Friday, May 06, 2016
John Knight, Bi-Partisan Coalition Stop Massive Bentley-Mason "Trojan Horse" Fraud Scheme - Donald V. Watkins
https://www.facebook.com/donald.v.watkins/posts/10209368858120583
Knight, Bi-Partisan Coalition Stop Massive Bentley-Mason "Trojan Horse" Fraud Scheme
By Donald V. Watkins
©Copyrighted and Published (via Facebook) on May 6, 2016
©Copyrighted and Published (via Facebook) on May 6, 2016
In the Facebook comment section for Tuesday's article titled, "From 'Storming the Statehouse' to Jail on Corruption Charges: The Incredible Rise and Fall of House Speaker Mike Hubbard", I wrote: "The proposed $800 million bond deal for new Alabama prisons is loaded down with graft and potential corrupt practices. If approved by the legislature today or on the last day of the session (Wednesday), this single transaction will result in a host of public corruption charges against key sponsors and supporters of the proposal".
My comment referred to a prison plan hatched by Governor Robert Bentley and his political advisor/"de facto" governor, Rebekah Mason, to build three new men's prisons and a new women's prison to replace Julia Tutwiler Prison. The plan required legislation authorizing the state to borrow the $800 million for this project. This legislation was introduced at the beginning of the session in February. This bill died a quiet death at midnight Wednesday.
The prison plan was problematic from the beginning. It was intentionally vague and lacked the customary checks and balances that promote financial accountability. It was also woefully inadequate on transparency. For example, there was no requirement for the disclosure of "insider" relationships and financial transactions involving legislators and other government officials who were associated with companies performing work on prison construction projects. There was no itemization for the use of proceeds from the bond deal authorized by the legislation.
Absent these protective measures, the plan provided a ready-made infrastructure for fraud and undisclosed financial deals for Bentley, Mason, their friends, political cronies, and others who have special relationships with the governor and Mason. Furthermore, the plan provided Bentley and Mason with enough cloud cover, haze and fog to conceal this sea potential fraud, undisclosed financial dealings, and "dark money" insider transactions.
The plan was a classic Bentley-Mason "Trojan Horse" fraud scheme. Without a doubt, Alabama needs new prisons. Alabama houses about 24,000 inmates in prisons designed for 13,000. The prison population is growing every year. However, the $800 million prison plan approved by Mason and submitted by Bentley was riddled with cavities for secrecy, fraud and deceit – the hallmarks of the Bentley-Mason relationship and brand.
Something about the governor's plan did not smell or feel right to veteran State Representative John F. Knight, Jr., (D-Montgomery). Knight, who is a decorated Vietnam War military hero and chairman of the House Black Caucus, has been a legislator since 1993. He was also chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee from February 1999 to January 2011.
I talked with Knight about the plan last Saturday afternoon and again on Monday night. He was deeply troubled by the plan's embedded potential for widespread fraud and undisclosed "insider" financial deals. The Bentley Administration could not adequately answer any of Knight's in-depth questions about (a) the precise nature and scope of the forecasted expenditures of this $800 million, (b) the debt servicing requirements and capacity to repay the borrowed money, or (c) the glaring deficiencies in the plan's framework for accountability and transparency.
After the Bentley-Mason "sex for power" and public corruption scandal exploded onto the public scene in March, Knight became even more concerned that Bentley, Mason and the undisclosed financial beneficiaries of the plan had found new and creative ways to spend this public money on their politically connected friends and cronies without going through competitive bids, proper financial oversight and accountability, and the heightened level of transparency that should accompany an $800 million bond deal for major capital projects. Widespread media reports in March and April regarding various "dark money" transactions for the benefit of Rebekah Mason, her husband Jonathan, and other Bentley cronies only fueled Knight's suspicion of potential fraud in the plan.
On May 4th, a legislative conference committee scaled the governor's original $800 million plan back to $550 million for two men's prisons and a women's prison. The new and reduced plan also included some token disclosure requirements for companies submitting proposals to work on the projects (e.g., the identification of lobbyists who represent companies submitting proposals for work and a listing of public officials who have been associated with them, among other things). These provisions did not provide enough disclosure, accountability, financial oversight, and transparency to satisfy Knight.
Led by Senate President Del Marsh (R-Anniston), the Senate quickly approved the revised plan on a 23-12 vote at 10:50 p.m. Wednesday night. This left enough time for the House of Representatives to pass the legislation before the session ended at midnight. To the surprise of many, the House did not take the bill up for a vote. As a result, the plan died in the legislature.
In an article published by AL.com yesterday, House Speaker Mike Hubbard stated that there were not enough votes to end debate on the bill in time for a vote before midnight. This is true, but there is a refreshing back-story here that is being told for the first time in this exclusive Facebook news article.
The real reason why the bill was killed had more to do with John Knight's aggressive protection of public money from potential fraud than anything else. As the prison bill snaked through the legislature on Tuesday and Wednesday, Knight used his mastery of parliamentary procedures and a bold political outreach to Republican fiscal conservatives and members of the House Black Caucus to run the clock out on the House's consideration of the bill.
