Jack-Booted Thugs III: Who's Behind Alabama Blogger's Home Threatened For Siegelman Case Writings

[Hissyspit]

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/03/who-is-behind-jack-booted-thugs-part.html

Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Who is Behind the Jack Booted Thugs, Part III

I suspect one other factor might be at play in Republican efforts to shut me up by threatening to unlawfully seize my house.

We've already noted that the threats seem to be tied to my blog posts about U.S. Attorney Alice Martin in the Northern District of Alabama and the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi.

But I suspect my reports about the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling in the ExxonMobil case also could be a factor. I first wrote about the case here, in a post titled "ExxonMobil 1, Alabama 0."

I'm hardly alone in writing about the ExxonMobil ruling, which overturned almost all of a $3.6 billion judgment against the oil giant and for the State of Alabama. Scott Horton, of Harper's, wrote an excellent piece about the case here. Even the mainstream press pulled its collective head out of the sand long enough to focus some attention on the decision.

But I probably have gone farther than most in stating my intentions to show why the Supreme Court ruling was unlawful, not just unfortunate. Here is one of several posts where I have said that I intend to show exactly how the ruling was unlawful.

With so much happening in the Siegelman case, and my own legal situation, I have put off the planned series on the ExxonMobil ruling. But it is still on the drawing board.

I should note this: It doesn't take a legal guru to figure out what the eight Republican justices did in ramrodding the ExxonMobil ruling. Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, the lone Democrat on the court and the only dissenting vote on the ExxonMobile opinion, has already laid it out. You just have to read her dissent. In fact, Cobb all but calls her Republican colleagues crooks.

So when I get around to writing about the ExxonMobil ruling, I won't be doing any pathbreaking reporting. I'll just be shining light on Cobb's scathing dissent. And that's something Alabama GOPers would rather stay out of the spotlight.

Cobb's dissent is readily available on the Web. I just happen to be nosy enough to actually read the whole thing and write about it--hopefully in a way that regular Alabamians can understand.

This should show with stark clarity that regular citizens are not well served by our GOP-controlled courts. More importantly, it will show that criminals control our highest court. The ExxonMobil ruling is about as blatant an example of honest services mail fraud that one could imagine.

The honest services mail fraud statute (18 U.S. Code 1346) is largely responsible for former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman being in prison. It is largely responsible for Mississippi attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield being in prison.

We have shown that the Minor defendants, without question, are innocent of the mail fraud (and the bribery) charges against them. I have not seen the transcript of the Siegelman case, so I can't come to any absolute conclusions. But the evidence strongly points to his innocence on the mail fraud charge--along with the bribery and obstruction of justice charges.

So we have four Democrats in prison for crimes they almost certainly did not commit. And the clearly guilty GOP justices on the Alabama Supreme Court? They remain cloaked in their black robes, with nary a glance of suspicion from the Bush Justice Department. That's what's called selective prosecution. And it's alive and well in Karl Rove's Alabama.

Could Republicans on our highest court really be crooks? If you read Sue Bell Cobb's dissent, as I have, you will come to this conclusion: Yes.

Goodness knows that is a message that Republicans don't want getting out there. Is it enough for them to try to shut me up by threatening to unlawfully seize my house? Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

[livvy]

1. Many thanks, Hissy, for keeping us updated on this.

There are many, many people who still aren't aware about this case. Your updates keep me informed so I can spread the word to others.
:patriot: knr

[babylonsister]

2. K&R with thanks, Hissy. nt

[AzDar]

3. K & R...

[trof]

4. I campaigned for Judge Sue Bell Cobb.

She is one smart and magnificent lady.
It must be a lonely and frustrating job being the only Democrat on the state supreme court.
At least she's chief justice.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

5. K & R.

:kick:

Thank you Hissyspit.

[livvy]

6. I have spent the last several hours going through his blog.

It is unbelievable what this guy has gone through in his own personal case. What would seem to most of us as a clear cut case of justice against an inconsiderate, obnoxious neighbor, to have come to this point, is a horrendous miscarriage of justice. I find it hard to even use the word "justice". It doesn't fit in this case, and dirties the word.

His reporting on Siegelman, Minor, Teel, and Whitfield is excellent, comprehensive, and very well-written. What is being done to him as a result is appalling.

Again, thanks for keeping this in the spotlight.

[mod mom]

7. Hissy, many of us have written to the House Judiciary members on this. Do you know

what they are doing to fix this mess. We need more than hearings & blogs.

thanks for keeping us well informed :hi:

[Richard Steele]

8. K&R

[Jeffersons Ghost]

9. K&R

[midnight]

10. Free these people...

So we have four Democrats in prison for crimes they almost certainly did not commit. And the clearly guilty GOP justices on the Alabama Supreme Court? They remain cloaked in their black robes, with nary a glance of suspicion from the Bush Justice Department. That's what's called selective prosecution. And it's alive and well in Karl Rove's Alabama.

