Leura Garrett Canary

Crossposted at Oxdown Gazette.

Personal Information: Leura Garrett Canary

  • Name: Hon. Leura Garrett Canary
  • Employment: United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama
  • Address: P. O. Box 197, Montgomery, AL 36101-0197
  • Phone: (334) 223-7280
  • Date Admitted: September 25, 1981
  • Law School: University of Alabama

Leura Garrett Canary was nominated by Pres. George W. Bush to be the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. Since assuming this position in September 2001, Mrs. Canary has failed to adhere to even the most basic tenets of professional conduct required of her by her membership in the Alabama State Bar, beginning with the Preamble to the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct which states, in part, that

A lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials. While it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process. [Emphasis supplied.]

The following analysis establishes that Mrs. Canary has violated her obligations under the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct by her continued participation in the prosecution of Gov. Don Siegelman after her supposed recusal from the matter and that her conduct raises a substantial question as to her honesty, trustworthiness and fitness to practice law. Specifically, Leura Garrett Canary violated the following Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct:

  1. RULE 1.16 DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION
  2. RULE 3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL
  3. RULE 3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL
  4. RULE 3.5 IMPARTIALITY AND DECORUM OF THE TRIBUNAL
  5. RULE 3.6 TRIAL PUBLICITY
  6. RULE 3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR
  7. RULE 4.1 THRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS
  8. RULE 5.1 RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PARTNER OR SUPERVISORY LAWYER
  9. RULE 5.4 PROFESSIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF A LAWYER
  10. RULE 8.3 REPORTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
  11. RULE 8.4 MISCONDUCT

Statement of Facts

On November 7, 2008, Rep. John Conyers, as Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and Rep. Linda Sanchez, as Chair of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, sent a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey in which they succinctly set forth the facts under which Mrs. Canary – allegedly – recused herself from the prosecution of Gov. Don Siegelman:

Department of Justice records show that United States Attorney Leura Canary recused herself from the Siegelman case on May 16, 2002. According to the Acting United States Attorney responsible for the case, “In May 2002, very early in the investigation, and before any significant decisions in the case were made, U.S. Attorney Leura Canary completely recused herself from the Siegelman matter, in response to unfounded accusations that her husband’s Republican ties created a conflict of interest.” [Footnote] 15 Mr. Franklin further explained that “Ms. Canary had no involvement in the case, directly or indirectly, and made no decisions in regards to the investigation or prosecution after her recusal. Immediately following Ms. Canary’s recusal, appropriate steps were taken to ensure the integrity of the recusal, including establishing a ‘firewall’ and moving all documents relating to the investigation to an off-site location. [Footnote] 16 On October 5, 2007, Mr. Franklin stated again “[Leura Canary’s] recusal was scrupulously honored by me.” [Footnote] 17 These statements have been repeated many times and have been relied on by defenders of the Department’s handling of this politically-sensitive matter.

[Footnote] 15 July 18, 2007, Statement of Acting United States Attorney Louis Franklin, available at http://blog.al.com/bn/20007/07/middle_district_of_alabamas_re.html

[Footnote] 16 July 18, 2007, Statement of Acting United States Attorney Louis Franklin, available at http://blog.al.com/bn/20007/07/middle_district_of_alabamas_re.html

[Footnote] 17 October 5, 2007, Statement of Acting United States Attorney Louis Franklin, available at http://www.wsfa.com/global/story.asp?s+7176844&ClientType=Printable

On May 16, 2002, Mrs. Canary clearly and unequivocally declared that she had recused herself from the prosecution of Gov. Siegelman stating in this press release that:

As to any matters pertaining to any current investigation of state officials or matters of state government which may or may not be underway, the Department of Justice has advised me that no actual conflicts of interest exist. However, out of an abundance of caution, I have requested that I be recused to avoid any question about my impartiality.

It is of the utmost importance to me, as a United States Attorney, that the people in the Middle District of Alabama and throughout the State have confidence in the manner in which matters are handled by me and by the office I serve and that no one has a basis under which to question the integrity of any investigation undertaken by my office. To that end, the Department has assigned responsibility for the supervision of any investigation regarding state officials or matters of state government to First Assistant United States Attorney Charles R. Niven.

Scott Horton, a contributor to Harper’s Magazine and author of the weblog No Comment for Harper’s website, has been following the prosecution of Don Siegleman and has written extensively on the subject. In his article September 14, 2007 article The Remarkable ‘Recusal’ of Leura Canary, Prof. Horton identified two material misstatements that raise the question of Mrs. Canary’s honesty regarding her recusal from the case:

I question the honesty of Leura Canary’s statement. First, it makes the claim–continuously repeated–that Mrs. Canary took this step on her own initiative. In fact she took it because of the request that attorney Johnson filed with the Justice Department, which launched an independent look at the matter.

Second, Mrs. Canary says that the Justice Department told her that she was okay from a conflicts perspective. I put the question to two prominent legal ethicists: would the facts I presented require Mrs. Canary’s recusal from the investigation of Governor Siegelman? Answer: “this is not a borderline or close case. Under the facts you outline, Mrs. Canary violated the canons of ethics by undertaking and handling the investigation of Governor Siegelman for the period up to her recusal.” Do you believe that a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility officer would have advised Mrs. Canary that there was “no actual conflict.” Answer: “The standard that applies is whether there would be an ‘appearance of impartiality,’ not ‘actual conflict,’ so the Canary statement misstates the rule. Nonetheless, here the situation passes far beyond ‘appearance of impartiality’ and reaches an actual conflict. The advice she suggests could not have been competently rendered. It would be very interesting to know who at Justice gave such advice.” …

As far back as September 2007 when he published his article, Prof. Horton questioned whether Mrs. Canary had recused herself in fact and not just in word, noting that Mrs. Canary’s statement that she recused herself is only the beginning of the discussion:

And third, the press statement says she recused herself. But did she?

The question then became follow-through. Career senior Justice Department officials tell me that when a U.S. Attorney recuses him- or herself, there is a standard procedure followed: a conflict of interest certification is prepared and submitted in the matter; a certificate of divestiture is prepared and submitted; “502 determinations” are prepared; there is also other ordinary documentation such as a formal appointment of an acting U.S. attorney to handle the matter, transmittal documentation and the like. The normal process, as I am told, is that a neighboring U.S. Attorney is appointed to handle the matter, usually with support of career professionals who would otherwise report to the recused U.S. Attorney.

I can find no evidence that any of these standard procedures were followed. Instead, according to public statements, a member of Mrs. Canary’s staff was appointed to handle the matter. In fact the person she designated was her principal prosecutor; that is, someone whose career and advancement was dependent directly upon her evaluations, not those of an intermediate staffer. When I reviewed this with a career senior Justice Department official I was told: “That’s very odd, and it violates the basic recusal rules. If the recused U.S. Attorney has appointed one of her staffers, without the supervision of another U.S. Attorney, then she has not really recused herself at all. The staffer operates in her office, under her apparent supervision, subject to her performance evaluations, and receiving her paychecks. The idea that the U.S. Attorney is recused and that the staffer is running the show would be a difficult sale to anyone with eyes and possessed of a brain.” Precisely. The ploy only works when the local media report it and don’t ask any questions or use their analytical faculties.