Under House rules, opponents of the bill could extend the debate to midnight without a cloture vote, which requires three-fifths approval. Knight's bi-partisan coalition of legislators produced enough votes to block an attempt in the House to end debate on the bill. In a rare display of bridge-building, unity and courage, legislators who were Democrats and Republicans, liberal and conservative, and black and white banned together to protect Alabama taxpayers by stopping Governor Robert Bentley and "de facto" governor Rebekah Mason from breathing life into their Trojan House scheme to defraud taxpayers.
Marsh told AL.com that he supported the prison bill and thought the revised version that passed the Senate was "good" legislation. He also stated that lawmakers would try again to pass the governor's prison plan. Marsh said he was not opposed to Bentley calling a special session on prisons and funding for Medicaid, although he is not advocating for the Medicaid funding (which provides healthcare for poor Alabamians).
Knight told AL.com that there were too many unanswered questions about the prison plan. "I think they need to go back to the drawing board and come with a proposed plan that makes a little more sense," Knight said.
"I think there is no question that something has to be done. But there was not enough time, not enough effort for them to try to make this make sense to all the members of the Legislature.
"When you're talking about $800 million over a 30-year period, they need to answer a lot of questions."
Knight's common sense, extensive financial experience, detailed review of the prison plan, courage to ask the right questions, intimate knowledge of the House rules, and willingness to embrace and promote a bi-partisan political strategy to defeat the Bentley-Mason prison bill evidenced a monumental proactive effort to detect and prevent financial fraud in government.
On behalf of all Alabama taxpayers, I thank Rep. John Knight and all of the brave legislators who worked with him in a bi-partisan coalition to stop this massive Bentley-Mason "Trojan Horse" fraud scheme.
Thursday, May 05, 2016
Burning Question: Who Would Step In and Pay The Expensive Legal Fees of Bill Baxley - Mike Hubbard's Replacement Attorney? Could it be Bob Riley? -- TheMeck
Mike Hubbard w Bill Baxley - Bob Riley
Posted By TheMeck - May 5, 2016
A Conversation With Bill Baxley – Part II
By Donald V. Watkins - May 5, 2016
https://www.facebook.com/donald.v.watkins/posts/10209361347932833
https://www.facebook.com/donald.v.watkins/posts/10209361347932833
Mr Watkins posted this comment today on his FB acount.
Donald V. Watkins I had an interesting call this morning from David Meckley d/b/a TheMeck.blogspot.com. He has been breaking news stories in the Hubbard case as well. The Meck observed that Hubbard's first set of lawyers bailed out on him after the mock jury showed that he would be found guilty on all 23 counts and after Hubbard failed to pay their massive legal bills. Hubbard is financially drained. He has lost nearly all of his business revenues.
The Meck asked me who, under these circumstances, would step in and pay the expensive legal fees of Bill Baxley, whom I believe is the best criminal defense lawyer in Alabama? This is an excellent question. It is obviously someone who does not want Hubbard to roll on him/her.
--
Thanks a lot Mr. Watkins. Your answer says a whole lot.
'It is obviously someone who does not want Hubbard to roll on him/her.'
And there's not many on that list that would have the big money to pay the expensive legal fees for Mike Hubbard.
Could it be former Gov. Bob Riley?
Will Update. Write On.
TheMeck
A Conversation With Bill Baxley – Part II By Donald V. Watkins - All of them (multiple sources) are familiar with the players in Mike Hubbard’s case. Individually and collectively, they have a 100% rating for credibility, reliability, and accuracy.
A Conversation With Bill Baxley – Part II
By Donald V. Watkins
©Copyrighted and Published (via Facebook) on May 5, 2016
©Copyrighted and Published (via Facebook) on May 5, 2016
Bill Baxley called me on Tuesday. I had not talked with Baxley in months. The call came after I had published an article titled, “From ‘Storming the Statehouse’ to Jail on Corruption Charges: The Incredible Rise and Fall of House Speaker Mike Hubbard”. The article was based on information from multiple sources that I have used for several decades. Two of them guided me through former federal judge Mark Fuller’s 2014-15 wife-beating scandal and the Robert Bentley-Rebekah Mason “sex for power” and public corruption scandal with remarkable accuracy. All of them are familiar with the players in Mike Hubbard’s case. Individually and collectively, they have a 100% rating for credibility, reliability, and accuracy.
Because of a gag order issued in Hubbard’s criminal case by Judge Jacob A. Walker on January 8, 2016, Baxley did not discuss any specific matters regarding the case.
As a litigator of complex criminal cases, I fully understood the limitations imposed on Baxley by the gag order. As such, I did not ask Baxley any questions about the evidence in this case or what Hubbard planned to do when the trial commences on May 16, 2016.
We began the conversation by discussing Baxley’s workload for the coming weeks. Baxley said he is very busy preparing for Hubbard’s upcoming trial. He told me that he expected the prosecution’s case to last at least four weeks. Baxley did not say how long Hubbard’s defense case would take.
These statements did not surprise me because continuous trial preparation is what successful trial attorneys do, even when there is the possibility that a defendant may end up accepting a plea deal.
