Over the past several weeks, Troy King has tried his hardest to get his name in the news, and not just any news--the national news. By now, a lot of us have heard about his big conversation on NBC about the Gabe Watson case. Kudos to Troy for getting his own way to visit the Big Apple; I guess he could take off from fighting crime in Alabama today.
Of course, Troy King made some other national news this week, this time coming from Washington. The Washington Times had an interesting editorial today on the impact of trial lawyers in Alabama politics. You can read the story here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/20/alabama-clips-trial-lawyers/
This, frankly, is yet another sad story in the long set of stories about these private contracts. In case you're not familiar with my posts on the subject, here is the gist of the problem. A state is wronged by a particular corporation, and they decide to sue the corporation for damages. Well, this has become increasingly common. Conservatives have long opposed this, because it means in many cases that the government is actively trying to sue private corporations, and it can lead to excessive lawsuits. Basically, if I'm a poor state with a budget shortage, what better way to gain needed funds than by taking on a private business? The AG's office can then sue, and they can choose to have some of their own attorneys handle the case, or they can hand the case off to private attorneys who take on the case for a share of the winnings. Troy King has done this on Medicaid fraud in Alabama.
The problem is that this has NEVER ended well, when these private attorneys have been used. Let's face it--the AG is a LEGAL officer, meaning that he has clear ties to the LEGAL community. That community can contribute funds to his campaign in order for state business. This has caused problems in Georgia, West Virginia, New York, and a handful of other states which have applied it. Now, Alabama joins the crowd. It has also been criticized by conservative scholars at the Federalist Society as well as Judge Bill Pryor, a former GOP Alabama AG.
Troy, unfortunately, has failed on both counts. First, it appears that his lawsuits have been excessive, tackling private industry in an economic crisis in an attempt to put money in the state general fund. At least, that's what the Alabama Supreme Court (a pretty darn conservative body) thought when they ruled 8-1 to dismiss hundreds of millions of dollars in jury verdicts. Additionally, Troy King has given these contracts to liberal trial lawyers who supported his campaign. In return, the liberal trial lawyers get lucrative contracts worth millions of dollars.
The Times story tries to track Troy King's contributions, but they are shady, in part due to Alabama Political Action Committee law. Basically, I can choose to give to a candidate as an individual or through a political action committee. As an individual, I go on the record, and anyone can see who I am. However, PACs are much shadier, because members donate funds to remain anonymous. In Alabama, actually, it's an all-out shell game. If I am a rich trial lawyer, I would give my money to a PAC, which would then give money to another PAC, and then another, and finally another PAC would then get the money and cut a check to the AG. By this time, the money is almost impossible to trace.
I've looked at some of Troy King's contributions, and there are certainly some interesting correlations. For instance, in late September 2006, Beasley-Allen law firm wrote two checks totaling either $4900 or $5000 (depending on how you read the sloppy handwriting on the documents) to the Free Enterprise PAC. Less than two weeks later, King's campaign received a $5000 contribution from that PAC. Another example is the Home Care PAC. On October 4, Beasley Allen contributed $10,500 to the PAC. Just over a week later, Troy King received a $7500 donation from the PAC. Over the course of a campaign, many candidates receive literally hundreds of PAC contributions, and it is difficult to track them on. However, as the story points out, there are some very interesting correlations.
Kudos to the Times for looking into this issue.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Troy King and Victims: Justice for Desta
As y'all know, I have criticized Troy King for his positions on victims rights. For those who may not remember my claim, it is a simple one. I have argued that by focusing on particular victims and particular cases which are high-profile and sure to generate media attention, he actually does very little to solve the systemic problems which actually hurt victims. There are many victims of many crimes each year, and it is impossible to personally know them all. However, those in elected office ought to work to solve difficult cases and bring violators to justice.
Well, last week I stumbled on an interesting blog, which you can also visit. It's http://justicefordesta.org, and it is devoted to Desta Dodson-Byrd of Brierfield, Alabama, who was killed on February 25, 1999. Over ten years later, no one has been brought to justice, even though there apparently is a suspect in the case.
The blog published a letter to Troy King on October 2 after his big trip to New York to talk about the Gabe Watson Australia case. The entire letter is worth a read, but I found these paragraphs particularly compelling:
"Mr. King, it's really simple. Yes, it's sad that Watson was so lightly punished, but he was, in fact, punished. And it was done by the authorities who have obvious jurisdiction. You don't have jurisdiction. Not over the Watson case anyway.
Well, last week I stumbled on an interesting blog, which you can also visit. It's http://justicefordesta.org, and it is devoted to Desta Dodson-Byrd of Brierfield, Alabama, who was killed on February 25, 1999. Over ten years later, no one has been brought to justice, even though there apparently is a suspect in the case.
The blog published a letter to Troy King on October 2 after his big trip to New York to talk about the Gabe Watson Australia case. The entire letter is worth a read, but I found these paragraphs particularly compelling:
"Mr. King, it's really simple. Yes, it's sad that Watson was so lightly punished, but he was, in fact, punished. And it was done by the authorities who have obvious jurisdiction. You don't have jurisdiction. Not over the Watson case anyway.
