Vowing to make sure all partners and staff “are adhering to the highest standards of legal and ethical compliance,” Balch & Bingham leaders now need to engage in critical and concrete steps to show that their words are not fluff, public relations hot air.

First and foremost, Balch leaders need to dismantle the unethical, corrupt, and embarrassing Star Chamber, a court conducting secret proceedings with no public information or access available in regards to the Newsome Conspiracy Case.

The Star Chamber was created to allegedly cover up what appears to be unethical, possibly criminal acts, including perjury.

It’s a dirty and unethical trick that used Balch’s political connections to Judge Carole Smitherman, a sitting judge who received over $15,000 in contributions from a political action committee funded in part by Balch partners.

As al.com journalist John Archibald noted in a column on Sunday, an indicted  Balch partner used political connections and another dirty and unethical trick in the Robinson Bribery Case:

“A group worried about health consequences in a poor, polluted area made plans to speak to a state regulator that could help speed cleanup in the area, and the regulator leaked her argument straight to a [Balch & Bingham] lawyer who represented polluters in the area. And he prepared them for battle.”

Yesterday, we noted the parallel similarities between the Robinson Bribery Case and Newsome Conspiracy Case. (See image above.) Now, sadly, we can add dirty tricks to the similarities.

Secondly, if Balch & Bingham leaders are serious about adhering to the highest standards, then they must also investigate the alleged perjury in the Newsome Conspiracy Case.

Let’s review the matter:

• • In June,  after Newsome attorneys reviewed phone records, which were held up for months by creative legal maneuvers, they were able to connect all co-conspirators to a single phone number.
  • In July, at an open court hearing of the Newsome Conspiracy Case, Balch lawyers absurdly suggested that the phone number was from a telemarketer.
  • In late July, a filing including a Calera (Alabama) Police Department document, that was not a sworn statement, we began seeing the alleged narrative that the phone number was not a phone number but a “routing switch.”
  • Then a notice of a questionable deposition with a Verizon corporate representative was filed on the afternoon of  Thursday, July 27, 2017 for a deposition occurring in two business days.
  • According to Alacourt.com, no subpoena for Verizon was ever filed with the court. [Alacourt.com  documents are now unavailable due to the Star Chamber.]
  • After the sealed deposition with Verizon took place on Monday July 31st, Balch filed a motion to dismiss Newsome’s  amended complaint calling the phone number allegation a “falsity” and  Judge Carole Smitherman, that same week without a hearing, signed the order.
  • Incredibly as if they knew the fix was in, Balch had 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 phone number,  not a telemarketer as Balch had said in open court, but now a routing switch.
  • Balch appears to have misinterpreted the questionable deposition. The fellow allegedly representing Verizon acknowledged he had not researched if the phone  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.”
  • Newsome’s legal team 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 appears to have been associated with the voter registration of an alleged co-conspirator.
  • Finally, if you call the alleged “routing switch,” you will hear a recording that says that the Verizon phone number “has been changed, disconnected, or is no longer in service.”

We have no idea what new developments, motions, or filings have occurred since the Star Chamber came into play on or about August 31st, but Balch must dismantle the Star Chamber and investigate the alleged perjury.

Balch & Bingham’s reputation is at great risk and if they do not bite their lips and address these issues directly, as one respected legal dinosaur in Birmingham told us, “Balch will not survive.”