‘Voter fraud’ hoax redux

Voter Fraud hoax redux—

C of C

They’re at it again, predictably. Some groups and other entities legitimized as ‘conservative’ are cranking up the time-honored tactic of ‘vote fraud.’ This, for anyone not up to speed on the topic, is the false allegation spread by C of C types that individual voters are casting more than one vote in a single race.

Looks as though some of our friends on the right are not entirely confident about the outcome of Midterms 2010.

If they had the complacency that ought theoretically to be generated by some helpful political reporting this election season, they would surely be less frantic to aver that individual voters are going to turn over the election.

Come to think of it, that’s exactly what they fear; the deep structure in these ludicrous allegations is a valid proposition–individual voters can make a difference.

But back to the bogus accusation: Put simply, once again, the charge is that individual voters are voting or will vote in more than one race at the same time. They do not usually put it that simply–for obvious reasons–but that is the basic accusation: individual voters could cast more than one vote. Generally the wild propagandists do not specify how an individual voter might do so, whether by showing up using someone else’s name, or by voting in more than one precinct in the same election. Both of these options are so difficult to implement that the accusation of either is ridiculous.

A couple of facts are in order here:

1) Within the state of Maryland, for example, voting more than once is impossible. A voter registered in Maryland cannot vote in more than one precinct. When we vote, in Maryland, our vote is tabulated in the precinct where we vote. If I were to show up at another polling place attempting to vote, it would be impossible for me to vote via the voting technology in which my vote would already be recorded. Note: It is possible to vote in a new precinct, within Maryland, if you moved without changing your registration–but in those special cases you have to vote by provisional ballot. The provisional ballots are checked and tabulated later, separately from the vote machine totals.

2) Every other state in the union has some similar or parallel safeguards. The best safeguards are still the old-fashioned paper ballots, counted publicly–vote privately, count publicly, as another writer said. But the barriers to voting in more than one race, within the same state, are impossibly high.

3) Theoretically it would be possible to pose as someone else and steal that person’s vote. If you had all the necessary data about someone whose vote you wanted to steal–address, date of birth, etc.–and you were willing to go to that person’s precinct, risking the obvious possibility that someone there would actually know the other person, you might, underscore might, get away with it. Unlikely, but theoretically possible if every conceivable aspect of luck and snakiness went your way. Of course, if the other person–the rightful voter–later showed up trying to vote, you would still be found out. It should also be noted that this kind of snakiness could be attempted by members of any party, or of no party. Attributing it to Democrats, or to any other single group, is propaganda rather than statistics. Historically the genuine and exceptional examples of voter fraud, over the centuries, have occurred within all ranks.

4) That leaves only the theoretical possibility of voting across state lines. Now here I have an anecdote, shared with me by one of my Republican neighbors. According to what she told me, a relative of hers is still registered to vote in Maryland after having moved to another state–where he is now registered to vote. He is (or was until recently) thus registered to vote, as a Republican, in two states. There is not an automated system in either state to erase a registered voter from one voter roll because s/he is registered more recently on another. So the grain of truth, as my candid GOPer points out–her relative, who of course would never do this, could conceivably either fly back to Maryland on election day to vote in his former precinct, having voted at his new home, or could cast an absentee ballot in Maryland while also voting at home.

Once again–and this should be self-evident–if this individual voter took either of these wildly exceptional actions, it would be as a GOP voter. This particular anecdote is about a Republican. Genuine, and highly exceptional, vote fraud occurs across partisan lines.

Let us take it as a given that flying across state lines to cast more than one vote in an election would be, by far, the exception rather than the general rule. Let us further point out the obvious, that doing so would be more feasible for some of the better-paid wingnuts than for most other people. Glenn Beck could do it; I could not.

By the same token, absentee ballots cast by voters living in another state would be limited to the people who could afford to move to another state. If those people registered to vote in their new homes–this being the year of that ‘voter enthusiasm gap’ we hear so much about–and then went to the lengths described here, odds are that they are not among the voters being caged, monitored, intimidated and otherwise targeted by the C of C legions.

N.b.: If any of the propagandists so ardent about ‘vote fraud’ were serious, they would at least check the data. For a broad beginning or thumbnail, one could look in census data for the total number of people, all ages, who moved from one state to another in the U.S. between the last election and this one. Then one could consult the data or do the actuarial work to compute the number, out of those who moved, who are of voting age. Then one could check to see, or could project, how many of those who moved and are 18+ are also registered to vote.

That would be your maximum number of conceivable instances of ‘vote fraud,’ if everything fell right, if all those people either traveled across state lines or voted absentee across state lines.

That would also be the number of people subject to federal prosecution for vote fraud.

The State of Arizona–What is Jamestown Associates doing in Arizona?

What is Jamestown Associates doing in Arizona?

 View the folksy ad on YouTube . . .

 

As most of West Virginia knows by now, Jamestown Associates is the Republican consultantship responsible for that infamous ‘hicky’ ad boosting the GOP candidate for senate in West Virginia. Like most populist appeals from the GOP, the image of two shirt-sleeved guys boosting the party of corporate conglomeration and secrecy in WV turned out to be fake.

 

Hicksville (WV) ad

Statements by Jamestown Associates—which touts its efforts on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce and Republican candidates around the nation—to distance itself from the ad by blaming the casting agency for the language were also false. The original email from Jamestown Associates calls explicitly for actors with a ‘Hicky’ blue collar look. The H-word is capitalized like the name of a sect.

Attorney Charles Graber says on behalf of Kathy Wickline’s casting agency only that “we are still considering our options, going forward”; Jamestown Associates and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which eagerly disavowed the ad, have apologized to Wickline. Jamestown Associates has not responded to questions.

 

One obvious question is whether Jamestown Associates employs that hicky attitude elsewhere in the United States, and if so, where. The company’s website lists four locations: “With offices in Washington, DC, Princeton, NJ, Baton Rouge, LA, and Dallas, TX, our clients benefit from the combination of a national firm’s experience and a regional firm’s knowledge of local issues and techniques.”

 

Jamestown illustrates its Baton Rouge website with a photograph of the Louisiana state capitol building; the office, however, is located on Jones Creek Road in Baton Rouge. Local and Internet directories do not turn up the name Jamestown Associates—which is registered as active and in good standing with the Louisiana Secretary of State—at that or any address. The Jones Creek Road office offers instead a few names of attorneys and an entity called ‘Capitol Consulting Inc,’ not in good standing in Louisiana.

 

Jamestown Associates also has company locations not referred to on its website, including at least one listed in public record in Arizona. Both the Dun corporation database in LexisNexis and the Arizona secretary of state’s office give the address as 6670 E. Edgemont Street, Tucson 85710. Listed personnel dovetail with the list of persons given on the main Jamestown Associates website, starting with Lawrence or Larry Weitzner as president, owner and CEO. No current phone number is accessible; the real estate website Zillow indicates that the property was foreclosed and sold. Calls placed to the house at the street address or to persons listed at that address have returned no information on the company. Dun and Bradstreet lists sales for the Arizona location of Jamestown Associates at $52,000. There is no mention of the AZ office on Jamestown Associates; the man listed as Vice President of Jamestown’s Arizona company, George M. Gobble, is not available for comment.

 

Jamestown Associates advertisement

The Capitol Consulting entity is also found in Arizona, although the only address given is a post office box, with no telephone number and no personnel listed. “Business type”: “providing political solutions.” “Owner”: same name, Capitol Consulting, but as an LLC rather than a corporation.

 

Back in Louisiana, Laura B. Lancaster, listed at LinkedIn as Media Director for Jamestown Associates in Baton Rouge, is also President of Magnolia Media LLC (not connected with a company of the same name in Mobile, Ala.) listed as inactive by the Louisiana Secretary of State. Its Registered Agent (RA) is attorney Frank D. Blackburn, whose office is the Jones Bridge Road address.

The Democratic Party in New Hampshire has filed a complaint that Magnolia Media LLC, in Baton Rouge, is a shell company. Laura Lancaster of Magnolia Media LLC, of the Jones Bridge Road address in Baton Rouge, is also listed among personnel at the Arizona Jamestown Associates in Dun and Bradstreet.

So what if anything is Jamestown Associates or Capitol Consulting doing in Arizona? The Arizona state campaign finance database lists no monetary donations from Jamestown Associates, and only one from Capitol Consulting: Capitol Consulting gave $1K Sept 29 2010 to push Proposition 302, billed as “Kids First” by interest groups. As The Arizona Republic reports, “Proposition 302 seeks the repeal of First Things First, an early-childhood health-and-development program that voters approved in 2006.


