SEC sues Langford, Blount and LaPierre
As expected, the SEC has filed a lawsuit in federal court here against Mayor Larry Langford, Montgomery investment banker Bill Blount and lobbyist Al LaPierre. The SEC’s complaint is a civil lawsuit, so nobody is getting arrested or going to jail. That’s the Justice Department’s end of things and they’re still working at it.
In the meantime, the SEC wants Blount, LaPierre and Langford to repay money they received in various bond deals from Langford’s tenure at the Jefferson County Commission. According to the lawsuit, Blount paid off more than $150,000 of Langford’s personal debts, while Langford directed more than $6.7 million in fees to Blount’s investment firm, Blount Parrish.
The SEC also wants the court to prevent the defendants from entering into new deals, and it wants the defendants to pay damages.
In the complaint, the SEC argues that for at least five years before Langford joined the county commission, Blount never received bond business from the county. However, his fortunes changed with Langford’s arrival. Blount and Langford had been friends for almost 30 years, and soon Langford was directing bond business to Blount’s firm. Over a two-year period of time, fees from Jefferson County bond deals comprised more than 70 percent of the firm’s revenue.
In a SEC deposition last June, investigators asked Langford whether he ever considered bidding the bond contracts out.
“Obviously not,” Langford said then.
Using LaPierre as a middleman, Blount paid Langford’s debts, including $70,000 in credit card and department store bills mostly for clothes, the lawsuit says.
Langford has blasted the SEC investigation, saying he has been put under more scrutiny than any other politician.
“I voluntarily took a polygraph test, and I passed it,” Langford said Tuesday. “They asked ‘Have you ever used your office for personal gain?’ No, I passed it.”
Check out our earlier post for a PDF of the SEC’s complaint and the SEC’s press release.
Langford Responds to SEC lawsuit
Popularity: 16% [?]
April 30th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
In August 2005, Bloomberg wrote an extensive article hinting at corruption in Jeffco’s sewer bonds deals. Amazing how long it has taken government officials to take action and even more amazing that the government officials in Alabama have yet to lift a finger to pursue charges or claims against the various banks, advisors, and lawyers tangled in this web. Keep after ‘em Kyle.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
you may be able to sue a ham sandwich in alabama, but i’m sorry to inform you mayor that you are dealing with the securities and exchange commission, not a local with and axe to grind.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:37 am
“The SEC… wants the defendants to pay damages.”
I imagine it’s the principle of the thing, but we all know Langford’s financial savvy, and there’s no way on earth that even a fraction of this would be possible.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:12 am
Ralph, obviously you are correct in that Whitmire is just demonizing Langford without any real cause. I mean, if Langford would have actually done something wrong, the feds would be after him by now, right?
And why on earth would we ever find a need to report on an ELECTED OFFICIAL who has and still is participating in questionable activities? Why on earth would we want to do that? I mean, it’s not like it could take years for the justice system to work and there could be another election in the meantime in which people could unknowingly re-elect someone who could bring their government to financial ruin. By all means, it’s not like we need to know if our ELECTED OFFICIALS are up to anything.
I mean, if George W. Bush wants to go to war, there’s no need for us to ever know the details until he’s been impeached, amirite?
May 1st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Langofrd must be getting desperate if he can only afford Ralph and Fynster to spam for him.
Ralph you obviously did not go to law school or you would know that civil cases in these matters precede criminal cases all the time. The reason is that as here the regulatory agency bringing the civil suit is usually the first one to get involved and then they send it over to DOJ which has to then does its own investigation. DOJ is rarely done before the first agency because it started later and thus the civil suit is filed first. In the Simpson case, the police were the first agency involved so of course the criminal case was filed first.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Typically I haven’t participated in the comments because I prefer to let my work speak for itself. However, I have to ask Ralph, when did I call the mayor a criminal?
May 1st, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Fynn, I hope you watched the 5pm news. A criminal investigation is in fact taking place. And while the civil suit might be filed first, it can be put on hold (and likely will be) until after a criminal case has concluded. (see also: HealthSouth)
Now, what I’m trying to get at is that Whitmire hasn’t falsified any information. Rather, he’s just conveying information. Show me where he’s said something untrue, and I’ll give you that he’s conducting a witch hunt. Otherwise, the phrase “shooting the messenger” comes to mind. As for whether or not the information should be reported… Well, see my earlier argument.
Ralph, I’m really not sure which “points” you’re referring to. Rather, you just seem to have some issue with Whitmire reporting this. That is something that I did address. Is there an actual issue here with the information being reported? Is there some fallacy, or are you just having a problem with wording and sentence structure? Honestly, I don’t know of any way to make what this man is doing sound nicer and friendlier. For cripes sake, even the QUOTES from the mayor himself look bad!
