Siegelman Judge Committed Fraud on the Court

[kpete]

Monday, May 18, 2009
Siegelman Judge Committed Fraud on the Court

....................

"The evidence is clear to me that Judge Fuller failed to disclose his bias in the Siegelman case and committed fraud on the court," said Paul Benton Weeks, an attorney in Springfield, Missouri. "It is an example of what the Supreme Court has called an 'inexcusable' failure of a judge to remove himself from a case."

Weeks spoke at a media teleconference this morning as a follow up to an investigative report by veteran attorney and journalist Andrew Kreig that was published last Friday at Huffington Post. Kreig reports that Weeks is initiating a renewed call for impeachment amid allegations that Fuller tried to defraud Alabama's state-employee pension system and earned millions of dollars from military contracts during the Bush administration.

Weeks said he uncovered Fuller's misconduct with the assistance of Gary McAliley, a Siegelman appointee who took over as district attorney for two south Alabama counties after Fuller was named to the federal bench by George W. Bush.

"Fuller was deeply concerned that McAliley was going to indict him," Weeks said. "When that concern passed, Fuller became determined to stay on the Siegelman case because he wanted revenge."

more at:
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2009/05/siegelman-judge-committed-fraud-on.html

[Hepburn]

1. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

Gads, this is totally unreal! :grr:

[merh]

30. The 11th Circuit considered the argument and held that the

motion to recuse (as filed by the co-defendant, Scrushy, and as argued on appeal) was not timely filed and this was not grounds for reversal.

[glitch]

2. Hooboy! The spotlight now shines on you, Mr. Fuller.

Trouble ahead. :evilgrin:

[Wednesdays]

3. K&R

:kick:

[Kingofalldems]

4. The Rove loving Blue Dogs won't like this

[WhiteTara]

5. who says the Blue Dogs love Rove?

That's the first I've heard of it and my Rep is one.

:shrug:
edited to add: my rep is a Blue Dog and he does NOT love Rove.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Mine as well

And he hates Rove.

Some of the crap posted here is unreal.

[ooglymoogly]

14. The blue dogs just enable the things Rove stands for

which boils down to the bones of treason. The blue dogs may be your heroes but they are not the heroes of most on DU

[defendandprotect]

15. We need Dems to concentrate on ridding the party of Blue Dogs . .

while the DLC continues to poison the well by recruiting more of them!

[avaistheone1]

16. The Blue Dogs are one of the worst things that have ever happened to

the Democratic Party.

I can't wait for the day we totally rid them from the House and from Congress.

[defendandprotect]

17. You have to get rid of the DLC first . . . cause they're the ones soliciting Blue Dogs . ..

supporting them, etc -- it's DLC agenda to move party to the right.

DLC is the corporate-wing of the party.

[avaistheone1]

19. I don't understand why there isn't more of a thrust in the Democratic Party for publicly funded

elections. Too many of these Democrats have sold themselves out to the corporate interests so the people's business doesn't get taken care of.

My understanding is the DLC is pretty much totally funded by the mega corporations.

[rhett o rick]

20. Well feel free to "thrust". But no one has been able to tell me how we can throw off the yoke

of the corporations. They via the DLC literally own the party. Face it, you are powerless. We don't live in a democratic republic, our government is owned by corporations.

[ooglymoogly]

22. We are not powerless.....we have the internet.

Against all odds we will survive and we will win the battle when America wakes from its propaganda induced slumber....think Matrix

[defendandprotect]

24. I think they understand because of past history, we'd bounce them out immediately . . .!!!

Catch up with new legislation -- FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT - HR1825 . . .

COMMON CAUSE ACTUALLY GOT MY REPUG REP TO SIGN A 'PLEDGE' TO VOTE FOR IT!!!

They need more Senators and Reps as sponsors --

We should also have sayso on . . . how, when, where and how much ...

Then, IRV voting --!!!