But Desta, she was murdered in your fair state, our fair state. And when you were approached just a few months back by people pleading for you to do something, anything, to help find justice for Desta, you didn't even muster up the polite lip-service they'd expected to get from you. Perhaps justice or your concern for it is only for the tv cameras, or maybe there has to be a trip to the big city, the really big city, before you can be too very concerned."
I think these folks understand the situation. There are problems in this state which make it hard for victims of crime to see offenders brought to justice, and those problems should be solved. Perhaps we need more investigators, or we need more crime-fighting technology. These are legitimate priorities, and any AG should make certain that these things are provided for. King, on the other hand, has simply gone to the press conferences and done the tv interviews. Anyone can stand in a suit at a press conference. It takes a true leader, on the other hand, to fight the crime. It's a shame that Troy King has been willing to do the press conferences, without becoming a true leader.
Monday Update: Nancy Worley, Ctd...
I was almost shocked at the irony that in the same week I write that Nancy Worley's case has disappeared from the state political scene, she up and reappears. The AP reported from Montgomery last week that a panel of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals could not agree on the validity of the felony charges pressed by King. Although we don't know how the judges actually split, three judges have to agree, and the three reviewing the issue were not unanimous.
So, what is the problem with this picture? As The Huntsville Times noted in the piece I cited last week, Worley would have had to answer for the corruption charges had King pursued the misdemeanor charges after the felony charges were thrown out. However, he continues a foolhardy attempt to get his felony charges reinstated, only to have a court leave them out...two years later.
This is the problem with our AG. A true conservative AG would be devoted to two principles--he would focus on ending corruption and getting results. The two principles are very closely related, and unfortunately, Troy King can talk about corruption all he wants out on the trail. He just hasn't gotten the results.
So, what is the problem with this picture? As The Huntsville Times noted in the piece I cited last week, Worley would have had to answer for the corruption charges had King pursued the misdemeanor charges after the felony charges were thrown out. However, he continues a foolhardy attempt to get his felony charges reinstated, only to have a court leave them out...two years later.
This is the problem with our AG. A true conservative AG would be devoted to two principles--he would focus on ending corruption and getting results. The two principles are very closely related, and unfortunately, Troy King can talk about corruption all he wants out on the trail. He just hasn't gotten the results.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Ouch! Troy King Lawsuits Exposed
By now, those familiar with the AG campaign have heard it a million times. Troy King is a taxpayer hero for hiring big-time private trial lawyers and rewarding them with lavish contracts in order to sue pharmaceutical companies for Medicaid fraud. King has repeatedly trumpeted this action in press releases and attacked conservatives who have criticized this process.
Well, for someone who prides themselves on supporting conservative judges and principles, it must have been a bit of a shock to Troy King to see more than $274 million in these verdicts thrown out by the predominately-conservative Alabama Supreme Court last week. The vote was not even close, as the Court voted 8-1 to throw out the verdicts. This has to be a bit of a rebuke, both of King's conservative principles and for his decision to hire private trial lawyers altogether.
To the first point, King repeatedly prides himself as a conservative. He has trumpeted his support for conservative judges, and he has repeatedly refused to take actions which are arguably constitution and would benefit the state (enforcing gambling laws, ending the process of sheriffs pocketing money for prisoner meals, etc.) because it would supposedly overthrow his legitimate authority. He has regularly said that his role as AG is not to make law, but to enforce it. Some of this may be true enough, but either way, an 8-1 decision against King by the state's highest Court also calls his existing policies into question.
Conservatives have criticized state AGs who have hired private attorneys to engage in these sorts of lawsuits. Now, it appears that this was all for naught.
It's interesting, because this was one of the big reasons Troy King said we should re-elect him in 2010. He has repeatedly trumpeted his work to get this money into the state's General Fund. Now, it appears that this has fallen by the wayside, as well. We're still 8 months out from a primary, and already Troy King is running short on any reasons to send him back to Montgomery in 2010.
Well, for someone who prides themselves on supporting conservative judges and principles, it must have been a bit of a shock to Troy King to see more than $274 million in these verdicts thrown out by the predominately-conservative Alabama Supreme Court last week. The vote was not even close, as the Court voted 8-1 to throw out the verdicts. This has to be a bit of a rebuke, both of King's conservative principles and for his decision to hire private trial lawyers altogether.
To the first point, King repeatedly prides himself as a conservative. He has trumpeted his support for conservative judges, and he has repeatedly refused to take actions which are arguably constitution and would benefit the state (enforcing gambling laws, ending the process of sheriffs pocketing money for prisoner meals, etc.) because it would supposedly overthrow his legitimate authority. He has regularly said that his role as AG is not to make law, but to enforce it. Some of this may be true enough, but either way, an 8-1 decision against King by the state's highest Court also calls his existing policies into question.
Conservatives have criticized state AGs who have hired private attorneys to engage in these sorts of lawsuits. Now, it appears that this was all for naught.