In September of 2007, the evidence that Mrs. Canary had not recused herself in fact from the prosecution that was available to Prof. Horton was limited to Mrs. Canary’s involvement in several press opportunities:

When charges were announced against Siegelman at a press conference convened in Montgomery, Noel Hillman traveled down to Montgomery to deliver the message (stating, ironically as it turns out, “Public Integrity does not do politics”), and there with him stood Leura Canary. Similarly, as the case proceeded, Leura Canary did not keep any distance from it. She gave interviews to the Los Angeles Times and to the Montgomery Advertiser about the case. Not the conduct of a ‘recused’ U.S. Attorney. [As of November, 17, 2008, linking to the Montgomery Advertiser from the link in Prof. Horton’s article returns a page that states that ‘The article requested can not be found!’]

However, as Rep. Conyers and Rep. Sanchez explain in their letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, documents – obtained by both Prof. Horton and Adam Zagorin – have surfaced that establish that Mrs. Canary did not, as a matter of fact, recuse herself from the prosecution of Gov. Siegelman:

Ms. [Tamarah] Grimes[, an employee of the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama,] has provided several emails[*] casting serious doubts on these assertions, however. The most significant of these emails is a September 19, 2005, email from Ms. Canary to Acting United States Attorney Franklin, Assistant United States Attorneys Feaga and Perrine, First Assistant United States Attorney Patricia Watson (whose last name was Snyder at this time), and criminal legal assistant Debbie Shaw. This email was sent at a critical time in the Siegelman/Scrushy case – Mr. Siegelman had been indicted, although that fact had not been revealed to his attorneys, and the Government was preparing a superceding indictment that would be publicly revealed the following month.

In this email, Ms. Canary forwards an article regarding the Siegelman case and writes: “Ya’ll need to read because he refers to a ‘survey’ which allegedly shows that 67% of Alabamians believe the investigation of him to be politically motivated. (Perhaps grounds not to let him discuss court activities in the media?) He also admits to making ‘bad hires’ in his last administration.” [Footnote] 18

This email raises obvious questions about the degree to which Ms. Canary honored her recusal from this case. A recused United States Attorney should not be providing factual information such as relevant news clipping containing a defendant’s statements to the team working on the case under recusal. And this email does not just show Ms. Canary forwarding and article – it reflects her analyzing the article and highlighting certain facts. And most troubling of all it contains a litigation strategy recommendation – that the prosecution should seek to bar Mr. Siegelman from speaking to the media. We note too that it was sent only to members of the Siegelman/Scrushy prosecution team – it was not an office wide email that inadvertently reached people working on the case.

[Footnote] 18 September 19, 2005, email from Leura Canary to JB Perrine, Steve Feaga, Louis Franklin, Debbie Shaw and Patricia Snyder.

[*Portions of the images of the e-mails released by Ms. Grimes are printed below.]

Regarding Mrs. Canary’s advice that the prosecution seek a gag order against Gov. Siegelman, Adam Zagorin reported on November 14, 2007 at Time.com that the prosecution team did just that:

Prosecutors in the case seem to have followed Canary’s advice. A few months later they petitioned the court to prevent Siegelman from arguing that politics had any bearing on the case against him. After trial, they persuaded the judge to use Siegelman’s public statements about political bias — like the one Canary had flagged in her e-mail — as grounds for increasing his prison sentence. The judge’s action is now one target of next month’s appeal.

Writing at the Daily Beast, Prof. Horton characterized Mrs. Canary’s conduct in this manner:

Canary, attaching a Siegelman campaign missive to one email, noted that Siegelman claimed that the prosecution is politically motivated and that 67 percent of Alabamans agree with him. Canary suggested that her subordinates obtain a gag order against Siegelman to bar him from making any references to the political nature of the charges brought against him. The communication suggested that Canary’s motivation is, just as Siegelman alleges, political in nature. More significantly, it demonstrates that Canary continued to drive the case notwithstanding her “recusal.”

In fact, the prosecutors sought a gag order against Siegelman and persuaded the judge, a former member of the Executive Committee of the Alabama G.O.P., to ratchet Siegelman’s sentence upwards because he claimed he was a victim of a political prosecution led by Republicans. (Recent polling suggests that Alabamans believe by overwhelming margins that Siegelman was a victim of a political prosecution, and newspaper editorial boards across the state called for his release.)

In another email, Canary’s first assistant referred to Canary making staffing decisions surrounding the prosecution of the Siegelman case long after her “recusal.” These allegations are backed up by the fact that Canary repeatedly appeared at news conferences concerning the Siegelman prosecution and granted at least three press interviews to discuss it—all after she said she had removed herself from the case.

In their letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Rep. Conyers and Rep. Sanchez continue to document Mrs. Canary’s unethical conduct:

Ms. Grimes has provided other documents to the Committee that bear on this issue. In one email, Ms. Canary forwards another another article to essentially the same group of recipients. [Footnote] 19 This too appears improper and again raises the question why a recused United States Attorney would be providing such information to the active prosecution team. Another email notes that Ms. Canary was consulted about the decision to add Ms. Grimes to the Siegelman/Scrushy team – referred to as the “big case” – and states that “Leura and Louis both liked the concept[“] and further reports that “Leura asked me to pass this information [regarding Ms. Grimes’ role on the case] on …[.]” [Footnote] 20 We appreciate that a United States Attorney who is recused from a particular matter will continue to play a role in the overall administration of the office, but question whether participating in detailed discussions about the staffing of the matter from which she has been recused is appropriate and whether messages or information from the recused United States Attorneys should be passed on to new members of the team.

In her July 2007 report to OPR, Ms. Grimes elaborated on this subject, stating that “Leura Canary kept up with every detail of the case through Debbie Shaw and Patricia Watson.” [Footnote] 21 Once again, if this statement is accurate, it raises serious concerns. It is difficult to imagine the reason for a recused United States Attorney to remain so involved in the day to day progress of the matter under recusal.

[Footnote] 19 September 27, 2005, email from Leura Canary to Steve Feaga, Louis Franklin, JB Perrine, and Patricia Snyder.

[Footnote] 20 April 6, 2005, email from Patricia Snyder to Steve Doyle

[Footnote] 21 July 30, 2007 Letter to H. Marshall Jarrett from Tamarah Grimes.

On November 21, 2008, Adam Nossiter at the New York Times reported that:

Yet in her complaint, the Justice Department employee, Tamarah T. Grimes, cited several instances suggesting Ms. Canary maintained a close watch on the case. Ms. Grimes said a legal aide in the office reported on Mr. Siegelman’s trial to Ms. Canary or her top deputy “every day, sometimes several times per day by telephone.” Once, she observed Ms. Canary “frantically pacing in the executive suite” after a courtroom blowup, “pleading with someone” to get on the phone to “tell Louis he has to control his temper.”

Ms. Grimes also disclosed an e-mail message written by Ms. Canary commenting on legal strategy in the case and suggesting to aides that Mr. Siegelman not be allowed to “comment on court activities in the media.” Ms. Grimes, who is also in a dispute with the department related to her accusations that the Siegelman prosecution team had harassed her, cited the affidavit of a former legal aide in the Montgomery office, Elizabeth Jane Crooks, who wrote that “the morning that the trial started, the U.S. attorney herself carried food and beverage over to the courthouse to support the ‘Trial Team.’ ”

Mr. Siegelman’s lawyers have reacted with anger to these contentions, saying they demonstrate that Ms. Canary never really took herself out of the case. “She was supposed to be recused precisely because her involvement would reek of political conflict of interest, yet she remained involved,” they wrote in a filing to the 11th Circuit court this week.