[rhett o rick]

25. Aww yes, fair elections legislation. We have been down this path before.

First I doubt and true fair elections legislation will pass. A majority of the congress don't support fair elections. They support any method that allows them to keep their jobs. Even if we manage to get something passed as we have in the past, it is simple for Congress to undo it. As far as republiCon pledges, there have been a few that pledged in their campaigns to limit there time in office only to change their minds once elected.

[defendandprotect]

39. Look, we're not trying to end slavery or segregation . . . nor get the vote for women . . .

all we need to do is get corporations out of our elections !!!

And acknowledge campaign funds for what they are -- BRIBERY ...

After public funding, we need IRV voting to create other options . . .

Without those two reforms we have no leverage over Dems/Obama --

No leverage means, the corporate agenda will hold.

Keep trying ---

[rhett o rick]

52. Ending slavery was a cake walk compared to trying to rid our government of corporate control.

Please give me some ideas on how we do it. Seriously, I want badly to do it but can't see a way. Politics runs on money and the corporations can out spend us 100 to 1. Tell me how.

[defendandprotect]

60. I don't think African-Americans would see it that way . . . nor abolitionists . . .

However . . .

Did you call your Senators/Rep on the legislation?

FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT -- HR 1826???

Public financing of campaigns --

After than we need IRV voting for more options --


Hey, if worse comes to worse, we can always uninvent the dollar bill!

That would probably be the best bet -- :evilgrin:

I believe WE outspent the corporations -- Obama raised $800 Billion from individuals --!

Unfortunately, unlike the corporations and their lobbyists WE have no leverage over

Obama nor Dem Party.

May be we should hire our own lobbyists --

How about Erin Brockovich's firm -- ??

We can also begin putting corporations back in the box . . .

rightfully, they exist to serve the public -- not the other way around.

We need to get the anti-trust laws out of moth balls. Break up these monopolies.

Then, individuals can also begin to show their strength with corporations by acting

in unison. How about turning out lights off for an hour every Wednesday night at 8?

How about refusing to "talk" with corporate robots on telephones . . . when it

absolutely doesn't work to your benefit. Keep repeating, "I want to speak with a

representative." Many other ways, I'm sure. Think of some of your own.

Meanwhile, corporations aren't "people" . . . they don't breathe --

they don't require food, shelter, clothing, medical care.

[defendandprotect]

59. Correction -- HR 1826 . . . typo . . . sorry!

[AlbertCat]

28. The Blue Dogs are one of the worst things that have ever happened to

Worse than when Dems were for slavery?

Well, you did say "one" of the worst.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. Get rid of the Blue Dogs and you get rid of the Democratic majority in the House

Funny how your goal is the same as the Republicans.

[dflprincess]

33. What good does it do us to have the majority when the DLC types

vote like Republicans? I don't see the majority standing up for a whole lot of progressive legislation.

[rhett o rick]

38. I so agree. nm

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. Obama's stimulus would not have passed without a Democratic majority

[rhett o rick]

53. So what's your point Blue Dog Freddie? nm

[Freddie Stubbs]

65. The stimulus would not have passed if there were no Blue Dogs in the House

[defendandprotect]

40. I doubt the object was to replace Dems with Repugs . . .

that may be Rahm Emmanuel/DLC scheme -

but I think most Democrats want to see progressives in office.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. Most Blue Dogs represent conservative-leaning districts which will not elect progressives

So, you can either have a moderate Democrat or a Republican.

[defendandprotect]

57. That's not true . . . Dems have really not contested these seats in eons!!!

Plus many areas are turning blue --

Our problem is in ensuring that the Dems actually solicit and support strong

liberals/progressives - especially with DLC/Emmanuel hatching Blue Dog eggs!

[rhett o rick]

61. First Freddie, Blue Dogs are not moderates. They are corporatisits.

Big difference Freddie.

[Kingofalldems]

32. That is absolutely right.

Enablers. But there are some who fit my original description. Or--maybe I should have made the term Blue Dogs singular, not plural.