It's interesting, because this was one of the big reasons Troy King said we should re-elect him in 2010. He has repeatedly trumpeted his work to get this money into the state's General Fund. Now, it appears that this has fallen by the wayside, as well. We're still 8 months out from a primary, and already Troy King is running short on any reasons to send him back to Montgomery in 2010.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Whatever happened to Nancy Worley?
Do you remember Nancy Worley? I do. She was Alabama's Secretary of State who left office embroiled in controversy. A Democrat, she never had any love lost for Troy King, describing him as a malicious political prosecutor. To his credit, Troy King went after Worley aggressively, pursuing 5 felony and 5 misdemeanor cases.
However, where is Nancy Worley now? Well, I did some checking up on things, and it seems that after she was indicted, nothing else really happened. The case just went away once the media went away. I found an interesting editorial in the Huntsville Times from September 23, 2007, criticizing Troy King's actions. Troy King decided to push forward on five felony charges, which were thrown out by a judge. Instead of pursuing the case on misdemeanor charges, he tried to get the felony charges reinstated. First indicted in March 2007, she has since disappeared from the radar screen.
This problem speaks volumes about Troy King's time as Attorney General. He goes for glitzy charges which get people's attention, but he then fails to prove them and lets criminals get away. I remember Nancy Worley's campaign activities from her office, and it is this type of corruption which tarnishes the name of Alabama politics. However, instead of following through and getting her convicted, Troy King instead has let the case fall through the cracks over time. I did some research and could find no progress reports since the 2007 indictment.
I don't know about you, but I want an AG who resolves the problem this state faces instead of simply talking about them, then moving on to whatever issue the media decides to cover next. There is a difference, in my view, between a politician and a leader. The politician follows the media cycle, but the leader makes the media follow him. We elected a politician in 2006--I sure hope we can send him packing in 2010.
However, where is Nancy Worley now? Well, I did some checking up on things, and it seems that after she was indicted, nothing else really happened. The case just went away once the media went away. I found an interesting editorial in the Huntsville Times from September 23, 2007, criticizing Troy King's actions. Troy King decided to push forward on five felony charges, which were thrown out by a judge. Instead of pursuing the case on misdemeanor charges, he tried to get the felony charges reinstated. First indicted in March 2007, she has since disappeared from the radar screen.
This problem speaks volumes about Troy King's time as Attorney General. He goes for glitzy charges which get people's attention, but he then fails to prove them and lets criminals get away. I remember Nancy Worley's campaign activities from her office, and it is this type of corruption which tarnishes the name of Alabama politics. However, instead of following through and getting her convicted, Troy King instead has let the case fall through the cracks over time. I did some research and could find no progress reports since the 2007 indictment.
I don't know about you, but I want an AG who resolves the problem this state faces instead of simply talking about them, then moving on to whatever issue the media decides to cover next. There is a difference, in my view, between a politician and a leader. The politician follows the media cycle, but the leader makes the media follow him. We elected a politician in 2006--I sure hope we can send him packing in 2010.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
A Lawsuit, by Any Other Name...
Wow, this must just be the week of hypocrisy in Alabama. As we all know, Troy King has been touting all his lawsuit work recently. Apparently, all these drug lawsuits are going to solve all of Alabama's fiscal woes. Either way, Troy King has been in the news, with his fancy private attorneys, suing the drug companies which defrauded the state. Now, though, Troy King doesn't want local DAs to have a chance to sue pharmaceutical companies for wrongdoing.
The AP wire reported this week, which was quickly picked up by other sources, that Troy King was attempting to block five lawsuits which he called "meritless" against Pharmacy chains. So, here's the issue. According to the lawsuits, CVS, Rite Aid, Wal-Mart, and Walgreen would sometimes fill prescriptions with generic drugs if doctors didn't explicitly specify something. Well, DAs filed suit in Tallapoosa, Colbert, Wilcox, Autauga, and Jefferson Counties, claiming that this violates the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
One of the attorneys involved said: "The consumers are victims of an unfortunate turf war." Were it up to me, I'd say that consumers are more caught in an action of political double-speak. Here's the issue--I don't actually know who is right in this case, but I know that Troy King is talking double-speak when it comes to lawsuits. Troy King has had no problem hiring his own private attorneys to sue private corporations for wrong-doing, even when those actions are criticized by respected conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation. However, when local DAs see a similar need to strike out for consumers who may have been violated, Troy King steps in. This appears to be a move to get the business community back on Troy King's side as he heads into an election year in 2010.
Voters need to stop these shenanigans now and force Troy King's hand. He shouldn't be able to continue shifting his position, suing private enterprise when it suits his interests and stopping others from doing so when it serves his interest. Having principle can be defined as a willingness to respect morals and values (typically these go beyond self-interest and force principled individuals to make tough choices). When it comes to Troy King, it seems that his only principle is self-interest. This is NOT what the voters of Alabama need and deserve.