May 1st, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Ralph,
I’m not sure whether I should accept your apology. However, I want it clear that, while you attack me for what you see as reckless reporting, you just made a gaffe that in my business could get someone in serious trouble if not fired. What’s more, you wrote above, “Since you started this off by asking for an example of where you said something …” In fact, I neither started it off, nor did I merely ask for an example of where I had “said something.” I asked if you could substantiate an assertion of fact, and you couldn’t. For you, posting here might be something you do while you are bored at work, as you say, but if you’re making an argument here, be mindful that you’re living in a glass house. We all make mistakes, but before hitting “submit” please have the clarity of thought to distinguish what I’ve written from something that a different person said in a different medium. While I’ve been a guest on the Matt Murphy Show, I am not Matt Murphy.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:16 pm
“The entire reason I sat down and wrote that first post last night was because what I do care about is the way the modern news media has chipped away at the notion of innocence until guilt is proven. That’s something I think everyone should care about.”
Okay, see that’s what I’m trying to figure out. I don’t see this as the media being the bad guy, here. I think Larry Langford has been the one to act, and his actions and words have been what has “chipped away at the notion of innocence until guilt is proven.” The media is doing nothing more than reporting on what he’s done and said. If this is a “it’s not what you say but how you say it” argument, then that’s where I’m saying that I can’t see any way to make this look “good.” Besides, it’s not the job of the media to make Larry Langford look good. The Birmingham News and other local media are not Larry Langford’s personal PR consultants. Their job is to simply report what’s going on. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve done a pretty good job.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Fynn, regarding your first post, I believe Whitmire can and actually HAS backed up everything he’s written. There are official documents to prove every bit, so be careful what you refer to as “propaganda.”
Regarding the comments on the criminal investigation… I was mistaken in thinking that you were the one who commented that if they were going to file a criminal case or if they had the evidence to support a criminal case that they’d have not filed the civil suit first. Apparently you were not. Still, my guess is that both are happening simultaneously, which would be done by different government organizations, and one is just working faster than the other. It happens.
My question to you is this… When you directly quote the mayor and/or government documents, how does that show bias? When you directly report exactly what is happening, where is the bias? Further, how exactly, Fynn, would you recommend that this information be conveyed to the public? Seriously, how do you make something like this look good, and if it could be made to look good, should the news outlets be expected to be Larry Langford’s personal PR department?
May 1st, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Fynster,
Where do you work?
May 1st, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Okay, now that was ominous.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:55 pm
If someone is writing from an IP Address at City Hall, especially during work hours, is that not an important fact?
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:54 am
Actually, I am a lawyer. If you go to http://www.alabar.org and click on the lawyer directory and type in “James Arthur Butts” you will find me listed there (I refer to myself here as “Beau Butts” because that is the nickname under which I was introduced to all of the people who post on this board who know me).
I also used to work for a white collar criminal defense firm called Redden, Mills & Clark so I actually do know something about these cases. Also, I clerked for the National Labor Relations Board here in Birmingham so I am familiar with regulatory agency procedure. Finally, since I handle legal compliance issues for the Alabama Young Democrats, I have had to study these matters in significant detail.
Aside from the press release Langford paid you to post here, Ralph, what evidence do you have to support your assertion that regulatory agencies do not routinely file their enforcement action while the DOJ is preparing their case and then delay the enforcement action once the indictment has been issued.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:04 am
My understanding was the Langford admitted in his deposition to clear violations of Alabama ethics law. Hence, he is a criminal.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:05 am
Once again I am lured in…the SEC cannot file a criminal complaint. They only have civil jurisdiction. Also, I have a feeling that the DOJ and IRS are still deciding which criminal case should go first.
Langford admitted in his testimony that he accepted favors from the other individuals in the form of money. I think he called them “loans”. Well…the fact that those were not disclosed broke ethics laws AND the fact that he failed to disclose them is falsifying documents. I think the correct argument would not be whether Langford violated any laws…rather what class of criminal he falls into.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:25 am
Ralph, you’ll be happy to know that I HAVE read nearly every single piece that Kyle Whitmire has written, and he does write about things that are not about Larry Langford. War on Dumb is a series of articles that primarily focus on the city leadership, so of course it has a focus on Langford and the council. Why? Because they are leading the city, and there is a real concern there. I do see an agenda– to inform the people of Birmingham as to what they are dealing with.
I suppose I just wish you’d stop badgering the poor guy– which I should note is much the same way if not worse than what you accuse him of doing to these elected officials. First, he’s accused of being gutless for not responding, then when he responds, you blast him for that. I’m pretty sure that nothing this guy does will make you happy, so why bother?
Forgive the metaphore, but this is the best way that I can think of to describe what’s going on:
Media: He’s going to hurt you.
Birmingham: He loves me.
Media: He’s beaten up his last two girlfriends, and the last one is thinking of
pressing charges.
Birmingham: There’s not been any arrests made, and you have no proof. Besides,
he won’t do that to me. He loves me.