If voters approve Proposition 302, the program’s $345 million fund balance would be funneled into the state general fund for lawmakers to use as they want. Legislators already have earmarked that money for deficit relief.” The “Kids First” campaign spins its campaign to destroy the early childhood program as a way to save kids’ programs. However, as AZCentral points out, some programs named by the Prop 302 boosters have already been cut, frozen or capped. “And it’s not certain the passage of Prop. 302 would protect the programs from cuts or reverse the freezes,” since Proposition 302 does not compel the state legislature to save specific programs.

As noted above, Gobble, of or formerly of Jamestown Associates, is also on the Board of Advisors of the Aidchild Foundation, along with Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.). Jamestown Associates has handled reelection campaigns for Kolbe, and Gobble was a congressional aide to Kolbe before joining Jamestown Associates in Arizona.

Capitol Consulting also gave $1K to the AZ Republican Party in 2008—a modest amount suggesting that it may not have been among Sen. John McCain’s strongest supporters. No in-kind contributions are listed for either election cycle, either from Capitol Consulting or from Jamestown Associates. The Tucson Weekly published some good articles a few years ago on action pertaining to Jamestown Associates in Arizona. This piece from 2003 and this from 2002 are particularly illuminating. Kolbe is entrenched, if his former aide is not, and the one-hand-washes-the-other culture in higher-up GOP circles in Arizona demonstrates the effectiveness of cooperation between candidates, consultants and ‘nonprofits’.

N.b. As of now the top GOP money recipient in AZ, for U.S. House races, is Ben Quayle, son of former Vice President Dan Quayle.


More on Jamestown Associates and other states to follow.

NY State–Carl Paladino, the World Trade Center, and eminent domain

 New York State–Carl Paladino, the World Trade Center, and eminent domain

Paladino

First, from the transcripts:

CARL PALADINO (R), NEW YORK GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: “This is Carl Paladino. As governor, I will use the power of eminent domain to stop this mosque and make the site a war memorial instead of a monument to those who attacked our country.”

(video clip, Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, July 29, 2010)

 

CNN INTERVIEW WITH CARL PALADINO, REPUBLICAN NEW YORK GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE INTERVIEWER: RICK SANCHEZ SUBJECT: NEW YORK GUBERNATORIAL RACE; PROPOSAL TO BUILD MOSQUE NEAR WTC SITE TIME: 3:00 P.M. EDT DATE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010:

“MR. SANCHEZ: You say that you will use–here, let me read from your letter once again. You’re right. This is the point that you’re making and you’re correct, you’ve been very consistent on this.

“The governor”, you write, “has a legal power to use the state’s right of eminent domain to seize this site and make it a memorial of which we can be proud. That is exactly what I will do if I’m elected governor.”

So, as governor, you will go in there and take this property away from this people and turn it into a memorial because they want to use it as an Islamic cultural center.

MR. PALADINO: No. Let me correct on that, okay. That was a partial misstatement on my part. We will go in there and we will put a restrictive covenant on the property and all of the property in the Ground Zero site. Ground Zero for me is the extended site over which the dust cloud containing human remains traveled. That Ground Zero site will be protected in the memory of those who fell at the World Trade Center, as well as the memory of the thousands and thousands of soldiers, of American and allied soldiers, that fell in the ensuing wars, and 150,000 troops we still have over there defending our right to speak like this today.”

 

[continued]

“MR. SANCHEZ: Okay. But you just said the property for which the dust cloud–

MR. PALADINO: I’m sorry. I missed the point. Yeah, let me explain that. Eminent domain is a very broad term. You can actually take property or you can just put a restriction on property. In this case it would be the restriction on the use of a property that a zoning board would consider the issue when proposed use is introduced for any property within the district. And if the zoning board determines that it is an affront in any way to the American people to those memories, then it would be rejected, the use would be rejected.”

 

For more than one reason, New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino was sagacious to amend his initial campaign promise to ‘seize’ the World Trade Center site under eminent domain. For one, the Islamic Center to include the mosque and ecumenical chapel for religious use is not planned for the World Trade Center site itself but for a site two blocks away. As one attorney expert in eminent domain cases comments, seizing ‘Ground Zero’ would hardly prevent a mosque from being built blocks away. Widening the terrain to that hit by ‘dust’ from the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, parries this point—although it also includes all of Lower Manhattan.

 

For another, hearing a GOP candidate for governor of the nation’s third-largest state aggressively proclaim the use of eminent domain to seize property—“we do it every day in zoning”—would hardly sit well with Paladino’s ‘tea party’ constituency.

 

Telephone and emailed questions and requests for comment placed with the Paladino campaign, whose slogan is “Paladino for the people,” have not yet been answered. Paladino’s campaign website further emphasizes, as Paladino said in the Rick Sanchez interview, that Paladino’s use of eminent domain around the World Trade Center site would be restricted–“but not by taking the property.”

 

Still, Paladino’s track record includes some aggressive threats to use eminent domain:

[transcript:]

“MR. SANCHEZ: So you believe that a government–a government has a right to make a decision, a property rights decision, based on its own sensibilities, how its affected. How would that stop, in the future, someone from–

MR. PALADINO: We do it every day in zoning–we do it every day in zoning law.

MR. SANCHEZ: But how–but in this case you’re–

MR. PALADINO: Zoning laws–

MR. SANCHEZ: But this case it’s a First Amendment argument that you’re deciding.

MR. PALADINO: No, we’re not.

MR. SANCHEZ: Aside from sensibilities, if the Constitution says we have a right to worship as we please, where we please, how can you go in and say I don’t want you worshiping that way there because it affects my sensibilities?

MR. PALADINO: I’ve clearly said to you that it’s my opinion that this is not a question of freedom of religion.”

 

Even after widening the geography to that covered by the “dust” from the attacks of September 11, 2001, and restricting the use of eminent domain to “covenant” rather than seizure, Paladino’s rhetoric raises issues that should concern his ‘base.’


The big one, of course, is the First Amendment. [ O’Donnell]

 

Even with the limitations or after-the-fact qualifiers, Paladino’s barn-burning rhetoric basically boils down to saying that as New York governor he would use “any means”—his words—to prevent the ‘mosque’s’ being built, including the power of eminent domain.

Setting aside any other questions, a key legal question for a lay person is, could he really do that?

Any exercise of the power of eminent domain must be based on a legitimate public purpose of the condemning authority, in this instance the State of New York. That fundamental principle raises the immediate question whether preventing a ‘mosque’ at or near the WTC site could be a legitimate public purpose.

Most lawyers would argue, to the contrary, that the expressed purpose of preventing a ‘mosque’ is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

Attorney Thomas M. Olson, of the firm of McKirdy & Riskin in Morristown, N.J., interviewed by telephone, has represented clients in numerous cases confirming that indeed First Amendment issues can arise in relation to eminent domain. Whether the First Amendment issues outweigh other concerns varies from case to case, Olson says, but the First Amendment does not automatically go down to defeat just because the state—at the federal or state level—advances other interests. Boiling it down to lay terms, sometimes the church or cemetery wins.

 

Side note: Purely anecdotally, it used to be a truism that Constitutional Law was the law school course that law school students took least interest in, the one on which they typically placed least priority. The constitution being the terrain only of future constitutional law profs or a smaller handful of future Supreme Court Justices, the conventional wisdom went, Con Law was perceived as offering little payback to the prospective lawyer who wanted to go out and land a well-paying job at one of the big burnout law firms. Indeed, in this (surely) over-cynical and oversimplified view, a well-grounded regard for the constitution was something of a handicap to be reticent about, not a selling point in a job interview with Gordon Gekko.

 

Back to the phone interview–Olson clarifies that the government does have power to use eminent domain in regard to private property—but not for free: when a property is condemned, for example, the property owner still has to be compensated. The government does have power to seize land for public use—a freeway, a school. But whether the government has the right in a particular case depends on what purpose they would seize it for. An unquestioned public use such as a school is much more solid ground for eminent domain; a quasi-private use such as redevelopment is more of a gray area.

Olson’s firm, McKirdy & Riskin, generally represents property owners in eminent domain matters in New Jersey. The religious issue, “a very interesting issue,” Olson comments, “has never been finally resolved by the courts” in an across-the-board way.