The AP wire reported this week, which was quickly picked up by other sources, that Troy King was attempting to block five lawsuits which he called "meritless" against Pharmacy chains. So, here's the issue. According to the lawsuits, CVS, Rite Aid, Wal-Mart, and Walgreen would sometimes fill prescriptions with generic drugs if doctors didn't explicitly specify something. Well, DAs filed suit in Tallapoosa, Colbert, Wilcox, Autauga, and Jefferson Counties, claiming that this violates the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
One of the attorneys involved said: "The consumers are victims of an unfortunate turf war." Were it up to me, I'd say that consumers are more caught in an action of political double-speak. Here's the issue--I don't actually know who is right in this case, but I know that Troy King is talking double-speak when it comes to lawsuits. Troy King has had no problem hiring his own private attorneys to sue private corporations for wrong-doing, even when those actions are criticized by respected conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation. However, when local DAs see a similar need to strike out for consumers who may have been violated, Troy King steps in. This appears to be a move to get the business community back on Troy King's side as he heads into an election year in 2010.
Voters need to stop these shenanigans now and force Troy King's hand. He shouldn't be able to continue shifting his position, suing private enterprise when it suits his interests and stopping others from doing so when it serves his interest. Having principle can be defined as a willingness to respect morals and values (typically these go beyond self-interest and force principled individuals to make tough choices). When it comes to Troy King, it seems that his only principle is self-interest. This is NOT what the voters of Alabama need and deserve.
You Scratch My Back...I'll Scratch Yours...
I've written a good bit before in this blog about Jere Beasley, the trial lawyer kingpin in Montgomery. However, I've also tried to make it clear that he's more than just a trial lawyer--he is a liberal trial lawyer. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with being liberal, but if you're a conservative, that generally means that you don't support the same folks liberals do.
Now, how do we know that Jere Beasley is a liberal? Well, to begin with, he is chairing Artur Davis' campaign for Governor as a Democrat. Davis has a rather liberal record as a Congressman and was a critical supporter of President Obama's. To put this in perspective, Jere Beasley is chairing the campaign for a man who got to watch the Super Bowl this past year with Mr. Obama. Mr. Beasley also has some pretty liberal opinions. In his "Jere Beasley" report blog he said that liberal Sen. Ted Kennedy "left a tremendous legacy" and said "Congress must stand with Obama on health care." I could go on, but in the interests of space, I'll stop there.
Well then, what are we to make of Jere Beasley's interesting post this week offering a favorable review of AG Troy King? He begins his post taking a few shots at AG King's opponent--Birmingham lawyer Luther Strange--and he then goes on to offer positive comments on King. He cites polls which claim that "Troy has done an outstanding job as Attorney General and deserves to be reelected." He continues: "I don't believe Troy should sit back and run a defensive campaign this time. he has a good record and it's one that folks around the state seem to like. "
This post is extremely interesting for several reasons. First, it demonstratse Troy King's support from a prominent liberal. Here is a man in Jere Beasley who supports Democrats and has always supported Democrats, but he goes to the trouble in his "Report" to take the time to compliment Troy King. This should call Troy King's "conservative credentials" seriously into question, and it makes his regular criticisms of President Obama ring hollow when he is praised by someone with such liberal connections. Furthermore, it makes you wonder why Troy King is getting such praise from a prominent Alabama trial lawyer. Perhaps it's because Beasley-Allen is getting lots of money from their state work on the recent drug lawsuits and is getting up to 14% of the winnings, plus expenses. If I were making that kind of money, I'd be willing to write some pretty positive stuff, too.
I really believe this post continues to underscore the ongoing problem in Alabama politics--an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" approach is always the mentality, and it ends up just being a shell game to confuse the voters. Posts like these should start to get voters to ask real questions about the basis of Troy King's support.
Perhaps Troy King truly is a liberal heart--if he is, he needs to just admit it and run as a Democrat. Maybe he can get Jere Beasley to chair HIS campaign as well, at that rate.
Now, how do we know that Jere Beasley is a liberal? Well, to begin with, he is chairing Artur Davis' campaign for Governor as a Democrat. Davis has a rather liberal record as a Congressman and was a critical supporter of President Obama's. To put this in perspective, Jere Beasley is chairing the campaign for a man who got to watch the Super Bowl this past year with Mr. Obama. Mr. Beasley also has some pretty liberal opinions. In his "Jere Beasley" report blog he said that liberal Sen. Ted Kennedy "left a tremendous legacy" and said "Congress must stand with Obama on health care." I could go on, but in the interests of space, I'll stop there.