Mrs. Canary has denied any wrongdoing both personally and through her subordinates. In reviewing Mrs. Canary’s conduct, neither her nor Mr. Franklin’s statements that Mrs. Canary recused herself need not – and indeed must not – be accepted at face value. To the contrary, her denials of improper motives or conduct must be evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances. As provided in the adopted Terminology of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, for Mrs. Canary to believe that her conduct was proper, she must have “actually supposed the fact in question to be true” (which belief “may be inferred from circumstances”) and for that belief to be reasonable requires “that the circumstances are such that the belief is reasonable.”

For example, in her May 16, 2002 press release, Mrs. Canary admitted that “it would not be appropriate for me to discuss any investigations that may or may not be under review in my office.” However, as Prof. Horton notes in his article The Remarkable ‘Recusal’ of Leura Canary, Mrs. Canary made this statement to the Los Angeles Times:

Leura Canary said that suggesting she exerted political influence over the case was “a ridiculous assertion” because it was handled by a career prosecutor, Franklin, in conjunction with the public integrity section of the Justice Department in Washington.

As noted above, Prof. Horton reported on several interactions between Mrs. Canary and the press regarding the prosecution of Gov. Siegelman after her alleged recusal:

When charges were announced against Siegelman at a press conference convened in Montgomery, Noel Hillman traveled down to Montgomery to deliver the message (stating, ironically as it turns out, “Public Integrity does not do politics”), and there with him stood Leura Canary. Similarly, as the case proceeded, Leura Canary did not keep any distance from it. She gave interviews to the Los Angeles Times and to the Montgomery Advertiser about the case. Not the conduct of a ‘recused’ U.S. Attorney. [As of November, 17, 2008, linking to the Montgomery Advertiser from the link in Prof. Horton’s article returns a page that states that ‘The article requested can not be found!’]

Mrs. Canary’s denials were echoed by Louis V. Franklin, Sr., Acting U.S. Attorney in the Siegelman/Scrushy Prosecution:

When the investigation first began, Leura Canary was not the U.S. Attorney for the MDAL. Initially, the investigation was brought to the attention of the Interim U.S. Attorney, Charles Niven, a career prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Niven had almost 25 years of experience as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the office prior to his appointment as Interim U.S. Attorney upon U.S. Attorney Redding Pitt’s (currently attorney of record for Defendant Siegelman in this case) departure.

Ms. Canary became U.S. Attorney in September 2001. In May 2002, very early in the investigation, and before any significant decisions in the case were made, U.S. Attorney Leura Canary completely recused herself from the Siegelman matter, in response to unfounded accusations that her husband’s Republican ties created a conflict of interest. Although Department of Justice officials reviewed the matter and opined that no conflict, actual or apparent, existed, Canary recused herself anyway to avoid even an appearance of impropriety. I, Louis V. Franklin, Sr., was appointed Acting U.S. Attorney in the case after Charles Niven retired in January 2003. I have made all decisions on behalf of this office in the case since my appointment as Acting U.S. Attorney. U.S. Attorney Canary has had no involvement in the case, directly or indirectly, and has made no decisions in regards to the investigation or prosecution since her recusal. Immediately following Canary’s recusal, appropriate steps were taken to ensure that she had no involvement in the case. Specifically, a firewall was established and all documents relating to the investigation were moved to an off-site location. The off-site became the nerve center for most, if not all, work done on this case, including but not limited to the receipt, review, and discussion of evidence gathered during the investigation.

* * *

Armed with cooperation agreements from Bailey, Young and Kirsch, the investigation continued. In June 2004, a special grand jury was convened to further assist in the investigation. An indictment was returned under seal against Mr. Siegelman and ex-HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy on May 17, 2005. The first superseding indictment was filed and made public on October 26, 2005, charging Siegelman, Scrushy, Siegelman’s former Chief of Staff Paul Hamrick, and Siegelman’s Transportation Director Gary Mack Roberts. …

However, as specifically noted by Rep. Conyers and Rep. Sanchez in their letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, it was during this exact time frame specified by Acting U.S. Attorney Franklin in which Mrs. Canary clearly was not recused in fact from the prosecution of Gov. Siegelman:

The most significant of these emails is a September 19, 2005, email from Ms. Canary to Acting United States Attorney Franklin, Assistant United States Attorneys Feaga and Perrine, First Assistant United States Attorney Patricia Watson (whose last name was Snyder at this time), and criminal legal assistant Debbie Shaw. This email was sent at a critical time in the Siegelman/Scrushy case – Mr. Siegelman had been indicted, although that fact had not been revealed to his attorneys, and the Government was preparing a superceding indictment that would be publicly revealed the following month.

In this email, Ms. Canary forwards an article regarding the Siegelman case and writes: “Ya’ll need to read because he refers to a ‘survey’ which allegedly shows that 67% of Alabamians believe the investigation of him to be politically motivated. (Perhaps grounds not to let him discuss court activities in the media?) He also admits to making ‘bad hires’ in his last administration.” [Footnote] 18

This email raises obvious questions about the degree to which Ms. Canary honored her recusal from this case. A recused United States Attorney should not be providing factual information such as relevant news clipping containing a defendant’s statements to the team working on the case under recusal. And this email does not just show Ms. Canary forwarding and article – it reflects her analyzing the article and highlighting certain facts. And most troubling of all it contains a litigation strategy recommendation – that the prosecution should seek to bar Mr. Siegelman from speaking to the media. We note too that it was sent only to members of the Siegelman/Scrushy prosecution team – it was not an office wide email that inadvertently reached people working on the case.

In light of the evidence presented by Ms. Grimes and the contradictions between her actions and her contradictory, self-serving statements, Mrs. Canary’s denials are simply not believable. In short, “a lawyer of reasonable prudence and competence would ascertain the matter in question” to be improper, and, therefore, Mrs. Canary should have known that her conduct was improper even if she actually (and, in that case, quite incompetently) did not know her conduct was improper.

If the reputations of the Department of Justice and the Alabama State Bar are ever to be salvaged, Mrs. Canary must be investigated by the Alabama State Bar Office of Legal Counsel and referred to the Alabama State Bar Disciplinary Committee to answer for her violations of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. Although the Alabama State Bar Office of Legal Counsel has the authority to begin an investigation on its own volition, a state bar system will not normally begin a formal investigation until it receives a formal complaint. A formal grievance complaint can’t be filed online, but anyone – whether a resident of Alabama or not or otherwise involved in this matter – can easily file a grievance against Mrs. Canary with the Alabama State Bar in just three simple steps:

  1. Print, complete and sign the official Alabama Complaint Against a Lawyer;
  2. Print and attach this page to the Complaint Form as the factual basis for the claim; and
  3. Mail the complaint to the address noted on the Complaint Form.