[Kingofalldems]

37. Oh yeah and look here at this thread----

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1704777#

[rhett o rick]

21. The real question is does he support a healthy middle class? nm

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. Some 'Democrats' spend most of their time posting attacks on Democrats

[avaistheone1]

34. Democrats who don't vote for the people in Congress should be

attacked. And the attacks will continue especially with the Blue Dogs.

[rhett o rick]

58. Plez call them Red Dogs. nm

[rhett o rick]

55. Not all "Democrats" are true to their party Blue Dog Freddie.

They need to be kicked the hell out of the party. Like the Red Dog's. They vote republiCon they are not Democrats.
Do you understand Freddie.
If you support the republiCons, it don't matter if you call yourself a Democrat, you ain't.

[Kingofalldems]

56. You got that right and

I couldn't have said it better. Check my posts upthread if you haven't yet.

[pleah]

6. K&R

[Soylent Brice]

7. K&R

[HillWilliam]

8. Kickety! n/t

[WillyT]

10. Big K & R !!!

:kick:

[redqueen]

11. K&R!

[DeeDeeNY]

12. K & R

[stlsaxman]

13. Get that son of a bitch!

[Kaleko]

18. Paul Benton Weeks' fighting words:

"After the investigation, I was convinced that {Judge} Fuller was a danger to the federal judiciary," Weeks said. "He had no sense of right and wrong, no respect for the public, and certainly no respect for the law."

[suede1]

23. K & R

[burning rain]

29. Perhaps what's most astounding...

is that someone with the name Siegalman could get so far in Alabama politics in the first place.

[MasonJar]

31. What surprises me is that despite the obvious injustice involved

in this case and the many bipartisan lawyer/judge/attorney general/etc. complaints and calls for justice, Holder is ignoring the entire case, which is one of the top partisan witch hunts by Rove and company. Why is he letting this innocent man suffer?

[merh]

35. I don't believe that Holder is ignoring this case. I think he is

not commenting in the media on it, but that does not equate to ignoring it.

The issues raised in this article were argued on appeal by Siegelman's co-defendant, Scrushy, and the 11th Circuit held that it was not timely raised, that the failure to recuse was not error.

Holder's hands are tied, he cannot dismiss this case now, it is out of his hands and in the hands of the courts. I would think he could get the US Attorney in Alabama to drop that request that the sentence be increased, I think that is wrong and if it were any judge but Fuller, the US Attorney's request would be denied out right.

If it is granted, then there is another avenue for appeal as the 11th circuit ruled on Siegelman's objection to the sentence and said they were within the guidelines and the court's discretion. If the Alabama judge increases it, it will look like he is punishing Siegelman beyond the lawfully affirmed sentence and without cause. It would appear that the court was punishing Siegelman for pursing his legal right to appeal and for getting the unlawful convictions dismissed. When the 11th circuit reversed it so that the sentence could be reconsidered, it was for purposes of subtracting the reversed conviction sentences and any reliance on those convictions by the court that may have impacted the other sentences. That would be there should be a reduction of the sentence, not an increase.

Siegelman can still appeal to SCOTUS.

Another option is to seek the impeachment of Fuller and to show that he was in fact politically motivated in this case. That, plus the on going investigation of Rove's politicizing of the DOJ by both congress and the OPR may develop new evidence that Siegelman can use to try to get a new trial or to recommend a legal pardon or commutation of the sentence or clemency.

Once a jury has returned a verdict and the court has sentenced and the appeals court has affirmed, there is not much the US Attorney can do about the conviction unless new evidence is developed. It isn't fair but it is what is.

[defendandprotect]

42. Why couldn't Congress step in here as they did with the AG firings . . .

and begin investigations -- start with the stolen election!!!

[merh]

44. As far as I know, Siegelman's case, along with Minors and several other, are part

of Conyer's investigation. I believe Leahy is aware of them too.

