Why does your page look like this?

"Doddering white males" like your former publisher?

We've written many times that our former editor and publisher belongs to the Club. We haven't exactly kept this a secret.

I don't get this. Gus Puryear has clerked for a highly-regarded federal judge, worked as the legislative director for a U.S. senator (and as counsel to a high-profile senate investigation, and served for half a dozen years as general counsel to a huge public corporation that, whether you agree with the idea of private prisons or not, effectively oversees the implementation of a valuable public safeguard. He is more qualified for the bench than Matt Pulle, Alex Friedmann, and me put together!

Also, even though I have nothing to do with the Tennesseans for Puryear web site, it’s a pretty low blow to characterize it as “painfully amateurish,” particularly when the appearance of one’s own work benefits from the attentions of professional web designers, editors, and proofreaders. However, the observation is in keeping with a certain smirky emphasis of style over substance that has characterized all of this coverage. (Who does this Puryear guy think he is? How could he be a good judge, when his supporters can’t even design a cool web site?)

The Puryear site may be short on style, but its content contains a thoroughgoing rebuttal of all of the half-baked claims against him. It’s short on the sound bites or sobriquets, like “Elephant Boy,” that have characterized Matt Pulle’s work. Its treatment of Mr. Friedmann is factual, if blunt. Unlike MP, it takes the time to be through and accurate, with due deference to facts and logic – qualities a judge might appreciate, even if a journalist can’t.

The public should be the judge of what constitutes truth and fiction in the Puryear case. For the flip side of the "for Puryear" site, visit www.againstpuryear.org.

It's amazing that a district judgeship has generated this much interest. Clearly, all judges are important, but there are people sitting on appellate benches (state and federal) right now who haven't gotten this much attention. Those folks are making real law for millions of Americans.

I've read Friedmann's site and the site put up in favor of Puryear. Unless you have a bias against rich people, opposition to this guy is a waste of your time.

My take is this: give Puryear a shot. He meets the qualifications for the job; he has the endorsements of his home state senators; and his more articulate opposition is a talented former inmate who frequently writes against the business of Puryear's client: prison privatization.

If you don't believe that last statement, Google his email address: stein919.

This is the Mighty Sequoia--signing off.

I never used the term "Elephant Boy." I like to think I could do better than that.

As for the Puryear website, it's a half-baked affair not because of how it looks but by how sloppily it presents its case right down to misspelled names. It's as if it were promoting a district council candidate--not a federal district judge.

The ex-con's site is a lot better.

Friedmann's campaign against Puryear has been "waged fairly"? Let's take a few examples of Friedmann's assertions:

Lie #1) “There was no basis in fact for Mr. Puryear’s conjecture that CPR may have caused the four broken ribs suffered by Ms. Richardson, based upon the statement from Dr. Bruce Levy and the attached autopsy report; nor was there any basis in law, as CPR was not raised as a defense or explanation in the pleadings filed in the civil lawsuit. … Mr. Puryear failed this elementary test by providing an answer to the Committee that had no basis in law or fact.” [Friedmann, “A Response to Errors, Omissions and Misstatements made in the Testimony of Gustavus Adolphus Puryear,” dated February 20, 2008.]

FALSE: The Deputy Chief Medical Examiner of the State of Tennessee, opined: “The cause of the rib and liver injuries is almost certainly the resuscitative attempts made on Ms. Richardson.” [James F. Sanders, Letter of Chairman Patrick Leahy, February 26, 2008.]. Furthermore, if Friedmann were a lawyer, he might know that you need not plead an affirmative defense of CPR having caused the rib injuries to preserve the issue for trial. Last, rather than rely on “anonymous” lawyers allegedly involved in the litigation, as Friedmann does elsewhere in his document, he could simply rely on the Richardson family’s lead lawyer, who has bluntly stated in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee: “There were also issues on whether CPR may have caused the liver and rib injuries.” [David Randolph Smith, Letter to Chairman Patrick Leahy, February 25, 2008.]

