Home|Login|Register  |    
Paul Minor appeal to be heard in Austin this week
Beware of the blue-stained dress
by Alan Lange
3/31/9
In Austin, Texas, tomorrow, on April Fool's Day, a three judge panel will hear oral arguments for the appeal of Paul Minor. Oral arguments were requested by both Minor's attorneys and the Government, so the fact that the judges are hearing them really can't be construed as favoring one side or the other.

A three judge panel consisting of Justices Priscilla Owen, Catharina Haynes, and Will Garwood will hear oral arguments from the Government and Minor's all-star defense team featuring Abbe Lowell (of Clinton impeachment defense fame) batting clean up.

There is so much water under the bridge on the ceaseless efforts to make this case something that it's not, that it's hard to know where to start. The only place I know to start is by putting out the data.

First, I put the Minor indictment out there. This was the bar the Government had to hit, and they did.

Second, I'll put out Minor's appeal.

Third, here's the Government's response to Minor's appeal.

Finally, and this was just filed today, a letter from Hiram Eastland (of the Steve Patterson defense team juggernaut). This letter gently begs Judge Priscilla Owen to step aside due to her connections to Karl Rove.

Aside from some arguments in Minor's appeal about jury instructions and the "quid pro quo" arguments, Minor's defense team and its supporters have really been pushing public sympathy on the fact that Minor was hand selected to be prosecuted for political reasons.

There are two "conspiracies" peddled in the Minor universe.

1. That Minor was targeted by Karl Rove via the Justice Department for giving so much money to Democrats
2. That Minor was targeted by Dunn Lampton as "revenge" for the defeat of Judge Keith Starret, who Lampton campaigned for (before becoming US Attorney)

Though long on allegations and innuendo, no one has come up with anything other than circumstance in their pieces and no one has been charged with anything related to impropriety.

However, the case against Minor is well documented. For all of the column inches that the New York Times, RFK Jr., Raw "deal" Story, and even our own local moonbats at home have dedicated to these ridiculous arguments, not one of them have promoted the documentation of what was proven to 12 jurors in a court of law. In fact, just to show you the journalistic lunacy, one of these authors, Larissa Alexandrovna, even made a direct appeal for letters of support to Minor. That's journalism in action! Unfortunately, that's what were dealing with on shaping public opinion here.

Lowell will have his hands full. For someone who has defended legal giants like Bill Clinton, Jack Abramoff, Gary Condit and Dan Rostenkowski, Lowell has a huge problem in this case. Just as in the Clinton impeachment, for all of Lowell's brilliance, he still ran up against that damn blue, stained dress. For all the fancy-lawyerin', the evidence kept getting in the way.

The "little blue dresses" in this case are very clear patterns of evidence that Minor kept judges on the string so that they'd pay out, which of course they did. AND THEN, he covered his tracks through strawmen like Dickie Scruggs and other attorneys to hide what he did. Defendants that Minor litigated against walked into kangaroo courts, got their asses handed to them to the tune of millions of dollars while the judges and the plaintiff's lawyers laughed all the way to the bank.

For instance, no one mentions (according to the government's appeal brief page 17 ) that Minor in the Whitfield conspiracy guaranteed loans of over $100K so that Whitfield could help buy his then-girlfriend a house while he was getting a divorce. Whitfield then lies about that fact during his divorce under oath. Then Minor gets a case in front of Whitfield and on a bench trial, Minor's client gets awarded over $3M without the other side knowing about the "loans". To hide the transaction, Minor ghosts a phony loan payoff through an unwitting patsy in New Orleans and then has to undo that after the patsy figured out the scheme.

And no one certainly mentions about the Teel bribery scheme (on p23 of the brief) where Minor loaned Teel money, got a case transferred to him only to have Teel suggest a settlement figure of $1.5M without disclosing the fact to the defense that Minor had a loan guarantee for Teel and had been helping him with his criminal defense on other charges. And not many have mentioned that Dickie Scruggs was the strawman paying off the Teel loan. For those who have been living in a cave, Scruggs is doing seven years in prison for his role in bribing two other judges.