When you want to run a road through a church, it can be difficult. There are rights on both sides. A church versus a cemetery might be even tougher.

To deal with the First Amendment issue, Paladino’s rebuttal is simply to deny it:

“MR. SANCHEZ: They may very well be, sir, and I understand your perspective. But what you can’t get away from, and I guess what I’d like to ask you because we’ve got to get a break in and we’ll continue but maybe it gives us a chance to think about this a little bit. How do you get away from the fact that there is a constitutional argument here that seems to say that you can’t deny someone–

MR. PALADINO: There is no constitutional argument because it’s not freedom of religion.

MR. SANCHEZ: It’s not? Okay–

MR. PALADINO: If it was freedom of religion they’d put their mosque someplace else.

MR. SANCHEZ: Okay. Let’s continue that part–

MR. PALADINO: And enjoy their religious experience.”

 

According to Paladino, the building is “ideological,” not religious. Set aside the point that ideology might be protected by the First Amendment and that religious denominations have their ideological components. Set aside that the building is being called ‘ideological’ and is being opposed because some people do not like it. Set aside the point that people could be prevented from enjoying their religious experience anywhere other people were minded to prevent it, on whatever grounds. Set aside even the sad possibility that Paladino may not consider Islam a religion to begin with. Even giving him all these set-asides, his argument pretty much boils down to a statement that the building is not religious because he (speaking ex officio as hypothetical governor) says it’s not.

It is a given that media attention to Paladino’s statements will dwindle because nobody foresees that he poses much threat to Andrew Cuomo. But his is a worrisome train of thought for a chief executive, and should be seen as such by tea partiers as well as others.

Cuomo, Ackerman

A better argument for Paladino to have made as gubernatorial candidate would have been the common-sense reminder that the First Amendment is not absolute and government can abridge constitutional freedoms, within reasonable limits, to serve other legitimate purposes such as curing blight to foster the health, safety and welfare of a community. 

Back when he was talking about ‘seizing’ the property, he could also have reminded the audience that any property seized would have to be paid for. So the taxpayers would be on the hook for any property abruptly picked up by the State of New York, including the footprint of the twin towers.

 

Back—again—to when Paladino was talking about seizing the World Trade Center site, it is intriguing to note that he was talking about using eminent domain in order to create a “public memorial.” This would be his concept of the public use under which eminent domain could be used—a memorial, rather than a road or bridge, etc. A memorial park might indeed be such a public use, or public purpose, but once again it would have to be paid for. It would be interesting to run this one by the deficit hawks among the tea partiers. Fair market value for the property, as paid by the State . . .?

 

Another legal issue, perhaps a future project for legal research, is whether New York State has power to seize property owned by the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey for any purpose. 

 

btw a memorial on the 9/11 site is already under construction. Paladino’s proposal to exercise eminent domain ‘restriction’ or ‘covenant’ could overlap significantly with—i.e. come into conflict with—the memorial underway. Thus the argument of a legitimate public purpose would have to be weighed against, again, fiscal costs–the large public maintenance obligation and presumably the loss of tax revenue.

 

But the fundamental concern is that eminent domain must have a legitimate public purpose. The purposes of government are defined by the constitution and by statute. A governor cannot simply declare that something is a public use in order to justify taking private property. This is a Tea Party candidate?

Final note: The Corpus Juris Secundum, the encyclopedia of American law, devotes 752 pages to eminent domain, plus suppl., give or take, which is what eminent domain is all about. See vol. 29A.

 

Pages 167 and 168 of the CJS deal with cemeteries as public use of land. Page 189 deals with cemeteries as property appropriate for the exercise of eminent domain.

 

The CJS makes clear that land, including private property, may be taken by the government—federal or state—for public use, with two conditions: 1) the use has to be public, i.e. open to all, as for example roads and bridges; and 2) the property owner has to be fairly compensated (paid).

 

Any land taken for use as a cemetery or, presumably, as a memorial, must be for public use. It cannot be an exclusionary private cemetery.

 

[This article, deleted by the system among hundreds of articles and blog posts in summer 2011, is re-posted using archives and Word files.]

 


NY State–Carl Paladino, the World Trade Center, and eminent domain

NY State–Carl Paladino, the World Trade Center, and eminent domain
 

First, from the transcripts:

 

CARL PALADINO
(R), NEW YORK GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE:

On the Paper Trail of a Pedophile, Part 7: Atchison was connected in Florida as well as in Alabama

On the Paper Trail of a Pedophile, Part 7: Atchison was connected in Florida as well as in Alabama

 

Roy Atchison

This blog is the seventh concerning John David Roy Atchison, Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola, arrested in Detroit in September 2007 on charges relating to pedophilia. He committed suicide in federal prison in October 2007; arrest and suicide were not foregrounded by the Justice Department in the Bush administration, and family connections have further obscured the matter.

 

 

From the Southern Center for Human Rights

In 2005, the Southern Center for Human Rights and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a lawsuit in federal court in Gulfport, Miss., on behalf of a number of poor plaintiffs, alleging that the City of Gulfport had established basically a debtor’s prison. Among the plaintiffs was an illiterate woman, mentally challenged, who had been incarcerated repeatedly for unpaid fines in spite of her impairment and the fact that her income consisted of a small monthly SSI check. Plaintiffs alleged through counsel that Gulfport was rounding up people with unpaid fines, mainly in black neighborhoods, and corralling them in the overcrowded county jail with little process.

 

Defendants in the lawsuit, settled in January 2007, included the City of Gulfport and then-Chief Municipal Court Judge William B. (Bill) Atchison.

 

Bill Atchison’s brother was Roy Atchison, the federal prosecutor in Pensacola, Fla., who killed himself in prison after being arrested on charges basically of pedophilia in 2007.

As said, the lawsuit was settled in January 2007, with Bill Atchison, the Chief Municipal Court Judge, and the City of Gulfport both represented by city attorney Jeffrey S. Bruni. Other defendants included a fellow municipal court judge, Richard Smith; Gulfport Municipal Court Administrator bill Markopoulos; and Senior Warrants Officer Walter Eighmey of the Gulfport Police Department. The lawsuit was filed in July 2005. A McClatchey newspaper, the Biloxi, Miss., Sun Herald, had reported in June that the City of Biloxi had a backlog of $10.7 million in unpaid fines assessed in its municipal court.

 

Bruni and the city office of Gulfport have not yet returned a call for comment.

Judge Atchison’s brother was arrested in September 2007, as previously written. News reports did not mention the family connections to Gulfport’s Chief Municipal Court Judge. The Atchison brothers’ parents live in Gulfport. Roy Atchison’s death in prison occurred Oct. 5, 2007.

 

A little more than a year later, the chief judge himself was arrested, on Feb. 4, 2009, charged with abusing prescription drugs after an investigation of several months, according to the Harrison County, Miss., sheriff’s office and Gulfport police. Bill Atchison was placed under house arrest. Concerns about his safety in the presence of inmates he had sentenced kept him from having to do jail time in the facility to which the debtors above, for example, had been remanded.

 

As the Sun Herald reported, the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics alleged that in April 2007 Bill Atchison obtained a 15-day supply of hydrocodone from one physician, another prescription from a second physician five days later, and a third prescription from a third physician two weeks later.

 

Thus the case against Bill Atchison in Mississippi developed during 2007 and 2008—resulting in the early 2009 arrest–and must have overlapped with the developing FBI investigation against Roy Atchison in Florida and Detroit. Their father, retired physician William David Atchison, was allegedly among the doctors from whom Bill Atchison acquired some of his prescriptions. Atchison went on administrative leave after his arrest and resigned his judgeship.

 

A call for information has been placed with Bill Atchison’s attorney, criminal defense lawyer Wayne Woodall. Woodall told reporters that Bill Atchison had undergone two surgeries and was in pain requiring painkillers.

 

Nonetheless, the entire legal matter corroborates a key claim in the Southern Center and NAACP lawsuit about a debtors’ prison in Gulfport, that there is a different justice system for the affluent and well-connected than for the poor.

So does the delicate and muted handling of these legal matters in the press.  There has been little or no media follow-up regarding the numerous cases on which the Municipal Court Chief Judge in Gulfport handed down decisions, including decisions in drug cases, before he resigned in April 2009 after his arrest on charges of abusing prescription drugs. McClatchy, which ran the story on Bill Atchison, did not note the kinship when the Roy Atchison story surfaced but did report the physician father’s alleged involvement.

