, and none is ever alleged.

Horton references a July 26, 2004 NYT piece, “DEVELOPING THE STRATEGIES: FUND-RAISING; Edwards Returns $44,000 In Donations” by RICHARD A. OPPEL JR. AND GLEN JUSTICE.

Senator John Edwards returned $44,000 in campaign contributions on Saturday after learning that the prominent corporate lawyer in Los Angeles who raised the money is facing misdemeanor campaign-finance charges in California.

Turns out that the prosecution before our very eyes in 2004 stinks to high heaven. Writes Horton:

"The Times notes that Paul Minor was the tenth largest donor to John Edwards, with donations totaling $129,000, and it also notes that almost every major attorney donor to the Edwards campaign mysteriously became the target of an aggressive Justice Department criminal investigation."

The prosecutions as they happened over the last several years went reported but unnoticed and unlinked to any suggestions of a political program. Now, that the DoJ has been heavily implicated as a politcal arm of the Bush administration, people are looking into the DoJ, and so should we.

Time magazine has a major piece on corrupt DoJ practices in Alabama (that Horton has covered as well), and that was recently featured at Daily Kos.

To no one's surprise, Karl Rove is the corrupt mastermind. See Karl Rove is the corrupt villain.

Now Karl Rove, the President's top political strategist, has been implicated in the controversy. A longtime Republican lawyer in Alabama swears she heard a top G.O.P. operative in the state say that Rove "had spoken with the Department of Justice" about "pursuing" Siegelman, with help from two of Alabama's U.S. attorneys.

Let's hope that we see more flushing out of the extent of the DoJ program to target democrats.

Investigations by the Congressional Committees on the Judiciary have been blocked by the DoJ and can be expected to be continued to be obstructed. This story will reach the American people via the press only.

###

DoJ on Biskupic Prosecution: 'How in the heck did this case get brought?'

As the politicalization of the DoJ and the numerous other Bush administration agencies has become clear in the public mind, the House Committee on the Judiciary Chair, John Conyers, released a Justice Department internal e-mail on the discredited Georgia Thompson prosecution, tossed out of a Seventh Circuit's appellate panel.

The e-mail as recounted in Talking Points Memo reads:

In the exchange, Craig Donsanto, the Election Crimes Branch Director and a well-respected veteran of the Department, responds to an email from Raymond Hulser, Deputy Chief of the Department's Public Integrity Section, who forwarded to Donsanto the appeals court's opinion overturning Thompson's conviction.

Donsanto asked in the e-mail: "Bad facts make bad law. How in the heck did this case get brought?"

U.S. Atty Stephen Biskupic has denied that political considerations ever entered his deliberations on whom his office decided to prosecute, though several high-profile cases were consonant with Republican political priorities, and Biskupic was on the endangered list of US Attys for failing to be a loyal Bushie before the string of highly questionable prosecutions.

Biskupic-prosecuted cases widely perceived as assisting Republican political priorities include: Alleged voter fraud, the exonerated Georgia Thompson case, and the unprecedented prosecution (in the middle of a VA claim) against a Wisconsin Navy veteran who exasperated the politicized VA, now facing a class action law suit.

The examination of Biskupic is part of the House Committee's efforts scrutinizing other prosecutions by several US Attys that directly targeted Democrats.

###

VA E-mails Reveal VA Officials Plotting to Prosecute Wisconsin Vet, Ignoring Federal Regulations

Story above this post..

VA E-mails Reveals VA Officials Plotting to Prosecute Wisconsin Veteran, Ignoring Federal Regulations

Story above this post.

Jose Padilla’s Ideology and His Rights

The comments and e-mails of right-wing readers are often revealing of the authoritarian mind and its views on government and liberty generally.

In response to the piece "Jose Padilla and America’s Descent into Fascism," one reader concludes that calling for the U.S. government’s observance of Constitutional protections of American citizens (Padilla in this instance) and recognition of the Geneva Convention's codification of human rights is to be equated with an endorsement of Padilla’s ideology (whatever that may be) and my sentiment that Padilla is some kind of freedom fighter.

"I'm really happy your 'freedom fighter' Jose Padilla is gonna rot in prison for the rest of his miserable life," writes one reader.

I have no interest in Padilla’s ideology, but an abiding interest in his rights.

If the commentator (from the RightTruth site) were persecuted in the same manner, I (and virtually every progressive) would argue in a similar vein for his/her rights, no matter what I would perceive to be the political-religious associations and views.

The distinction between endorsing another’s rights and another’s views is obvious outside of authoritarian ideologies that view liberty with suspicion.

###

Feds Ridicule Vet Diagnosed with PTSD

At the US Dept for Federal Veterans Affairs, National Center for PTSD website, a veteran is given information on whom to contact for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) problems:

You can contact your local VA Hospital or Veterans Center located in your telephone book, or call the VA Health Benefits Service Center toll free at 1-877-222-VETS. In addition to its medical centers, VA also has many CBOCs (Community Based Outpatient Clinics) around each state so you can look for one in your community.

But as Vietnam-era Navy veteran Keith Roberts found out, that doesn't mean you should actually file for PTSD-related benefits.

In an appellate brief filed with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on July 29, the US Atty's office mocks Roberts for seeking help with his diagnosed mental health and other medical ailments.

Reads the brief filed by Steven Biskupic's office:

A layperson can gather information about PTSD's causes and symptoms from public libraries, the Internet, and the VA's National Center for PTSD ... After Roberts' personality disorder claim failed, he changed course. In February 1994, Roberts notified the VA for the first time that he suffered from PTSD, and that it was connected to his military service. His claim, however, did not say what his in-service stressor was, and he offered no PTSD diagnosis.

So, this veteran did not fill out the complex VA forms properly. But after jumping through hoop after hoop, Roberts was eventually diagnosed with PTSD by several medical professionals and began receiving PTSD-related benefits in 1999.

But he made the mistake of seeking an earlier retroactive date per the advice of his veterans service officer, and called the VA the fraudulent crooks that they are during a period (2004-2005) when the administration was actively seeking to review 72,000 PTSD cases for fraud, per the advice of the American Enterprise Institute, where the administration takes it cues on several public policy areas.

Roberts' was convicted of wire fraud and has been serving a 48-month sentence since March.

His case is under appeal in the Seventh Circuit and his administrative case is under appeal at the D.C.-based Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
###