Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman probably thought U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller never would do him a favor. But Fuller has inadvertently done just that.
The point of Fuller's recent 30-page memorandum opinion was supposed to be that Siegelman should remain in federal prison pending appeal. But the opinion does just the opposite. In fact, Fuller actually makes Siegelman's case for him--showing that, under the law and the facts, Siegelman must be released from prison pending appeal.
How could a federal judge, someone you assume to be rather intelligent, make such a gaffe? My only explanation is this: People who are attempting to cover up wrongdoing are prone to step in doo-doo. And if you actually read Fuller's opinion with a somewhat critical eye, it becomes clear that the judge has stepped in doo-doo big time with this one.
And that makes me think he is doing his darnedest to cover up a sham of a prosecution.
With two recent posts, we have shown that Fuller's own memo proves that Siegelman, by law, should be released from prison pending appeal. And it's not even a close call.
Fuller worked up a 30-page memo in an apparent effort to make this look like a complicated matter. Well, it isn't. All you need to do is read roughly three pages of his opinion, conduct some quick legal research and . . . presto, you see that Judge Mark Fuller is blowing some serious smoke.
Here's an easy way to sum it up:
* The key question is: Does the appeal raise a substantial question of law or fact that, if found in the defendant's favor, would result in reversal or an order for a new trial.
* Fuller's own words show there is a substantial question of law on both key charges--federal-funds bribery and honest-services mail fraud.
* On bribery, Fuller indicates there is some question whether 11th Circuit law requires a quid pro quo, a "something-for-something" arrangement, in order to have a conviction. And as we have shown from a 2007 case--U.S. v. McCarter, 219 Fed. Appx. 921--there is no question about it. The language in McCarter is clear: "To prove a defendant is guilty of bribery, the government must prove there was a quid pro quo--a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act." And McCarter is based on a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision, so its grounded in pretty solid stuff. So there you have it: The judge's own words show there is a question of law that should be decided in Siegelman's favor. Score: Siegelman 1, Fuller 0.
* On honest-services mail fraud, Fuller indicates that he has no clue what he is talking about. He states that there is some question whether a quid pro quo is required for a mail-fraud conviction. And as we have shown, a quid pro quo has nothing to do with mail fraud. It is not remotely an element of the crime. Once again, the judge's own words show there is a question of law that should be decided in Siegelman's favor. Score: Siegelman 2, Fuller 0.
* As for questions of fact, all facts are in question because there is no transcript of the case--and there won't be one for at least another two months. Fuller spends almost 16 pages of his memo reciting his version of facts in the case. But those are not facts, in a legal sense, at all. And one can only wonder what dark crevice he pulled them from. Score: Siegelman 3, Fuller 0.
I would say Siegelman is pitching a shut out, and Fuller is toast.
Does this mean the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals will be releasing Siegelman from prison any moment? Of course not. That court is made up of judges, and the whole point of this blog is to show that judges often are the last people you want to trust with the law. And for all I know, the 11th Circuit might consist of justices whose respect for the law may be no greater than Fuller's.
But if the law still means anything in the Age of Rove--and that's a mighty big if--Don Siegelman should be out of prison pretty darn soon.
Siegelman's Attorneys Ask Appeals Court For Release
Don Siegelman's attorneys are trying again to get the former Alabama Governor released from prison pending appeal, this time based on an unusual issue we reported well before the mainstream media would raise the issue.
Attorneys filed papers Monday with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta citing a horrendous delay in the trial transcript and U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller's failure to provide the appeals court solid, legal reasons for denying Siegelman an appeal bond.
The appeal of Siegelman's conviction on bribery and obstruction of justice charges can't go forward without a transcript of the 10-week trial that was concluded more than a year ago, in 2006. And Judge Fuller has so far refused to comply with an order of the appeals court to submit a detailed, written response on why he should not be released like every other white collar defendant while the case of his appeal is heard.
"Governor Siegelman's continued confinement, pending appeal, coupled with the trial court's continued refusal to provide any legal explanation for incarcerating Governor Siegelman on appeal, has denied Gov. Siegelman's constitutional right to due process," his attorneys argued in court papers, according to the Associated Press and other news organizations.
The trial transcript was delayed by the death of court reporter Jimmy Dickens in August, according to reports, and court reporter Risa Entrekin asked the 11th Circuit in November to extend the deadline for completion to March 31, citing her workload and the size of the transcript. Fuller said last month he expects a completed transcript by Jan. 31.
Attorneys for Siegelman said Monday they understand the unusual circumstances but the delays do Siegelman no good.
"When you've got a client in prison, and it's been six months with no explanation for why he's sitting there - the way to eliminate that issue entirely is to let him out," attorney Vince Kilborn told the Mobile Press-Register.
Due to the clearly political nature of Siegelman's prosecution, which has been shown over and over again by news organizations with more investigative power and objectivity than the conservative, monopoly newspapers in Alabama, this request should get a quick and favorable ruling from the three-judge appeals court panel in Atlanta, legal sources say.
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman sent long-time supporters a number of individualized Christmas cards from prison this past week. A reader sent this one in. I'm wondering if George W. Bush or Dick Cheney or Mark Fuller would have this much class if they were thrown in jail. On some of the cards, this was the message. "Merry Christmas to all of you, with heartfelt gratitude for your support. Please enjoy this meaningful holiday season and appreciate your freedom, your homes and your loved ones. I look forward to cherishing these precious gifts, more than ever, in the coming year. With your continued hard work, I believe this Christmas will be my only one within these walls. Despite the grim conditions here, I will celebrate this special day by keeping my faith, and by maintaining the hope that, with your help, we can move Congress to expand their investigation and restore American justice - our once bright beacon in the free world. I cannot thank you enough, or ask more emphatically that you continue and intensify your extremely important efforts. May the many blessings of this season bring joy to each of you." Don Siegelman # 24775-001, Satellite Prison Camp, Post Office Box 5010, Oakdale, LA 71463-5019
Siegelman Interview Surfaces on Stolen 2002 Election
An interview with former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman talking about how he thinks the 2002 election was stolen re-surfaced on the Web yesterday in the aftermath of a new reiteration of the story by an online news outlet. As we were the first news organization to investigate and report in-depth back in June, it is likely that votes were switched in the Baldwin County courthouse on election night in November 2002, handing the election to Alabama's sitting governor, Bob Riley.
Siegelman spoke to Julie Sigwart of Take Back the Media on Sept. 13, 2004 - two years before he was sentenced to federal prison. Siegelman says his political and legal troubles can be traced back to the election of 2000 after he publicly backed former Vice President Al Gore for president instead of George W. Bush, a move that Bush's political adviser Karl Rove would never forget - or forgive. He also says his impression of the president after meeting him in person was that, while Bush was "very personable," he "was not exceedingly bright."
General Clark Calls Siegelman Prosecution Political, Bush Presidency 'The Worst'
Photo by Glynn Wilson
General Wesley Clark says Siegalman's prosecution was "politicized" and called "W" the "worst ever."
by Glynn Wilson
General Wesley Clark received standing ovations from Democrats Friday night when he called former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman "a great American" and an "honest man" who was "unjustly confined" by a rogue Justice Department "politicized" by a corrupt Republican administration, and for his criticism of Bush's war in Iraq.