Lie #2) “Mr. Puryear testified that he had been involved in one lawsuit involving an inmate plaintiff. … According to an examination of the docket for the lawsuit, however, Mr. Puryear is not even listed as an attorney of record who represented the plaintiff, much less co-counsel. Thus, it is strange that he would include it in a list of cases that he ‘personally handled.’” [Friedmann, “A Response to Errors, Omissions and Misstatements made in the Testimony of Gustavus Adolphus Puryear,” dated February 20, 2008.]

FALSE: Friedmann’s implication is that Mr. Puryear did not handle the case he testified that he handled. This implication is outrageously false. Mr. Puryear discussed his handling of the case in his questionnaire to the Senate, as Friedmann acknowledges. Both there and before the Committee, he was testifying under oath; Friedmann's "letters" are not. Michael L. Dagley, who was Puryear's co-counsel but apparently did not handle any part of the trial, has written to the Senate Judiciary Committee discussing Mr. Puryear’s representation. In that letter, he notes: “Mr. Puryear tried the case to a jury in federal court, drawing singular praise for his spirited advocacy from presiding judge Thomas A. Higgins, Jr.” [Michael L. Dagley letter to Chairman Patrick Leahy, March 11, 2008.] Mr. Friedmann could have called the opposing counsel listed in Mr. Puryear’s questionnaire; he could have called the co-counsel listed in his questionnaire; or he could have checked with the judge and found the truth. But why seek the truth when you can find a computer record to try to imply something that suits your needs? Sounds like waging the fight fairly to me!

Lie #3) “Mr. Puryear was questioned about an ‘after action’ report that was generated following a hostage-taking and shooting at the CCA-operated Bay County Jail … Mr. Puryear testified that someone at PCI had contacted him to request a copy of the after action report [the request was made by PCI executive director Ken Kopczynski]; however, no part of the report was provided to PCI. Mr. Puryear indicated at his February 12, 2008 Committee hearing that CCA was responsive to requests for such reports.” [Friedman, “A Response to Errors, Omissions and Misstatements made in the Testimony of Gustavus Adolphus Puryear,” dated February 20, 2008 (brackets in original).]

FALSE: Mr. Puryear never testified he would provide Mr. Kopcczynski the report. In fact, he testified that he "said [he] would not,” explaining that the report would be covered by the work product privilege, and that he had advised the PCI representative of this fact.

I could go on and on. What I also note is that you do not refute much of what is said in the blog for Puryear; you choose to insult it as amateurish (guess Mr. Puryear cannot get the union dues of Florida police officers to pay for his blog, unlike Friedmann). You continue to rant about Belle Meade Country Club, and say that the younger Mr. Puryear should be held to a different standard than older judges who are members of Belle Meade. Not only does that make little sense (it's either a discriminatory club or it's not), but it also ignores that the blog notes that, if the club were discriminatory, none of the judges who are currently members could be members under applicable judicial ethics canons.

In short, you and Mr. Friedmann have tried every attack against Mr. Puryear. First it was the Richardson case - Mr. Puryear testified he did not know what caused the death, that there was a great deal of controversy about it, that CPR could have caused the rib fractures, and that every medical expert agrees that Levy had it wrong on the timing. Now, thanks to the blog, we know that even the Richardson family lawyer agrees with Puryear, and thinks he'd be an excellent judge.

The ex-con's site is better? If you're judging by lies alone. The ex-con needs to get a puppy.

Three more things come to mind:
1. This junk about Belle Meade - We now know that there is at least one minority voting member; that there are other minority and female members (who pay less and don't vote); that Mr. Puryear is not a voting member; that several federal and state judges are also members; and that Mr. Puryear has said he will seek a formal advisory opinion from the Judicial Conference - unlike those other judges - and that, if his understanding is wrong, he will resign (also unlike the other judges).

2. You and Friedmann said he isn't experienced enough at trial work - well the ABA rating puts that to rest, and you know that there are other federal judges in Tennessee who had less trial experience than Mr. Puryear.

3. Then there's this stuff about "two sets of books" on quality assurance, which, according to CCA's filings with the SEC and the letter sent to the Judiciary Committee by CCA's head of quality assurance is just the false ramblings of a disgruntled, low-level ex-employee. The ex-employee seems like a real winner.