The hypocrisy of the Minor defense is really other-worldly. In fact, it seems like Eastland's letter to get Owen to step aside may be a sign that they're giving up early. On one hand, Minor asks us to believe that Judge Owen can't be impartial because she knows Karl Rove. On the other, he says that Teel and Whitfield could totally divorce the fact that Minor had them on a string and just coincidentally found for millions of dollars for Minor's clients without disclosing the relationships to the defendants. This logic is truly something to behold. Minor's best and maybe only hope is to pray that enough pressure can build so that Prez-O gives him a commutation or full pardon.

Maybe Minor gets off in Austin. Candidly, having done the research, I seriously doubt it. The facts remain what they are. Though Minor's appeal team (and their willing accomplices in the new media) can shade this as business as usual, this is another opportunity for the Feds to clean up Mississippi's judicial bribery mess by keeping one of its greatest offenders behind bars. Hopefully, the judges on the 5th circuit won't forget about Minor's little blue dresses.

Posted March 31, 2009 - 1:03 pm
20 Comments:

I have to say that I’m pretty proud of this post.

Posted by Alan on 03-31-2009 at 03:55 PM [link]

As always, it is definitely a good post.  I’m sorry I haven’t commended you earlier.

If we can get Stiffy to start arguing about it, it’ll be even better.

Posted by jdaviscovington on 03-31-2009 at 04:00 PM [link]

Fortunately, Alexandrovna puts all the nuttiness in one convenient post on her own blog.

Posted by Alan on 03-31-2009 at 04:32 PM [link]

Good post, Alan.  Don Siegman, former AL gov, has also been using the “Karl Rove framed me” argument on appeal and so far he has been unsuccessful.  I hope Minor’s appeal is also unsuccessful.

Posted by Stiff Pigeon on 03-31-2009 at 04:40 PM [link]

Good job, Alan.  Appreciate the time it took to pull everything.  In refreshing my memory on the 05 and 07 cases, I came across this stuff. 

-Federal prosecutors in the judicial bribery retrial of a Gulf Coast trial lawyer and two former judges could wrap up their case next week with key witnesses Dickie Scruggs and Leonard Radlauer.  Scruggs was not called to testify during the first trial, although he testified before the grand jury that returned the indictments (Clarion Ledger, 03/10/07)

-Sweet (Minor’s attorney) said, “He helped people in the community and he helped his friends.” Friends--well, that use to mean one thing but it sure does have a different definition now…

-From Sun Herald’s “Tidbits aplenty in trial’s first week” 06/13/05:  “Minor felt Scruggs should pay off the loan, according to Minor’s attorney, who offered the following explanation: In April 1996, Minor wrote Scruggs a letter about a loan Minor had guaranteed for Steve Patterson, former state auditor, in his 1995 election campaign. In the letter, Minor, who earned millions alongside Scruggs from personal injury cases, even included in the letter a joke about a bad stock tip: ‘Enclosed is a letter from Trustmark (Bank) demanding payment from me on the note that I guaranteed on Steve Patterson in which you said I would not have to pay. I realize you have been looking for an opportunity to retaliate for my recommendation on Copytel stocks, but this is not funny. Seriously, do you know whether Steve Patterson has raised any money and can retire this note or are we stuck with it?” Caught my eye because of all people, Patterson was in there.

