Posted by Helen Hammons looks at the court proceedings in the case of Rep. Sue Schmitz (D – Toney) and gives us this report.
In an answer to a court directive, Federal prosecutors on Wednesday specifically mentioned Alabama legislator Sue Schmitz’s alleged efforts to obtain help in getting a job with the Community Intensive Treatment for Youth Skills Training Consortium (the CITY Program) from Dr. Paul Hubbert, House Speaker Seth Hammett and former two-year college Chancellor Roy Johnson.
Prosecutors have claimed Schmitz fraudulently made approximately $177,251.82 from the program and “performed virtually no services and generated virtually no work product.” Schmitz has denied the charges and has alleged she has been the target of selective prosecution.
The directive from the court told prosecutors “to explain upon what basis it had concluded that Ms. Schmitz obtained her position through illegitimate means and the relationship between that claim and the mail fraud counts…”
The government’s submission to the court says the basis for the allegation is as follows. (I have not tried to interpret or correct some of the typos in the government’s document.)
“1. The defendant utilized her status as a legislator to request and receive preferential treatment in obtaining a position with the CITY Program. Her efforts included, but were not limited to, requesting the assistance of the head of the Alabama Education Association, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the then-Chancellor of the Department of Postsecondary Education in furtherance of her desire to secure employment. The fact that Schmitz called upon these individuals – who were well known to wield great influence – rather than contacting prospective employers directly distinguishes the nature of her job search and evidences her desire to obtain special treatment.”
“2. The position Schmitz secured for herself with the CITY Program – “Program Coordinator for Community and External Affairs” – never existed previously and was in fact specially created for her.”
“3. The position Schmitz obtained as not posted to allow for other individuals to apply, and, in fact, no other applicants were considered for the position.”
“4. Schmitz was offered the position by letter dated January 16, 2003, and she accepted the position by countersigning that letter on January 24, 2003. Schmitz did not submit an application for the position until February 3, 2003 – a full eighteen days before she was offer, and a full ten days after she had accepted, the job.”
The government went on to say Schmitz’s “illegitimate means illuminate Schmitz’s fraudulent intent…” and her actions “serve to demonstrate that she never intended to actually perform any work in her role as a CITY Program employee. Rather, Schmitz merely sought to secure for herself a specially created, well compensated position with nebulous duties by capitalizing on her status as an elected official so that she would receive a stream of payments from the CITY Program as salary even though she planned to rarely even appear for work at CITY Program offices, much less perform any actual work.”
A cursory review of court filings, indicates both the government and the defense have to a certain extent been playing to a future jury and the media. Necessary basic legal elements have been missing from some of the defense’s filings and the court has so far in its rulings said Schmitz has not proven the elements needed to sustain allegations of government misconduct.
Many a defense lawyer wishes the routine posturing antics of prosecutors did amount to misconduct, but Chief Magistrate Judge Paul Greene certainly hit the nail on the head by acknowledging a simple fact. “Derogatory remarks and statements made by prosecutors or government witnesses do not amount to prosecutorial misconduct.”
Schmitz has also sought in pre-trial motions to have the court agree she was paid a bona fide salary and compensation as a normal course of business. Chief Magistrate Judge Paul Greene’s finding and recommendation says that issue has to be left to a jury. “What Ms. Schmitz seeks is an evaluation of her evidence in support of a possible challenge to an aspect of the indictment before the government has presented its case…In any case, the indictment may not be dismissed merely because the defendant at some later time may offer evidence to a fact finder that an exception ameliorating criminal culpability may be appropriately founded to be applicable.”
Schmitz requested a trial without a jury but the government refused to go along with that request. Prosecutors have advised Schmitz and the court they expect former Chancellor Roy Johnson to be a witness during the trial. Although the court’s electronic system still shows a June trial date, there is no written decision on file related to a request in that system related to Schmitz’s request for a further continuance until September. That issue may have been addressed during a recent pre-trial conference, but I was unable to determine that prior to this writing. Prosecutors previously wrote they had no problem with a delay into July, but did not agree the case should be moved into September.
Related Articles:
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
She neded a new job by 2003, as during the 2002 campaign the question was starting to be ask how she taught scool and served in Montgomery when her classroom job was a posistion that required teaching during normal school hours.
ok my question is why is she getting in trouble and the man that highered her is not? I have known ms. sue for a while and I have a hard time believing that she would do that.
and to answer your question #1 i was one of her students and I can tell you that she was rarely out of her class room at all, so she was deffinantly burning the candles at both ends. she was a great teacher she taught us alot and even when they said they were not gonna pay her she volunteered to teach for free. She missed about as much class as any other teacher at my school; and that was not much.