[pacalo]

11. Has anyone found a link for Judge Cobb's dissent?

[Pastiche423]

12. Still looking

So far all I've found is this:

In dissent, Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb wrote, "Not only does the majority opinion approve of the appropriation of this State's resources by deceit, it undermines any individual or institution that would pursue honest business practices. This is neither legal nor just."

http://www.beasleyallen.com/news/Alabama-Court-Cuts-$3.6B-Verdict-Vs-Exxon/

[pacalo]

13. I went to that link, too. I spent an hour looking for the entire dissent.

Thanks for your reply. :)

[Pastiche423]

14. Am I missing the name of the suit?

i.e. Alabama vs Exxon.

[Hissyspit]

19. PDF of opinion is here:

http://www.alabamaappellatewatch.com/Exxon%20v.%20Alabama.pdf

From Legal Schnauzer:

I strongly encourage folks to read it. Be prepared: This is not the kind of stuff you take to the beach to read. But it's worth the effort to get through all 125 pages.

If you don't want to wade through the whole thing, be sure to read Cobb's dissent, which starts on page 100. Some things to look for:

* Cobb points out that the concurring opinion fails to follow some of the court's most basic precedents.

* Cobb points out that the majority conveniently ignores evidence that supports a finding of fraud.

* Cobb displays cojones of impressive proportions. It's nice to know at least one Democrat in Alabama has a pair.

If you really want to get into some heavy-duty reading on the ExxonMobil case, check out the Web site of the Mobile firm Cunningham & Bounds. The firm led the effort to get justice for the State of Alabama, and their Oil and Gas Litigation page is filled with interesting stuff.

One of my favorites is the jury verdict form. You can read it here. Note all of the zeroes on the final figure.

Another favorite is this story by Cathy Donelson from Business Alabama. It provides fascinating background that I have not seen elsewhere.

[Hissyspit]

18. Link to PDF of the opinion is here:

http://www.alabamaappellatewatch.com/Exxon%20v.%20Alabama.pdf

From Legal Schnauzer:

I strongly encourage folks to read it. Be prepared: This is not the kind of stuff you take to the beach to read. But it's worth the effort to get through all 125 pages.

If you don't want to wade through the whole thing, be sure to read Cobb's dissent, which starts on page 100. Some things to look for:

* Cobb points out that the concurring opinion fails to follow some of the court's most basic precedents.

* Cobb points out that the majority conveniently ignores evidence that supports a finding of fraud.

* Cobb displays cojones of impressive proportions. It's nice to know at least one Democrat in Alabama has a pair.

If you really want to get into some heavy-duty reading on the ExxonMobil case, check out the Web site of the Mobile firm Cunningham & Bounds. The firm led the effort to get justice for the State of Alabama, and their Oil and Gas Litigation page is filled with interesting stuff.

One of my favorites is the jury verdict form. You can read it here. Note all of the zeroes on the final figure.

Another favorite is this story by Cathy Donelson from Business Alabama. It provides fascinating background that I have not seen elsewhere.

[babsbunny]

15. Thanks to everyones hard work!

:loveya:

[L. Coyote]

16. K & R. Big oil corrupts!

[L. Coyote]

17. ExxonMobil’s Alabama Paydirt = Siegelman and Pissing Off Big Oil.

ExxonMobil’s Alabama Paydirt
Scott Horton - November 4, 2007 - http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/hbc-90001584


Back in 1904, Ida Tarbell published what ultimately was to be seen as the seminal work of the muckrakers, The History of Standard Oil. It appeared first in nineteen installments in McClure’s Magazine, a rather less successful competitor of Harper’s, and shortly after the last installment appeared, Tarbell published the work in book form as well. In her work, Tarbell exposed the dark underside of corporate deal-making, the series of interlocking directorates and manipulations which had allowed John D. Rockefeller to build the oil leviathan and dominate the American market. Tarbell demonstrated that Rockefeller’s success came not so much from business acumen (though she never contested that he had plenty of that) as through a thorough understanding of how to game the system. John D. Rockefeller was a power unto himself. Politicians around the country were made and broken to suit him.

But Tarbell’s disclosures fueled the drive for antitrust legislation and a fairer and more competitive business environment—a drive which was, in its time, championed by progressive politicians of both parties, but particularly by Theodore Roosevelt. By 1911, Standard Oil was broken into thirty companies.

But over time, like the liquid-metal monster in the “Terminator” series, Standard Oil pulled itself back together again. It was aided in this process by a change in attitudes across the political spectrum, but most particularly it was aided by America’s campaign finance system in which politicians standing for election require increasingly larger sums of money to pursue their campaigns, and support from the corporate till is essential. The final act of rebirth occurred when the two principal surviving pieces of the company, Exxon and Mobil, merged at the close of 1999. The resulting behemoth, ExxonMobil, is the largest publicly traded integrated petroleum and natural gas company in the world. It is also the world’s largest petroleum and natural gas company by revenue, with revenues of $377.6 billion in fiscal year 2006.

