The Alabama Environmental Council will hold it’s 13th annual Green Tie Affair Thursday, April 2, at the Flower Stems Loft, in Birmingham, 213 Arrington Blvd. South.

The affair will begin at 6:30 p.m. with cocktails. A silent auction will be held along with music from the Blue Galaxy String Project. A live auction will follow.

Food will be offered in partnership with the local Slow Food chapter supplied from local producers and prepared by local chefs. There will be an open wine, beer and coffee bar provided by SweetWater Brewing, JohnnyGreenSeeds Wines, and Higher Grounds Roasters.

To close out the night, the band will turn up the volume with one more set while we enjoy the celebration.

Tickets are $60 per person after March 27.

Click here here to buy online.

Updated

Sources say Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks will announce his plans to run for Governor of Alabama at 3:30 p.m. Friday, April 3, on the steps of the Madison County Courthouse in Huntsville.

He has the beginnings of a campaign Website up here.

Apparently, Lt. Gov. Jim Folsom Jr. has decided not to run for governor after all, and will seek reelection instead. No reason for this dramatic change has been revealed yet, but we have queries out…

Editor’s Note: In any other state in the country with a functioning watchdog press, this story would have generated howls about a conflict of interest on the part of the governor’s son. Yet not one word about this has been published in a single Alabama newspaper. We are now pursuing funding from investigative journalism sources to begin shedding light on all the political shenanigans being conducted in the dark in this state, and teaming up with other reporters such as Roger Shuler to try and build the new Web Press infrastructure here. This story only scratches the surface of what we can accomplish. If you want to help, get in touch.

by Roger Shuler

Alabama attorney Rob Riley, who has a curious history of cashing in on the Don Siegelman prosecution, recently announced a $109-million settlement in a fraud lawsuit involving HealthSouth Corporation. But sources tell Legal Schnauzer that Riley himself is involved in a company that faces allegations it practices health-care fraud.

Riley, the son of Alabama governor and former Siegelman opponent Bob Riley, announced that HealthSouth investors had reached a settlement with the accounting firm Ernst and Young. The suit alleged that Ernst and Young failed to detect a fraud that almost destroyed Birmingham-based HealthSouth.

“We think it is a good settlement for the shareholders, many of whom thought they would never see any return on their investment,” Riley told The Birmingham News.

Riley is a curious choice to be lead counsel in a lawsuit alleging health-care fraud. That’s because, according to our sources, he is an officer in a company that appears to have engaged in health-care fraud–and perhaps still is.

Sources tell Legal Schnauzer that Riley is an owner and officer in a Birmingham-based company that provides physical-therapy services. The company is facing allegations that it has repeatedly defrauded federal health-care programs.

Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has received extensive information about the alleged fraud scheme involving Riley’s company, sources say. But Martin, a George W. Bush appointee and a long-time ally of Bob Riley, has refused to intervene in the case.

As we reported back in January, Martin has a history of providing favorable treatment to politically connected parties who have allegedly engaged in health-care fraud. She appears to be doing that again with the case involving Rob Riley’s company.

Riley’s connections to the HealthSouth lawsuit first came to light in April 2008, thanks to some expert reporting by Sam Stein, of Huffington Post.

Let’s review some of the key points from the Stein article:

* Months before Siegelman was charged, court documents show, Riley knew an indictment was coming and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy would be drawn into it;

* In what appears to be a case of legal-political “insider trading,” Riley managed to maneuver himself into a hugely profitable role as lead local counsel in a massive lawsuit against Scrushy, HealthSouth, Ernst and Young, and others;

* Riley snagged the lead counsel role even though most of his legal experience was in the area of medical malpractice. He had little or no experience in complex securities litigation;

* When the HealthSouth litigation began in 2003, Riley’s name was nowhere to be found. He joined the fray in January 2005, representing the New Mexico State Investment Council, a relatively new player in the case;

* Why did Riley rise to play a central role in the HealthSouth lawsuit? Almost certainly it was because of his ties to U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, whom Riley knew held a grudge against Siegelman and would be the perfect hanging judge in the criminal case;

* Riley surely knew that his ties to Fuller would pay off in the civil case. That apparently happened in May 2006 when an investment banker testifying in the criminal case said HealthSouth had pressured him to come up with $250,000 for Siegelman’s education lottery fund;

* Shortly after this revelation in the criminal case, HealthSouth agreed to pay $445 million to settle its portion of the civil case. It was one of the largest settlements in securities-litigation history. And it appears that Rob Riley engineered it.