The keynote speaker at the annual Jefferson-Jackson fund raising dinner at the Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center ballroom, Clark said America is "a nation at war" at home on many fronts as well as abroad.
He made the case why the Democratic Party is the party to bring the nation together again after seven long years of rule by crass corporate capitalist Republican neo-cons who have trashed the Constitution on many fronts.
"We're seeing a 20 year campaign to polarize and partisanize this country and take away the basic fundamentals that we fought so hard to put in place," he said. "It's the use of executive power to put in wiretaps and other spying on the American people to take away our fundamental liberties...
"It's the wholesale politicization of the Department of Justice," he said. "It's a stench of corruption that has run from the White House, through Jack Abramoff..."
The past seven years have been wasted by one lost opportunity after another, he said, on health care, education, civil rights, energy and the environment, including global warming.
"We didn't have to fight that war in Iraq" he said, adding that George "W" Bush is "the worst" president ever.
Clark, a four star general, led U.S. and NATO forces in Kosovo during the administration of Bill Clinton. He has endorsed Hillary Clinton's campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination for president.
Leading up to Clark's address, other speakers included state Supreme Court Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, Lt. Gov. Jim Folsom Jr., Congressman Artur Davis, Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, state Senator Vivian Davis Figures, party chair Joe Turnham, vice chair and former Secretary of State Nancy Worley and Joe Reed, president of the Alabama Democratic Conference.
Photo by Glynn Wilson
Congressman Artur Davis from Birmingham is a rising star in the Democratic Party...
Reed, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, called on Democrats to work hard and "win" elections in 2008, because winning is more important than anything else.
If the Democrats had won the White House and other races in 2000 and 2004, he said, "Don Siegelman wouldn't be behind bars today."
Congressman Davis was praised by many of the speakers for his work on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating Siegelman's prosecution as part of a probe into the politization of justice by the Bush administration.
Siegelman is awaiting word on his appeal in a Louisiana federal prison after being sentenced to seven years and four months by a Republican activist judge for allegedly taking a bribe from HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy, who is also serving time in the case awaiting his appeal. Both of them have filed motions demanding release from jail pending appeal, but the appeals process is being held up due to the death of a court reporter who never finished the transcript of the trial from last year.
Prosecutors from the U.S. attorneys office in Montgomery have denied politics played a role in the case. But they have been noticeably silent of late since the Senate confirmed Michael Mukasy as Attorney General to replace Alberto Gonzales, who resigned under a dark cloud of suspicion in August.
There is no word yet on whether Gonzales will be prosecuted in Congress or the courts for his malfeasance in office, although Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy ruled against president Bush's claims of executive privilege this week for his long-time political fixer Karl Rove.
Franklin is just a funny liar trying to advance his own career a la Clarence Thomas.
Johnson is not funny, but someone in the Atlanta bureau of AP should investigate this way too cozy relationship. Hey, maybe they just go to the same wacko church?
The American people and the people of Alabama now know the truth.
Pretty soon, the appeals court in Atlanta will declare it as well, and Congress may get to the bottom of it too. Under Bush, Gonzales and Canary, federal courthouses have been turned into corrupt arms of the executive branch.
This miscarriage of justice must not be allowed to stand if anything resembling American justice is to survive and prevail.
Conyers Apologizes to Jill Simpson for Transcript Leak
October 18,2007
Ms. Dana Jill Simpson
P.O. Box. 341
Rainsville, AL 35986
Dear Ms. Simpson:
I write to offer my personal thanks for the cooperation you have voluntarily provided the
Committee on the Judiciary as it investigates serious allegations that political considerations may
have influenced federal criminal prosecutions. In particular, I thank you for agreeing to be
questioned by both majority and minority Committee staff in a sworn, on-the-record interview
last month. The success of the Committee's work depends in great measure on the willingness of citizens to step forward and share information they possess.
I also feel compelled to address the upsetting premature release of the written transcript of
your sworn interview. As you know, all parties to the interview agreed in writing that the
interview would be kept confidential unlil I formally released it to the public after consultation
with your counsel and Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith. Yet, before I authorized the
release, local press in Alabama obtained an apparently leaked copy of the transcript, and used it
to write an article commenting on the interview, and also posted the transcript on the world-wide-web. I appreciate that this sort of selective release was not permitted by the agreement under which you offered your testimony, and I deeply regret that it occurred. While I give you my word that neither I nor any member of my staff were responsible for this improper release, the Committee's agreement with you regarding the terms of release was not honored and, as Chairman of this Committee, I offer you my apologies.
Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Joe Turnham came to the defense of Democratic Congressman Artur Davis today. Davis was publically and personally castigated by both the GOP Party Chairman and the governor in Alabama newspapers for his participation and remarks in this week's congressional hearings looking into the Republican political prosecution of Democrats, including former Governor Don Siegelman.
It is incredible that only now, when Congress is having formal investigations, and after months of debate on the subject of political prosecution, are Governor Riley and Rep. Hubbard dismissing and criticizing the legitimate process of oversight.
"The shrill and unprofessional personal reactions of Riley and Hubbard to Artur Davis' participation in this process are unbecoming and insulting to the Congressman," Turnham said in a press release. "Representative Davis is a former assistant U.S. Attorney, a prominent member of Congress and a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Not only is he uniquely qualified to speak to these issues, but he has a sworn duty to pursue truth, justice and to see that the rule of law through our constitution is followed.
"His remarks and actions in those roles have been only professional and indeed courageous,"
Turnham said. "He does not deserve the personal, partisan attacks from Alabama's top Republicans that are akin to 'killing the messenger' who seeks the truth."
The whole issue of political prosecutions is now a national one and part of a large-scale examination of the Bush Administration, he said. It is not a political sideshow in Alabama and it is not a partisan spin machine.
"In fact, the public statements of the last several days from the GOP and Governor Riley (their first and most significant comments to date on this year long subject) are serving to disrupt legal processes and only add fodder to a growing sentiment that the White House and prominent Republicans in our state may have been involved in incredible actions of misconduct."
To read the rest, go to the Locust Fork News page and find the local coverage under Regional news.
Editor's Note: This national magazine feature is the result of a five month-long investigation, funded by The Nation Institute's Investigative Fund. It began on June 1, 2007, the day the affidavit story broke in the New York Times and Time magazine.
by Glynn Wilson
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, one of the most popular progressive governors in Southern political history, is cleaning toilets in a Louisiana jail today, convicted on bribery charges in what may be one of the worst abuses of the federal courts by the executive branch during President Bush's tenure. Siegelman's case, among others, was taken up October 23 in a House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecutions.
Siegelman was indicted by US Attorney Leura Canary, whose husband is a close friend of Karl Rove, and his seven-year sentence--the second-longest ever given to a politician convicted of bribery in this country--was doled out by Mark Fuller, a Republican judge who owes his lifetime appointment on the federal bench to the President. The bribery charges have nothing to do with personal enrichment but rather with donations Siegelman helped secure for a campaign to pass a lottery bill that would have increased funds for Alabama's ailing public schools.