[merh]

46. Here, check this out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5687944

[defendandprotect]

41. The fact that Rove is involved is probably a big hint -- but I also think ELECTION steal. . .

is something the GOP is straining to keep hidden --

That's a huge vat of questions which I take it Congress and DOJ don't want
to get involved with -- cause if they did, they don't have to go thru this door
to it!

I'm also surprised at Holder's decision and it's making me question any trust in him.
IMO, it's going to take powerful help from high officials to call off these dogs.


The election steals are a big, big thing -- many facets of it -- but most important
was the coming of the computer. The large computers began to come into MSM in the
mid-1960's! They were used to report -- PREDICT AND CALL ELECTIONS. A lot of power there!
It was also noticed by many that the computers would often have odd jumps in numbers ...
and then crashes. When the reporting commenced, the least favored candidate would be
winning and the favorite would be down and out. Sound familiar?

The electronic voting machines began to come in during the late 1960's . . .
just about the time America passed The Voting Rights Act.

I think every Republican "win" back that far could be questioned ---
especially Nixon/Humphrey.

Notice these methods still didn't entirely work for Repugs . . . in 2000 they had to
revert to John Ellis/Fox calling it back from Gore and then awarding it to Bush!
They had to rely on a GOP-organized fascist rally to stop the vote counting in Miami-
Dade County -- engaging in violence without any police interference.
The GOP had to finally get the help of the Gang of 5 on the Supremes to pull it off!

They've still needed CAGING, PURGING and lord knows what other tricks!

This time around so many came out to vote that evidently they couldn't stop it --
I imagine Obama won by a much larger margin.

However, those voters had been staying home because they understood corporate/lobbyist
influence -- maybe not the problems with computer voting -- but they understood something
was very wrong.

If we don't keep things moving in a progressive direction, they may not come out again???

[ControlledDemolition]

62. Siegelman for the SCOTUS! Push back the Rovian scum with extreme prejudice! n/t

[xchrom]

36. 90TH RECOMMEND

[defendandprotect]

43. Meanwhile, how can we help Siegelman . . . mail??? Letters to the court???

[merh]

45. There is a petition

Send the Bush Appointees Packing!

The Bush holdovers in the Department of Justice have asked that I be sentenced to an additional 20 years in prison. The Bush appointed U.S. Attorney, whose husband is Karl Rove’s closest friend in Alabama, joined with the Chief of the Public Integrity Section of D.O.J., also a Bush holdover, in asking for the longer sentence.

What makes the request for a longer sentence even more bizarre is the fact that the Bush holdovers are asking my (Bush appointed) judge to give me to 20 years in prison based on charges of which I was found not guilty.

Email the White House today and tell President Obama to clean house of all Bush holdovers at the D.O.J. and to immediately remove the Bush appointed U.S. Attorneys who are still prosecuting Democrats.

http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5180/t/3541/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2746

And he is filing a Petition with SCOTUS so he can still use any donations one can afford to help with his defense fund.
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/statebriefs.ssf?/base/news/1242461797135500.xml&coll=2

[defendandprotect]

49. Evidently, we've spent $40 million to prosecute Siegelman . . .!!!

How insanely has our government been run . . . !!!

Bushco/Rove have used taxpayer money to further their political ambitions/power --
and destroy their enemies . . .

which in this case, IMO, involves election theft, as well --

[merh]

50. In the Paul Minor case, they began the investigation

and the leaking of their theory of the crime to the press, as campaigning was beginning for the Governor's election. The democratic incumbent governor was then linked to Minor and the alleged corruption. Barbour had no trouble winning the office. The US Attorney made a bid for congress and lost to a democrat prior to being nominated for the USA job. If you look at the people who supported the US Attorney's unsuccessful bid for congress you will see the big money that supported Barbour, hell the ones that Barbour worked for when he ran his DC lobbying firm, the tobacco companies, the pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, physicians etc. Those were the same folks that Minor sued on behalf of his plaintiffs. Minor was one of the plaintiff's lawyers that kick the tobacco companies asses. Tort reform was the rallying cry for the republicans.