Baxley did not discuss any aspect of his dealings with prosecutors in the case other than to say he had not discussed any plea deal with them. Baxley volunteered that some plea talks occurred early on in the case.
Without elaborating, Baxley wanted me to know that I have been right on a lot of my Facebook reporting. He also stated that I was “being lead down the wrong road” with respect to my report of a plea deal for Hubbard.
The rest of the conversation dealt with: (a) a discussion of George Beck’s poor job performance as the U.S. Attorney in Montgomery, (b) David Byrne’s conduct as the Governor Bentley’s chief legal advisor, and (c) various family matters.
I believed Baxley was completely truthful about everything he told me during our conversation. As a seasoned litigator, however, I listened very carefully to what Baxley was saying and not saying.
Mainstream media organizations like AL.com subsequently interviewed Baxley and reported him as saying that there is no plea deal for Hubbard. In these stories, Baxley is quoted as saying that he was speaking out because he did not want the potential jury pool tainted by reports of a deal. These media groups ceased any further inquiries at that point. Afterwards, they referenced my published article and dismissed it on the basis of Baxley’s denial of a plea deal.
After Baxley and I finished talking, I checked again with my sources for the story. Without hesitation, they affirmed the accuracy of what had been reported. At this juncture, I had to reconcile two different versions of the truth – one provided by Baxley and another one described by my sources. This happens a lot in litigation.
Based upon the proven reliability and credibility of my sources and my extensive experience in representing high-profile criminal defendants in politically charged environments, the following is my legal analysis of what is happening in Hubbard’s case:
The May 16, 2016, criminal trial comes at an awful time for Mike Hubbard. Alabama is engulfed in a growing “sex for power” and public corruption scandal involving Governor Bentley and Rebekah Mason. Public opinion of Bentley, Hubbard, Senate President Del Marsh, and other top state officials is at an all-time low.
Jurors in Hubbard’s case will be drawn from the Lee County voter rolls. Voters across the state are angry about the widespread public corruption in state government. The charges against Hubbard look, feel and smell like more of the same engrained public corruption they are experiencing in Bentley’s case.
What is more, a mock trial of Lee County residents carried out by Hubbard’s lawyers as part of his trial preparation found him guilty on all 23 counts in his indictment. Even with a top defense lawyer like Bill Baxley representing him, Hubbard’s chances of winning on all 23 counts in his case are very slim.
Hubbard’s defense is impaired by the fact that Baxley cannot put Hubbard on the witness stand during his trial. There are simply too many ways for a skilled prosecutor like Matt Hart to destroy Hubbard’s credibility in front of jurors. Additionally, a conviction on any one of the 23 counts would send Hubbard to prison for two to twenty years.
The prosecution has its share of major weaknesses as well. For example, Governor Bentley is referenced in the indictment. Bentley cannot go under oath as a witness for the prosecution (or anybody else). The governor is a known habitual liar and the target of an ongoing federal public corruption probe.
Also, Hubbard is charged with soliciting or receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from Republican power players around the state. However, none of the individuals listed as having paid bribes to Hubbard has been charged with bribery. This prosecutorial approach stands in stark contrast to the way prosecutors handled the 2005 bribery case involving former Democratic governor Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy. In that case, both the alleged “giver” of bribes (Scrushy) and “taker” of bribes (Siegelman) were indicted. Both men were convicted in 2006 and sentenced to prison. The glaring disparate treatment between the two high-profile bribery cases in Alabama would be hard to explain to trial jurors. It reeks of preferential treatment for the “givers” based solely upon their political party affiliation. This makes it easy for Baxley to argue that Hubbard is the “fall guy” in a Republican power struggle that has gone horribly wrong. Otherwise, the “giver” and “taker” of each bribe would have been charged, as was done in the Siegelman-Scrushy case.
Plea deal talks occur in every criminal case. Hubbard’s case is no exception. In high-profile cases, these discussions are usually initiated, in the first instance, through behind-the-scenes intermediaries, rather than direct talks between the trial attorneys. This approach affords prosecutors and defense counsel “plausible deniability” in the event a plea deal is reached in principle and becomes public, or falls through the cracks, before the defendant formally enters his/her guilty plea in court. This approach also allows prosecutors and defense counsel to truthfully say to inquiring reporters that there is “no plea deal” until such time as a deal has been presented in court.
Again, my sources stand by their account of a plea deal. Hubbard is not bound by any tentative deal reached by intermediaries unless and until he announces it in open court and Judge Walker accepts it. Lawyers in high-profile cases handle plea deals in this fashion in order to avoid the appearance of weakness in their PR spin and trial positions in the event their client elects to proceed with a trial and take his/her chances with a jury verdict.
The deal described in Tuesday’s article is an incredibly attractive one for Hubbard and prosecutors. It allows both sides to declare victory.
I have never been a “guilty plea” lawyer. I won all of my criminal cases. In this case, however, it would be very difficult to recommend that Hubbard walk away from this deal. If Hubbard tries this case and loses, he will lose big and go to prison for a long time.
In the end, I predict that Hubbard’s case will end with a plea deal. The stakes are simply too high for Hubbard to place his freedom in the hands of a trial jury.
Donald V Watkins
The Meck Report/Blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)