Yet his case would probably never have been investigated by Congress if it weren't for the sworn statements of a lawyer and Republican Party operative from Alabama--statements, introduced into the public record at Tuesday morning's hearing, that have been the subject of much contentious debate among members of the committee.
The attorney, Dana Jill Simpson, was a longtime Republican player whose sworn affidavit alleges that Siegelman was tried and convicted as part of a conspiracy to keep him from running for political office in the future.
(I would like to thank the Nation Institute for funding this work. To read the entire story, go to The Nation magazine's Website):
'No Question' Siegelman Prosecution 'Driven by Politics'
by Glynn Wilson
Birmingham attorney and former U.S. attorney Doug Jones testified before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday about what he called "a disturbing trend" of selective prosecutions on the part of the Bush Justice Department. Rep. Artur Davis, D-Birmingham, also concluded that politics was clearly involved in the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
President Bush embraces Karl Rove on his resignation day in August
While partisan politics should play no role in bringing cases and the timing of cases brought against U.S. citizens by the Department of Justice, Jones said: "That does not appear to be the case with this administration."
He testified that state and federal prosecutors started investigating Siegelman not long after he assumed the office of governor in January, 1999.
Jones said he became aware of an investigation of Siegelman aides in 2001 and 2002, who committed crimes for which Siegelman "had no knowledge."
He began representing Siegelman in 2003 when federal prosecutors indicated they were investigating the former governor once he made it clear he was going to run for the office again in the 2006 race.
In a meeting with the U.S. Attorneys office in Montgomery in the spring of 2004, Jones testified he was assured that Siegelman would not be charged in the investigation.
Then in the fall of 2004, he was told that a meeting was held in Washington and that a top-to-bottom review of the Siegelman cases was ordered, and then "all of a sudden" Siegelman was indicted after all the next year.
The new case was "a reversal of what we had been told" by the Justice Department and "came as a stunning shock," he testifieid, and it was a based on "a wholesale renewed investigation."
"There is no question in my mind that the Department of Justice in Washington was behind the investigation," he said. And he said there is no question in his mind that it was "driven by politics."
Such a blatant case of interjecting politics into the legal process "undermines the credibility of the system," he testified.
He quoted Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who said, "An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere."
Under questioning from Rep. Artur Davis, D-Birmingham, Mr. Jones reiterated that the review of the case in Washington occurred during the same time frame that Republican lawyer Jill Simpson testified her conversation took place with Gov. Bob Riley's son Rob Riley, indicating that Bush political adviser Karl Rove met with the DOJ Office of Public Integrity and pressured them to bring the case.
Jones also testified that it was clear that the U.S. Attorneys office in Montgomery was involved in "targeting individuals" rather than investigating crimes in the Siegelman case. "This is something we cannot tolerate in this country," he said. It gives prosecutors way too much leeway to cajole witnesses and abuse the legal process.
Jones also said in response to questions that "there is no question" there were people in the state and in Washington, D.C. who were "out to get Siegelman."
Davis entered into the record the phone record Ms. Simpson submitted to the committee as evidence, which shows an 11 minute phone call on Nov. 18, 2002, to the phone number of Rob Riley's law firm, Riley and Jackson, in Homewood.
He used this piece of evidence to counter affidavits filed with the committee today by Rob Riley and Terry Butts, both of which deny that a phone call took place.
In his concluding remarks, Davis said he had trouble believing in the American legal system after what he has seen in the Siegelman case.
"At every turn we see partisan politics, Washington politics, Karl Rove politics," Davis said.
He indicated that while the prosecutors in Montgomery may be good people and have the best of intentions, he said perhaps it was the culture of the Gonzales Justice Departmant that led "good prosecutors" to believe the only way "to earn spurs" was to "turn the Department of Justice into a political tool."
Former Republican Attorney General Richard Thornburgh testified about a political case in Pennsylvania.
University of Missouri Communications Professor Donald C. Shields testified about a peer reviewed study he conducted showing that the Bush Justice Department has investigated and tried far more Democrats than Republicans.
"There is no question" that politics has been involved, he said. "The numbers don't lie."
The U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittees on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security and Commercial and Administrative Law will hold a hearing today, Oct. 23, beginning at 10 a.m. Eastern Time, 9 CDT, called "Allegations of Selective Prosecution: The Erosion of Public Confidence in Our Federal Justice System."
Members will address allegations of selective prosecution in several states including Alabama, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Former Alabama U.S. Attorney Doug Jones is on the witness list, as well as former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and University of Missouri Communications Professor Donald C. Shields.
The Website LeftInAlabama is doing a live blog of the hearing here.
The Nation magazine plans on running a story about Jill Simpson and the Siegelman case today. Check the magazine's Web site later on.
National Public Radio ran an interesting story on the case this morning. To hear it, go to NPR's Website.
To see a funny case of an objective editorial page and a biased news section, go read the Birmingham News today. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Hey, if they hate Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy so much and think they are guilty, why not just say that on the editorial page? In the news section, wouldn't it be better to honestly and accurately report all sides instead of running a diversionary campaign against Jill Simpson? Only in Alabama...
House Judiciary Committee Schedules Selective Prosecution Hearing Oct. 23
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich, will hold a joint hearing on "Selective Prosecution: The Erosion of Public Confidence in Our Federal Justice System," on Tuesday, Oct. 23 at 10 a.m., according to the committee's Website.
The hearing will be a joint session of the subcommittees on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, and Commercial and Administrative Law.
No witness list or supporting documents have been posted yet, and there's no word on whether the hearing will in fact include information about the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
Time magazine has previously reported that attorney Doug Jones of Birmingham may be called as a witness, since he represented Siegelman briefly in the early days of his case - and since he indicated in reporting for the Locust Fork News and Journal and The Progressive Populist newspaper in Texas that White House involvement in political prosecuations should be investigated.
North Alabama lawyer Jill Simpson may be called as a witness to testify at some point, although her attorney is out of the country and has indicated it will be several weeks before that testimony may happen.
TOWN CREEK, Ala., Oct. 14 - Jill Simpson sits on a red clay and limestone beach using her hands to bunch the sand into balls, taking a Sunday break from the troubles she's caused - in the nation's capital and to Republicans in her native land.
Like a hand full of brave crusading lawyers who have traveled through the woods of Bucks Pocket in Northeast Alabama before and contemplated the state of the world by the water on a crisp autumn day, including some of the great names of the Civil Rights movement, Ms. Simpson stands at the center of a political storm that could rock the American system of justice to its core. Her story lifts the blindfold from the eyes of Lady Justice, if just for a moment.
After being attacked for the past few weeks in the biggest and richest newspaper chain in the state, by the governor's son no less, she seems undaunted and unafraid. She's fully aware that she is taking on some of the most loyalty-demanding politicians probably in American history.
She has violated their code and she knows it. Once this Rubicon is crossed, however, there's no turning back. She seems to have faith that, in the end, truth matters - and justice will prevail.
"I made the decision in May to speak truth to power. Anytime you speak truth to power, there are great risks," she says, after researching the subject on her computer and reading about other women who have taken on powerful men in the past. She mentions Anita Hill, who wrote a book about her experience testifying against Clarence Thomas, who was confirmed by the Senate anyway for a seat on the Supreme Court.