 

The staff at the Southern Center for Human Rights, located in Atlanta, includes investigator and paralegal Lauren Brown, who according to the Center’s website investigates conditions at jails in Alabama. A report from the Center is linked here.

On the paper trail of a pedophile, part 6: Suicide in federal custody

On the paper trail of a pedophile, part 6: Suicide in federal custody

 

Roy Atchison

This blog is the sixth on John David Roy Atchison, Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola, arrested in Detroit in September 2007 on charges relating to pedophilia. He committed suicide in federal prison in October 2007; arrest and suicide were not foregrounded by the Justice Department in the Bush administration. FBI material obtained under the Freedom of Information Act suggests that Atchison’s suicide in federal prison could have been prevented, leaving him alive to cooperate with authorities targeting an alleged large pedophile ring.

 

As written previously, the prison death of an alleged pedophile tends to receive little attention. Although Atchison could have assisted law enforcement going after a large pedophile ring had he survived, his death received little media beyond the immediate event; predictably, the Bush administration did little to bring it to public notice. Nor was there a congressional investigation, amidst the highly publicized focus on other problems at the Justice Department, often homing in on the individual career of Alberto Gonzales. The facts in Roy Atchison’s suicide are as painful as is much else in the story, including the similar lack of oversight.

Briefly, the chronology:

  • Atchison was arrested at the Detroit airport Sept. 16, 2007, having flown to Detroit to meet what he thought was the five-year-old daughter of a single mom, actually an FBI agent working an online pedophilia sting. He did not resist arrest and went quietly. Interviewed by the FBI en route from the airport to the Clinton Township, Mich., FBI office, he said he went to Detroit to talk the mother out of selling her child for sex. He was placed in custody at the Macomb County Jail.
  • The FBI field office in Detroit issued a press release on the arrest Sept. 17, 2007.
  • A search warrant for Atchison’s home and computers was signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Miles Davis Sept. 17, and searches were executed that day; the inventory included hundreds of images of child pornography stored in his PC, laptops and flash drives.
  • Atchison was assigned to the Sanilac County Jail in Michigan’s Thumb, Mich., to await trial. Authorities told the press that they were taking special precautions with Atchison, as customary for prisoners at risk—those in law enforcement, those accused of crimes against children, and those who might be informants. Atchison fell into all three categories.
  • On Sept. 18, Atchison was placed on suicide watch in detention.
  • Atchison was taken off suicide watch Sept. 19, by U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan, who said that the suicide watch had been imposed out of “an abundance of caution.” Morgan, like Atchison himself, came into office under the Reagan administration. Both Atchison and his Detroit attorney, James C. Thomas, assured the judge that Atchison would not try to harm himself. Thomas said, “We think he is not a risk to himself and it certainly will be argued that he is not a risk to others.” Atchison consented to continued detention, waiving his right to a detention hearing in Detroit but reserving his right to a future bond hearing.
  • The same day, a grand jury in Detroit handed down a three-count indictment.
  • Atchison tried to hang himself in the county jail Sept. 20, using a bed sheet. A cellmate who saw the 4 a.m. attempt alerted a guard; Atchison was not harmed. U.S. Marshals immediately transported him elsewhere. Thomas, his Detroit attorney, told reporters, “At the time, I thought it was the right decision. Apparently it was a mistake. I feel as bad about it as anyone.”
  • Suggesting that he might have provided further information had he lived, Atchison changed his statements to the FBI in a subsequent interview on Oct. 3. He repeatedly denied having had sexual contact with a child but admitted that he had flown to Detroit for that purpose, dropping the initial story that he was investigating pedophilia, trying to talk mom out of it, etc. On Oct. 3, he told the FBI that he had flown to several cities for sex encounters. He also said that he knew of a pedophile ring in the western United States. Atchison consented to have his online identity assumed by undercover investigators.
  • On Oct. 5, 2007, Atchison was found dead in the shower area of the Milan Federal Correctional Institution, a low-security federal prison in York Charter Township, Mich., used for detention of defendants awaiting trial. He had hung himself with a sheet, as in his previous attempt. The FBI commenced an immediate investigation of the death.
  • Photographs taken by investigators include photographs of the shower area, shown with Atchison’s clothes. The baggy prison pajamas and other garments clearly had enough room in them for Atchison to smuggle a bed sheet from his cell to the shower, where he was unobserved for long enough to hang himself with a sheet.

 

There was little left for the FBI to do, beyond establish that the death was not foul play. The evidence is definitive that indeed Atchison’s death was suicide and not murder.

 

Nonetheless, it should be considered evident by this time that his death was most awfully convenient for the Bush administration, saving the Justice Department further embarrassment in the form of a trial that might have shed light on the atmosphere in the Pensacola office where Atchison worked—including among other things his computer use at the office, his friendly relationships with co-workers who unwittingly facilitated his tendencies, the sloppy overview that enabled him to tote laptops to and from work, and the acceptance of his work habits as an open ‘wheeler-dealer.’ Arguably little of this would have played well, in Florida or nationally, in election year 2008.

 

Second, it seems clear even to a non-lawyer that the most elementary preventive measures were not taken. Atchison had already clearly signaled his desire to kill himself, and had even signaled the method of choice. Smuggling a bed sheet from his cell to the shower area is an act as preventable as it was foreseeable. Be it noted that we live in a country where detainees routinely, underscore routinely, have to hand over their shoe laces and belts.

 

Atchison’s former friend George Witcher, also an Alabama attorney, demurs at this view. Interviewed by telephone, Witcher declares firmly that the authorities could not have stopped Atchison: “This was the end. His life was over.” His career gone, his family affected–there was no way they were going to keep him from killing himself, Witcher states.

 

Still, as said, elementary preventive measures went missing. The suicide watch was lifted remarkably quickly, leaving nowhere near enough time for the prisoner to catch up on sleep, let alone undergo a dependably thorough psychological evaluation.

The post-death photographs of Atchison’s cell, showing his few personal effects, include reading glasses and a book—by Pastor Rick Warren, title partly obscured but beginning The Purpose . . .

Signs were abundant that Atchison intended to take matters into his own hands.

 

Final note: Sad as the death is, the sadness would not seem to be an adequate explanation for refusing to take steps to keep the same thing from happening again, or for refusing to shine a media light that might lead to such steps. Deaths in jail are not supposed to happen.

Similarly, the argument that refusing to face these events somehow spares the family pain does not hold water. Had the judicial process been handled more professionally, the death might well not have happened. In all likelihood, the man’s relatives would prefer to have him alive and trying to work toward recovery.

 

Next, Part 7: Further fall-out?

On the paper trail of a pedophile, Part 5: Signs of Trouble?

On the paper trail of a pedophile, Part 5: Signs of Trouble?

 

Roy Atchison

This blog is the fifth in a series on John David Roy Atchison, Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola, arrested in Detroit in September 2007 on charges relating to pedophilia. He committed suicide in federal prison in October 2007; arrest and suicide were not foregrounded by the Justice Department in the Bush administration. FBI material obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveals a possible clue to Atchison’s secret development as an adherent of child pornography during his federal career.

 

John Davenport Gay is not a household name in America, but he is a former defendant and inmate whose own troubles could possibly have served as a clue to those of Roy Atchison. Friends, relatives and community were stunned when Atchison was arrested in September 2007 on highly credible charges relating to pedophilia. One man who might not have been entirely surprised was Gay.

 

John D. Gay

Repeated efforts to reach Gay for comment have been unsuccessful. His present whereabouts are not known. However, federal records show that Gay, a longtime Florida resident, had his house searched under federal warrant in July 1994. According to the records, his difficulties with the law pertained to possession of pornographic materials.

 

John D. Gay, who lived in Pensacola, Florida, unsuccessfully sued Atchison for return of the materials collected. Gay was plaintiff in seven such unsuccessful lawsuits; he sued the city of Gulf Breeze, the United States government, the Gulf Breeze Police Department, the Florida Department of Corrections, and other federal officials as well as Atchison. In one of the civil suits, Gay was joined as plaintiff by his father, Kenneth R. Gay, Sr. The federal cases were defended by the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Northern District of Florida, where Atchison worked.

Some of John Davenport Gay’s legal motions were writs for habeas corpus. But several were efforts to reclaim property seized from him. In every such case, the “MOTION by plaintiff JOHN DAVENPORT GAY for return of seized property” was denied by a judge. Porn aficionados have certain First Amendment rights, viz. Larry Flynt and Hustler mag, but they tend to receive little sympathy in courtrooms, even in camera.