Rules Violated by Leura Garrett Canary:

  1. RULE 1.16 DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION
  2. RULE 3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL
  3. RULE 3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL
  4. RULE 3.5 IMPARTIALITY AND DECORUM OF THE TRIBUNAL
  5. RULE 3.6 TRIAL PUBLICITY
  6. RULE 3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR
  7. RULE 4.1 THRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS
  8. RULE 5.1 RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PARTNER OR SUPERVISORY LAWYER
  9. RULE 5.4 PROFESSIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF A LAWYER
  10. RULE 8.3 REPORTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
  11. RULE 8.4 MISCONDUCT

*Portions of the images of the e-mails released by Ms. Grimes. The complete images of the e-mails can be found here.

September 19, 2005 e-mail from Leura Garrett Canary:

Image

September 25, 2005 e-mail from Leura Garrett Canary:

Image

April 6, 2005 e-mail from Patricia Snyder to Stephen Doyle:

Image

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

h/ts: Legal Schnauzer, WriteChic Press, at-Largely and capt.

Thanks are also due to Scott Horton for all his contributions to reporting on the Siegelman prosecution.

Text of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct violated by Mrs. Canary

Patrick J. Rogers – predictably and unbelievably – denies charges of Vote-Suppression

Crossposted at Oxdown Gazette.

Patrick J. Rogers is the New Mexico attorney who represents and advises the Republican Party of New Mexico on its voter suppression efforts. In this prior post , I documented how Mr. Rogers’ conduct in this matter violates the New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct. Mr. Rogers “was too busy working on the election” to reply to a request for a statement from TPMMuckraker, so it’s no surprise he didn’t respond to my e-mail requesting a response to my allegations since I’m just an anonymous blogger. Notably, though, Mr. Rogers – or someone from his firm – did have time to stop by The Grievance Project:

VISITOR ANALYSIS
Referring Link No referring link
Host Name server.modrall.com
IP Address ***.**.**.178 [Label IP Address]
Country United States
Region –
City –
ISP One Connect Ip Inc
Returning Visits 0
Visit Length 0 seconds

But, as Heather Clark reported on October 29, 2008, Mr. Rogers did reply to the Associated Press:

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—An Albuquerque attorney who has been accused in a federal lawsuit of intimidating two voters in an attempt to interfere with their right to vote said Wednesday he has not violated any law.

Pat Rogers, who advises the state Republican Party, is accused of helping disseminate private information about two voters and hiring a private investigator, Al Romero, who allegedly went to their homes and confronted them about their eligibility to vote, the lawsuit said.

Rogers and Romero are named as defendants in the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque on Monday by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF.

“I have not violated any law and Mr. Romero has not violated any law,” Rogers told The Associated Press.

* * *

“The lawsuit contains serious accusations that have no basis in law or fact. The suit is filed and advertised before the upcoming election for obvious purposes,” Rogers said, declining to elaborate.

I, too, would proclaim my innocence if I was being investigated by the Department of Justice – even a Michael Mukasey-led DoJ – and that conduct resulted in my being named as a defendant in a federal lawsuit. Every day, criminal defendants – both guilty and innocent alike – make countless similar proclamations of innocence in criminal courts all over the globe. Like many of these defendants, Mr. Rogers’ denial of wrong-doing is simply not believable. If you agree, you can easily file a grievance against Mr. Rogers with the State Bar of New Mexico in three simple steps:

  1. Print, complete and sign the official Form for Complaint against a Lawyer in New Mexico;
  2. Print and attach this page to the Complaint Form as the factual basis for the claim; and
  3. Mail the complaint to the address noted on the Complaint Form.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Patrick J. Rogers

Crossposted at Oxdown Gazette.

Patrick J. Rogers is the New Mexico attorney who represents and advises the Republican Party of New Mexico on its voter suppression efforts. I have documented from the public record Mr. Rogers’ conduct that violates the New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct. Unfortunately, the state bar system requires that a formal complaint be filed to begin a formal investigation, but you don’t need to be a resident of the state or even involved in the matter to file a grievance. Anyone can file one, but a grievance can’t be filed online, so I’ve simplified the process as much as possible. If you agree, you can easily file a grievance against Mr. Rogers with the State Bar of New Mexico in three simple steps:

  1. Print, complete and sign the official Form for Complaint against a Lawyer in New Mexico;
  2. Print and attach this page to the Complaint Form as the factual basis for the claim; and
  3. Mail the complaint to the address noted on the Complaint Form.

Personal Information:

  • Name: Patrick J. Rogers, Shareholder, Modrall Sperling
  • PO Box 2168, Albuquerque, NM 87103-2168
  • Telephone: (505) 848-1800
  • Fax: (505) 848-1891

Grievance Information: New Mexico

Introduction

Along with the privilege to practice law, each member of the State Bar of New Mexico, including Patrick J. Rogers, must also comply with the special duties and responsibilities that arise from that privilege. As described in the Preamble to the New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct:

A lawyer is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice.

* * *

A lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers, and public officials. While it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process.

* * *

The legal profession’s relative autonomy carries with it special responsibilities of self-government. The profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar. Every lawyer is responsible for observance of the Rules of Professional Conduct. A lawyer should also aid in securing their observance by other lawyers. Neglect of these responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves. (Emphasis supplied.)

On October 17, 2008, Melanie Dabovich of the Associated Press reported that the “Republican Party of New Mexico alleges 28 people voted fraudulently in one Albuquerque state House district in the June Democratic primary.” After releasing the registration cards for “10 of the suspect voters[,]” Mr. Rogers, “an attorney who advises the state GOP, says the party plans to turn the suspect registration cards over to [state Attorney General Gary] King’s and [District Attorney Kari] Brandenburg’s offices.” ACORN investigated these claims and, as a result, “confirmed with the Bernalillo County Clerk that the voters in question were all legitimate” and that the voters identified by Mr. Rogers and his client were not engaged in the criminal conduct of ‘voter fraud’ but were, to the contrary, victims of false allegations of voting fraud.

Although his client, the Republican Party of New Mexico, officially distanced itself from making further allegations of voter fraud, Mr. Rogers continued to press the matter. Under the guise of conducting additional investigation of the baseless voter fraud allegations, Mr. Rogers retained a private investigator to conduct further ‘review’ of the voter fraud charges and supervised this investigator’s review of the voters he and his client had previously identified, even though each voter had been cleared of any wrongdoing.

Considering this conduct and the circumstances surrounding his conduct, as detailed more specifically below, Patrick J. Rogers has violated the following New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct:

16-102. Scope of representation.
16-116. Declining or terminating representation.
16-401. Truthfulness in statements to others.
16-403. Dealing with unrepresented person.
16-404. Respect for rights of third persons.
16-503. Responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants.
16-802. Judicial and legal officials.
16-804. Misconduct.

Allegation: Patrick J. Rogers engaged in conduct designed to intimidate and harass New Mexican voters by retaining and supervising a private investigator to ‘investigate’ baseless allegations of voter fraud in violation of federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation.

On October 17, 2008, Melanie Dabovich of the Associated Press reported the activities of Patrick J. Rogers and his client, the Republican Party of New Mexico:

ALBUQUERQUE — The Republican Party of New Mexico alleges 28 people voted fraudulently in one Albuquerque state House district in the June Democratic primary.

