Sue Schmitz sentencing

Sue Schmitz (D – sentenced to 30 months in prison after her conviction on seven felony fraud charges) has a Facebook page.  Thanks to Dale Jackson of WVNN for pointing this out.

Here are some comments from our neighbors about this Democrat politician who stole money from our children:

Kristen Hilliard DeGurse calls Schmitz a “role model”.  Hide your purses and wallets…

Darlene Ehinger is “impressed with (Schmitz’) personal integrity” and believes that her prosecution was “reprehensible”.  Speaking of reprehensible, Ehinger is one of those disgusting peace action leftists…

Political and PR consultant David Driscoll (clients include the HHA) calls this “a great injustice by our legal system”.

Pam Miles vows to “fight for JUSTICE for you and Don until my last breath”.  Miles seems to have a thing for convicts…

Marisa Ikstrums says “the injustice of situation breaks my heart” and credits Schmitz with her “strong understanding of government”.   She must have missed the part about public corruption and the legal system…

Rose Norman says “Schmitz deserves a medal for what she’s done for Alabama politics”.  Looks like she earned ze ‘Iron Bar’ (unlike das Iron Cross)…

Andree Reeves says “everybody who knows you knows that all those accusations are NOT TRUE! Hang in there, and know that a lot of people love you–and we all feel worse about our government today”.  Note to Reeves – a conviction is more than an accusation – it is a finding of FACT.

Judy Shannon Sizemore says “all the crap doesn’t change a thing”.  Sadly she’s right, Democrat politicians still refuse to pass ethics reform…

State Representative Randy Hinshaw (D – 22) signed up as a “fan” of Schmitz (D – soon to be an inmate under the supervision of the Federal Bureau of Prisons).  The Democratic Party is abiding corruption rather than working to eliminate it – costing our children tens of millions of dollars (not an exaggeration).


Challen Stephens of The Huntsville Times showed some uncharacteristic sloppiness in his article “Schmitz’s prison home won’t be anywhere close”.  Stephens wrote:

Federal prosecutors argued she had used her influence in the Legislature to collect a paycheck from the state’s two-year college system while doing little or nothing to earn it.

Yes, prosecutors did ‘argue’ that Schmitz was guilty, but then the jury ‘convicted’ her – Stephens should have stated that she was convicted rather than minimizing it.  IMO this sounds a little bit too much like the commenters on Facebook…

28 thoughts on “Sue Schmitz sentencing

  1. Please note that Darlene Ehinger is the wife of John Ehinger, until recently the editorial page editor of The Huntsville Times. Funny how that always happens. Oh, but rest assured the fact that he and his wife are far-left whackjobs had no effect whatsoever on his editorial decisions. No sir, he was a professional, don’t you know.

  2. Itll be interesting to see if the kooks on the left push this case like they have for the Don and Paul Minor in Mississippi. Nothing really surprises me anymore though with people and the things they do. Just look at the last few weeks, we’ve had evil trash dressing up as ninjas and killing a couple in front of their kids on the coast. Some fool videotaped Erin Andrews and to top it off there’s that state senator from Memphis who was blackmailed for having sex with his intern.

  3. I feel sorry for you, Reactionary.

    Here we have people throughout the country leaving messages of love and support for friend and colleague who is going through personal troubles, and you are so blinded for your hatred for Democrats (don’t even try and hide behind some invented moral indignation about public trust, everybody here knows the truth) that you can’t help but take partisan potshots.

    God forbid anybody you care about make a horrible mistake and get a felony conviction so that some political hack can cop a holier-than-thou attitude-induced hard-on.

  4. maybe she will take the big vacation before she reports to the can. that way we save on incarceration fees and get a judgment against any estate property.

  5. ttownfeen, I see where you are coming from, but I believe you are generally off base. First, I don’t believe Reactionary is “hiding behind some invented moral indignation about public trust.” I know him personally and I simply disagree with your assessment and I think mine has more grounding in reality.

    Some of those who commented on Schmitz’s page did so to leave messages of “love and support for friend and colleague who is going through personal troubles.” That is understandable. She obviously made a positive impact on the lives of many. But, many others are akin to what you are slamming Reactionary over: political hacks who only “support” Schmitz because of the letter by her name.

    And those comments that disparage the legal system that convicted Schmitz fr convicting her on seven felony counts deserve to be made examples of. I don’t think she made some “horrible mistake.” I think she intentionally used her political clout to get a made up job where she could draw a taxpayer funded paycheck for doing little to no work. A jury of her peers agreed with me.

  6. First let me say that Sue Schmitz was my client for her last 3 campaigns. She is the finest person I know. She was hired into a system that allowed her to work at her pace. There is always two sides to every story. The real question is why wasn’t the people who signed off on her time cards charged. I know for a fact she helped at risk people in the program. The job of a federal prosecutor is to win the case whether things are true or legally true.