-"Patterson, reached by telephone Friday, recalled that Minor had paid off a $20,000 loan for him. Scruggs, also contacted by telephone at his current office in Oxford, said he paid off Teel’s loan because Minor asked him to, but he knew nothing about the loan to Patterson. ‘That’s a new one on me,’ Scruggs said. ‘There’s an old saying in law: ‘If they’ve got the goods on you, you’ve got to say something.’ “

-“Scruggs’ office manager, Charlene Bosarge, testified earlier in the week that she didn’t know whether Minor and Scruggs discussed the Teel loan, but Minor sent her a check a month later to reimburse Scruggs. ‘I don’t ask questions,’ Bosarge testified. ‘I don’t ever say, ‘What are you doing this for?’ Bosarge testified that Minor also included in the check $5,767.80 to cover costs Scruggs had expensed for a personal trip they took to New Zealand, along with former Attorney General Mike Moore.”

-“….including statements from a Virginia attorney who said he got the ‘Mississippi shakedown’ when Minor demanded he hand over $25,000.”

Either Ruth Morgan or Kimberly Mitchell (I think) had questioned in court---if there’s nothing to hide, then why the checks to be cashed--she went on to talk about writing a check to cash, going to the bank to cash it, and moving the cash.  If nothing to hide, why go to all that trouble.

Posted by Just Me on 03-31-2009 at 05:04 PM [link]

Great post. It should be noted that while Lampton and Starrett have longtime personal and professional connections, Lampton could not have done too much campaigning for Starrett in 2000 because he was at the time himself running for Congress against Ronnie Shows.

Posted by josepacheco on 03-31-2009 at 06:50 PM [link]

I’m so disappointed that Stiff agrees with us.  What am I supposed to do all day?

Posted by jdaviscovington on 04-01-2009 at 08:05 AM [link]

Update from Sun Herald:
http://www.sunherald.com/newsupdates/story/1244809.html

“It went really well this morning,” said Greenwood attorney Hiram Eastland from Austin, who also worked on the appeal of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. “We were really encouraged that the panel asked thoughtful questions regarding the issue of required quid pro quo.”

Judge Owen recused herself and was replaced by “a democratic appointee”

Lowell also asked for Minor to be released pending a decision on his appeal.

Posted by Just Me on 04-01-2009 at 01:41 PM [link]

Karl Rove was truly amazing.  He must have had nothing to do in the Bush Administration but try to retaliate against Democratic fund raisers.  No, wait...he was busy going after the children of writers who took pot shots at Republicans; no, that’s not it...he was after all those big, big influential Democrats all across the country and naturally focused on Paul Minor, who else?  But what happens if Dickie, now in Oxford helping to formulate the truth before the Grand Jury, is asked by the Feds to tell what he knows about Minor’s campaign loans(see bribes) to his friends, which by the way, just happen to be three judges he thought he could enhance their deep, lasting friendship and therefy win all his cases in their courts and then Dickie, for whatever reason, like maybe they are going to send his son back to prison instead of the half-way house for the next 12 months so what if Dickie is angry at Minor for trying to suck him into Minor’s conviction and add more time to his seven years, then Dickie, being already familiar with prison, decides to tell the truth about Minor’s bribery efforts?  Or in other words, what happens if in the appeal efforts the real truth is told?

Posted by catty on 04-01-2009 at 02:49 PM [link]

Alan,

I agree with a few of your points. Mainly taht they current soon to be former sytem stinks. But if I grant you are soley correct will you grant me this:

That every lawyer ( or law firm Republican or Democrat) that has ever had a case where they had a personal or financial relationship that was not disclosed to the other parties and then previaled should also be indicted. Since I am the only lawyer to ever do this and ask for this information, at the least at the appellant level, (which I was denied btw by a judge whose father n law had an undisclosed interest in the case) Hell, I may be the only lawyer left in the whole damn state. (I have the motion and the order btw).

I would like to give you the list of the 1500 attorneys in that single case that need to report to jail. No only was I not allowed to inquire about their realtionships, despite a court rule mandating taht, I was prohibited from finding out any info about their clients, and mocked for requesting it.

I agree it was wrong to to disclose but nobody did it. Nobody, but me anyway. (The bar is fixing this by the way, I think finally.)

