Why was Balch & Bingham so confident in comments not made under oath or in a deposition that was yet to take place in which Verizon had not even been subpoenaed about?
[Since no information is available on the Newsome Conspiracy Case since August 31st because Judge Smitherman created a corrupt Star Chamber, we are re-publishing this post from Monday, August 14, 2017. The post is even more relevant today.]
With former and disgraced Alabama State Representative Oliver Robinson facing prison time for a $360,000 bribery scheme involving the embattled law firm Balch & Bingham, will Judge Carole Smitherman be the next Oliver Robinson?
On August 2, 2017, in a highly questionable, egregious act going against legal common-sense, Smitherman dismissed the amended complaint from June of Burt Newsome, an alleged victim of a conspiracy by Balch and others, without a hearing and without due process in less than 48 hours after Balch had filed the motion to dismiss. She also concurrently dismissed an alleged co-conspirator from the case a day before a hearing was set on August 3rd to discuss the matter.
Is it of no coincidence that Smitherman has received over $15,000 in campaign contributions from BIZPAC, a political action committee that is funded in part by Balch & Bingham partners?
Now, in a new amended complaint posted this weekend on Alacourt.com, Newsome’s attorney, Charles I. Brooks, General Counsel to the Civil Rights group the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, exposes more of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans.
He was advised not by the court but in an email from Balch’s attorney that the hearing for August 3rd had been cancelled.
The veteran and lead attorney defending Balch is none other than Schuyler Allen Baker Jr., who has donated thousands of dollars to (you can guess) BIZPAC. He’s the same illustrious attorney that filed the motion in May lying about the CDLU, and who also cited the 1961 Alabama Supreme Court decision, declaring “ruining a rival” was justified interference.
According to the latest amended case, Balch dispatched a letter to Newsome’s attorney the Friday before the questionable Verizon deposition threatening them with the Alabama Litigation Liability Act if they did not dismiss the case, regurgitating the narrative that the phone number connecting the co-conspirators was not a pre-paid cell phone, not a telemarketer as Balch had said in open court, but now a routing switch.
Why was Balch & Bingham so confident in comments not made under oath or in a deposition that was yet to take place in which Verizon had not even been subpoenaed about?
Like Robinson, Smitherman, a Civil Rights leader who broke down many barriers, appears to be a dupe, a pawn in what looks like a scheme to suppress the truth, the whole-truth, and nothing-but-the truth.
And foolishly, Balch even appears to have misinterpreted the questionable deposition, providing Smitherman with what looks like spliced and diced half-truths.
The fellow allegedly representing Verizon acknowledged he had not researched if (205) 410-1494 could have been a Verizon pre-paid, burner phone and declared, “This is the first I’m hearing of it.” And then Verizon’s corporate counsel affirmed saying, “He has no basis to dispute or not dispute.”
On top of that, Brooks provided hard evidence that the Verizon phone number was indeed a burner, pre-paid telephone including Verizon’s letter affirming records were not kept for more than a year (unlike regular cell phones) and that it was associated with the voter registration of an alleged co-conspirator.
So it was not a slam dunk after all, and Judge Smitherman appears to have dismissed a case with no due process while listening to the oral flatulence from the co-conspirators or their legal counsel.
Will Smitherman allow Balch and others to abuse her credibility as a respected constitutional law professor like Balch abused Robinson’s credibility and legacy as a UAB basketball star?
Will Smitherman protect her legacy as the first African-American female mayor of Birmingham, who served with distinction on the city council or toss it aside for 30 pieces of campaign silver?
Will Smitherman stand up to the lying sacks of marbles once and for all and treat all parties with fairness and due process regardless of campaign contributions?
Time Smitherman took the reins back.