    Politics can be cruel. I know this woman as a kind and caring person. She was caught up in a bad situation. When she sued for being fired she won her salary back. SO proof different courts see differen things.

    Just because she is of a different party that you dont like, doesnt mean she wasnt a victim of a bad system or a justice system that is bent on winning at all cost.

    Phil Williams, a Republican, was my client that won the seat she held. Phil is a class guy that will serve the district well.

    On another note, my partner, Paige Rucker, handles HHA, to mention it in a post attributed to me, David Driscoll, is not revelent.

    Lets keep blogs fair, please
    David Driscoll

  7. ttownfeen – note that I didn’t highlight those people who left notes of prayer or good will for Sue Schmitz – I noted those who were deluded or hacks or silly: Schmitz is not a “role model” or impressive regarding “personal integrity”. It is not “injustice” to prosecute public corruption.

    I hold elected officials to a high standard because they hold offices of great power and great trust. If you think I only get indignant about Democratic Party crooks – you are wrong – the GOP expects honest officals (one of our founding principles) and we are harder on our own who don’t live up to the standards. You may have heard of this ‘double standard’ (we have standards, they don’t).

    If we ever get I&R, I’m going to introduce legislation for mandatory ‘get the maximum’ sentences for public corruption (throw the book at them).

    Also note that if Schmitz were not an elected official I wouldn’t be so harsh on her. For example, a local reporter was busted for cocaine (felony) and even though I disagreed with the articles this person wrote, neither I nor Brian harshed on him – we wished he and his family well.

    David Driscoll – I thought the name of your firm was the ‘Driscoll Rucker Group’ and that your firm had a contract with the HHA. BTW the Huntsville Times thinks the same thing:

    “…Lundy signed a contract with Driscoll Rucker Group.”

    As for relevance, we’ve written about the HHA. I find the relationships between political players interesting and I think our readers find them informative.

    I think that Sue Schmitz was hired into a corrupt system – you almost seem to acknowledge that too. I certainly agree that her supervisors should suffer for their actions – but as a State Representative she was in a more powerful position, even as a subordinate.

    BTW, I was not pleased with Phil Williams’ choices of campaign consultants (Main Street Strategies) or of your firm. I think GOP candidates should support GOP consultants – and I’ve said as much to Williams in person.

    I try to be fair and accurate when writing. I hope that people find us to be worth reading occasionally.

  8. David,

    As a minimum, don’t you think “public relations professionals” should be able to write using correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling? Just curious. Based on your posting above, there’s no way I would ever hire you to represent me, that’s for sure.

    Furthermore, you need to read up on legal matters before displaying your ignorance. The job of a federal prosecutor (or any prosecutor) is not “to win the case whether things are true or legally true” [sic]. Prosecutors are charged with seeking truth, whatever that may be. Does that always happen? Obviously, no. But to claim that it is a prosecutor’s job to break his oath of office is beyond lame.

    The evidence said Schmitz was guilty, and the jury agreed. Even a reasonably sympathetic judge was forced to point out during sentencing that Schmitz repeatedly lied under oath. She’s a crook — get over it.

  9. Reactionary
    Flashpoint is the premier site for politics in Alabama with a right wing slant. I know and accept it. We don’t agree on the Schmitz issue and there is no reason to push it anymore on this blog. I will concede the HHA comment, you are right my name is on the company.

    I will challenge you on the comment “Republicans should use Republican only consultants.” I work with both and it is about winning. It is possible a person can be objective in his job but have different leanings in his politics. Please call me at my office and let’s talk.

    To Ben
    I wouldn’t accept you as a client because you couldn’t afford me on your salary at the car wash. I bet being so anal makes for pencil thin stools.

    If you don’t think lawyers pull out all the stops to win, you are very naive. Government prosecutors are graded on their ability to win cases, defense attorneys are paid on their percentage of winning. They both find ways to present their cases in the best light, leaving out the negative. Both find ways to win and it is not always the most honest.

    With that said, you have a right to your opinion and I respect that right. I don’t write on blogs to be grammatical correct or worry about punctuation or spelling. Please respect another persons post.

    Finally, is your last name Dover? Get it Ben Dover!!!!!!

  10. David,

    Ah, so in describing you, we can now add “classless” to “illiterate”.

    Question: Do you really think it wise for your business interests to publicly reveal yourself as a vulgar buffoon? You do realize you are supposedly in the business of public relations, right?

    By the way, I am sure that Brian and Reactionary are thrilled for you to attempt to dictate what they may and may not write about. If they choose to write about your crooked client every day for the next three years, what are you going to do about it?

  11. I think we’re missing the big picture here. Sue Schmitz did nothing wrong in the eyes of the Democrats in this country. All she did was break the law. And since the law doesn’t really apply to Democrats, they’re flabbergasted as to why this is such a big deal. Laws are meant to be followed only by Republicans and when THEY break the law THEN we can complain about corruption and wrong-doing.