Party representatives said at a news conference Thursday they found the suspect voters in a review of 92 newly registered voters in House District 13.

“We really have a bombshell — evidence of voter fraud in the 2008 primary in Albuquerque,” said State Rep. Justine Fox-Young, an Albuquerque Republican. “We are presenting undeniable proof that there was voter fraud in the June election.”

* * *

The Republicans released voter registration cards for 10 of the suspect voters, saying they showed missing or inaccurate Social Security numbers or birth dates.

In some cases, more than one voter was registered using the same Social Security number. In others, people who the Republicans said had no Social Security number on public record were registered.

* * *

Pat Rogers, an attorney who advises the state GOP, says the party plans to turn the suspect registration cards over to King’s and Brandenburg’s offices.

In response, Project Vote properly characterized these allegations as spurious:

ACORN and Project Vote launched back in a news conference call on October 10. “This is the third election cycle in a row where we’ve seen partisan interests take the same issue—which is canvassers trying to defraud ACORN by not doing their work and instead fabricating applications—and trying to exaggerate that and turn it into an argument that there is ‘widespread fraudulent voting’ going on,” said Project Vote executive director Michael Slater. “These allegations have been debunked now in several election cycles, and we’ll find by the end of this election cycle they’ll be debunked as well.”

The next day, October 18, 2008, the Associated Press again reported these baseless allegations:

ALBUQUERQUE —The community activist group ACORN fired back Saturday at New Mexico Republicans and their claims of voter fraud in June’s Democratic primary.

ACORN organizers said that since the vote-fraud charges were leveled by GOP leaders on Thursday, they have contacted four or five of the 28 allegedly “suspect” Albuquerque voters.

They said those voters confirmed that the allegations, including problems on voter registration forms like inaccurate Social Security numbers or birth dates, were simply wrong.

But State Republican Party representatives said only two voters out of 16 named in their investigation have come forward to deny the charges, and they stand by their assertion that voter fraud remains a problem in New Mexico. “The bottom line is that two out of 16 is not a good batting average,” said Pat Rogers, an attorney who advises the GOP.

* * *

Rogers said a private investigator hired by the state Republican Party found [Brittany] Rivera and others like her have Social Security numbers on their voter registration forms that are being used by other people. They may be legitimate voters and could be victims of identity theft.

* * *

However, the voters accused of the crime of voter fraud by Mr. Rogers and his client, the Republican Party of New Mexico, were, in fact, innocent of these charges. With the assistance of ACORN, these voters were able to prove their innocence of the charge of voter fraud. After “ACORN confirmed with the Bernalillo County Clerk that the voters in question were all legitimate,” the New Mexico Republican Party backed off their allegations of voter fraud. In spite of the fact that the voters identified by Mr. Rogers and his client were absolutely cleared of any impropriety by the Bernalillo County Clerk, Mr. Rogers and his private investigator continued to press the matter. Under the apparent guise of conducting additional investigation of the voter fraud allegations, and even though the named voters were cleared of any wrongdoing, Mr. Rogers continued to retain and supervise the services of Mr. Alfredo Romero to conduct additional ‘review’ of the voter fraud charges:

Among those who said she was blindsided and angered by the Republicans’ allegations was 18-year-old Brittany Rivera. At a news conference, she said she was at first scared to learn she’d been labeled as a “suspect” voter and her name and personal information had been forwarded to law enforcement. “You guys are trying to scare us new voters,” Rivera said of the GOP. “I think it’s wrong.”

According to Rivera and her mother, she accurately filled in and mailed her registration form on time after her mother picked up the paperwork for her at the nursing home where she works.

She said being targeted as a bogus voter is “crazy,” and she is now “more determined” to vote in the future. She said she planned to vote Saturday, when early voting began in New Mexico.

Group slams GOP ‘hacks’ over voting charges, Associated Press, October 18, 2008.

Several days later, on October 23, 2008, Gwyneth Doland reported in the New Mexico Independent that Mr. Rogers suddenly refused to either confirm or deny that he had hired an investigator in this matter:

ALBUQUERQUE – Republican Party attorney Pat Rogers refused to say Thursday if a private detective who visited the addresses of two of the 10 Albuquerque voters cited at a news conference last week about voter fraud was working for the GOP.

* * *

When asked by the New Mexico Independent if the private investigator worked for Rogers’ law firm, Rogers said, “I have no interest in responding to ACORN’s accusation.”

Reminded that the accusations came from the voters themselves, Rogers said, “You need not to accept what ACORN says.”

When asked the question again, Rogers said, ”I am not responding to any questions. I am not being quoted. This is off the record.”

However, the New Mexico Independent’s Gwyneth Doland confirmed that Mr. Rogers’ investigator had indeed continued to visit voters, including [name redacted] and Emily Garcia:

Guadalupe Bojorquez said a man who identified himself as a private investigator by the name of Al Romero visited the home of her 67-year-old mother on Wednesday.

“She calls me and she’s panicked because there is this man outside and he’s telling her he’s an investigator and he wants to come in to the house,” Bojorquez told NMI. She said her mother then put the man on the phone.

“I asked him, but he wouldn’t tell me who he worked for. He just said he wanted to verify that she was a legitimate voter and he wanted to see her documents. I told him ‘No,’ and we argued for a little bit.

“He said ‘You have to realize we’re just trying to protect the people, we just want to make sure that she’s a legitimate voter and if she votes and she’s not supposed to, then it’s illegal.’

“He was pressuring me so much that I told him that she’s not going to do anything until she speaks to her attorney.”

Bojorquez said she asked the man several times whom he worked for. Eventually, she said, “He told me he worked for Pat Rogers.”

Rogers is the Republican attorney who also made claims of voter fraud in 2004 and 2006. He was cited in the federal Department of Justice report about the firing of U.S. attorneys as one of the New Mexico GOP activists who complained to the Department of Justice about then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias.

By law, private investigators are licensed by the state Regulation and Licensing Department. According to the department’s Web site, there is an Alfredo Romero who has a current private investigator license. In addition, three men named Albert or Alberto Romero have current security guard licenses.

Jenais Griego told NMI that she too had been visited by a private investigator on Wednesday. Her grandmother, Emily Garcia, was one of the people whom Republicans described last week as an ineligible voter.

“I asked him if he had a badge and he pulled out a white and blue laminate card with his name on it,” Griego. “It wasn’t even a badge, but it said ‘Al Romero, private investigator.’ He came in and he started asking me about my grandmother and I was trying to tell him that she didn’t live here. He’s like ‘OK, so let me just write some stuff down.’”

Griego said that Romero asked her questions about her grandmother’s voter registration card; her grandmother lives in a trailer down the street, but receives her mail at the house, she said.

“It freaked me out when he got upset, when I did tell him that, regardless of what happens, my grandmother is voting and it’s OK for her to vote.”

“He tried to tell me to tell her to be careful when she’s voting. He was trying to tell me stuff to scare her from voting.”

Bojorquez also said her mother felt wary about the visit.

“My mom is confused because she doesn’t understand why she’s being put through this because she voted. She doesn’t trust anybody anymore,” Bojorquez said, requesting that her mother’s name not be published again.