So what is the current status of the HealthSouth lawsuit? The $109 million payment from Ernst and Young appears to be set. An appeal issue has delayed disbursement of the $445 million from the 2006 settlement involving HealthSouth and several former officers and directors. Riley says a shareholder lawsuit still is pending against Scrushy and investment bank UBS AG.

Let’s do a little quick Schnauzer math. At least $554 million is waiting to be dispersed to multiple shareholders and plaintiffs’ attorneys. How massive is this litigation? The case file includes almost 1,600 documents, and roughly 150 plaintiffs’ lawyers have been involved.

Out of all of these attorneys, representing powerhouse firms from both coasts and some of the most prominent firms in Alabama, who was designated as “liaison counsel for shareholder lead plaintiff”?

Whose name was front and center on a motion for settlement filed on March 23, 2009? Why, none other than Rob Riley, who just happened to have all kinds of connections to the Siegelman/Scrushy criminal case.

Here are a couple of questions to ponder:

* Did any of the 150-plus lawyers who apparently allowed Riley to take a lead position in the HealthSouth lawsuit ever wonder if he might have more than a few conflicts of interest in the case? Were they concerned about the appearance of impropriety caused by Riley’s connections to the Siegelman criminal case? Or were they simply interested in the fact that Riley could help rake in big bucks — for them and for himself?

* Did any of these lawyers know — or did they even care — that Riley was an officer in a company that itself appeared to be engaged in health-care fraud? Would any of these 150 plaintiffs’ lawyers–or perhaps the numerous defense attorneys — think it relevant that lead counsel in the HealthSouth fraud litigation was himself an apparent actor in a fraud case connected to the delivery of health-care services?

* Aside from alleged fraud committed by Riley’s company, consider the conflict Riley appears to have in the HealthSouth case. Riley is an owner in a company that provides rehabilitation services. That’s the same area of medicine in which HealthSouth has made its name. If HealthSouth is greatly weakened in the rehabilitation field, do Riley and his business partners stand to profit?

Would some of these multimillion-dollar settlements fall apart if it is shown that Rob Riley has a massive conflict of interest — and is an owner in a company that allegedly engaged in health-care fraud while he purported to be fighting for victims of health-care fraud?

Stay tuned to Legal Schnauzer. We are going to be looking into all of these questions — and providing details about the case against Rob Riley’s company.

Originally published by the Legal Schnauzer. Republished here with permission. Roger Shuler is an experienced journalist who formerly wrote for the Birmingham Post-Herald, now defunct.

Investigators Say Macho B’s Death Was Unnecessary

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Macho B collared

Guest Column
Kierán Suckling
Executive Director
Center for Biological Diversity

Two weeks ago the last known American jaguar died. Not in the wild. Not by mistake. He was euthanized on a stainless-steel table in Phoenix.

When the state-sanctioned vet said it was better for Macho B to die this way than in the wilderness, where he had lived for 15 years, I was taken aback. When the vet said Macho B could have lived another two months, I wondered: Why the rush to euthanize him? When the vet said Macho B’s death was “necessary” due to long-term kidney failure, I called for an independent investigation.

The story just didn’t add up.

The first of the independent investigations is complete, but state and federal wildlife agencies won’t release it. The Arizona Daily Star, however, talked to the investigators and confirmed my worst fears.

Did jaguar Macho B have to die?

Tissue samples show no sign of kidney failure. Indeed, University of Arizona pathologist Sharon Dial stated that, “For a supposed 15-year-old cat, he had damned good-looking kidneys.”

The euthanization was rushed and unnecessary. Macho B was likely suffering from severe dehydration, probably brought on by his snaring, anesthetizing, and collaring. Rather than being killed, said Dial, Macho B should have been given intravenous fluids for 24 to 48 hours. There was just not enough information to support euthanizing him so quickly.