Ms. Simpson is a great admirer of women in history. She comes from a long line of accountants and farmers before that, Republicans primarily because they do not like taxes. Her people tend to strongly favor the University of Alabama football team on Saturdays in the fall, and that is where she went to college as an undergraduate and a law student - and where she came to know Rob Riley.
He is about to enter the political storm as well, it seems, or at least he vowed to in the Birmingham paper. He claimed he was going to write his own affidavit countering Ms. Simpson's charges.
Ms. Simpson occasionally lectures writers who fail to tell stories of great women. She is the kind of Southerner who can talk and talk all day, about German poetry, especially by women, but also about the plans for her farm in Dekalb County, her extensive collection of folk art from the Rev. Howard Finster, what's wrong with America under George W. Bush and his war in Iraq - or the concept of speaking truth to power.
"You have to understand, there are risks," she emphasizes. "I evaluated the risks. And the risks were, when I did the affidavit, that I would be brutally attacked. And, of course, that's what happened."
Then without a second thought, she finishes her Coca-Cola and sits back down in the canoe and paddles toward the other shore of Town Creek, pausing to admire a great blue heron flying off into the sunset.
In May of this year, after much legal research and a prolonged attempt to simply leak what she knew to Democrat lawyers - then after a great deal of soul searching - Ms. Simpson finally decided to thrust herself into the public spotlight, the political vortex, to expose a terrible problem she sees with the justice system.
She wrote and signed a damning, sworn affidavit offering evidence of collusion by the Bush Justice Department - and the political campaigns of Alabama Governor Bob Riley - to blatantly use the federal courts to win elections in a flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution.
She has now testified in a sworn deposition to the House Judiciary Committee, which plans a series of hearings in the next few weeks with the theme, "Allegations of Selective Prosecution: The Erosion of Public Confidence in Our Federal Justice System."
CBS's Sixty Minutes has interviewed Ms. Simpson for an upcoming show on the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, one of the most popular Democrats in the South who is now locked up in a Louisiana jail cell alongside Edwin Edwards, the infamous former governor of Louisiana.
Siegelman's crime? Allowing a wealthy businessman to pay off the debt on a campaign - defeated by the Christian Right - to pass a lottery to fund education and Hope scholarships like the one's offered in neighboring Georgia.
Siegelman was relentlessly pursued by Bush appointees in the federal courts in Birmingham and Montgomery, where the powerful and staunchly conservative Business Council of Alabama seems to call the shots - along with direction from the White House.
Council president Bill Canary can pick up his cell phone and call his old friend Karl Rove just as easily as he can reach the publisher of the Birmingham News. Yet he and his wife, U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, deny having anything to do with prosecuting Siegelman. She allegedly recused herself, at least according to the press release, although she has never produced a copy of a signed recusal motion and none of the court records have yet been made public, not even the trial transcript.
Chief U.S. District Judge Mark E. Fuller, the federal judge in the case, also a Bush appointee, has not spoken publicly or denied allegations unearthed by Ms. Simpson that he was a compromised Republican judge and a defense contractor who should have recused himself from hearing the case. The Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has indicated it will take up that issue in the coming weeks.
U.S. Attorney Alice Martin in Birmingham tried to convict Siegelman of another malfeasance, but that case was thrown out of court before the opening arguments ever started.
Ms. Simpson watched those cases go down. Knowing what she knew from working on Governor Riley's campaigns with Rob, she says she just could not remain silent as the sentencing deadline for both defendants approached in June.
Her family has a long history of political involvement, but nothing like this. Her father knew George Wallace so well he helped Ms. Simpson get into law school, although while she was there, she was one of the most vocal Christian Republicans on campus and an ardent opponent of abortion in the heyday of the Moral Majority and Ronald Reagan.
Yet like a lot of educated people of her generation, she is full of surprising contradictions. She also served drinks at the blues pub Egan's on the strip in Tuscaloosa in those days, often pouring the whiskey for Bob and Rob Riley as they talked about politics and the future. Rob Riley went on from there to the law school at Yale and had big plans to one day run for governor himself.
Over the years Ms. Simpson has reevaluated how she feels about certain issues. She tends to side with Democrats on gay rights and the death penalty, but she doesn't like taxes any more than her parents and she still feels so strongly against abortion that she adopted a baby girl last year.
She has been married and divorced twice and has a 16-year-old son who plays Christian rock music and wants to go to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in Virginia and become a preacher.
Since she has come forward her family has suffered a lot of grief, she testified in her statements to the House committee.
"It has been very stressful, and it's been difficult for my family," she testified.
Her mother, Jo Simpson, 73, comes from a long line of Republicans, and just loves former Senate Majority Leader Tom Delay, still. She cooks beef stew in a pressure cooker in the smaller house they are now confined to since a fire ruined their larger home down the street in February. It's been hard cleaning the black smoke residue off of what possessions they could salvage, she says, and it's hard living in a smaller, cramped place. And, she worries about her daughter, "sometimes."
Jill herself is not too worried, at least not today, and seems consigned to the fight that still lies ahead as the investigation goes to Washington. She has shunned having her face plastered all over the television news to date, but she may be called to testify in a public hearing before Congress, at which point the country will find out who she is and her picture will be all over the place.
Like a lot of other people in this part of the country, she awaits word on whether the three-judge appeals panel in Atlanta will release Siegelman and his co-defendant, Richard Scrushy of HealthSouth, on an appeal bond. Or perhaps they will order a mistrial due to improper behavior on the part of the jury for reading news coverage online and communicating by e-mail after a dynamite charge from the judge.
No matter what they say about her, she still feels like the risks and the grief will be worth it in the end.
"You know, I've been attacked, but you have to evaluate if the risks are worth it," she says. "Of course they are worth it."
Most people who speak truth to power feel a "moral obligation" to do it, she says, "and I certainly did. I just couldn't walk away from the fact - and there's no doubt about it - it was a political persecution."
She hopes people understand how hard it is to do, but she concludes: "I've done it, now. And I will take whatever consequences that may come from it - because it was the right thing to do."
House Judiciary Committee Releases Simpson Transcript
by Glynn Wilson
The House Judiciary Committee released a transcript today containing explosive new testimony showing a clear-cut case of White House involvement in using the federal courts to manipulate the electoral system of the United States.
North Alabama attorney and GOP whistleblower Jill Simpson's testimony expands on her sworn affidavit from May of this year. In the affidavit and in her statements to Congress, she documents the involvement of White House and Bush Justice Department officials in scheming to prosecute former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman to keep him from winning future elections.
At the heart of this scheme lies Alabama Governor Bob Riley's son Rob Riley, who told her in several conversations about a plan to recruit a Republican federal judge to handle the case against Siegelman.
"Rob told me that Mark Fuller was still a government contractor in 2005 and a United States federal judge, which I found unusual," Ms. Simpson says, so she began to conduct her own research on the judge and concluded that he had a conflict of interest and should not have sat in judgment in the case.
The Eleventh U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta has agreed to consider that issue on appeal. But the three-judge panel assigned the case has not yet issued a ruling on that issue.
Fuller was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush in 2002 at the urging of Rep. Terry Everett, a Republican from Enterprise, a city that is at the heart of defense-related industries in Alabama. Sen. Jeff Sessions, a right-wing Republican from Mobile, was also in on the appointment.