    Let’s maintain some perspective here! Shouldn’t we still be complaining about Sergeant Crowley until the health care bill is passed without anyone noticing?

  12. I don’t know CJ, it seems like we may want to applaud SGT Crowley a little more, because he distracted the media and Obama from the Obamacare presser.

  13. Reactionary:

    I apologize that I lashed out like that. I don’t know the teacher/legislator in question, but she seemed to have had a positive effect around those she knew. She got herself her a sticky situation that landed her in jail. I will take your word that you were only targeting the political opportunists. However, I question whether all of them were using the situation to score political points or simply supporters who are merely human (see only what they want to see, believe only what they want to believe).

  14. What is it called Mr. Driscoll? Slander or libel – I used my text to speech feature so you now qualify for both on this blog. Good job getting Phil Williams elected, the commercials were great, but Guvna’ Riley needs a new phone or a mic cover the next time he records a robocall for you.

  15. Astonishing what the occasional googling of your own name turns up. Imagine my surprise when I find that I was quoted on some random conservative blog. Delightful.

    First of all, let me say that to be even remotely ethical or reasonable, you probably should’ve gotten commentor’s opinion (or at the very least notified them) prior to using their full name for your little blog.

    Additionally, you might have pointed out that the support page was not in fact created by Ms. Schmitz herself, but in fact by those who know and love her instead of implying that some sort of egocentrism drover her to create one. (Since we’re being reasonable and all.)

    Though I more than appreciate all that Ms. Schmitz has done and even appreciate blogs debating her innocence or lack thereof given the various tenets of the legal system, I find it thoroughly repugnant to create a blog in which you use both the full name of people who have supported Ms. Schmitz via a facebook page, but also have done so only to insert random stale jokes here and there about her guilt. Yes, we get it, you think you’re quite entertaining.

    In fact Ms. Schmitz is the reason I was blessed with a strong understanding of government in high school, including that which is and is not corrupt, your quip being completely irrelevant to my comment. Ms. Schmitz gave her own time and money to civics students at Sparkman HS and at the point that she taught me she was already teaching for free.

    I find your need to make comments about those who support her both morally deficient and entirely — for lack of a better word — skeezy.

    If you were growing to quote her supporters, grow the balls to tell them or – at the very least – make it at least moderately amusing.

  16. Which is “morally deficient” (or “skeezy,” whatever that means)?

    A) Quoting comments left by people on a publicly accessible Facebook page. Not password protected. Willingly left by each commenter for any Tom, Dick, or Harry to peruse.


    B) Stealing money from children.

  17. You may not realize this, but the two subjects of your comparison are completely unrelated. I mean, it seems like it would be a good comparison given that it’s highly inflammatory, but as I said – completely unrelated. I believe in pop culture that is referred to as a “Chewbacca defense.” Nice try, though.

  18. Au contraire!

    Schmitz was convicted by a jury of her peers in accordance with well established legal protocols. She intentionally sought out a made up, no work job using her power as a state legislator to make it happen. By doing so she effectively stole education money that could have otherwise been put to good use educating children instead of lining her pockets. She may well have been a very fine and competent teacher, but when she became a legislator she did something very wrong and betrayed the public’s trust.

    You and others left comments on a Facebook page that can be divided into a couple of categories. There were the “You were a great teacher. I’m so sorry this is happening!” comments. Perfectly fine. Then there were the “This is an injustice and a political prosecution!” comments. Not fine. Yours fit both categories. By claiming injustice in this situation you excused her for stealing from children. You implied that she should have either been allowed to keep doing it or should have been allowed to walk away with no penalty. I’m sure you’re familiar with the details of what Schmitz did. What, exactly, do you think is acceptable about what she did?

    Contrast what Schmitz did with what Reactionay did by authoring this post. He read a publicly available resource, not unlike a news column or this blog. I presume your arm was not twisted to leave your comment; you did so under you own free will. The wall postings on that page are not the same as what you leave on your own wall that are password protected and only available to people to whom you allow access. When you made that comment there was no expectation of privacy.

    You claimed that repeating a publicly available quote made by a person with no expectation of privacy was “morally deficient” while simultaneously claiming that convicting a legislator of stealing from children was an “injustice.” Those two comments are not unrelated as you imply. They go directly to your judgment of what is and is not morally acceptable. Casting aside the findings of a jury in a case where the known facts are quite damning as some kind of witch hunt while lambasting someone for doing a perfectly legal and common practice is perplexing at best. I would argue it is an indefensible position.

  19. This all boils down to a very simple Democratic Party principle…

    They don’t like being held accountable.