(It a great twist of irony the lead lawyer that refused to provide this info to me, was the Defense attorney in the People Bank case, who actually testfied for Minor at the trial.)

It is called selective proscetion, and they should have been able to argue it to the jury in my humble opinion. Would it have mattered, maybe not, but it is required in a fair system.

Also, I really have a problem with Rove, or any political operative taking a personal involvement in this or any case and the fact that he meet with Dunn 4 or 5 times about it really bothers me, as it should everyone. Because the cold hard truth is if the Feds want you they can get you or at least force you into bankruptcy. Ask Gerald Blessy.

As I tell my rich Republican buddies that scoff at this point and claim to be Jesus suddenly. You sign a tax return, don’t ye. Did you really understand everything you did on that return . Does anybody really understand all that tax law, say the son the CPA MBA LLM? They could alsway make you a test case. Maybe Obama as a diffrent take on it now and they aRE LOOKING BACK AT THOSE 2006 RETURNS.

The truth is he is entitled to a fair trial. No matter what party he belongs too or what a SOB he is or what he did. Did he get it? I am not sure. His guilt or innocence is also not relevant under our system. 

I believe in and trust our jury sytem unlike so many on your site. Thye usually though not always get it right. But the innocence project has shown us by scientific method they miss it sometimes. I think they got it right based upon the evidence in this case. I am just not sure that Judge Wingate got it right.

Did he get a fair trail, everything else is irrelevent or it will truly be injustice for all........

so sayth the Republican trial lawyer

Alan, Keep up the good work, the more people know the better off we all are…

Posted by injustice4yall on 04-02-2009 at 10:26 AM [link]

Let’s look at this logically.  First, if the fact pattern of loans to judges, venue shopping, favorable results, and then fraudulently hiding/not disclosing the financial trail of those transactions are correct (and I have still not heard one SINGLE person say that it isn’t), then it’s not selective prosecution.  I guess all prosecution at some point is selective, but there’s a different between selective and unreasonable.  This was not unreasonable.

Second, I think the Rove thing is out the window.  No one has provided any evidence.  Eastland may have gotten the worst thing you can get in life . . . which is exactly what you ask for.  By having Owen step aside, that neuters their argument of the Karl Rove conspiracy politically.  Minor got a fair shake from three fair court of appeals jurists.

Third, I, like you, believe in juries.  They may not be perfect, but it’s the best system in the world.  We’ve got to respect that a properly selected jury (which no one is contesting in this case) looked at the evidence (which doesn’t seem to be in doubt), came to the conclusion that laws were clearly broken and found them guilty.

End of story.

Posted by Alan on 04-02-2009 at 11:18 AM [link]

From the link posted above:

The only hope for Mr. Minor after this ruling was to get a furlough from the BOP. He was notified in the last few days that it was time for him to come say his goodbyes to Mrs. Minor, his wife of 40 years.  The end is near. The BOP, the warden, all involved signed off to give him a 3 day furlough to see his wife and be with her.

In the last 48 hours, the DOJ stepped in and said no. But after some negotiations, he was given 3 hours tomorrow to see his wife in the company of 3-4 armed escorts who will be in the hospice room with him during this private and difficult moment.

Why in the WORLD did the DOJ step in say no to a 3 day furlough and now have him visit his dying wife for the last time with 3-4 ARMED guards for only 3 hours!?  Are they afraid he might kill her or something?  Geez, if that is not personal, I don’t know what is.  Justice is supposed to be blind.  Everyone should sit up and take notice.  If you approve of this, you can’t be sure that it will turn on you one day.

Posted by aspen on 04-02-2009 at 02:18 PM [link]

Paul Minor is a flight risk.  He has millions stashed away, and access to many private planes, including jets.  I don’t believe for a second that he would hesitate at all to get out of the country by any means possible.  I’ve know Paul personally and professionally for many, many years, and used to count him among my friends.  But the money went to Paul’s head, I think.  Anyone who was on the Coast and involved in litigation during the events that culminated in Paul’s indictment will confirm that there was deep, deep suspicion that Paul had certain judges in his hip pocket.  The evidence seems to have borne that out, at least the jury thought so.