Ms. Simpson says in one of her conversations with Riley during the winter of 2005 he made a statement that "Fuller would hang Don Siegelman." She asked him how he knew that, and he told her, in addition to being a fellow machine fraternity member at the University of Alabama and associated with Republican politicians such as Everett, that "Fuller had been on the Executive Republican Committee" of Alabama.
"Rob said that they had come up with an idea to prosecute Don with Richard Scrushy," she testified. "He basically said that they had come up with an idea to re-indict Don and that they were going to include Richard Scrushy, and they had figured out a way to do it."
"Rob implied that Don Siegelman had gotten money illegally from Richard Scrushy," she says. "That's what his tale was."
That involved the allegations that Scrushy had written two $250,000 checks to pay off the debt on Siegelman's campaign to try and pass a lottery for education in the state, a campaign that was stymied by out-of-state gambling interests tied to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the Christian Coalition and other politically conservative forces.
Rob Riley did not return a phone call seeking comment, but he has denied Ms. Simpson's version of events to a Birmingham newspaper and the Associated Press of Alabama.
Ms. Simpson goes into great detail on how she tried to avoid getting directly involved in the investigation. She wanted to avoid making sworn charges against a federal judge. She tried to talk to one of Siegelman's lawyers to pass along what she knew, but he never called her back. So she talked to Alabama Bar Association attorneys, who urged her that she had an ethical and moral duty to report what she knew to Scrushy's lawyers, which she did, in writing.
But as the case proceeded in Montgomery and Siegelman's and Scrushy's attorneys were unable to win the judge's recusal due to his conflict of interest, she says she ultimately decided to write and sign the affidavit, because, "I thought it was the right thing to do."
"I did not think that what he was doing was right," she says. "Being a federal judge and being in a closely held corporation…"
She was also troubled when the judge sealed the files on the motion for him to recuse himself, then spoke in public about it but placed a gag order on the defense lawyers - yet the prosecution team also talked to the press in public about the case.
"He sealed the evidence, and I read the papers where he got out and spoke, but had them sealed where they couldn't speak, and the prosecutor spoke," she says. "And I just thought that this is not right, and I went ahead and I did the affidavit on the phone call."
In the phone call on Nov. 18, 2002, the same day Siegelman conceded that election in the closest contest for governor in state history, Ms. Simpson says former Alabama Supreme Court justice Terry Butts made claims that he could get Siegelman to concede the election.
Mr. Butts denies any recollection of the phone call.
The reason Ms. Simpson was in on the conference call was that she had been doing political dirty tricks as a volunteer for the Riley campaign. She had gone to a rally of the Ku Klux Klan in Scottsboro and taken photos of Democrat lawyer Parker Edmistons putting up Riley for governor signs. He thought he was doing a dirty trick on Riley. But what he didn't know was that the Riley campaign had set him up and they planned to use photos of the incident against Democrats, somehow, including Don Siegelman.
While Siegelman has denied it, Ms. Simpson's testimony shows she is still convinced that the photos of the Klan rally had something to do with Siegelman's concession.
The other reason Ms. Simpson says she signed the affidavit and agreed to testify about this incident was because of "dirty, untrue" research she was asked to do by the Riley campaign.
In the fall of 2006, a Riley campaign worker came by her office and asked her to meet with the governor at a birthday party at Alabama band member Randy Owens' house in Ft. Payne.
"But anyway, the thing is this, the governor was having a birthday party out there and they wanted me to meet with them to talk about some campaign stuff," Ms. Simpson says. "And this lawyer asked me to do some things I did not feel comfortable with."
The questioners for the House Judiciary Committee do not probe further on this, but from previous reporting in the Locust Fork Journal, it is obvious she is talking about a plan by the Riley campaign to frame a powerful Democrat in the Alabama Legislature for something he did not do.
That was the last straw that caused Ms. Simpson to turn against the Riley's and no longer remain a loyal Riley-Bush Republican. Her testimony is tantamount to the sworn statements of a federal whistleblower. And it is critical to understanding how the Bush White House worked when it came to using the federal court system to seek Republican victories in elections around the country, including Alabama.
Editor's Note: Any press reports that ignore this and focus on other parts of the testimony are at least misleading and at worst part of an orchestrated coverup to try and protect the political fortunes of Bob Riley and George Bush, and to potentially prevent the indictment of former White House Aide Karl Rove, who resigned in August as these charges were coming to light. Rove and other White House aides are still in defiance of Congressional subpoenas under a broad claim of executive privilege.
Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) released the transcript from the sworn testimony of Dana Jill Simpson, an Alabama attorney who earlier this year executed an affadavit that has stirred renewed interest in the prosecution and subsequent conviction of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman. In the affadavit and the closed-door interview with committee staff, she cites conversations that allege Karl Rove's involvement in the decision to prosecute Siegelman.
The issue is expected to be covered during an upcoming joint subcommittee hearing titled, "Allegations of Selective Prosecution: The Erosion of Public Confidence in Our Federal Justice System."
The hearing was originally scheduled to take place Thursday, October 11, but was postponed due to a change in the congressional schedule. The hearing is expected to be rescheduled soon. Below you'll find a summary of points from the interview.
Points from the Sworn On-the-Record Interview
1. Ms. Simpson stated under oath that she adheres to and stands by the statements in her May 21, 2007, affidavit. (Pages 85-86) She testified: “What I understood, or what I believed Mr. Canary to be saying, was that he had had this ongoing conversation with Karl Rove about Don Siegelman, and that Don Siegelman was a thorn to them and basically he was going to – he had been talking with Rove. Rove had been talking with the Justice Department, and they were pursuing Don Siegelman as a result of Rove talking to the Justice Department at the request of Bill Canary.” (27)
2. Ms. Simpson described a 2005 conversation with Rob Riley in which Mr. Riley stated that, in late 2004, Karl Rove had contacted the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice to press for further prosecution of Don Siegelman, and had also stated that the case would be assigned to a federal judge who “hated” Mr. Siegelman and who would “hang Don Siegelman.” (50-57) According to Ms. Simpson, Mr. Riley stated:
* that the case against Don Siegelman in the Northern District had been “miserably messed up” by United States Attorney Alice Martin and had been dismissed by a federal Judge in 2004 (48-50);
* that, with that case out of the way, Mr. Siegelman was “the biggest threat” to Governor Bob Riley – Rob Riley’s father – in the coming 2006 Governor’s race (48);
* that, in late 2004, Bill Canary and Governor Riley had spoken to Karl Rove about Mr. Siegelman and that Rove had approached the head of the Public Integrity section of the Department about bringing another case against Mr. Siegelman and giving more resources to the prosecution (50-52);
* that the new case against Mr. Siegelman would be brought in the Middle District of Alabama and would be assigned to Chief Judge Mark Fuller, whom Rob Riley knew from college (50-53);
* that “Fuller would hang Don Siegelman” because he believed Mr. Siegelman had caused Fuller to be audited in a former position which had exposed some questionable financial dealings by Fuller (56-57); and
* that Mr. Siegelman would be indicted on charges related to Richard Scrushy because Mr. Scrushy was very unpopular and it would be useful to link the two men together. (84-85, 106).