    Don Seigleman was convicted on charges of bribery and mail fraud in connection with Richard Scrushy, but he’s the victim.
    Sue Schmitz stole from the taxpayers, but she is the victim.
    Ted Kennedy killed a girl, but he’s a victim.
    Marisa Ikstrums posted a glowing love note for a convicted felon, but she is the victim.

    Don’t do stupid things if you don’t want to own up to them.

  20. @Dale – To begin with, I’m not a Democrat. If you really believe corruption and refusal to accept the consequences of said corruption is specific only to one party, you are incredibly naive and I have a great timeshare I’d like to show you. Politicians are politicians are politicians.

    @Brian – Your reading comprehension skills could use some polishing. I didn’t actually make any reference to her guilt or lack thereof.

    Additionally, I didn’t claim an expectation of privacy nor did I indicate that I was a victim. What I find morally deficient is that you would take comments of support from her friends and former students about their love for her and twist it into something partisan and some loose illustration of a lack of moral judgement. Undoubtedly you find this difficult to believe, but Schmitz is loved by people across party lines.

    What I find skeezy (you can google the definition if needed)and pathetic is that the author of this blog didn’t either notify those he was quoting or at least use first names only. As I said before, I find it indicates a lack of testicles…*not* that anyone had an expectation of privacy.

  21. Marisa – thanks for commenting. Your logical skills could use some polishing: by using the word “injustice” you imply that Schmitz is not guilty or should not have been prosecuted.

    The people whose comments I’ve highlighted -do- illustrate “a lack of moral judgement”. Schmitz was found guilty and some people (including you) rail about the injustice. It is a FACT that she stole money from children by defrauding the school system. I find it interesting (and worth posting about) that some people think that whatever good they see in Schmitz negates that FACT.

    As the author of the blog post, I have no requirement to “notify” those who are quoted: I quoted the people accurately and in context, providing a link for citation. The quotes were found on a public website, and as you note, there was no expectation of privacy.

    Your position has a bit of dissonance: you have no expectation of privacy yet seem to want to restrict my freedom to post public comments made by people who provided their names on a public website.

  22. Oh, I don’t think that you should have to limit yourself in terms of whom you quote or that you should be restricted. It’s your first amendment right, blah blah blah. I think that this blog lacks class and that your use of people’s names without notification lacks balls. Your right ot do so? Absolutely – certainly doesn’t make it any more classy.

    As far as the injustice comment? Had I seen Alice Martin fervently pursuing criminal suspects on both sides of the political spectrum I wouldn’t find it unjust. What I find unjust is that she wasn’t simply fired and that it was necessary to go through this circus. If you have a job and aren’t performing, you get fired or get more direction from your supervisor. Had she gotten into a job and then slacked off on it? Quite possibly – but Schmitz simply isn’t the kind of hardened criminal who would create a bogus position to do nothing and collect a paycheck. Part of fraud is intent – and before you say it, yes, I am aware that she was convicted by a jury of her peers. In Alabama. A state know, of course, for its impartial justice system. *rolls eyes*

  23. Marisa – criminals are where you find them. It is not Alice Martin’s fault that so many Democrats in Alabama are corrupt.

    I think that Schmitz’ supervisors should be sanctioned – either fired or prosecuted. Schmitz was knowingly hired into a corrupt system. I’ve heard from sources close to her that she was concerned about taking the job, but was assured that the ‘old boy’ network would protect her. If true, her questioning of the job shows ‘intent’; that she knew it was wrong and did it anyway.

    What is your problem with using names without notification?

    Even if I subscribed to the ASNE Code of Ethics all they suggest is that people are given a chance to respond to a public accusal. And I’m not accusing these people of anything more than willful blindness and poor judgment.

  24. “this Democrat politician who stole money from our children”

    As one of Mrs. Schmitz’s former students, this woman gave more to public education than ANY other teacher I ever had in the Madison County School system. When Sparkman gave us NOTHING, this woman sacrificed to make sure we had the supplies we need to succeed. This was one of two classes that wasn’t a waste of time at Sparkman High School.

    As a steadfast republican, I couldn’t disagree more with her on politics. We argued on a daily basis my entire senior year of high school. But I never once doubted her character and integrity. Her entire life was dedicated to her students and her community. It seems strange to say that she stole money from your children when practically every penny she had and every moment of her time went to your children.

    Alabama’s public schools are a complete disgrace. Mrs. Schmitz made students WANT to learn. Don’t say she stole anything from the children, because she gave us her life.

  25. Elizabeth – Schmitz was convicted of seven felony fraud charges (stealing from the education system) – that is a fact.

    Thank you for sharing your story, but you should recognize that Schmitz stole from children – the money that she stole could’ve paid for teachers and supplies – instead it financed her political career.

  26. Pingback: Guess which party? – Bell CA | flashpoint

  27. Pingback: Send convicted felon Sue Schmitz a birthday card! « The Attack