The United States was defended in the legal matter by Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Preisser in the U.S. Attorney’s office (1995). Atchison himself as defendant individually was represented by AUSA Michael P. Finney (1994). Preisser, still at the NDFL, and Finney were apparently not among co-workers interviewed by the FBI in Atchison’s 1995 re-investigation, who gave Atchison high marks.

As noted, Roy Atchison served under four presidents—Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush—before his problems came to light. His supervisors routinely gave him high marks, and neither the FBI background check for his initial appointment as Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Georgia nor his reinvestigation in 1995 turned up any concern that was followed up on. His superior in the Northern District of Florida cheerfully told investigators that he “stole” Atchison from the Georgia office. The occasion for the 1995 reinvestigation was, according to the FBI, that Atchison was being considered for a “presidential appointment.” The Clinton Presidential Library, searching under a FOIA request, indicates by letter that no records responsive to the name John David Roy Atchison are found among Clinton’s presidential papers.

Reagan’s U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, serving when Roy Atchison came on board as AUSA, was Larry D. Thompson, to be replaced in 1986 by Bob Barr. Questions placed to Barr about Atchison’s tenure at the Atlanta office have not yet been answered. During Roy Atchison’s tenure at the Northern District of Florida, the U.S. Attorneys were Kevin Michael Moore, appointed to a federal judgeship by George H. W. Bush; Kenneth Sukhia, appointed by the elder Bush; and Bill Clinton appointee Gregory R. Miller, who was retained as U.S. Attorney by George W. Bush and continued to serve until 2008.


The statement publicly released by Miller’s office when Miller left for private practice reads in part,

“Mr. Miller oversees 34 attorneys in Gainesville, Tallahassee, and Pensacola. During the past six years, Mr. Miller and his office played a prominent role in fighting crime and terrorism in Northern Florida and elsewhere. He placed a special priority on the investigation and prosecution of child exploitation offenses, civil rights violations, white collar crime, organized crime, and drug trafficking.”

 Miller’s name turned up, reportedly to his surprise, on the highly publicized list of eight U.S. Attorneys designated for firing in the infamous 2007 U.S. Attorneys scandal, but no available record explicitly indicates that Miller’s being on the endangered list was in any way connected with Roy Atchison. Miller’s name was subsequently taken off the list.


Back to that civil lawsuit brought by John Davenport Gay against Roy Atchison:

Gay filed the first complaint in January 1994. As mentioned, Gay’s house was searched under a federal warrant issued in July 1994. A series of more than 25 legal motions back and forth clarifies that the legal action was over “the subject camera and camera equipment as well as those photographs that are the subject of the case,” along with “miscellaneous items of property” belonging to Gay.

It is not clear from the records why Atchison, who specialized in house/real property foreclosures and seizures, would also have had Gay’s camera, camera equipment and photographs seized. It is also not clear why the search warrant clearing authorities to search the house Gay lived in, on Char Bar Street in Pensacola, was issued only in July 1994, more than six months after John Davenport Gay initiated a legal action to retrieve his property from the authorities. The search warrant was signed by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Novotny, one of the judges who presided in Gay’s civil actions, along with Judge Lacey Collier. Gay’s lawsuits all ended up defeated in court or dismissed by the court. By the time Atchison was arrested in September 2007, as written, he had acquired a collection of hundreds of photographs of child pornography.

 

One of the longtime friends or acquaintances most surprised by what developed with Roy Atchison was Georgia attorney George Witcher, one of Atchison’s law school classmates at Cumberland and a reference given by Atchison as a close personal acquaintance for the background checks. Interviewed by telephone, Witcher says, “I knew him well, or thought I did—turns out I didn’t.” Witcher and Atchison were in close touch throughout law school “and for a while afterward.” Witcher adds that he and Atchison had fallen out of touch in recent years; in one attempt to communicate with Atchison, “he brushed me off.” Roy Atchison “was always upwardly mobile,” as Witcher puts it, but changed in recent years, becoming more distant or preoccupied for unstated reasons.

It will be noted that the over-all reflection on Roy Atchison’s chain of command does not look good. He came on board with the feds under Ronald Reagan, elected with the help of the goody-goody hard right, serving in Georgia and in Florida under a series of Republican-appointed U.S. Attorneys. His tenure in the Pensacola office overlapped with the extensive investigation into President Bill Clinton’s sex life by hundreds of FBI agents. Atchison then served for several more years—almost seven, to be exact—under George W. Bush, during both the post-9/11 ‘security’ ‘crackdown’ and the political designation of a cluster of federal prosecutors to be fired during Bush’s second term. It was during this latter period, if not before, that Roy Atchison distinguished himself by 1) spending so much time in the office on personal computers and on office computers that at least one colleague thought he had a business on the side; 2) engaging in collecting and viewing child pornography at work; 3) attempting to branch out in his sex life, allegedly, in connection with travel, possibly including official travel; and 4) finally attempting full-blown pedophilia acts that resulted in his arrest.

 

Much remains unclear. But one thing is clear: everything in Atchison’s track record suggests that the people who hired him, who supervised him and who worked with him were comfortable with him as a non-MENSA candidate. His story is among other things the story of a non-egghead go-getter who went along, seemingly, to get along, and that was enough to keep him positioned in a federal position that many more deserving people could never get.

 

Perhaps it could be considered fitting, in a macabre gallows-humor way, that Roy Atchison spared the feds further exposure and embarrassment by killing himself in prison. But his suicide raises further questions as to how he was enabled to carry it off.

 

Next, Part 6: How he succeeded in suicide while in federal custody.

On the Paper Trail of a Pedophile, Part 4: Things that would have gotten you or me in trouble . . .

On the Paper Trail of a Pedophile, Part 4: Things that would have gotten you or me in trouble . . .

 

Roy Atchison

This blog is the fourth in a series on John David Roy Atchison. Atchison, an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola office, was arrested in Detroit in September 2007 on charges relating to pedophilia. He committed suicide in federal prison in October 2007. Arrest and suicide were not foregrounded by the Justice Department in the Bush administration. This article, based largely on FBI material obtained under FOIA, focuses on a point at which Atchison’s federal career and its unfortunate consequences might have been forestalled.

 

As indicated in the previous post, the picture that develops in reviewing Roy Atchison through documents is that Atchison was trying to build his business and professional career in Birmingham, Ala., from the end of the 1970s into the early 1980s. After some years of apparent drift, he seems to have tried to play some serious catch-up ball in Birmingham, where his family had roots, getting his act together and settling down. But just before graduating from law school, he had a brush with the law that could have left a serious blot on his record—certainly nothing on par with pedophilia, but charges of narcotics possession, reckless driving and flouting authority easily sufficient to blemish a stronger career record than Roy Atchison had acquired.

As previously written, Atchison succeeded in finishing law school with a J.D. from Cumberland, in Birmingham, in May 1982. While in law school, he also succeeded in working off two Incompletes to get his M.B.A., in May 1981, and simultaneously worked as a clerk in the highly successful Birmingham law firm Starnes & Atchison.

 

Business Week names Starnes & Atchison in best places to work

Exact dates for Roy Atchison’s tenure at the law firm co-founded by his cousin, W. Michael Atchison, vary somewhat. Repeated attempts to contact Michael Atchison have been unsuccessful; the most recent response indicates that Atchison is currently unavailable for comment. Contacted more than once by telephone, Starnes & Atchison, now renamed, declines to discuss Roy Atchison or anyone named Atchison. A journalist is repeatedly informed that Mike Atchison has left the firm and that the telephone answerer has no idea who could provide information. A brief deafness or linguistic difficulty sets in when caller tries to clarify that current inquiries are about Roy Atchison, not Mike Atchison, much as when one calls up the New York Times to ask about Judith Miller.

 

The FBI background check confirms through at least four interviewees, names redacted, that Atchison worked there. One person identified with the firm told the FBI that Atchison worked there a year, in 1981. Atchison himself told Birmingham police that his employer was Starnes & Atchison in May 1982. For an FBI reinvestigation in 1995, he put down the dates as July 1981 to April 1982; supervisor, name partner Mike Atchison.