Well then, what are we to make of Jere Beasley's interesting post this week offering a favorable review of AG Troy King? He begins his post taking a few shots at AG King's opponent--Birmingham lawyer Luther Strange--and he then goes on to offer positive comments on King. He cites polls which claim that "Troy has done an outstanding job as Attorney General and deserves to be reelected." He continues: "I don't believe Troy should sit back and run a defensive campaign this time. he has a good record and it's one that folks around the state seem to like. "
This post is extremely interesting for several reasons. First, it demonstratse Troy King's support from a prominent liberal. Here is a man in Jere Beasley who supports Democrats and has always supported Democrats, but he goes to the trouble in his "Report" to take the time to compliment Troy King. This should call Troy King's "conservative credentials" seriously into question, and it makes his regular criticisms of President Obama ring hollow when he is praised by someone with such liberal connections. Furthermore, it makes you wonder why Troy King is getting such praise from a prominent Alabama trial lawyer. Perhaps it's because Beasley-Allen is getting lots of money from their state work on the recent drug lawsuits and is getting up to 14% of the winnings, plus expenses. If I were making that kind of money, I'd be willing to write some pretty positive stuff, too.
I really believe this post continues to underscore the ongoing problem in Alabama politics--an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" approach is always the mentality, and it ends up just being a shell game to confuse the voters. Posts like these should start to get voters to ask real questions about the basis of Troy King's support.
Perhaps Troy King truly is a liberal heart--if he is, he needs to just admit it and run as a Democrat. Maybe he can get Jere Beasley to chair HIS campaign as well, at that rate.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Troy King on Crime
Troy King got a lot of attention this past week when he traveled to New York and went on the Today Show to discuss charging that now infamous Alabama man who murdered his wife in Australia with a capital crime in Alabama. First, let me say that I have been really outraged by this case, and I really applauded King sending a letter to Australia criticizing the decision. I would also point out that the decision was criticized almost as fervently in Australia as it was in the United States. This man has definitely escaped justice.
Unfortunately, I think we all know the story here. Jurisdictional rules apply, and this man will not be able to be charged with murder in the state of Alabama. It's a media ploy, although a very smart one, and it gives the victim's families false hope. So, let me be clear--justice was not done in this case, and it is a tragic failure. However, attempting to try this case in Alabama is nothing more than a media ploy on the part of Troy King, and it unfortunately masks broader problems about crime in Alabama.
When I heard about Troy King's decision in this case, my first response was to do a little digging on crime in Alabama itself. Before Troy King tries to bring people to justice for crimes committed in other countries, perhaps he should make sure we are doing everything possible to solve the crimes committed here in Alabama. Well, I looked up some stats from the Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center and found some really interesting things. First, the number of offenses is on the rise in Alabama. Overall criminal offenses increased 6% in 2007 and 4% in 2008. Violent crimes are on the rise as well. In 2008, there were 20,446 offenses in Alabama, up 3% from 2007. Now, that's a lot of crime. There were also 342 homicides in Alabama and 1524 cases of rape. There is another statistic, too, and that is clearance. "Clearance" is a term used to mean that there is enough evidence for an individual to be charged with a crime, and the crime is "solved." In Alabama, there were 37,525 clearance in 2008, but the rate was just 19%, meaning that some 81% of crimes didn't end with folks being charged. There was a clearance rate in 2008 of 67% for murders, which is good, but that still means that 33% of all murders in 2008 still have criminals out there getting by. Meanwhile, the clearance rate for rape was just 36%, robbery was just 32%, and burglary was actually just 11%.
I know these statistics are long, but I point them out to point out this--there are a whole lot of problems with crime right here in Alabama which need to be addressed. Our law enforcement officers are doing all they can, but they always need more support. AG King always pledges to stand for the victim, but this is why I criticize Troy King on the issue of victims.
Here is the fundamental problem--Troy King always stands with particular victims, but he never stands up with all the victims. Troy King takes a particular case, becomes interested, and these cases often happen to be the same cases that have attention in the media. He discusses that case, but he eventually moves on with the case unresolved. Let's face it--this man will not be convicted in Alabama, and the ludicrous Australia verdict will stand. The cameras will move on, and the focus will be elsewhere. Our focus as voters will be elsewhere, too.
Well, I am here to remind voters that there are crimes, every day, happening in Alabama, which need to be solved. Instead of solving them, Troy King is flying to New York and basking in the limelight. I like visiting New York--it's a fun city, and there always seems to be a tv camera in every corner. At the end of the day, though, someone needs to remind Troy King that there are real crimes, right here in Alabama, which need to be solved. That's what he was elected to do--to support our law enforcement and ultimately guarantee that justice is done for the people of Alabama. It looks like we still have some work to do, and I'm just not convinced that Troy King is up to the task. When he starts looking at the statistics, and the real problems, instead of a smattering of individual cases chosen to garner media attention, perhaps then I will start to believe.
Unfortunately, I think we all know the story here. Jurisdictional rules apply, and this man will not be able to be charged with murder in the state of Alabama. It's a media ploy, although a very smart one, and it gives the victim's families false hope. So, let me be clear--justice was not done in this case, and it is a tragic failure. However, attempting to try this case in Alabama is nothing more than a media ploy on the part of Troy King, and it unfortunately masks broader problems about crime in Alabama.
