Alabama State Rep. Sue Schmitz Arrested
Posted by BrianFrom AL.com:
The federal corruption investigation into Alabama’s two-year college system reached into Madison County on Thursday with the indictment of a legislator accused of receiving more than $177,000 for work she did not perform.
State Rep. Sue Schmitz, D-Toney, a former high school government teacher, is accused of fraud in a nine-count indictment announced by U.S. Attorney Alice Martin in Birmingham.
You can read the indictment at Doc’s.
The arrest comes only two days after I spoke to the Madison County Delegation, including Schmitz, and asked them to pass a bill that would provide greater transparency into financial ties that legislators have to the state. I also implored them to support Bradley Byrne as he cleans up the two year college system. Schmitz had no response, although Parker Griffith was not pleased with my comments. Little did I know that one of the legislators I was speaking to would be arrested the very same week on charges relating to their employment in the two year system. I would have guessed Laura Hall if I were asked to pick one. She has previously been accused of the same offenses that Schmitz is being charged for committing.
Some have rightfully asked why Schmitz was arrested on federal charges. The “some” in this case are of course Democrats who are not as concerned with the federal government’s involvement as much as they are that it was a Democrat legislator arrested. I happen to also view the involvement of the federal government in matters like this with a great degree of skepticism, although my position is a bit more principled. The usual justification is that federal dollars, or in this case mail, were involved*. I would prefer to see some state and local authorities grab the bull by the horns so the feds don’t have to get involved. Question for any legal minds: In cases involving state government officials is there precedent for federal involvement due to the understandably hesitant nature with which local authorities, who fall under the jurisdiction of the suspects, might pursue the case?
*You really don’t want to get me started on the federal dollars thing. The states long ago whored out many of their rights to the federal government in exchange for federal money - money taken from citizens of the states. In addition to ceding a great many of their rights, they also open the door for increased federal intrusion into what should be strictly state matters.
Related content:
February 1st, 2008 at 7:30 am
There are several reasons the Feds come knocking more than the locals. You hit on one of them on the head and that is The AG is beholding to the legislature for his budget..so are County DAs. The other, and perhaps more important reason IMHO, is the Feds have far more resources.
I don’t like being on the Federal money leash either, but in the case of the prosecution of public corruption they will be far less politicized.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:45 am
Yeah, I seriously doubt Tim Morgan would ever touch this case, though Troy King sure would.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:31 am
Another factor to consider is that the to the Framers, the Federal government was to be THE line of defense against abusive state governments, evidenced by the line in the Constitution about guarantees of every state will have a republican form of government.
Just look at as federalism in action.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I think that we should be a bit more concerned about the arrest proceures used in this case. It doesn’t seem to me that it would require 6 armed agents to make a shock and awe dawn raid to take a 63 year old lady into custody. I am sure that these officers had a profile on their victim. I am curious as to why the county sheriff was not involved when a county resident is being taken into custody. These are issues that all citizens should be concerned with regardless of the culpability of Sue Schmidtz on the alleged charges.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
If this is the same Sue Schmitz who taught Government at Sparkman High, she is a hard working woman who actually taught well and put in all sorts of extra hours with the students. As far as I am concerned, she was not compensated well enough for all the hours she put in. I was told she also taught for free one year. Those kids researched, memorized, and learned to speak in front of others. They developed speaking skills, debating skills and the importance of our constitution. She introduced the students to professionals working in the legal system and our government. They actually got to see our State government and our Federal government in action. They even did fund raising (a “garage sale”) to pay for their trip to DC, after winning at the State Competition. Those kids performed so well that they were ranked 11th in the nation one year. Her students performed well enough to go on to Washington several years in a row. My daughter learned to work hard and she learned how to get results. We are thankful for all of Mrs. Schmitz work.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Good deeds in the past do not excuse bad deeds today.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:51 am
I find it hard to believe a person’s character can change so quickly. There is something wrong here. False charges?