What's next? Will we start blaming the rain on Mr. Puryear?

A few things: First, in our original cover story we emphasized again and again that Puryear is an intelligent, well-regarded corporate counsel with admirers from both parties. And we noted that some of the most respected attorneys in Nashville (Barfield, Tipps, etc.) unabashedly support his nomination, which should give his critics pause.

But Puryear and CCA's involvement in the Richardson case is a problem. First, the physician who performed the autopsy and the CHIEF medical examiner for the state of Tennessee has noted that Richardson's skull and rib injuries form a straight line indicating that she was the victim of a single physical encounter. But Puryear glossed over the opinion of a neutral state medical examiner in his correspondence with the judiciary committee-- choosing instead to rely on the hired guns of a bunch of trial lawyers. (Then there's the whole question about what happened to the supposedly malfunctioning camera.) If you think that Richardson's family is satisfied with the conclusion of the case with all of these questions defiantly unanswered, just talk to them sometime. We can debate this on a blog all we like--but this is real tragedy that is not helped by Puryear's one-sided airing of CCA's version of events.

The stuff about "two sets of books" came from a former prison manager who, according to Time magazine, worked closely with Puryear. He is also a Republican.

On the Belle Meade Country Club front, we have ridiculed the Democratic judges who belong to the place. And yes it's ridiculous that in 2008 a country club in a major city doesn't have a single black member from Nashville. Unreal. Or that woman can't so much as vote. So for Puryear to claim that to the best of his knowledge the club doesn't discriminate against anyone is laughable.

Finally, the ABA gave Puryear a "qualified" rating--but they gave most of the pending nominees a "highly-qualified" rating. I don't know if I would use that to clinch your case.

No one is denying that what happened to Estelle Richardson is a tragedy. However, Gus Puryear’s role in the matter was to vigorously – and ethically, by all accounts – defend his client. Is it impossible by definition to represent a corporation against an individual in good faith? Does the answer change when the matter is grave? This is an unworkable point of view, but one that seems to lie at the root of these criticisms.

Matt, there is no ABA rating of "highly qualified." You obviously don't understand the ratings and what they mean - it's all on the ABA website (you should check it instead of reading the ex-con's website all the time). A "qualified" rating means a nominee has met the
ABA's "high standards" for professional competence, integrity, and temperament. You're also factually incorrect - other judges on Mr.
Puryear's panel and since have been rated "Qualified."
In fact, one recent district court judge was confirmed with a minority "not qualified" rating. You can find all the ratings at the ABA site, too. There is no shame in a "Qualified" rating, especially for a lawyer under 40, and a Republican nominee at that.

I think we've gotten to the heart of the issue now in your comments about the Richardson case. You say that the "real tragedy in this death is "Puryear's one-sided airing of CCA's version of events." This parrots Mr. Friedmann's criticism of Mr. Puryear for not being impartial about the death. Face it, neither you
nor Mr. Friedmann are lawyers. A lawyer's very first and most important ethical obligation is to represent his or her client zealously within the boundaries of the law. A judicial nomination
does not change the fact that Mr. Puryear is supposed to defend CCA. It was an is his job to do so. In this roke, he's not an impartial seeker of truth; he is to play a role in our adversarial system from which the truth emerges. I cannot find anything in your articles, blogs, or
even Mr. Friedmann's website that identifies a single statement or action Mr. Puryear did in the Richardson case that was unethical or that lacked a good faith basis for asserting. It's like assailing a defense lawyer for not telling the truth about what his client did. If that lawyer did so, no lawyer would find him qualified to be a judge.

If Mr. Puryear were anything but a CCA partisan on this matter, he would be violating his ethical duties to CCA and would be utterly unqualified for the bench. That's what a lawyer would know. You and the ex-convict cannot seem to grasp this issue.