When I heard about Troy King's decision in this case, my first response was to do a little digging on crime in Alabama itself. Before Troy King tries to bring people to justice for crimes committed in other countries, perhaps he should make sure we are doing everything possible to solve the crimes committed here in Alabama. Well, I looked up some stats from the Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center and found some really interesting things. First, the number of offenses is on the rise in Alabama. Overall criminal offenses increased 6% in 2007 and 4% in 2008. Violent crimes are on the rise as well. In 2008, there were 20,446 offenses in Alabama, up 3% from 2007. Now, that's a lot of crime. There were also 342 homicides in Alabama and 1524 cases of rape. There is another statistic, too, and that is clearance. "Clearance" is a term used to mean that there is enough evidence for an individual to be charged with a crime, and the crime is "solved." In Alabama, there were 37,525 clearance in 2008, but the rate was just 19%, meaning that some 81% of crimes didn't end with folks being charged. There was a clearance rate in 2008 of 67% for murders, which is good, but that still means that 33% of all murders in 2008 still have criminals out there getting by. Meanwhile, the clearance rate for rape was just 36%, robbery was just 32%, and burglary was actually just 11%.
I know these statistics are long, but I point them out to point out this--there are a whole lot of problems with crime right here in Alabama which need to be addressed. Our law enforcement officers are doing all they can, but they always need more support. AG King always pledges to stand for the victim, but this is why I criticize Troy King on the issue of victims.
Here is the fundamental problem--Troy King always stands with particular victims, but he never stands up with all the victims. Troy King takes a particular case, becomes interested, and these cases often happen to be the same cases that have attention in the media. He discusses that case, but he eventually moves on with the case unresolved. Let's face it--this man will not be convicted in Alabama, and the ludicrous Australia verdict will stand. The cameras will move on, and the focus will be elsewhere. Our focus as voters will be elsewhere, too.
Well, I am here to remind voters that there are crimes, every day, happening in Alabama, which need to be solved. Instead of solving them, Troy King is flying to New York and basking in the limelight. I like visiting New York--it's a fun city, and there always seems to be a tv camera in every corner. At the end of the day, though, someone needs to remind Troy King that there are real crimes, right here in Alabama, which need to be solved. That's what he was elected to do--to support our law enforcement and ultimately guarantee that justice is done for the people of Alabama. It looks like we still have some work to do, and I'm just not convinced that Troy King is up to the task. When he starts looking at the statistics, and the real problems, instead of a smattering of individual cases chosen to garner media attention, perhaps then I will start to believe.
Monday, October 5, 2009
The Truth Comes Out: Troy and Trial Lawyers
Finally, the media in Alabama is starting to cover Troy King's controversy surrounding trial lawyers. It has become an interesting battle in Alabama, with Skip Tucker of Alabama Voters Against Lawsuit Abuse sparring on a regular basis with AG King.
The general facts are probably familiar to most of you. Basically, a number of different pharmaceutical companies defrauded the Alabama Medicaid System. They are now being sued by a number of states, including Alabama, for damages. In order to handle the cases, AG King has farmed out the work to Hand Arendall, a Mobile firm, which then got Beasley Allen, a trial lawyer firm run by Jere Beasley. Those firms have gotten 14%, and Tucker wants the process opened to competitive bidding. Well, Troy King is not standing for that.
There are a series of problems with this issue, many of which have been chronicled on this blog before. First, in other states, Attorneys General have used this ability to award private contracts to reward political supporters. A story from Legal Newsline on October 2 noted South Carolina, but problems have also arisen in Georgia, West Virginia, and a number of other states. Second, if you're a conservative, you have to be a bit nervous that the process of hiring private attorneys for public work was developed by liberals; in fact, it was developed by ultra-liberal Eliot Spitzer of New York, who regularly used legal loopholes to harrangue private enterprise. It has also been criticized by conservative law professors and federal judge Bill Pryor. Third and finally, you have to worry that, quite simply, as Tucker suggests, Alabama could be getting a better deal through a fair, open, competitive bid.
So, whether you like the system of hiring private attorneys or dislike it, it's easy to argue that Alabama's system is not working the right way. Now, the Legal Newsline story suggests that Troy King has received no contributions from Beasley Allen or Hand Arendall. As a point of fact, that may well be correct.
However, these facts simply do not tell you the whole story, and that story is that trial lawyers regularly give to PACs, which then transfer their money around and give that money eventually to candidates. Alabama has extremely backward PAC laws, which have regularly drawn criticism from outside groups and conscientous legislators. This is done to muddy the waters in terms of tracking candidate contributions. Jere Beasley told the Birmingham News in 2006 that trial lawyers use this process because candidates "think the stigma of a trial lawyer will hurt them." According to Birmingham News data from 2006, King did receive some pretty big contributions from PACs which then received lots of their money from Beasley Allen. For instance, King received funding from PACs run by lobbyist Rudy Davidson totalling over $32,500. Well, Rudy Davidson's PACs got a lot of money from lawyer interests, including $193,625 from the Trial Trust PAC representing trial lawyers and $75,000 from Beasley Allen itself. So, the money trail is actually more complex than the story suggests.