These visits by Mr. Rogers’ investigator were also confirmed by Zachary Roth at TPMMuckraker:

Minority voters in New Mexico report to TPMMuckraker that a private investigator working with Republican party lawyer Pat Rogers has appeared in person at the homes of their family members, intimidating and confusing them about their right to vote in the general election.

* * *

The visits to minority voters by the P.I. appear to be connected to last week’s effort.

* * *

Guadalupe Bojorquez, who works in law enforcement in Albuquerque, told TPMmuckraker today that her mother, [name redacted], was one of the ten voters whose names were released by the GOP. After this happened, said Bojorquez, her mother had been contacted by the voter registration group ACORN. Bojorquez, with ACORN’s help, confirmed with the county clerk that her mother, who does not speak English, is indeed eligible to vote, and had been when she voted in June.

Nonetheless, Bojorquez said that her mother yesterday received a visit from a man who asked for her personal information, including an ID, in reference to her eligibility to vote. Bojorquez told TPMmuckraker that according to her mother, at one point the man asked what she would do if immigration authorities contacted her.

After Bojorquez’s mother, frightened, refused to let him in the door, the man waited outside her house. Eventually, Bojorquez’s brother arrived at the house, emboldening Bojorquez’s mother to go outside, call Bojorquez, and put her on the phone with the man.

Bojorquez said the man told her he wanted to make sure her mother knew that she shouldn’t be voting, and continued to ask for her mother’s personal information. When Bojorquez said that no information would be handed over unless the man revealed who he was employed by, he said he was a private investigator hired by Pat Rogers. He told Bojorquez his name was Al Romero, and left a number at which Bojorquez could contact him.

Bojorquez added that in fact, her mother has already voted in the general election, by absentee ballot — which she is eligible for because she has trouble walking — so Romero’s efforts on that front were in vain.

Another Albuquerque woman had a similar experience.

Jenais Griego told TPMmuckraker that yesterday, as she arrived home with her kids, a man in a beige Chevy Silverado pulled up, removed a notebook from his pocket, and said he was looking for Emily Garcia. Garcia is Griego’s grandmother — Griego said Garcia, who works as a home care-giver, lists Griego’s address for her mail — and, like [name redacted], was one of the voters named by the GOP last week as having voted fraudulently in June.

Griego said she allowed the man in, and when she asked him for identification, he pulled out a card that gave his name as Al Romero. She said the man had a redacted copy of Garcia’s voter registration form, and asked whether Garcia intended to vote. He said if she intended to do so, she needed to make sure she was properly registered.

As with Bojorquez and [name redacted], Griego said that Garcia had already confirmed after the GOP press conference that she was indeed a valid voter. An ACORN worker had come to her house to explain that the GOP had questioned her registration, and, along with Griego, they had contacted the county clerk to ensure that she could legitimately vote, and had done so in June.

So when Romero asked Griego whether Garcia intended to vote, Griego replied that she did. At that point, said Griego, Romero became “angry” and “upset,” and left abruptly.

Rogers did not return several calls from TPMmuckraker seeking comment. But last week he said that the state party had hired a private investigator in connection with vote fraud*. And asked yesterday by the New Mexico Independent about the confrontations with voters, he replied: “I have no interest in responding to ACORN’s accusation.”

Reached by TPMmuckraker at the phone number he provided to Bojorquez, Romero said he didn’t have time to talk about the matter. He did not respond to repeated follow-up calls.

*This sentence has been corrected from an earlier version.

In response, Project Vote has requested that New Mexico U.S. Attorney Gregory Fouratt begin investigating these allegations of voter intimidation and vote suppression, including the intimidation of Ms. Rivera, Ms. [name redacted], Ms. Garcia and Mr. “Francisco Martinez, 19, who registered to vote for the first time when volunteers came to his high school in May. Mr. Martinez said Monday that he felt like he was being bullied and intimidated out of his rights as an American. ‘This is my first time voting, and it’s important to me to be part of history,’ Mr. Martinez said.” In his October 23, 2008, letter to U.S. Attorney Fouratt requesting the investigation, Project Vote Election Counsel Donald Wine II wrote:

We here at Project Vote, on behalf of several voters of the State of New Mexico write to request an investigation into increased efforts to intimidate voters and suppress minority voters by representatives of the New Mexico Republican Party.

Members of the New Mexico Republican Party called a press conference last week where they named 10 Albuquerque residents as frauds who they allege voted illegally in the New Mexico primaries. ACORN made contact with 8 of the 10 voters on that list distributed by the New Mexico Republican Party. All of the voters identify as Democratic, all are minorities (9 of the 10 are Latino), and most of them are 18 or 19 years old. One of the voters is a new citizen who was naturalized in 2007 and was voting for the first time. ACORN found that all of the voters they contacted are legitimate voters that were eligible to vote and had no problems with their registrations.

Now that the Republicans have found that the people they alleged were frauds were in fact legitimate voters, they have begun to intimidate these voters. Already, 2 of the 10 voters have been visited by a private investigator in an effort to keep these voters silent. Also, the fact that all 10 of the voters that were named on this list were minority voters, 9 of which are Latino, as well as mostly younger voters, indicates a concerted effort to suppress the vote of a particular class of voters.

This form of intimidation and suppression is in direct violation of Section 12 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as well as Section 2. We feel that the right of all Americans to vote is of the utmost importance, and if there is credible evidence of voter intimidation and suppression of a particular class of voters, it should be addressed and promptly prosecuted. We request that you conduct an immediate investigation into the attempts by the Republican Party of New Mexico to intimidate minority, first-time voters into not exercising their right to vote. To the extent that your investigation uncovers that any federal laws have also been violated, we ask that your office refer the matter to the proper federal authorities.

In addition to Mr. Wine’s allegations that Mr. Rogers’ and his investigator’s conduct violated federal law, Zachary Roth at TPMMuckraker also reports that Mr. Rogers’ and Mr. Romero’s conduct likely violates federal law:

Four separate experts on voting rights have confirmed to TPMmuckraker that the behavior of a private investigator apparently hired by a New Mexico Republican party lawyer, that we reported this morning, potentially violates federal voting laws.

Gerry Hebert, a former acting head of the voting rights section of the Department of Justice, told TPMmuckraker that the P.I.’s actions appear to violate the criminal section of the federal Voting Rights Act, which makes it a crime to willfully injure, intimidate, or interfere with a person attempting to vote. Hebert added that a separate statute makes it a crime to conspire to intimidate someone in exercising their right to vote — a provision that could apply to GOP lawyer Pat Rogers or others in the state party who may have been involved in the scheme.

“A matter like that ought to be reported to the DOJ immediately,” said Hebert, adding that he planned to do so.

Jon Greenbaum of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights agreed, and added that the activities detailed in TPMmuckraker’s report could violate both criminal and civil voting rights statutes. Greenbaum pointed to a civil provision of the Voting Rights Act which says that it violates the law to intimidate, threaten or coerce someone from voting or not voting.

Greenbaum too said he planned to pass on to the Department of Justice the claims made in our report.

Rick Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a noted expert on election law, also said that the behavior potentially violated the Voting Rights Act or other federal civil-rights statutes.

And Wendy Weiser, a voting-rights expert at the Brennan Center for Justice, further confirmed that take.