Macho B was injured, possibly fatally, during capture. Though the wildlife agencies publicly denied Macho B’s death was caused by “capture myopathy” (i.e. stress and injury), internal memos stated: “Department personnel suspected capture myopathy/renal failure.” Only after the Star’s investigation was it revealed that Macho B’s paw was severely swollen, and deep scratch marks were found seven feet up the tree where he was snared.

The necropsy was botched. Investigations into the cause of death have been hampered by a decision to do a “cosmetic” rather than a full necropsy so that Macho B’s pelt could be stuffed for “educational” presentations. Why and who deemed this more important than a full investigation?

The only good news to report is that the Center for Biological Diversity’s lawsuit to establish a federal recovery plan and protected critical habitat for the jaguar is going well. In a hearing last Monday, the federal judge peppered the government’s lawyer with skeptical questions, showing his discomfort with how the agency has continually changed its rationale for not protecting America’s jaguars.

Establishment of a federal recovery plan would likely have prevented the death of Macho B, and it certainly would have prevented what one pathologist called a “lack of total transparency” in how the post-capture handling has been conducted.

The Center is continuing to investigate how Macho B came to be captured in the first place. It is illegal to purposefully trap jaguars, and yet, bizarrely, bear and mountain lion traps were set in the canyon where Macho B was known to be prowling. Donate now to make sure Macho B’s death is fully investigated and future jaguars are protected.

You can donate to the Center’s Jaguar Legal Defense Fund today. We’re over halfway to our goal of raising $40,000. Winning this case – just as we won two crucial cases forcing recovery of the endangered Mexican wolf – is critical to the restoration of jaguars to the United States.

Kenny Walters

A couple of blue birds have adopted this cedar house in Roebuck Springs, Alabama. Sorry to brag, but it was a creation of Yellow Hammer Studios, a partner company, and was just placed in this yard last year. In other words, it worked the first nesting season. Our designs have improved since then, so if you want a bird house guaranteed to attract birds, get in touch…

Karl “Turd Blossom” Rove had the gall to call President Obama arrogant because he doesn’t stay in his place? What about the arrogance of some in the previous administration, including this political animal who should be in a cage by now?

 Loading ...

William Greider, on Bill Moyers’ Journal on PBS, wants Americans to start shaking things up

His new book, COME HOME AMERICA: THE RISE AND FALL (AND REDEEMING PROMISE) OF OUR COUNTRY, doesn’t mince words from the very first sentence: “I have some hard things to say about our country.” And he does.

After outlining many of the systemic problems he feels the United States faces, Greider lays out the case for a fundamental restructuring of America’s economy and society. He compares the moment — a decline in American power exarcerbated by the financial collapse — to World War II, not literally, but as a moment of economic transformation.

“Just as World War II presented a chance to thoroughly reorder American life,” he writes, “this generation of Americans has the opportunity — the obligation — to envision a country very different from the one we have known for more than half a century.”

In the Washington Post this past Sunday, he wrote:

The president is getting what he asked for, but perhaps not what he had in mind. During the campaign, Barack Obama beckoned Americans to put aside their cynicism about politics and re-engage as active citizens. They are now doing so with red-hot anger. They are outraged by events and forcing their way into congressional affairs and behind closed doors where policy wonks discuss issues with cerebral civility. The president is now trapped between these two realms — the governing elites who decide things and the people who are governed. Which side is he on? If he does not choose wisely, the anger could devour his presidency.

The immediate impetus is the latest outrage from the financial sector.

Obama Told Us To Speak Out, But Is He Listening?

Interesting but troubling stuff. Any thoughts activists?

by Glynn Wilson

The New York Times newspaper company is in such financial dire straights that it has announced a 2.5 percent salary reduction at its regional newspapers, which now includes The Tuscaloosa News and The Gadsden Times in Alabama since the company announced the sale of The Florence Times Daily last week.

This letter was sent out to Times employees via e-mail this week.