Posted by GulfCoastCrab on 04-02-2009 at 03:08 PM [link]

You mean under the current totally controlled Democratic administration....an organization for which Minor believes he was a major fund raiser...that the Democratic Justice Department turned his 3- day furlough into 3 hours? Well, here is a cold-hearted fact: Most convicted felons never even get 3 hours to visit a dying wife, mother, etc. And perhaps it is Minor’s past disrespect for all rules and regulations when he was indicted and again while under house arrest and wearing an ankle bracelet (which he chose to ignore and traveled outside the confines of the prescribed area) awaiting his second trial that caused someone to yank the chain on review of his past behavior.  My point: When you stick your finger in the tiger’s eye you can’t expect him to purr for you! The cold, cruel heart belongs to Minor, not the BOP or DOJ.

Posted by catty on 04-02-2009 at 04:32 PM [link]

Lowell’s oral argument, no pun intended. h/t Monica
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgumentRecordings.aspx

Posted by ShavesWithAOccamsRazor on 04-02-2009 at 09:19 PM [link]

Whoops, wrong file on the Minor (Whitfield) casehttp://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/07/07-60748_4-1-2009.wma

Posted by ShavesWithAOccamsRazor on 04-02-2009 at 09:22 PM [link]

Agreed, Catty.  Belle, it’s the Obama Justice Department now and the Obama BOP and has been since the 20th of January.  It’s your show, baby.  Paul Minor’s unfair treatment is in your hands.

By the way, most people who watch this closely agree that EVEN IF the local US Attorneys office tried to get involved with telling BOP what to do re: Minor, it probably wouldn’t have any more of an affect than you or me calling.  BOP is it’s own deal.  Judges can’t place people in a particular prison.  They can only suggest it to BOP.

Posted by Alan on 04-03-2009 at 05:16 AM [link]

Well Catty, here’s a cold hard fact to counter your “democrats give Minor 3 hours with a dying wife” portrayal as ‘soft on criminals’.  How about your Gov Barbour giving a convicted murderer more than a 3 hour pass - he gave him a full pardon!  Turned him back out into the public.  Thumbed his nose at the victims.  Then, he follows that up with a furlough for a convicted brutal rapist so the convict can visit his family in Louisiana for several weeks. 
Now which case is soft on crime.... no contest! Barbour deserves the ‘Willie Horton’ award. 
Alan, I assume you were only agreeing with the second part of Catty’s post.

Posted by Stiff Pigeon on 04-03-2009 at 08:14 AM [link]

YES! Now that Stiffy is in a posting mood I know what to do today.

Stiffy: why is it you constantly change the subject?  Seriously, what’s your deal.  Are you bored since y’all gave up on Cottonmouth?

Posted by jdaviscovington on 04-03-2009 at 08:47 AM [link]

http://overlawyered.com/2009/03/rfk-jr-defends-paul-minor/

Over the years we’ve traced some of the shifting theories by which it’s been argued that once-prominent attorney Paul Minor was railroaded and didn’t really deserve conviction in that seedy Mississippi cash-for-judges scandal. Now America’s Most Irresponsible Public Figure®, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has started banging his bowl in Minor’s cause, prompting Alan Lange to do what Kennedy does not do, namely provide supporting documents and links by which the interested reader can check out the actual details of the Minor-Whitfield-Teel scandals rather than taking someone’s word for it.

P.S. Tom Freeland analyzes the legal issues in the Minor oral argument, and follows up.

Posted by Just Me on 04-03-2009 at 02:00 PM [link]
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. And yes, you can still keep your identity anonymous. See the instructions on the registration page.
recent comments

©2005-2010 Jackson New Media, Inc. All rights reserved.