Name partner Michael Atchison

On May 1, 1982, just a few weeks shy of getting the J.D., Roy Atchison was picked up by Birmingham police. Obviously any brush with the law is a potential concern in a background check, but the brief account transmitted by the FBI is innocuous enough:

“Arrest check at Tuscaloosa, Alabama, revealed a violation for improper license plates and running a stop sign. Both charges were dismissed. Arrest check at Birmingham, revealed an arrest for reckless driving and violation of Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act. The charge of reckless driving was [amended] to running a red light. Applicant failed to appear on this charge and a writ was issued for his arrest. Applicant later appeared and paid a fine. The violation of Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act was dismissed by the Assistant District Attorney.”

On his application for the position of Assistant U.S. Attorney in Atlanta, Atchison dispatched the incident even more cursorily. In answer to the standard question as to whether applicant has ever been arrested, Atchison wrote only “Alleged violation Ala. Uniform Controlled Substances Act,” with the city and date, noting that it was Nolle Prossed the same day.

 

The arrest report tells a somewhat different story. According to the police report, signed by two officers and a sergeant, Def was observed running a red light, shortly after noon on May 1, and was arrested for reckless driving. When he was pulled over, officers found “a brown bag on seat of veh containing three other plastic bags with a greenish brown leafy substance believed to be marijuana.” Def was advised of his rights and taken to the Birmingham City Jail.

The car was towed; the police officer who went to the jail on May 1 was “unable to talk to the subject.” No attorney is mentioned in any of the records, although several police officers signed off on the process. A check into the records by Birmingham attorney and legal writer Roger Shuler also does not turn up any mention of legal assistance for Atchison. Shuler notes, “I’m quite familiar with Starnes & Atchison. They are a major defense firm here, particularly in defending medical malpractice and legal malpractice cases. In fact, I filed a legal malpractice case one time against a local lawyer, and Starnes & Atchison represented him. The firm, I believe, has defended the University of Alabama in a number of matters. Also, one of their primary partners, Stancil Starnes, became the head of ProAssurance, a Bham-based company that provides malpractice insurance for doctors . . . My impression is that anyone with ties to Starnes & Atchison indeed is well connected” in Birmingham.

Everyone at the law school interviewed by the FBI said, uniformly, that Atchison had not been observed to abuse alcohol or prescription drugs or to use illegal drugs, as did everyone at the law firm, and all his co-workers.

An Assistant District Attorney charged Atchison in the matter—he subsequently failed to appear in court, earning a contempt citation on top of the reckless driving and narcotics possession charges. However, another ADA, Don Russell, dropped charges and dismissed the case: “Subject had no prior arrests, or any evidence that he was selling narcotics.” (Atchison’s two previous traffic citations—one for running a stop sign, another for expired tags—in Tuscaloosa, had also been dismissed.) Generally speaking, possession of more than one bag of controlled substances might be taken as evidence of selling, but it might be noted that ADA Russell got his J.D. at Cumberland Law School, a year after his fellow alum, the highly-regarded Mike Atchison. It might also be noted that Roy Atchison was not only a soon-to-be law graduate and affiliated with an established law firm in town, but was not guilty of driving while black.

Atchison ended up paying a small fine, getting off lightly. Atchison’s own account of the incident, like his statements after his 2007 arrest in Detroit, changed over time. In his interview for the reinvestigation in November 1995, he gave a particularly self-serving account of the incident. In full:

 “Atchison stated that he has never been involved in any criminal matter as a suspect or subject or any criminal charge, arrest, and/or conviction with the exception of a May 1982 charge by the Birmingham Alabama Police Department, when he was driving a friend’s car. He was charged with reckless driving and the police supposedly found marijuana in the vehicle and charged him with violation of the Alabama Uniform Control Substance Act. This charge, as reported on his original application for employment with the Office of the United States Attorney, was “nolle prossed”. Atchison denied any knowledge of having marijuana in the car or knowing that it was in the vehicle and did not observe the policeman remove the marijuana from the vehicle.” [emphasis added]

 When in doubt, blame the cops. The car was identified as a 1980 blue Fiat. The above information was included in Atchison’s background check. However, the investigator for the brief arrest was different from the investigator handling his Birmingham file, so any discrepancies in his statements were not noted.

 

As said, no records are available to show what if any legal assistance Roy Atchison received, to help with the local police, but his connections are very much Birmingham. Cumberland Law School has extensive connections with Starnes & Atchison. Dean James Lewis in communications there returns a call, says politely that they cannot divulge information about students but wishes me luck on the article; information on who wrote Roy Atchison’s reference letters, when Atchison applied to law school, is not released. Attorneys at the now-renamed law firm are listed on the Cumberland Advisory Board for 2009-2010.  On May 10, 1985, the dean of Cumberland provided the following information to the FBI: dean’s list S81, F81, S82; JD May 23, 1982. “The record reflects no illegal use of drugs or abuse of alcohol by the applicant.”

 

Atchison moved to Georgia after the 1982 arrest incident. Perhaps he had been hoping to become a lawyer full-time at Starnes & Atchison, joining the family roster of doctors and lawyers.

 

Next, Part 5: Signs of trouble?

[Note: This blog was originally posted in September 2010 but was deleted by the system. Re-posted here from Word files.]

On the Paper Trail of a Pedophile, Part 3: How did he get those federal jobs?

On the Paper Trail of a Pedophile, Part 3: How did he get those federal jobs?

 

Roy Atchison


The FBI conducted its first background check on John David Roy Atchison in May 1985, when he applied successfully for a position as Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Georgia, in Atlanta. The full and detailed application packet is unremarkable, with the possible exception of a one-day arrest on innocuous charges, to be discussed in a later article. It is worth noting that Roy Atchison spent years moving around, both during college and after graduating from college. Many people move several times in their twenties, but the numerous moves—taking one job after another before he settled down in Birmingham, Ala.—meant that the FBI Director on May 2, 1985, had to direct SAC’s (Special Agents in Charge) in ten cities to check into and verify Atchison’s application.

 

Northern District of Georgia federal building

As shown in the signed job application, when Atchison applied to the DOJ he had been an attorney with the General Services Administration in Atlanta since September 1983 and had lived in a rental duplex in Smyrna, Ga., since his marriage in 1983. In the background check, neighbors called them a nice quiet couple taking frequent trips on weekends but having few guests. No noise; no financial problems; the only tiny blot on his record a single account dispute with Continental Airlines. Moving, changing and traveling were a continuing pattern in his young adulthood, but not in ways to be picked up on by investigators.

 

He was born Aug. 28, 1954; his application memorandum is dated Apr. 25, 1985; so he became an AUSA at thirty. Not bad for an uncommitted student, school hopper and job hopper, but then these were the anti-egghead Reagan years. His father, a physician, was from Alabama, and his parents had settled in Gulfport, Miss., where Atchison graduated from high school.

The moves were numerous—at least eighteen times or eighteen residential addresses from September 1971, when he left his parents’ Gulfport home, to the time of his DOJ application.

Atchison finished high school in August 1971—high school grades not included in the application–and attended three universities, spending a year at the University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg (Sept. 1971-May 1972, GPA 2.43), and the next year at the University of South Alabama, Mobile (Sept. 1973-May 1974, GPA 2.44), before transferring again to the University of Florida, Gainesville, where he graduated with a B.S. in Business Administration.

He worked at a series of short-term jobs in college, including a few months in sales at the Stag-N-Drag in Gainesville Mall. Reason for leaving: “found better position,” i.e. six months as Acquisition Clerk at the U. of Florida Medical Center Library, in Gainesville. After the B.S., Atchison worked in sales from 1976 to 1978 at the Home Life Insurance Co. in New Orleans, then a month at the Ashcraft Corp. in Mobile, Ala.

U Florida medical center library

So far, nothing remarkable in any sense–years of twenty-something drift, school transfers, a series of jobs, some obtained through relatives and acquaintances. Supervisors, if they remembered him, gave him high marks. Several small businesses had folded by time of application, the FBI notes; co-workers had moved; many supervisors, co-workers and professors did not remember Atchison. Bartholomew LaRocca, Atchison’s supervisor at Home Life Insurance, praised him and according to the FBI, “still maintains contact with the applicant [in 1985] and handles his insurance affairs.”

The other partner, Frank Freilder, Jr., was unavailable for interview by the FBI.