February 13th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Look folks, these are not just manufactured charges or part of a Republican conspiracy. Back in March of 2007 it was reported that Schmitz was fired from her job for not producing evidence of performing sufficient work. Her superiors had been pressing her to produce proof of work since early 2006. Among what little work she actually did report included time spent fulfilling her legislative duties, which she is already paid by the state to do.
Read the article and think about this: just how poorly does a state legislator have to perform in her duties to get fired? I’m sure that her superiors were not eager to go down that road because they have no desire to make enemies in the legislature (some might speculate that they hire lawmakers for the exact opposite reason). Obviously enough people felt that her performance was so abysmal that she needed to be let go despite any negative ramifications that choice may cause.
It would appear that Johnson gave the Feds enough additional information about Schmitz’s employment to justify charges.
February 13th, 2008 at 8:51 am
o.k. got it. just seems odd to go from one extreme to the other. I guess the court will have to figure it all out.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I just read that the court decided she was “wrongfully” fired.
February 15th, 2008 at 6:22 am
[...] against Schmitz are baseless and part of a Republican conspiracy. I addressed such talk in a recent comment: Look folks, these are not just manufactured charges or part of a Republican conspiracy. Back in [...]
April 6th, 2008 at 10:57 am
[...] it sure isn’t Lowell Barron and “fine legislators” such as E.B McClain, Sue Schmitz, Yvonne Kennedy, Ken Guin, and Laura Hall. By the way, what do all the previously mentioned [...]
May 29th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Judge rejects legislator’s claims of political prosecution in Alabama two-year colleges case
Rep. Sue Schmitz alleged misconduct, political prosecution Wednesday, May 28, 2008BRETT J. BLACKLEDGENews staff writer
A federal judge has rejected claims of grand jury misconduct and accusations that prosecutors unfairly targeted Democrats in an ongoing criminal investigation of Alabama’s two-year colleges.
U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Paul Greene said lawyers for state Rep. Sue Schmitz, D-Toney, failed to offer any evidence to support claims of prosecutorial misconduct or selective prosecution, accusations that other defense lawyers have repeated when criticizing U.S. Attorney Alice Martin’s investigation of corruption in the college system. Greene noted defense claims that prosecutors improperly influenced the grand jury.
“The conclusion appears to be based on little more than Ms. Schmitz’s self-serving expressions of disbelief and incredulity that she has been indicted,” Greene wrote.
The rulings, issued over the past several days, are significant because they dismiss Schmitz’ claims of prosecutorial misconduct as “unsubstantiated allegations” and “conjecture.” Those claims have been repeated by Birmingham lawyer Doug Jones and others representing legislators tied to the colleges, who have argued that Schmitz’s case proves their concerns that prosecutors acted improperly and misused the grand jury in a broader effort to hurt Democrats. Jones has made similar claims of misconduct in former Gov. Don Siegelman’ prosecution.
“Ms. Schmitz must first establish a colorable claim of prosecutorial misconduct. She simply has not done so,” Greene wrote in one ruling.
Schmitz faces trial on federal criminal charges of fraud and mail fraud, accusing her of taking more than $175,000 in two-year college pay for work she did not do. Her trial is scheduled to begin next week, although the case likely will be rescheduled because former system Chancellor Roy Johnson has been introduced as a witness against Schmitz.
Greene wrote critically of defense lawyers’ motions claiming improper conduct by prosecutors, noting a failure to meet the minimum threshold of evidence supporting the claims; questioning the “remarkably broad” requests for more information so defense lawyers could continue arguing the claims; and citing the lawyers’ “incomplete understanding” of federal criminal procedure.
Greene summarizes his frustration with the defense allegations in a ruling denying motions seeking extraordinary production of materials from the government - in one case, asking prosecutors to “produce a copy of each and every document, not otherwise requested, that references Ms. Schmitz in any capacity, regardless of its source.”
“No single statement with regard to Ms. Schmitz’s discovery motion could be more telling,” Greene wrote, adding this request “is the drift net of fishing expeditions.
“The court’s earlier observations with respect to Ms. Schmitz’s incomplete understanding of criminal discovery is amply demonstrated by this request,” he wrote.