I would surmise that $40 million was spent to prosecute Minor and his co-defendants. They were tried twice, once in 2005 and again in 2007.

[defendandprotect]

66. Political prisoners .in America - thanks to Repugs . . !!!

Was just looking at a site to try to refamiliarize myself with Paul Minor . .
and then had to go to this one cause I couldn't figure out what they were charging
him with -- wow!

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001343

And, now, even more strongly, I am convinced that the election steals got way, way
ahead of the Dems -- or I have to believe Dems have some other motive for ignoring.

In Mississippi, they are attempting to make it illegal to back Democrats --
"governing while being a Democrat"!! How long has this been going on?

Of course, I also have to thing that probably always having gone on in various way...
and post Segregation, Inc. we are beginning to see it!?

And what do other Repugs know about all of this -- obviously Barbour must have an idea?

Over and again I come back to the election steals . . .
For one, what did Democratic Party do about Siegelman's stolen election?
They just went on "as usual" . . .!!!

These are very dangerous times .... corporations and tort reform/Repugs . . .a lot of
money involved!

Feels like Nazi Germany . . . but with the internet!!!



Rather it is corporatism that needs the RICO act applied!

[merh]

67. They tried these types of prosecutions in Mississippi

during Poppy's and Reagan's terms.

They went after the democratic mayor of a large city, alleging he had misused federal bond monies and had made political payoffs, yada yada. He was a young, charismatic man - he had served as a state legislator, was a vietnam vet, was concerned about the needs of the people, he was a threat to the repugs. He was considered a strong dem candidate for the gov's office, if not to oppose Trent for his senate seat.

The DOJ charged him with 2 separate indictments - when he was tried on the first, the trial lasted months and the jury couldn't decide, it was a mistrial due to the hung jury. When they tried him on the second indictment the trial lasted months and he was found not guilty. The first charges were eventually dropped as well. The investigation, prosecutions went on for hears. He was financially ruined, he was politically destroyed (he lost the office during the prosecutions), he was emotionally exhausted, he was no long a political threat to the repugs. Mission accomplished.

They did it under Reagan, the trial of USDC judge Nixon was one of their test cases. Nixon was a political power, he was a strong dem (appointed under LBJ after recommended by Senators Stennis and Eastland. Stennis was a very powerful dem, when he retired/resigned, the move was underway to get rid of his power base. Nixon was charged with bogus stuff, he made the mistake of volunteering to appear before the federal grand jury investigating him and it was that appearance where he testified to his recollection of facts, that resulted in his conviction. Not the substantial charges of bribery, he was acquitted on those charges. He was impeached and the structure of the judiciary began to change, they were able to appoint their repug judges.

Dems have made the mistake of taking the high ground. They do not conduct the same type of prosecutions that repugs conduct. They turn the other cheek. That is where the problems lie, that our dems do not pursue the criminals because they want to "bridge the divide" or "heal the nation".

I personally don't believe that will work this go around, I think once this admin has had the chance to take in all of the facts, to see all of the abuses, they will have no choice but to investigate and prosecute. That is my hope.

[ControlledDemolition]

63. They haven't even found a blue stained dress! n/t

[defendandprotect]

51. Thank you . . .

I've made contributions before and will again send a check on -- soon.

I made about 15/20 calls . . . I would say only in about 4-5 cases was there

any telling response that they knew oif the case.

However, I do hope that those I called will try to help in some way.

I only called Dems - not Repugs . . . I don't see how it could help to call the likes

of Burton, Mica or Issa -- in fact, why alert them?

[AzDar]

54. K & R

:kick:

[DemoTex]

64. Mark Fuller: Crooked as a dog's hind leg.

Google his pre-judge days, Enron connections, etc. I posted at length about Mark Fuller a while back.