 

Five years after college, in September 1978, following a summer as construction supervisor for [a company] in Houston, Tex., Atchison enrolled in the M.B.A. program at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, attending UAT for three semesters, 1978-79 and summer 1979. While in B-school, Atchison secured a part-time appointment as a graduate research assistant for most of 1979. This was in a management institute funded by a federal grant, Atchison’s first stint on a government paycheck. The professor who supervised the program did not recall Atchison at the time of the background check. The FBI check notes that Atchison completed course work for the M.B.A. in 1979 but had two Incompletes (“I” grades) that had to be removed–he was admitted to candidacy for the M.B.A. in February 1981—and the interviewee assumes this is why he did not get the M.B.A. until May 10, 1981 (GPA 2.64).

 

At that time, he was enrolled at Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Ala., returning to the place where his family had roots. During the same year–the exact dates are inconsistently given–he also worked as a clerk at the Birmingham law firm of Starnes & Atchison, co-founded by a cousin, W. Michael Atchison. (Well-regarded local attorney Mike Atchison moved to another firm in 2010, and Starnes & Atchison changed its name; see later post.)

 

Roy Atchison got his J.D. at Cumberland School of Law in May 1982. He failed one course, Property I, in fall 1979, but re-took it fall 1981, got an A. Several Cumberland professors interviewed by the FBI in 1985 did not recall Atchison; professors who did remember him recommended him for a position of trust and confidence with the U.S. government. He graduated with a scholastic average of 1.81 on a three-point system, 85th in a class of 190. Prof. Howard Walthall, one faculty member who did recall Atchison, stated that he was a very good student and received a grade of C in Walthall’s Securities course, and recommended him for the AUSA position. Atchison took the LSAT three times, each time scoring in the 500s out of 800.

 

While commuting to Tuscaloosa for business school and then attending law school in Birmingham, Atchison was putting down roots in Birmingham. Neighbors interviewed in the background check corroborated in 1985 that Atchison had lived for five years on 13th Street South, in Birmingham, where he had bought a house and converted it into several apartments, occupying one himself.

 

The files do not elaborate on Atchison’s move from Birmingham to Georgia, or his later move from Georgia to the Northern District of Florida. The move from GSA office to prosecutor’s office, in Georgia, is summarized thus:

“Kathy Buono, Office of Regional Counsel [GSA], advised the applicant commenced employment with the Office of Regional Counsel on September 19, 1983, and terminated employment with same on May 11, 1985, in order to accept a position with the Office of the United States Attorney, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia. Records reveal [name redacted] Office of Regional Counsel, to be the applicant’s supervisor during the applicant’s period of employment with the [GSA]. Buono advised that [name redacted] is presently away from the Atlanta area, and could not be contacted for further comment concerning the applicant until mid-June, 1985. Buono could provide no further information identifiable with the applicant.”

 

The Georgia track record is otherwise scant, as at the time Atchison applied as AUSA, he was not listed as a member of the Atlanta Bar Association or the Georgia State Bar Association. His application does, however, list membership in the Alabama State Bar from September 1983 and in the Florida State Bar from June 1984. He had been the subject of a full background check for Secret Clearance by the GSA, 10-12-1983.

 

Between finishing law school in spring 1982 and starting at the GSA in fall 1983, Atchison worked for a brother-in-law, Steven P. Randall, at STR Petroleum Properties in Laurel, Miss. Atchison listed Randall, of Jackson, Miss., as a close personal associate for the background check. According to Randall, Atchison handled general legal matters March-September 1983. In applying to the DOJ, Atchison initially wrote down the STR Petroleum period as “self-employed,” a statement he later clarified/corrected for the Bureau. While handling legal work for Randall, Atchison simultaneously managed a 7-Eleven store in Madeira Beach, Fl., and was given a highly favorable reference by his Southland Corp. supervisor.

 

Duval County FL

Atchison’s other references include a public defender in the Duval County, Fl., office; a friend from the Home Life Insurance Co. days, Royce Blanchard, who is active in New Orleans politics; and two law school classmates, one being Vincent T. Cheatham of Birmingham (presumably equipped with a snappy comeback for the old joke about a law firm named ‘Dewey Cheatham and Howe’.)

 

The tacit question in these records remains: How did Atchison get good federal jobs in the first place? Part of the development is clear—law school to a government agency to a more desirable federal job. Questions about who provided references, who co-signed notes if any, etc., are not answered. Beyond that, attorney Maurice R. Mitts of Mitts Milavec replies matter-of-factly, “It’s not that hard” to get a job in the Justice Department. If you “have a good work ethic and keep your grades up,” Mitts repeats, “it’s really not that hard.”

Whether or not Atchison’s academic career met the good-grades-and-work-ethic standard, Atchison managed to gain entrée in a professional job market that many other professionals have found a tough row to hoe. Mitts, a defense attorney, never encountered Atchison, but he did meet ADA Don Russell of Birmingham in court, years back. Russell was the ADA who gave Atchison a pass by dropping reckless driving and narcotics possession charges.

 

Next, Part 4: Things that would have gotten you and me into trouble . . .

 

[Note: This blog was originally published in September 2011 but was deleted by the system in May-June 2011. Here re-posted from Word files.]

On the Paper Trail of a Pedophile, Part 2: The Friendliest Little Old Workplace in Florida?

 

Roy Atchison

This blog article is the second in a series on John David Roy Atchison. Atchison, an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola office, was arrested in Detroit in September 2007 on charges relating to pedophilia. He committed suicide in federal prison in October 2007. Arrest and suicide were not foregrounded by the Department of Justice in the Bush administration. The first articles, based largely on FBI material obtained under FOIA, focus on the criminal acts and their context in 2007 in the Pensacola office.

 

One question arising from Roy Atchison’s workplace at the U.S. Attorney’s office in Pensacola, Fl., (see previous post, 9/9/2010) is whether his computer use at work was monitored by anyone in authority. Given that 2007 was well post-9/11, the guess would be yes. Given the data collected by the FBI on Atchison, the actual answer seems to be no.

Take the continued information provided by [name redacted], the contract employee who helped Atchison out by buying doll clothes for the “Dora the Explorer” doll he was taking with him to meet a fictional five-year-old girl in Detroit, Sept. 2007.

Dora The Explorer

 

[Name redacted] recalled seeing Atchison bring his personal laptop into the office. “She recalls seeing him wrapping it up to put away, such as unplugging and putting it into a bag.” [emphasis added]

When Atchison was arrested, his personal laptops—two, one being used by his wife—were confiscated, along with his workplace desktop and removable flash drives. Setting aside the criminal acts under investigation, this would seem a lot of computer drives to keep an eye on, just with a view to general security and privacy, and the trekking laptops to and from the office would seem an obvious security breach.

 

One question is whether Assistant U.S. Attorneys are even allowed, let alone encouraged, to bring their personal laptops to and from the office. Detailed questions placed with the U.S. Attorney’s office in Pensacola are routed to press handlers in another office. The Northern District of Florida includes the Gainesville area, where Pastor Terry Jones’ Dove World Outreach Center is located. The U.S. Attorney’s office is probably busy with other questions. However, spokesperson Laura Sweeney does transmit a statement of official policy; see below.

 

The workplace friendliness shown to Roy Atchison by the unnamed contract employee also extended to other people in the office. An Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Pensacola office, for example, told FBI investigators that she would have trusted Atchison “with her life” before the arrest, knew his family, and usually met him for a drink when they were both on a trip out of town. He had declined drink plans for the most recent trip to Detroit.