An Albuquerque woman told TPMmuckraker yesterday that a man identifying himself as a private investigator hired by Rogers came to her mother’s house Wednesday asking her mother for personal information and warning her not to vote if she wasn’t properly registered. A second woman in the same city provided a similar report to TPMmuckraker. The voters’ names had been publicly released last week by Rogers and others affiliated with the state party, who claimed that 28 mostly Hispanic people had voted fraudulently in June. It was later determined that many of the people whose names had been released were valid voters.

In spite of the evidence to the contrary, Mr. Rogers may claim that he has fulfilled his special responsibility for the quality of justice and may deny that he engaged in improper conduct or harbored improper motives. However, any such claims or denials are not determinative of whether or not he violated the law and the New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct by using the law’s procedures to harass or intimidate others. Instead, whether he “actually supposed the fact in question to be true” or not, i.e., whether Mr. Rogers actually believes any denial of improper conduct, “may be inferred from circumstances” in which the alleged misconduct occurred. See Terminology, New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct. Even if Mr. Rogers actually believed his actions were proper, that belief would only be reasonable if “the circumstances are such that the belief is reasonable.” However, because “a lawyer of reasonable prudence and competence would [have] ascertain[ed]” that Mr. Rogers’ conduct was improper, Mr. Rogers should have known he was acting unethically.

Specifically, the circumstances existing nationally quash any inference that Mr. Rogers may believe that his conduct was appropriate:

It’s worth noting, in response to the news that the FBI has launched an investigation into whether ACORN was involved in a nationwide voter-registration fraud scheme, that the launch of the probe comes at a time national Republicans at several different levels have sought to make an issue out of ACORN — in some cases calling for just such an investigation.

Last week, John McCain told a Florida crowd:

“There are serious allegations of voter fraud in the battleground states across America. They must be investigated.” The GOP standard-bearer has continued to sound the alarm over ACORN since then, and brought it up at last night’s debate.

GOP House leader John Boehner last week called in a statement for ACORN to be de-funded — it is currently eligible for federal housing funds — and charged that over the years, ACORN “has committed fraud on our system of elections, making American voters question the fairness and accuracy of the exercise of their most fundamental right under the Constitution.”

Last week the RNC held at least five separate conference calls with reporters to stoke fears of voter fraud connected to ACORN.

And numerous state- and local-level Republicans have also in the last few weeks called publicly for authorities to look into ACORN.

What’s Behind the Feds’ ACORN Probe?, Zachary Roth, TPMMuckraker, October 16, 2008.

Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding Mr. Rogers’ effort to suppress the vote in New Mexico in 2008 are nothing new. To the contrary, they are part of a multi-year, ongoing effort to challenge the voting rights of New Mexicans, as confirmed by Rep. John Conyers in his letter to United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey:

Mr. Rogers, however, appears repeatedly in the report on the U.S. Attorney firings, prepared by the Department’s Office of the Inspector General and Professional Responsibility, which documented his actions making flawed claims of voter fraud and bringing unwarranted pressure to bear on law enforcement officials, including Mr. Iglesias, in 2006.

On October 24, 2008, Zachary Roth at TPMMuckraker reported further on the circumstances surrounding Mr. Rogers’ conduct:

… Rogers’ role in pressing [fired U.S. Attorney David] Iglesias to pursue voter fraud prosecutions was extensive. According to the OIG report on the firings, Rogers set up a lunch meeting with Iglesias, and met with an FBI agent — among many other activities — to push the issue.

Perhaps most damagingly, the report contains a September 2004 email sent to Iglesias and several staffers for New Mexico’s GOP congressional delegation, in which Rogers admitted that he was interested in the issue in large part for its potential to help the GOP:

I believe the [voter] ID issue should be used (now) at all levels – federal, state legislative races and Heather [Wilson]’s race … You are not going to find a better wedge issue … I’ve got to believe the [voter] ID issue would do Heather more good than another ad talking about how much federal taxpayer money she has put into the (state) education system and social security … This is the single best wedge issue, ever in NM. We will not have this opportunity again … Today, we expect to file a new Public Records lawsuit, by 3 Republican legislators, demanding the Bernalillo county clerk locate and produce (before Oct 15) ALL of the registrations signed by the ACORN employee.

But Rogers is no mere local player on the Republican voter fraud team. He was on the board of the American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR), a fake think-tank which was little more than an effort by GOP operatives to offer an intellectual gloss to politically motivated claims of voter fraud — and which abruptly closed down operations in 2007.

ACVR was run by Mark “Thor” Hearne, who served as national election counsel to President Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign. Jim Dyke — who was the communications director of the Republican National Committee during the 2004 election, and went on to work for both the White House and for Vice President Cheney — was also involved.

Writing in Slate last year, election-law expert Rick Hasen described ACVR’s modus operandi:

Consisting of little more than a post-office box and some staffers who wrote reports and gave helpful quotes about the pervasive problems of voter fraud to the press, the group identified Democratic cities as hot spots for voter fraud, then pushed the line that “election integrity” required making it harder for people to vote. The group issued reports (PDF) on areas in the country of special concern, areas that coincidentally tended to be presidential battleground states. In many of these places, it now appears the White House was pressuring U.S. attorneys to bring more voter-fraud prosecutions.

Here’s Rogers, on behalf of ACVR, telling CNN back in 2004 about the need for “safeguards to make sure that citizens only are voting.”

And now this is the guy who’s involved in pushing voter fraud claims in connection with an investigation in which the FBI is already involved.

Clearly, the background and circumstances in this matter, however, do not permit the inference that Mr. Rogers believed his conduct was appropriate. Accordingly, Mr. Rogers has engaged in conduct that violates the following New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct:

16-102. Scope of representation.

* * *

D. Course of conduct. A lawyer shall not engage, or counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent or which misleads the court, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.

* * *

16-116. Declining or terminating representation.

A. Mandatory disqualification. Except as stated in Paragraph C, a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:

(1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;

* * *

16-401. Truthfulness in statements to others.

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

A. make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or

B. fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 16-106.

16-403. Dealing with unrepresented person.

In dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel, a lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested. When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer’s role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding.

16-404. Respect for rights of third persons.

In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.

16-503. Responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants.

With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer:

A. a partner in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer;

B. a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and

C. a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if:

(1) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved ; or

* * *

16-804. Misconduct.

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

A. violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

B. commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

C. engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

D. engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

* * *

H. engage in any conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Full Text of the New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct violated by Mr. Rogers

E-mail to Robert H. Bork, Jr.

Robert H. Bork, Jr.
gonzalesfacts@gmail.com

Mr. Bork,

As the media contact for GonzalesFacts.com, I would request a response on the record to these allegations that Alberto Gonzales has engaged in conduct that calls into question his fitness to practice law. I have also previously requested a response from George J. Terwilliger III via this e-mail:

George J. Terwilliger III
White & Case LLP
701 13th Street NW
Washington, District of Columbia 20005
Telephone: 202-626-3628
Fax: 202-639-9355
gterwilliger@whitecase.com

Dear Mr. Terwilliger:

I have been researching the conduct of various attorneys who, in the service of the government of the United States, have engaged in conduct that violates the rules of professional conduct with which each attorney must comply. I have prepared factual allegations of the conduct of various attorneys, including your client Alberto Gonzales, that establish violations of the applicable rules of professional responsibility. (I have also prepared complaints for Kyle Sampson, Harriet Miers, Lisa Murkowski, John Yoo, Mark Everett Fuller, Monica Marie Goodling, Thomas W. Hartmann and Michael J. Elston.) The conduct of your client has violated several of the rules of professional conduct of the Texas Bar. His actions raise a substantial question as to his honesty, trustworthiness and fitness as a lawyer.