In fact, several months after this conversation described by Ms. Simpson, Governor Siegelman and Richard Scrushy were indicted in the Middle District of Alabama on May 17, 2005 and the case was assigned to Judge Fuller.
3. During the interview, Ms. Simpson responded to some of the comments that have been made in recent months regarding the statements in her May 21, 2007, affidavit:
* Ms. Simpson explained why she believes that the “Karl” discussed in the conversation described in her May 21, 2007, affidavit was Karl Rove. (25-26.)
* Ms. Simpson identified telephone records reflecting the November 18, 2002, call described in her May 21, 2007, affidavit. (29-30, 32) She also identified other phone calls between her and Rob Riley during the 2002 campaign season, and identified a series of letters showing that she has regularly worked on legal matters with Mr. Riley since 1998. (30-34)
* Ms. Simpson testified that the affidavit she executed on May 21, 2007, had a narrow focus and only covered the events and circumstances surrounding the November 18, 2002, telephone call – and did not include all the information known to her that was potentially relevant to the Siegelman prosecution – because she had only been asked to prepare an affidavit on that phone conversation. (81, 140.) Ms. Simpson further stated that she had been reluctant to become involved in the matter and had delayed some time before concluding that she was obligated to prepare and execute her affidavit. (70, 73-74, 79.)
* Ms. Simpson testified that she is a lifelong Republican, who has worked on political campaigns for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Judge Roy Moore of Alabama, and Governor Bob Riley of Alabama, among others. (7-11)
House Judiciary Committee to Release Simpson Transcript Wednesday
The House Judiciary Committee will apparently release the transcript of North Alabama lawyer and GOP whistleblower Jill Simpson's deposition in the investigation of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman on Wednesday, sources say.
Picasso's depiction of Don Quixote
The release was delayed today, since a hearing scheduled before the committee on Thursday on the issue of the political prosecution of Democrats around the country by the Bush Justice Department was delayed due to the funeral of Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., a spokeswoman for the committee confirmed.
Copies of the transcript were apparently leaked to some news organizations by a staff member for one of the minority, Republican members of the committee, in violation of an agreement with Ms. Simpson and her attorney, which resulted in a misleading blog post today on the Newhouse, Advent Communications Website al.com.
We will have a full story on Ms. Simpson's testimony on Wednesday, along with a link to the entire transcript, after the committee makes its formal announcement.
Also, apparently Time magazine is planning another story about the Siegelman case that may come out on its Website on Wednesday, sources say.
Meanwhile, for some interesting reading, check out Scott Horton's essay today on the Harpers.org Website on Cervantes’s Golden Age. I guess the Cervantes fictional character Don Quixote, the man of la Mancha, was about a little more than a crazy man tilting at windmills after all, eh?
Don’t be consumed in the quest for needful things ... the real quest leads inward. Beware of the vanities of the world, the frivolities of human existence. And remember wherever your life takes you, and whatever love you may seek from time to time, the need for kindness and respect, the essential qualities which make human life worth living. Life will bring pain and hardship, but have the disposition to be modest, to learn, to be kind - and the edge will come off.
It's definitely something to think about in these crazy times, don't you think?
CBS's Sixty Minutes Interviews Jill Simpson for Siegelman Exposé
Feds May Deny Access to Siegelman in Jail
North Alabama attorney and GOP Whistleblower Jill Simpson was interviewed by CBS's Sixty Minutes Sunday in preparation for an upcoming show on the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
Sources close to Ms. Simpson and the Sixty Minutes show also say the federal prison system has refused to allow an on-camera interview with Mr. Siegelman in the Louisiana prison he is being held in without the benefit of an appeal bond, although indications are that may change.
"Jill did fabulously," Montgomery attorney Priscilla Duncan said. "She was clear and looked great."
The reporter and producers of the show were also pleased with the way the interview went.
"They were all very happy," she said.
Also, the House Judiciary Committee may release the transcript of Ms. Simpson's deposition before the committee staff and legal counsel from a couple of weeks ago on Tuesday.
Siegelman's Attorneys Respond to Judge on Release Pending Appeal
Attorneys for former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman filed a response to Chief U.S. District Court Judge Mark E. Fuller's ruling denying Siegelman release pending appeal today, saying the Montgomery judge failed to follow the order of the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to explain his ruling.
“The court’s summary denial without explanation is a clear indication that the ruling denying release pending appeal is unsupportable," according to Hiram C. Eastland, a new appeals attorney brought onboard from Mississippi. "By ignoring (the appeals court's) instructions to 'explain the reasons for the court’s ruling,' the district court has in effect admitted that any real discussion of the issues would compel the release of Governor Siegelman.”
Democrats Call for Sessions' Recusal in Siegelman Investigation
Alabama Democratic Party Executive Director Jim Spearman is calling on U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to offer a formal recusal of his activities related to Senate Judiciary Committee investigations or hearings related to controversies at the U.S. Department of Justice, and more specifically any future investigations or hearings related to the matter of former Governor Don Siegelman, according to a press release.
On July 24, 2007 Senator Sessions made the following comments to the Birmingham News regarding a congressional investigation into the case of Don Siegelman:
"We have to be very careful that politicians don't interfere in an ongoing criminal case," Sessions said. He is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a former U.S. Attorney from Mobile.
"I'm just dubious of us having a bunch of high-profile hearings, which are basically political, about matters that are being litigated in the courts," he said.
These comments were preceded by an article in the New York Times which reports on a White House email commenting on Sessions' willingness to consider politics.
"WH political reached out to Sen. Sessions and requested that he ask helpful questions to make clear that Tim Griffin is qualified to serve," according to a January 2007 e-mail message from Monica Goodling, a former senior aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, to other department officials. "Here are the talkers on Griffin, as well as a narrative that can be used by staff, and his résumé. I think it would actually be helpful for all of the Rs (Republicans) to have it."
Just last week, TIME magazine revealed interviews by the U.S. Attorney's office in the Middle District of Alabama that show their star witness in the Siegelman prosecution, Mr. Lanny Young, also testified to authorities that he had made contributions of cash, unreported goods, and pass through contributions attributed to other persons in violation of FEC law to aid Senator Sessions' 1996 campaign.
No investigation was ever pursued by the U.S. Attorney or the DOJ on this allegation and Senator Sessions nor his campaign were asked to explain the nature of this matter. In addition, the Federal Elections Commission was not notified about these potentially illegal transactions.
"The Senator's public statement discouraging Congress from looking into the Siegelman case was self-serving and could be perceived as an attempt to impede discovery of improper acts on the part of his previous campaigns," Spearman said. "As a former United States' Attorney and Attorney General for the State of Alabama, Senator Sessions certainly recognizes the implications of the questions raised in the TIME article. In the interest of justice, impartiality, and to remove any hint that Senator Sessions' service at a congressional hearing could taint the outcome, I publicly call for him to make a formal recusal from participation in these matters before the Senate Judiciary Committee."
Mr. Sessions could not be reached for comment on Clumbus Day, a national holiday.