 

Remarkably, the name-redacted AUSA also had observed Atchison’s extensive computer use. Follow this one closely, for it is truly astounding:

“[AUSA, name redacted] stated Atchison had always been a “wheeler dealer” type. Atchison was always known for finding a deal. [Redacted] believed Atchison had a business on the side. [Redacted] stated she inferred this because Atchison was always using his personal laptop in the office. Atchison stated, “He was on it a lot.” [Redacted] said that Atchison even showed her how he connected the laptop to his cell phone. According to [redacted] Atchison had been bringing his personal laptop to work for approximately six months. A week prior to her Detroit visit, [redacted] told her husband that Atchison must have a side business because he had been on his personal laptop a lot more than usual.” [emphasis added]

The obvious question here is whether AUSAS are allowed to have personal ‘business on the side,’ conducted from the office. Officially federal policy prohibits moonlighting while on the job, for any federal employee and particularly for federal prosecutors. Spokesperson Laura Sweeney replies as follows:

“Ms. Burns, With respect to your questions concerning office policy in general, there are specific federal statutes and regulations governing the conduct of Department of Justice employees.  These statutes and regulations are summarized in the Department of Justice Ethics Handbook.  The handbook provisions most relevant to your inquiry include: Use of Government Property and Time Generally, you should be mindful of your responsibility to make an honest effort to use government property and official time, including the time of a subordinate, for official business only. However, as a Justice Department employee, you are generally authorized to make minimal personal use of most office equipment and library facilities where the cost to the Government is negligible.5 CFR 2635.70428 CFR 45.4General RuleYou should not engage in any outside employment or other outside activity that conflicts with your official duties. Employees are prohibited from engaging in outside employment that involves criminal matters, the paid practice of law or matters in which the Department is or represents a party. Only the Deputy Attorney General may waive these prohibitions.5 CFR 2635.8025 CFR 3801.106Approval for Certain Outside ActivitiesYou are required to obtain written approval for certain outside employment including the practice of law that is not otherwise prohibited or any outside employment involving a subject matter related to the responsibilities of your component.5 CFR 3801.106 These provisions, which were in effect in 2007 and long before that time,  prohibit an employee from using the time of a subordinate employee for non-business purposes.   They also prohibit an employee: from engaging in outside employment during business hours, from using government property for a side business, and from making personal use of government property except where the cost to the government is negligible.   The events that led to the arrest of J.D. Roy Atchison and followed in its wake have caused great suffering to his family, his colleagues, and his friends.  We will not compound that suffering by commenting further on those events.”

Arguably the suffering might have been minimized had Atchison not been able to take his own life while in custody, the issue for a later post in this series. In any case, in fall 2007 there was apparently no effective monitoring within the Justice Department to keep Atchison from extensive computer use for his own purposes.

 

The question arises whether AUSAs under the Bush administration were typically allowed to have ‘a side business,’ so long as no one caught them at it. A further question is whether they were typically allowed to conduct personal business of any kind from the office. It may be noted that the fellow Assistant U.S. Attorney not only speculated that Atchison had a ‘side business,’ but was cool with it, discussing it at home with her spouse.

 

Like the contract employee, the AUSA also did small personal favors for Atchison at work: “[Redacted] stated the week before she came to Detroit, she helped Atchison with digital images. Atchison had asked her for assistance in cropping photos,” and she cropped some photos, although none pertaining to child pornography.

 

Unbeknownst to her, the help provided by the female AUSA pertained to some unsavory fruit. When the FBI seized Atchison’s two laptops, a hard drive and two removable drives, information recovered included more than 2,900 “Possible Sexual Exploitation of Children Pictures,” 51 “Possible Sexual Exploitation of Children Pictures Involving Bondage and/or Torture,” ten “Possible Sexual Exploitation of Children Movies,” eight “Possible Pictures of the Subject of Investigation,” and hundreds of Yahoo! Chat Files including 210 files for profiles aaronpottypants and fldaddy04.

 

So much for ‘Big Brother’ in the Bush Justice Department of 2007: There is no reasonable doubt whatsoever that Atchison spent a noticeable amount of time online in the Pensacola office, pursuing  interests it would be Bowdlerization to call ‘illicit’, without raising an alarm at work. Not only did unnamed colleagues unwittingly help Atchison, on the job, in his disturbed pursuit, nothing in the FBI file indicates that he was ever called out for using his personal laptop in the office or for using the office computer for personal business. To the contrary, Atchison’s co-workers’ attitude on his having a business on the side seems to have been favorable if not somewhat congratulatory. Atchison may have had the friendliest little old workplace in the Sunshine State.

 

Arrest

 

But Atchison himself, when arrested, told authorities that he had been under increasing stress at work:

Atchison stated that he was stressed because of a reckless AUSA that was making his life miserable. Atchison asserted his case load was three times the size of anyone else in the office. Atchison stated there were two prosecutors from his office currently on an evaluation team in Detroit, Michigan.”

 

Presumably the “reckless AUSA” was a different person from the helpful digital photography expert. Setting aside that Atchison might have been wiser to steer clear of Detroit for what he thought was a pedophile rendezvous if two colleagues of his were posted there, this first FBI interview is noteworthy in that Atchison fails to acknowledge how helpful and friendly his female co-workers were, how supportive of him. Rather, Atchison “asserted he has been under a lot of stress in the past year. This led to an increase in Atchison’s drinking and Internet activity. Atchison stated he found chatting with various people on the Internet interesting.”

 

He provided the same explanation in his initial written statement:

“I, John D Roy Atchison, over the past year or so I have been under increasing stress at work and at home. This caused undiagnosed depression, excessive alcohol consumption and I began to frequent the internet, particularly a website called Hi5. As I became more involved in that site I came across several individuals who appeared to have a network of families who allowed adults to have sexual contact with their minor daughters. Prior to this contact I had never known such a thing existed on any organized basis. Because of my state of mind at the time, I found conversation with these individuals strangely interesting . . .”

 

Little of this was picked up by co-workers, although one interviewee did tell the FBI that Atchison was ‘paranoid’ and always thought someone was watching him. But all of those in daily contact with Atchison expressed surprise at his arrest, and none of them had noticed any excessive drinking. As the FBI noted, Atchison’s “family, coworkers and members of the community were shocked” when he was arrested.

 

“The only indications of deceit,” investigators noted, “were related to his travels”:

“At the time of Atchison’s arrest, his family believed that he was on a government sponsored trip; and coworkers believed he was on authorized vacation/leave to visit a brother . . . A general comment made by those who know Atchison was that he did a lot of traveling.”

 

As with Atchison’s office computer use—on at least three computers and two removable drives—the office apparently facilitated, rather than monitored, his frequent traveling. Judging from the FBI file, the one travel request turned down was the trip to attend a child molestation seminar.

In his first FBI interview, according to Special Agent Matthew Bowman, Atchison “stated he doesn’t know any mothers that allow men to have sex with their children”—perhaps a true statement as far as it goes, since the correspondent he was in touch with was an undercover agent. He denied traveling to have sex with a minor, saying that “he flew to San Diego right after September 11, 2001. However, he had never flown to San Diego to have sex with a minor.” (The reason for having Atchison, a specialist in asset forfeiture proceedings, fly to San Diego just after 9/11 is not disclosed or indicated in the files. He seems to have been drafted in the push for extra manpower for 9/11 investigation.)

 

His explanation for the Detroit trip, in this Sept. 16 interview, was that “he came to Detroit, Michigan in order to speak to “this lady”, Jessica LNU [last name unknown]. Atchison stated that “this lady” was allowing men to have sex with her daughter. Atchison asserted that he wanted to change this woman’s mind about turning her child out for sex. Atchison stated that while he was in Detroit he was going to show her there are other ways to raise a child, without sex.”

Asked, dryly, why he did not get in touch with a child protection agency “or an investigative agency such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” Atchison “replied he did not because he was ‘stupid’.”

The story about trying to set a misguided mother straight was quickly jettisoned. Pursuant to a signed proffer agreement, Atchison confessed to an interviewing agent on Oct. 3 that he traveled to Detroit intending to have sex with the fictional child, and that he brought the petroleum jelly to use as a lubricant for the purpose. He also copped to purchasing the Dora the Explorer doll and some doll clothes and admitted pornographic Internet correspondence. In the subsequent FBI interview, Atchison continued to deny that he had ever had sex with a child and said he did not know why he had embarked on this particular trip to Detroit. He did, however, admit to having taken three trips to different cities to have sex with women who were “adult baby diaper lovers.” “Atchison stated these were fetish related encounters”; on two of the trips, the woman never showed.

In the later FBI interview, Atchison also “gave details about a ring of pedophiles located in the Western United States,” according to a heavily redacted page of FBI transcription, and provided information about some of his Internet pals. Regrettably, his suicide Oct. 5, 2007, in the federal prison in Milan, Michigan, may have truncated investigation into the pedophile ring, although before his death Atchison did give authorities permission to use his online identity.

In what might be fruit from his information—although the authorities aren’t saying—the Northern District of Florida announced the convictions of seven members of an international child exploitation ring Jan. 14, 2009. Seven other defendants indicted in the same case had previously pleaded guilty. A 40-count superseding indictment came out in March 2008; members of the illicit group, described as a complex and sophisticated enterprise connected on the Internet, were said to have traded more than 400,000 images and videos of child sexual abuse before it was dismantled by law enforcement.

 

How much Atchison’s death impeded further investigation into the pedophile ring has not been disclosed.

 

[Note: The original post here was deleted by the system in May-June 2011. This article is reconstructed from Word files.]