The sad fact is that we wouldn't be discussing this if Alabama did two things. We should (a) resolve the private attorneys issue, either ending the hiring altogether or following Tucker's recommendations (probably the smartest) and opening the process to competitive bid and outside scrutiny. We should (b) then allow for greater transparency by ending all the PAC-PAC cloudiness and offering the light of day. If our candidates are being bankrolled by trial lawyers, or any special interest for that matter, we have a right as voters to know.
Until that time, motives will always be cloudy, and with someone having as questionable a past as Troy King, it's not entirely unfair to suspect the worst.
The general facts are probably familiar to most of you. Basically, a number of different pharmaceutical companies defrauded the Alabama Medicaid System. They are now being sued by a number of states, including Alabama, for damages. In order to handle the cases, AG King has farmed out the work to Hand Arendall, a Mobile firm, which then got Beasley Allen, a trial lawyer firm run by Jere Beasley. Those firms have gotten 14%, and Tucker wants the process opened to competitive bidding. Well, Troy King is not standing for that.
There are a series of problems with this issue, many of which have been chronicled on this blog before. First, in other states, Attorneys General have used this ability to award private contracts to reward political supporters. A story from Legal Newsline on October 2 noted South Carolina, but problems have also arisen in Georgia, West Virginia, and a number of other states. Second, if you're a conservative, you have to be a bit nervous that the process of hiring private attorneys for public work was developed by liberals; in fact, it was developed by ultra-liberal Eliot Spitzer of New York, who regularly used legal loopholes to harrangue private enterprise. It has also been criticized by conservative law professors and federal judge Bill Pryor. Third and finally, you have to worry that, quite simply, as Tucker suggests, Alabama could be getting a better deal through a fair, open, competitive bid.
So, whether you like the system of hiring private attorneys or dislike it, it's easy to argue that Alabama's system is not working the right way. Now, the Legal Newsline story suggests that Troy King has received no contributions from Beasley Allen or Hand Arendall. As a point of fact, that may well be correct.
However, these facts simply do not tell you the whole story, and that story is that trial lawyers regularly give to PACs, which then transfer their money around and give that money eventually to candidates. Alabama has extremely backward PAC laws, which have regularly drawn criticism from outside groups and conscientous legislators. This is done to muddy the waters in terms of tracking candidate contributions. Jere Beasley told the Birmingham News in 2006 that trial lawyers use this process because candidates "think the stigma of a trial lawyer will hurt them." According to Birmingham News data from 2006, King did receive some pretty big contributions from PACs which then received lots of their money from Beasley Allen. For instance, King received funding from PACs run by lobbyist Rudy Davidson totalling over $32,500. Well, Rudy Davidson's PACs got a lot of money from lawyer interests, including $193,625 from the Trial Trust PAC representing trial lawyers and $75,000 from Beasley Allen itself. So, the money trail is actually more complex than the story suggests.
The sad fact is that we wouldn't be discussing this if Alabama did two things. We should (a) resolve the private attorneys issue, either ending the hiring altogether or following Tucker's recommendations (probably the smartest) and opening the process to competitive bid and outside scrutiny. We should (b) then allow for greater transparency by ending all the PAC-PAC cloudiness and offering the light of day. If our candidates are being bankrolled by trial lawyers, or any special interest for that matter, we have a right as voters to know.
Until that time, motives will always be cloudy, and with someone having as questionable a past as Troy King, it's not entirely unfair to suspect the worst.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Doing Good Deeds: Troy King and Jobs
I've written about it before, but it deserves another post, since I have written a good bit on ethics today. Troy King has a very questionable ethical record, and his record has really cost him on big cases. I'm sure you have all read about the 2-year college scandal, in part because it's the biggest ethics scandal in the history of a state often tarnished by ethics scandals. In times like these, we really need a tough Attorney General representing the people of Alabama and bringing these wrong-doers to justice. So, where is Troy King on this issue? Is he up front on this issue, as he claims he has been on many others?
Well, no, actually. In fact, AG Troy King is not handling the case at all. That job instead goes to St. Clair County DA Richard Minor, the person King tasked with handling the job as soon as he recused himself from the case. Now, why would King recuse himself from such a big case?
Several reasons, all of which have to do with ethics. First, King called 2-year college president Roy Johnson to ask for two jobs on behalf of his political cronies. Second, he called Johnson to ask for support for VOCAL, a victims' rights group which supported King politically. These requests came as Johnson was under investigation by the AG's office, and as consequence, Troy King had to recuse himself from a monumental case.
Alabama voters just need to face facts--we don't need an attorney general who cannot do the job he elected to do. This is reason number one why we vote this man out of office as soon as we have the opportunity.
Well, no, actually. In fact, AG Troy King is not handling the case at all. That job instead goes to St. Clair County DA Richard Minor, the person King tasked with handling the job as soon as he recused himself from the case. Now, why would King recuse himself from such a big case?
Several reasons, all of which have to do with ethics. First, King called 2-year college president Roy Johnson to ask for two jobs on behalf of his political cronies. Second, he called Johnson to ask for support for VOCAL, a victims' rights group which supported King politically. These requests came as Johnson was under investigation by the AG's office, and as consequence, Troy King had to recuse himself from a monumental case.