Without engaging in a tit-for-tat, let me note that you are not entirely accurate in the implication you've made by comparing Dr. Levy to "hired guns of a bunch of trial lawyers." What you want to overlook - that we can only learn from tnforpuryear.com - is that the
Richardson family's own "hired guns" concluded that her head injury could not have occurred within three days of her death. Do you
realize how incredibly rare it is for a plaintiff's "hired guns" to agree with
the defense's "hired guns"? Also, Jim Sanders' letter - also at the other website - says that the defense expert was an expert in head
injuries, and that Levy is not.
Oh yeah, the Richardson family lawyer - David Randolph Smith - in his letter at the other website says that the CHIEF medical examiner from Kentucky and a Stanford neurology expert disagreed with Dr. Levy - who has an apparently well-deserved reputation for craving media attention. I wonder if that, along with a need to defend his apparently erroneous
conclusion, is what is sparking Dr. Levy to such tirades today.

At bottom, what I learned from the other site is that Jim Sanders and David Randolph Smith - two of the most prominent trial lawyers in Nashville -both endorse Mr. Puryear. I have reason to believe that both are Democrats. Smith represented the Richardson family! He recognizes that Mr. Puryear had a difficult job to do, which he still does, and that he should not be blamed for events at CCA. In fact, he strongly endorses Mr. Puryear. It would seem to me that if Mr. Puryear acted unethically in the Richardson matter, this endorsement would not exist.

That leaves me curious about something, and I would appreciate a straight answer from you, ok? You have written twice (that I've seen) about Mr. Puryear and the Richardson death. Did you have a copy of the David Randolph Smith letter, which appears to have been written long before your articles, when you were writing those articles?

Actually, the correct ABA designation for the top nominees is "well-qualified." Puryear did NOT receive this designation though most of judicial nominees typically do. Why you didn't mention this in your original post is rather telling.

I did know of the Randolph letter but I did not quote from it--I did mention that lawyers for the Richardson family concurred with lawyers for CCA on the timing of Richardson's head injuries and that was enough for me. (I also did not mention that Puryear failed to receive the highest rating from the ABA--so my omissions cut both ways.) Still, the CHIEF medical examiner for the state of Tennessee--who is not on any party's dime and is the only one who conducted the actual autopsy--disputes both of those accounts and he comes off as more credible to me, particularly his point that her injuries formed a straight line on her body.

Finally, I have a question for you: When you update the Puryear website, specifically the section where you use my stories to bolster your nominee's--can you go back and correct the spelling of my name? I'm flattered that you view the Scene as an authoritative source in making your case for the embattled Puryear but I would think that you'd take the time to get a few simple facts straight.

If you'd like to talk to me directly about any of these issues, please call me at 844-9403. Take care.

Yes, come on guys, Mr. Pulle spelled Mr. Puryear's name perfectly before dragging it through the mud...

I am not affiliated with the website, tnforpuryear.com, so I'm sorry I can't get the spelling of your name changed. I agree that's wrong, but can't see why your ego is so easily bruised by what you call an "amateurish" websites.

However "amateurish" the website may be, I have learned more from it about the issues in this nomination than from your reporting. I have reviewed your answer about whether you had the David Randolph Smith letter. I then re-read your articles about Puryear. I am struggling to see how you failed to mention it, unless it did not comport with the point you sought to make. A letter from the Richardson family's lead lawyer not only identifying and discussing his medical expert's opinions, but also opining as to Mr. Puryear's ethics, intellect and strongly endorsing his nomination is not worth even mentioning in a news story about Puryear's involvement in the Richardson case? That goes way beyond blithely noting that the Richardson lawyers agree the head injury might have been more than three days old. Did you not trust your readers with the content? It is obvious you think that only Dr. Levy had it right, and we are not to be trusted with opposing views. Maybe you could share your medical credentials with us.

After looking through the articles, I have decided that you simply did not seek the truth. I cannot trust you as a credible reporter of the facts around this nomination. You're a clever writer, but not a fair journalist.

Perhaps your illustrators who put "Elephant Boy" together could touch up the picture you ran of Alex Friedmann. Instead of the scales of justice over his shoulder held by a blindfolded lady justice, they could have you holding the scales. But of course you must not wear a blindfold, you need a thumb on one of the scales, and give a little wink for Friedmann.

And by all means get your name spelled correctly in the caption!