The State of Alabama believes that it was victimized by ExxonMobil. According to the state’s complaint launched by the Administration of Governor Don Siegelman, ExxonMobil committed fraud and underpaid the state in a contract dispute over natural gas pumped from Mobile Bay. Alabama won that litigation, and a jury awarded the state a judgment against ExxonMobil of roughly $3.6 billion. Not chump change ............

[Hissyspit]

20. More from Legal Schnauzer on jack-booted Alabama thugs:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3066114&mesg_id=3066114

[Hissyspit]

21. Legal Schnauzer: Sue Bell Cobb Tells It Like It Is on ExxonMobil

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/03/sue-bell-cobb-tells-it-like-it-is-on.html

Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Sue Bell Cobb Tells it Like it is on ExxonMobil

I wrote in a post yesterday that Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb all but calls her Republican colleagues crooks in her rip-snorting dissent to the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that overturned almost all of a $3.6 billion jury verdict against ExxonMobil.

A reader asks if I could provide a link to the entire opinion, including Cobb's dissent. The answer is yes, indeed.

The opinion is available here, and I strongly encourage folks to read it. Be prepared: This is not the kind of stuff you take to the beach to read. But it's worth the effort to get through all 125 pages.

If you don't want to wade through the whole thing, be sure to read Cobb's dissent, which starts on page 100. Some things to look for:

* Cobb points out that the concurring opinion fails to follow some of the court's most basic precedents.

* Cobb points out that the majority conveniently ignores evidence that supports a finding of fraud.

* Cobb displays cojones of impressive proportions. It's nice to know at least one Democrat in Alabama has a pair.

If you really want to get into some heavy-duty reading on the ExxonMobil case, check out the Web site of the Mobile firm Cunningham & Bounds. The firm led the effort to get justice for the State of Alabama, and their Oil and Gas Litigation page is filled with interesting stuff.

One of my favorites is the jury verdict form. You can read it here. Note all of the zeroes on the final figure.

Another favorite is this story by Cathy Donelson from Business Alabama. It provides fascinating background that I have not seen elsewhere.

Particularly interesting is this section about Robert Macrory, the man who wrote the natural-gas lease that ExxonMobil so blatantly abused:

Robert Macrory, the DCNR attorney who developed the lease, is the former executive director of the Alabama Petroleum Council, a division of the American Petroleum Institute funded by ExxonMobil among others in the oil and gas industry.

At the time he was asked to craft a lease for Alabama offshore gas tracts in 1979, Macrory who later served as assistant commissioner of the Alabama Conservation Department, from 1995 to 1998-was the department's chief legal counsel.

His assignment was to develop a lease favorable to the state that would bring in the best return for the state's non-renewable offshore gas. "Most industry leases were just put on Farmer Brown's table," says Macrory, currently DCNR's deputy attorney general.

"All other forms-and those the subject of lawsuit after lawsuit across the country were lease forms prepared by the oil and gas industry to place the value at the wellhead where it is first severed from the earth," he says. "And each company had its own way of computing the value of gas at the wellhead."

After gathering leases from the federal government and from several states across the country, Macrory began reading gas and oil treatise and ran across a suggested model lease form first published in the "Nebraska Law Review,"

Macrory says he was impressed by the publisher's comments saying the lease treated the oil and gas company and the landowner fairly and equitably, basing royalty on gross proceeds.

He says the lease was recommended by an eminent University of Oklahoma oil and gas law professor who had written many books on the subject. "It had a provision that focused on gross receipts at the price received, disallowing all deductions," Macrory says.

Hmmm, "disallowing all deductions." Bet ExxonMobil didn't like that language, even though it signed the lease. So the company came up with fraudulent ways to get around it. And the Alabama Supreme Court let them get away with it.

Because of that, Alabamians are roughly $3.6 billion poorer. But hey, we've got a "conservative" court.

[terrell9584]

22. Exxon Mobil

Is actually an issue that could be used to pick off a few seats on the Supreme Court.

The money from that judgment would have gone to the state. It was money that could have been spent on a variety of things, even a tax rebate. It was alot of money, money that the state deserved, in a case that was started by a Republican Attorney General and the Supremes threw it out. Great thing about this state is, justices are actually politically accountable for the decisions they make.

Essentially, if you could take some of those judges that always seem to be the nominees for Supreme Court, actually pump some money into the campaign and use this as the defining issue, we'd probably pick off a few seats. At the very least it could be made competitive and if we can link the state GOP to the actions of the justices that represent them, would provide for a good jump start into the races in 2010, especially seeing as we are poised to hold the offices of Gov, Lt. Gov and both houses of the legislature for the first time since 1986.

It could be a real issue though, because there is not a better point that we can make. Republican judges ruled against Alabama and in favor of Exxon, a company not based in Alabama.

[DemReadingDU]

23. morning kick

Thanks for keeping us updated!