The Truth About The Truth in the Siegelman Prosecution
From a journalist, columnist and Web publisher who is anything but 'out-of-state'
by Glynn Wilson
Editor and Publisher
The Locust Fork (Alabama) News and Journal
Also working under a grant from The Nation Institute's Investigative Fund
Acting U.S. Attorney Louis Franklin is grasping at straws as his legal career as a "career prosecutor" is near its end.
Since the Montgomery TV news station WSFA 12 decided to publish his entire recent statement as news with no context or rebuttal or original reporting, and since Mr. Franklin has decided to try and attack us as "out-of-state" anything, we better take his contrived words written in Washington apart.
"Recently, a number of articles, editorials, and postings on blogs have been authored by 'out-of-state' reporters, columnists, and bloggers about the investigation and prosecution of Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy," he says.
Well, not all of us at the Locust Fork News and Journal, the Anniston Star, the Decatur Daily, etc. are "out of state."
In fact, we are right here in the neighborhood, and watched Mr. Franklin botch his first attempt at convicting Richard Scrushy in Birmingham. He was about as lame a lawyer as I've seen in my 27 years of covering trials.
"Though these media reports appear to be part of an orchestrated disinformation campaign about the case," he says - seeming to attempt to take a page out of Karl Rove's playbook, although really, it is Karl Rove's playbook - "...they have generated questions that I want to address once and for all on the record because I believe the public has a right to know the truth."
Now considering for a second that Mr. Franklin has any inkling of what the truth is, he certainly doesn't seem to be telling it in this case. And his comments may now be used against him in future cases.
"Leura Canary was not involved, in any way, in any of the decisions about who would and would not be prosecuted," he claims. But we know the truth, don't we?
As we seem to recall, she was the one who brought the prosecution against Siegelman in Montgomery, after Bill Pryor tried and then got himself a seat on the appeals court without Senate confirmation, cozying up to Mr. Bush while Congress was in recess.
"Her recusal was scrupulously honored by me," Franklin lies. There is ample evidence - and who would have it any other way - that of course they talked about the biggest case in town. The question is, what were they drinking and snorting when they talked about it?
So show us the documents, and especially that backdated recusal motion, and stop hiding behind a dead court reporter for refusing to release any of the trial records in this case, and most especially the trial transcript.
And would some able reporter please look into this dead court reporter please?
Even one of my most conservative focus group members on these points said tonight after hearing that story, "OK, now you can safely move into conspiracy theory territory."
"As the Acting United States Attorney in the case, I made all decisions about the case after consultation with other 'career prosecutors'," Franklin claims
Right.
"Any assertion or insinuation to the contrary is an outright falsehood and a lie," he says.
We will see, now won't we? As Jill Simpson likes to say, "Justice always prevails in the end. It really does."
"All viable federal felony offenses discovered during the investigation were appropriately and properly addressed," Franklin says. "Political party affiliation played no role in 'my' decision making."
Here was an assistant normally reserved for token research, trying a case because he was black, now taking credit for the entire scheme to run a political prosecution of Don Siegelman? Highly unlikely and most likely an outright lie.
"Our entire investigative file was turned over to the dozens of extremely able lawyers hired to represent the accused and all information discovered during the investigation was available to them to use in their defense in any way cognizable under the Constitution of the United States," Franklin blathers on, digging an even deeper whole for himself for the record.
"Common sense suggests that if a viable motion for selective prosecution existed, it would have been filed."
What?
"Simply put, no motion alleging selective prosecution was filed because there were no facts to support it."
Are you kidding me?
It would just not have occurred to Siegelman's defense team, even after the Jill Simpson affidavit surfaced. They don't seem to understand all this political stuff involved in a legal case. They are accustomed to law book research, not political prosecutions. In fact, it never occurred to them that there is such a thing, because there is not supposed to be such a thing in American jurisprudence.
"The comments of a few Monday morning quarterback writers, editors, and bloggers to the contrary are either a deliberate effort to deceive or are occurring because they do not have all the facts available to them," Franklin claims. "For a variety of reasons, these media members are unwilling to accept the inevitable result of facts being laid bare in the crucible of the federal criminal courtroom. This case was fully litigated in an open forum where everyone was compelled by law to speak the truth." blah, blah, blah, blah...
"In this context, Siegelman's and Scrushy's peers convicted them because they are guilty of public corruption offenses," Franklin says.
But any close observer of the events should know, and we reported this as it happened, the jury was hopelesslly hung, to the point of fisticuffs. Any honest judge would have declared a mistrial on that fateful Friday.
That is until the Chief Judge who controls the courthouse in Montgomery, down to the locks on the doors, Mr. Fuller, issued a dynamite charge of all dyn-o-mite charges, telling them he had a lifetime appointment and he could wait as long as it would take for them to reach a verdict.
So they went home and at least a couple of them started reading news coverage online and e-mailing other members of the jury asking them to reach a guilty verdict so they could all, finally, go home. And afterall, that's what the judge seemed to want.
But, Mr. Franklin continues.
"Any unbiased review of the evidence discovered during this investigation and the manner in which the investigation was conducted will reveal the incredible commitment to the public interest and dedication to duty of the federal and state agents working under 'my' supervision. I am proud of them and the work they did. The taxpayers should be as well."
Well, I know of a whole bunch of taxpayers who are beginning to ask serious questions, along with the Congress of the United States, and the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
And that does include a few out of state columnists and bloggers, some of whom happen to be much better lawyers than Mr. Franklin ever will be...
Judge Fuller Refuses to Release Siegelman on Appeal
Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller has refused to release former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman on bond while his case is appealed, according to the Alabama bureau of the Associated Press.
ABA
Judge Mark Fuller
Fuller ruled that Siegelman has not shown that he has a substantial chance of winning his case on appeal, apparently, without issuing any more of an explanation than he did the first time he ordered Siegelman and HealthSouth's Richard Scrushy to jail without the benefit of an appeal bond.
Fuller's ruling applies only to Siegelman, apparently, while a similar request from Scrushy is pending.
The Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta had ordered Fuller to hold another hearing on the issue and to explain his ruling. Is he thumbing his nose at the appeals court panel?
Poor ole Bob Johnson worked harder today on his defense of the prosecution team than he did explaining what Judge Fuller actually said in his "four page ruling."
And he also continues to use the same inaccurate and downright false background sentence about U.S. Attorney Leura Canary. "She recused herself from the case in 2002 and turned it over to chief prosecutor Louis Franklin, Feaga and other career prosecutors," the AP reports as fact.
But the case file, which has been viewed by lawyers but not released to the public, shows that Ms. Canary never actually filed a motion for recusal in the case. She allegedly recused herself by press release to an Alabama Newhouse newspaper where a local reporter had a long-standing vendetta against Siegelman. There is also evidence that she was in on discussions about the case with the other prosecutors, including the so-called Public Integrity Division of the Bush Justice Department, which has been shown to be Karl Rove's political arm in these cases under investigation by the House Judiciary Committee.
Of course since the Bush federal courts in Alabama refuse to cooperate with the Web press, and Siegelman's attorneys seem incapable of keeping us informed by e-mail, we will have to dig on Friday to find a copy of Fuller's ruling to comment on.
Friday Update
Thanks to Siegelman supporter Pam Miles, here's the PDF file.