Alabama voters just need to face facts--we don't need an attorney general who cannot do the job he elected to do. This is reason number one why we vote this man out of office as soon as we have the opportunity.
Come now, let's face facts, folks
One of the great elements of this blog is that it serves as a forum for free expression, both on the part of me (the individual providing information), and those individuals who choose to criticize me for providing this information to the voters of Alabama. Before proceeding this week with the first post, let me say that there is a reason why I do not refer to this as strictly my opinion--because it is not. The information I am providing is information widely reported in the state's press, as well as other printed sources of information during the Troy King era. Certainly those who read this blog receive my analysis (namely that the things which occurred have been bad for Alabama), and that evaluation is open to interpretation.
That said--one clarification from last week. Last week I alluded to Sheriff Jack Tillman. I apologize for any misconception that Jack Tillman did jail time. My information on the case comes from a CNN report, published January 9, 2009, this year, on Morgan County. According to that report, it notes: "Mobile County Sheriff Jack Tillman pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors, perjury and an ethics offense, and resigned in 2006." Don't know about you, but to me, that doesn't sound too good for Mr. Tillman. However, don't blame me--I merely report what I know.
However, if you will notice, this still completely avoids the bigger problem. There was a fundamental problem with our state's law, and instead of solving it (as Ronald Reagan would have done), Troy King learned about it and just ignored it. Let's face it--Alabama has always been a den of corruption. Anyone who follows this state's politics knows that we have corrupt officials, and we need strong laws preventing this corruption. This archaic law allows sheriffs to pocket food funds, and so some have abused the system.
Now, Troy King had, in my view, two options. He could have (a) released an opinion (which he was asked to do) noting that the law was archaic, inconsistent with standards of corruption, and inconsistent with the Code of Alabama. That's a valid response, and it would have solved the problem. Now, Troy King could easily argue that this constitutes "activism." However, he would also be wrong, there. Troy King is an elected official, elected to perform the will of the people of Alabama. Opinions of the AG office are non-binding--they are merely advisory, but they have a lot of force. To me, it makes sense to use some of that force to end an archaic law. Let's assume for a moment, though, that Troy King is actually right, and he should not have released an opinion. Well, then, (b) he could have lobbied the legislature to pass a change to the law, like he has done on many other measures. Troy King had both options on his table, and he chose to pursue neither one.
I don't know Troy King's motives for this inaction--I did speculate last week that it could relate to the Mobile case, which was referenced as a reason for not providing an opinion on the prisoner meal issue. I said it could relate to AG King's relationship with former Sheriff Tillman, who has, shall we say, a questionable history on this issue. What I do believe is that Troy King, if he truly had the best interest of the people of Alabama at heart, would have sought to address this issue. Instead, he turned his back and watched, like he has on countless other issues, also noted on this blog.
That said--one clarification from last week. Last week I alluded to Sheriff Jack Tillman. I apologize for any misconception that Jack Tillman did jail time. My information on the case comes from a CNN report, published January 9, 2009, this year, on Morgan County. According to that report, it notes: "Mobile County Sheriff Jack Tillman pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors, perjury and an ethics offense, and resigned in 2006." Don't know about you, but to me, that doesn't sound too good for Mr. Tillman. However, don't blame me--I merely report what I know.
However, if you will notice, this still completely avoids the bigger problem. There was a fundamental problem with our state's law, and instead of solving it (as Ronald Reagan would have done), Troy King learned about it and just ignored it. Let's face it--Alabama has always been a den of corruption. Anyone who follows this state's politics knows that we have corrupt officials, and we need strong laws preventing this corruption. This archaic law allows sheriffs to pocket food funds, and so some have abused the system.
Now, Troy King had, in my view, two options. He could have (a) released an opinion (which he was asked to do) noting that the law was archaic, inconsistent with standards of corruption, and inconsistent with the Code of Alabama. That's a valid response, and it would have solved the problem. Now, Troy King could easily argue that this constitutes "activism." However, he would also be wrong, there. Troy King is an elected official, elected to perform the will of the people of Alabama. Opinions of the AG office are non-binding--they are merely advisory, but they have a lot of force. To me, it makes sense to use some of that force to end an archaic law. Let's assume for a moment, though, that Troy King is actually right, and he should not have released an opinion. Well, then, (b) he could have lobbied the legislature to pass a change to the law, like he has done on many other measures. Troy King had both options on his table, and he chose to pursue neither one.
I don't know Troy King's motives for this inaction--I did speculate last week that it could relate to the Mobile case, which was referenced as a reason for not providing an opinion on the prisoner meal issue. I said it could relate to AG King's relationship with former Sheriff Tillman, who has, shall we say, a questionable history on this issue. What I do believe is that Troy King, if he truly had the best interest of the people of Alabama at heart, would have sought to address this issue. Instead, he turned his back and watched, like he has on countless other issues, also noted on this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)