The purpose of this e-mail is to offer your client, or you on his behalf, the opportunity to respond to these allegations. I look forward to your response.

I look forward to your reply.

E.M./The Grievance Project

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

George J. Terwilliger III replies to my e-mail. Sort of.

In my e-mail to George J. Terwilliger III, I offered Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Terwilliger the opportunity to respond to my allegations that Mr. Gonzales has engaged in conduct which brings into question his fitness to practice law. Mr. Terwilliger has taken the opportunity to reply to my post:*

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — “The report confirms that Judge Gonzales provided Congress with a truthful account of his knowledge of and involvement in the dismissal of US attorneys.

“The report makes clear that Judge Gonzales engaged in no wrongful or improper conduct while recognizing, as he has acknowledged many times, that the process for evaluating US attorney performance in this instance was flawed,” Terwilliger said.

“In our submission to the Department on this matter, we noted that the OIG is without jurisdiction to second guess presidential personnel decisions. Unfortunately, the report spends hundreds of pages doing just that, but nonetheless reports no evidence of an improper motivation or action in removing these US attorneys. It seems rather odd, then, that rather than bring the investigation to a close, the Department would escalate the matter to the attention of a prosecutor when its own policies require preliminary evidence of a criminal violation before initiating a criminal investigation.”

“My family and I are glad to have the investigation of my conduct in this matter behind us and we look forward to moving on to new challenges,” Judge Gonzales said.

Related links: http://www.GonzalesFacts.com

SOURCE George J. Terwilliger, III

Take a few moments to read Mr. Terwilliger’s submission to the Department. This is a good example of how to defend a client against allegations of illegal conduct when that client is, in fact, demonstrably guilty of those allegations. After 41 pages of smoke, mirrors and legal sleight of hand in his submission to the Department, Mr. Terwilliger is only able to reach these conclusions:

The Department’s flawed response to public criticism of the removal of certain U.S. Attorneys tended to obscure the unassailable conclusion that all U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and, accordingly, may be removed by the President for any reason, or no reason at all. Because this controversy has offered ample evidence of the efficacy of the available political checks on U.S. Attorney removals perceived to be improper, and because there is no evidence of “improper reasons” for any of the recommended removals, there is no basis to conclude that it is necessary to alter the current balance of political power whereby U.S. Attorneys are nominated by the President, confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate, and subject to removal by the President at any time.

The established balance of political power renders immaterial the underlying reasons for the removal of individual U.S. Attorneys, absent credible evidence of removal to improperly influence the conduct of a case. Instead, the OIG and OPR review could, we respectfully submit, provide the most benefit to the Department by examining the manner in which the Department responded to public criticism of the firings, specifically: (1) the manner in which information was shared within the Department; (2) the protocols for the drafting and submitting of Department statements to members of Congress, congressional committees, and the media; and (3) the manner in which senior Department officials were prepared for sworn testimony. Failures in all of these areas severely handicapped the Department’s ability to rebut allegations of politicization, and besmirched not only the reputations of political employees, but also the reputations of the many extraordinary career employees that continue to be the mainstay of the Department’s effectiveness in discharging the Department’s considerable responsibilities to the American people.

Most importantly, the OIG and OPR review provides an opportunity to reassure Congress and the public that there is no evidence that the U.S. Attorneys in question were removed in order to improperly allow partisan political considerations to compromise the independence of U.S. Attorneys in the execution of their responsibility to secure the fair administration of justice on matters within their purview.

(Footnotes omitted.)

According to Mr. Terwilliger, there is no evidence that Mr. Gonzales committed any improper act. Therefore, the OPR and OIG investigations should have, “examin[ed] the manner in which the Department responded to public criticism of the firings” which “could, [h]e respectfully submit, provide the most benefit to the Department.” Mr. Terwilliger’s argument distills down to this: “There’s nothing to see here. Go review internal DoJ office procedures instead. Then you can publicly announce that there’s nothing to see here.”

The link to GonzalesFacts.com that Mr. Terwilliger provides in his statement is also worth reading. In addition to his most recent statement, the What’s New page contains numerous other posts and statements. Interestingly, the media contact for GonzalesFacts.com is Robert H. Bork, Jr. You can also make a donation to Mr. Gonzales’ legal defense here – but please don’t.

*Well, sort of. Mr. Terwilliger’s response is via a link that is added to my post by a WordPress feature that automatically generates and embeds links that are ‘possibly related’ to the original post.

Tags: , , , , ,

E-mail to George J. Terwilliger III, counsel to Alberto Gonzales

George J. Terwilliger III
White & Case LLP
701 13th Street NW
Washington, District of Columbia 20005
Telephone: 202-626-3628
Fax: 202-639-9355
gterwilliger@whitecase.com

Dear Mr. Terwilliger:

I have been researching the conduct of various attorneys who, in the service of the government of the United States, have engaged in conduct that violates the rules of professional conduct with which each attorney must comply. I have prepared factual allegations of the conduct of various attorneys, including your client Alberto Gonzales, that establish violations of the applicable rules of professional responsibility. (I have also prepared complaints for Kyle Sampson, Harriet Miers, Lisa Murkowski, John Yoo, Mark Everett Fuller, Monica Marie Goodling, Thomas W. Hartmann and Michael J. Elston.) The conduct of your client has violated several of the rules of professional conduct of the Texas Bar. His actions raise a substantial question as to his honesty, trustworthiness and fitness as a lawyer.

The purpose of this e-mail is to offer your client, or you on his behalf, the opportunity to respond to these allegations. I look forward to your response.

E.M./The Grievance Project

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Virginia lawyers file grievance against Monica Marie Goodling

As reported by Frank Green in the Richmond Times Dispatch (h/t Debra Cassens Weiss at the ABA Journal via Matt Berman at TPMMuckaker ) on September 16, 2008, attorney William R. Wilder prepared a grievance complaint against Monica Marie Goodling and he and several other attorneys filed the complaint with the Virginia Bar:

Monica Goodling resigned as the department’s liaison to the White House last year. A Justice Department investigation recently concluded that she violated civil-service law and department policy by considering political affiliations in hiring decisions.

Lawyer William R. Wilder, who drafted the complaint signed by a dozen other lawyers, said yesterday he was concerned about Goodling’s conduct and that she has apparently not been charged with a crime or disciplined elsewhere.

The Sept. 8 letter to the state bar alleges that Goodling violated at least two rules of professional conduct and asks that the state bar start a disciplinary investigation.

I sent this e-mail to Mr. Wilder thanking him for preparing and filing the complaint, advising him of the complaints I prepared against Ms. Goodling as well as Michael J. Elston, a fellow member of the Virginia Bar and requesting to discuss these matters with him. I also copied Ms. Goodling’s attorney, John M. Dowd , Esq.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,