Media: I’m telling you that he’s going to hurt you.
Birmingham: You’re just mad because I won’t date that other guy!
Media: No, I’m concerned that your choice of a boyfriend is going to hurt you.
Besides, who do you think is going to have to come and pick up the pieces
when he’s done?
Birmingham: It’s MY life, so don’t tell ME what to do!
(Two weeks later.)
Media: They’ve arrested him and brought him up on charges for beating his last
girlfriend. He’s already started in on you, and he’s draining your bank
account. Now will you please listen to me and dump this guy?
Birmingham: This is all YOUR fault! You never wanted me to be with him to begin
with!
Whitmire is in good company. I don’t know of any media outlet that has NOT been accused of bias and unfairness at some point. When it’s their man who’s being interviewed/questioned/reported on, people get defensive, and the person reporting that news is usually the person who gets blamed. I swear… If I have to hear the words “liberal media” for too much longer, I’m going to pull out my hair.
And yes, accusing someone of a fallacy is a very serious accusation– even on a blog. Even with corrections and retractions printed, legal action can still be pursued. Libel is serious business. And yes, it can lead to someone fired. I’m glad to see that you take it so flippantly that you could get someone fired making false accusations with nothing to back them up. So what does that make you, exactly? Does that not sound the least bit hypocritical that you falsely accuse someone of making false accusations and then sarcastically imply that you don’t care if it gets them fired?
Thankfully, Whitmire has not reported anything questionable, and there is no basis for any legal action. I can assure you that if there WAS any basis for a lawsuit, we’d have heard it from the Langford legal team LONG ago. And yes, he does have information to back up every single thing he’s ever written. What part of “government documents” are you not getting? If Langford is aquitted, does that mean that he never said Quote X? Does that mean that Document Y didn’t say Quote Z? Why should he have to apologize for that? Of course, everyone has an opinion, and that includes you. Maybe it shows and maybe it doesn’t. The difference is whether or not you base your story on fact that can be backed up with evidence and whether or not you leave out important details. Can you say that you’ve responded to this entry with such restraint?
Rather, looking back on your comments, it seems like you are doing the very thing that you accuse Whitmire of, only it is to Whitmire. Case in point… A video of Joel Montgomery. There were no comments. There was only a video, and you railed on what you thought MIGHT be happening as if Kyle were some paparazzi waiting in the bushes. You completely overlooked the news van DIRECTLY BEHIND Montgomery for NBC 13. The video was up not because there was an issue with the city car. It was up because Montgomery had that response to someone who just happened to have a camera there.
That leads me to another question… If someone robs a convenience store at gunpoint and then is later aquitted for it because of lack of evidence, does that mean that a crime was not committed? Is the robber not a criminal, even if he did rob the store, just because he was not found guilty? Langford is not denying that these things happened. He freely admits to what was done. The only issue he’s taken with it is that he doesn’t seem to believe that anything he’s done is wrong. I’d say that the media has gone pretty easy on him by not flat out saying that he’s taken bribes and instead used flowery wording to work around it.
Oh, and I’m a stay-at-home mom, by the way. I’ve never had an issue disclosing that. My birthday is in January, so feel free to send gifts if you like. Just don’t expect me to give up my age. It’s impolite to ask that of a woman.
Kyle’s contact information is also listed, and I believe you do know is full name and place of employment without having to ask that. I’d say it puts him at somewhat of a disadvantage in comparison to the people who post here. He must back up everything he writes with his personal reputation (and legal accountability) while commenters are allowed the luxury of anonymity. I’d say that gives him just a tad more credibility than the commenter.
And yes, I do believe it’s of some relevance if someone is pretending to be a member of the Average Joe Public when they are in fact a toadie of the very politician being reported on. THAT is by definition misrepresentation of an idea and THAT is by definition propaganda. He’s not being paranoid. He’s pointing out that someone posted a comment under false pretenses.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:49 am
Beau, you posted while I was working on my “wall of text,” but I just have to say… That was absolutely beautiful.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Ralph,
You assume too much. In fact, Wordpress shows me everyone’s IP address both when I approve their initial comment (which I have to do once with each commenter) and when they post subsequent comments. In fact, It is something I could know beforehand and did. I have been conflicted about sharing that tidbit of information about Fynster (not the only one here, either), and at first I decided against it. But if I’m going to be dragged into a fight here by a City Hall sock puppet, I’m not going to do it with one hand tied behind my back.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:01 am
I know from personal experience that Langford is a cunning and vindictive political operative. He has “purchased’ the council’s over site with a million dollar ‘discretionary’ grant for each of them. And, he’s stonewalled the judiciary. Without the investigative reporting of Kyle and Brett Blackledge of the News, these poli-criminals will continue their fraud with impunity.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:30 am
What happened to Ralph and Fynster’s postings?
May 7th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Now this has been moderated I really want to know what brilliant prose was taken out.