Dear Colleagues,

As you know, the global economic crisis is taking its toll on a broad range of businesses and sectors, here in the U.S. and around the world. We have reported in our own newspapers and on our own Web sites that the economy is likely to continue struggling throughout this year and possibly longer.

Given this economic outlook and the changes occurring in the media business, we, regrettably, must take even more steps to lower costs. We have been, and continue to, reorganize and reduce our staff, which means we are saying goodbye to many of our close colleagues. Now, in addition, we are lowering salaries through the end of this year for all remaining nonunion employees and, in exchange, providing additional time off. We plan to approach the Newspaper Guild in New York to ask for its participation in the program and to continue working with our unions in Boston and our other locations on lowering our costs, including wage reductions.

The salaries of all employees at The New York Times Media Group (with the exception of the IHT, which is working on other cost reduction measures), The Boston Globe, Boston.com and Corporate in New York will be rolled back by 5%, starting this April, and these employees will receive 10 additional days off to use before the end of the year.

At the About Group, Baseline, Globe Direct, International Media Concepts, Regional Media Group, Shared Services Center and Worcester Telegram & Gazette, the approach is similar, with salaries being rolled back by 2.5% with five additional days off. We made the distinction between the two groups by taking into account location and other factors. Next year, we plan to return salaries to their current levels. Of course, such a decision depends on the state of our business.

Many of you will have questions about these actions. Your manager or department head has been briefed with more details and is your best source of information.

This was a very difficult decision to make. The environment we are in is the toughest we have seen in our years in business. Across our Company, you and your colleagues have worked hard to introduce innovative products and services, reduce expenses and improve productivity. We are deeply grateful for your efforts and proud of your achievements. As we take these painful steps together, we remain confident that our great Company will keep moving forward to better times.

Sincerely,
Arthur and Janet

The Times announced last week it was selling its newspaper in Florence, the TimesDaily, to the company that publishes The Decatur Daily, an independently owned newspaper also in north Alabama.

Read the rest of this entry »

by Glynn Wilson

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy are asking the full 12-judge Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to rehear the appeal in their political prosecution primarily on the basis that the alleged quid pro quo bribery claimed in the case was based on evidence of an “implied” agreement, not an “explicit” agreement.

“We filed today asking the 11th Circuit to rehear my case because we believe if their ruling, if left to stand, prosecutors will be able to pick and choose their targets among contributors and elected officials,” Siegelman said.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the McCormick case made it clear, he says, that in this area of First Amendment rights, before a jury could convict an elected official or a contributor on bribery there had to be an “explicit” not an “implied” agreement.

“My three judge panel has allowed my conviction and my seven and a half year sentence to stand basically by defining ‘explicit’ to be something that can be inferred or implied by the jury form the mind and actions of actors,” he said.

“Yes, this is about my personal freedom but it is even more important this First Amendment issue clarified so the law wont be a trap for the unwary,” he said, citing Thomas Jefferson, who once wrote: “Whenever the people see things that are wrong the people can be relied upon to set those wrongs to right.”

“We need to get a message to the U.S.Department of Justice to help get this wrong set right,” he said. “If the three judge panel’s new definition changing an ‘explicit’ to an ‘implied’ quid pro quo is allowed to stand not only am I up the creek without a paddle but federal prosecutors will be able to pick and choose contributors and elected officials seeking convictions based solely on a jury’s view of what was in the minds of the elected official not based on any express communication.”

“After having gone through this unbelievable episode in our lives,” he said, “I had an opportunity to re-read The Federal Prosecutor, a speech by the U.S. Attorney General at the time, Robert Jackson. Just read the first paragraph and you’ll get a flavor of what my family has been through and what I ask you to help guard against.”

Siegelman said 11 of the 12 judges decide whether a full court hearing is justified. He said three of the judges have recused themselves in this case, including Republican Bush appointee William Pryor, the former attorney general of Alabama. That leaves 8 judges to make the decision. Three of those have already voted to uphold the conviction, so he says it will require five of five votes to order a new hearing.

Legal experts say the full appeals panel rarely overturns three judge panel decisions en banc, the legal term for the full court. So this is likely headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether they will agree to hear the case is anybody’s guess.

You can read the appeal motion filed in the case here and the appendix here.