This judge says he does not have the authority to grant Siegelan or Scrushy's release on appeal because his defense has raised no issues which might result in a reversal of the verdict or an order for a new trial. Again, he ignores his own conflict of interest, which the appeals court has yet to rule on, as well as a clear-cut case of a jury improperly going against a federal judge's charge not to read news coverage about the trial or communicate about it except during formal jury deliberations.
His lawyers have filed a motion which raises that issue, but the judge stomped all over it and refused to allow an investigation of the juror e-mails. Implicit in that decision, unstated, is that somehow reading a newspaper on a Website is less than "reading a newspaper" and communicating via e-mail is somehow substantially different from, say, whispering gossip?
Clayton Lamar "Lanny" Young Jr., a lobbyist and landfill developer described by acquaintances as a hard-drinking "good ole boy," who was a key witness for the feds in the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, has now been tied to U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions and federal judge William Pryor Jr. in a cover story by Time magazine.
Looks like Karl Rove's plan for a Republican takeover of American politics for a generation is unraveling fast, and sphincters must be tightening up in Washington, Montgomery and Atlanta today as this story reverberates.
The case of Don Siegelman, the Democratic former governor of Alabama who was convicted last year on corruption charges by a tainted jury, has become a flash point in the debate over the politicization of the Bush Justice Department, according to Time, which reports today that the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Siegelman case could start as early as October 11.
WSJ
Transcripts of Young's statements to the FBI have been obtained by Time and will no doubt add fuel to charges that the Bush Administration pursued selective justice in Alabama.
The fact that no charges were ever looked at related to Young's illegal support of Sessions, Pryor and other Republicans will only heighten suspicions that the Siegelman prosecution was a case of selective justice, and adds proof that in the Bush Administration, enforcing the law has been a partisan pursuit all along.
Also, this must be one of the worst days of his life for little Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions. The conservative Wall Street Journal has a story today showing how corrupt Sessions is when it comes to writing legislation for the banking industry, which not only supports his political campaigns and his drive for "tort reform," but an industry from which he and his family derive direct financal benefits.
There's no way his hardcore right-wing supporters can blame this on the "liberal press."
Congress Will Hold Hearing on Siegelman Prosecution
The House Judiciary Committee will conduct oversight hearings that will involve an investigation of the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a committee spokeswoman confirmed.
File photo by Glynn Wilson
Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman
The case will be part of an upcoming congressional hearing by two subcommittees that oversee commercial and administrative law and crime, terrorism and homeland security as part of the Judiciary Committee's investigation into actions by U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who resigned in August, and the Bush Department of Justice.
The focus of the investigation will be whether Republican U.S. attorneys pursued criminal cases against Democrats for partisan reasons and include cases from Wisconsin and Pennsylvania as well as Alabama.
There is still no date set for the hearing and no witness list has been made available yet.
The decision to hold a formal hearing follows several weeks of behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Department of Justice over the release of internal documents related to Siegelman's case - and the Sept. 14 closed-door interview with GOP whistleblower Jill Simpson.
The Judiciary Committee, chaired by U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has been pursuing claims that Republican appointees in the Justice Department and elsewhere in government intentionally targeted Democrats for political advantage, a claim made by Siegelman throughout his trial and sentencing.
Conyers and three other Democratic members of the panel opened an inquiry into Siegelman's case on July 17, also focusing on the overturned conviction of Wisconsin civil servant Georgia Thompson and the charges brought against Pennsylvania coroner Cyril Wecht. At the time, the members of Congress said they suspected the trio were victims of "selective prosecution."
"Allegations that even one of the nation's 93 U.S. Attorneys is improperly prosecuting or failing to prosecute Democratic officials based on their political affiliation have the potential to taint and undermine the legitimacy of our entire criminal justice system," they wrote.
The request was signed by Rep. Artur Davis, a Birmingham Democrat, Conyers, Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif. and Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis. Sanchez chairs the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law.
A spokesman for Davis, Corey Ealons, told a reporter for an Alabama newspaper Monday that the congressman is "pleased the committee has decided to pursue the political prosecutions issue with a hearing and he'll stand by to wait and see what the committee decides to do further."
Davis, citing a June 30 editorial in the New York Times about Siegelman's case, agreed that the committee should investigate and wrote Conyers July 6 with the request. He argued that improper political meddling was "not implausible" and that Siegelman's actions were not criminal.
Siegelman still sits in a Louisiana jail awaiting a hearing from Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller on the issue of his release pending appeal. The Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ordered Fuller to hold a hearing on that issue a few days ago, although there has been no word from the federal courthouse in Montgomery on when that hearing will be scheduled.
Late Update
Reliable sources say the transcript of GOP whistleblower Jill Simpson's deposition before the House Judiciary Committee staff and legal counsel may be released to the public on Wednesday or Thursday of this week, and that an announcement about the hearing will be held in Washington next week, maybe Tuesday. The first hearings should be held the next week, but may not involve the Siegelman case but instead start with the case out of Wisconsin. So the Alabama case may still be weeks away from a hearing in Washington.
Appeals Court Remands Siegelman Sentencing Back to Trial Judge
by Glynn Wilson
(LFJ) - The Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has ordered a new hearing before Chief U.S. District Judge Mark E. Fuller on the issue of whether former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman should be released from prison pending the outcome of his appeal.
A three-judge panel remanded the case back to Fuller, arguing that it appears as if Siegelman's lawyers never properly filed a motion for his release on appeal. The ruling also seems to take the judge to task for discussing the issue of Siegelman's release on appeal and not fully explaining why the former governor was jailed immediately instead.
"The district court made comments in the course of denying Siegelman’s motion to surrender voluntarily to prison which may reasonably be interpreted as a finding that Siegelman was ineligible for release pending appeal," the ruling indicates. "Regarding Siegelman’s motion for release pending appeal, the Government’s response to the motion, and Siegelman’s reply to the Government’s response are hereby REMANDED on a limited basis, for expeditions consideration and disposition by the district court. The district court’s order should explain the reasons for the court’s ruling."
According to Redding Pitt, one of Siegelman's attorneys, Fuller would not allow the defense to even make a motion on the issue of his remaining free on appeal. The judge ruled Siegelman was not eligible under federal rules.
"The court at sentencing would not let us make the motion, much less make an argument in support," Mr. Pitt said. "That is what the appeals court is referring to in a portion of the opinion."
What the ruling means in lay terms, according to Siegelman supporter Pam Miles, is that "Judge Fuller denied release pending appeal on the day of sentencing. In sending Siegelman directly to jail, it is implied that Fuller must have had a good reason for his actions even though they have not been stated.
"Siegelman should have appealed to Fuller in writing instead of directly to (the) 11th circuit. However, the (appeals panel) states that they understand why Siegelman didn’t do this," she says. "It is certainly implied that they are referring to the act of shackling and taking him to prison that night."
"Accordingly," she says, "the (appeals panel) is asking Fuller to formally rule on the appeal bond motions with a full explanation of his ruling."
One source who is familier with this case, and how legal appeals work in the South, says it is likely that the appeals panel has indicated to Fuller that he better release Siegelman (and Scrushy?) - or they will.
President Bush embraces Karl Rove on his resignation day in August
