Mr. Siegelman Goes To Washington
The House Judiciary Committee asked the Justice Department Thursday to temporarily release former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman from prison in early May to testify before Congress about possible political influence over his prosecution.
A spokeswoman for the committee said Siegelman, a Democrat serving more than seven years in a Louisiana prison, would travel to Washington under guard of the U.S. Marshals Service. She said Committee Chairman John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, believes Siegelman could provide important information about Justice Department practices under President Bush.
This is good news. Not necessarily because I think it will lend a lot of new facts that will do the trick to spring Siegelman from what appears to be a very bum rap, but because it will really build on the wave of national publicity started by the 60 Minutes segment.
I have not yet seen anything additional as to details, such as who other witnesses would be, exactly what Conyers hopes to accomplish, etc. Perhaps we should help the Judiciary Committee out and come up with a game plan for them. Any suggestions?
UPDATE: Well. Wow. That was fast. I figured the request by Congress would turn up the heat on the 11th Circuit in relation to Siegelman’s release pending appeal, but I didn’t really want to jinx the concept by saying so in the post. BREAKING NEWS from The Birmingham News via TPM:
Former Gov. Don Siegelman will be released from prison, after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted him an appeal bond, the lead prosecutor in the case said.
Acting U.S. Attorney Louis Franklin said he received a courtesy call from the court today. "He’s going to be released," Franklin said.
He said he was disappointed but added, "The 11th Circuit has the discretion to do that, and I respect that.
Karl Rover?
Why is Karl Rove still able to blow his horn on our air waves? When will they dress him up in a striped pantsuit?
Oh they might let Mr. Siegelman travel to DC, but it will be the biggest, longest perp walk you’ll ever see, with the media making him out to be the Capone of our time, complete with easily refutable, yet not refuted lies.
Is this a done deal? Does Mukasey need to say yes to this request? Is he going to? What if he doesn’t?
No, I don’t believe this is a done deal yet. It is the US Bureau of Prisons that would have to acquiesce; and yes, they are a part of the DOJ, although historically a fairly autonomous part. If Conyers issues a subpoena to the BOP, I think it will be hard for them to refuse to produce him.
What the hell kind of cosmic link is going on with Randiego, Neil and Ann?
Why would anyone believe that the DoJ will agree to this?
Oh they might let Mr. Siegelman travel to DC, but it will be the biggest, longest perp walk you’ll ever see, with the media making him out to be the Capone of our time, complete with easily refutable, yet not refuted lies.
Guess I screwed up my comment. What I wanted to say is, I’m not so sure that the MSM is going to make a Capone clone out of Siegelman. I think 60 Minutes did a pretty good job getting his story out. I think charging those US attorneys that charged him could be a real good thing. At the very least, they need to be interviewed by Conyer’s committee.
Completely agree.
But I’ll go even farther — since I first started reading about the Siegelman case at Scott Horton’s No Comment blog, it’s one of the few ’stories’ I’ve followed where I feel the skin on the back of my neck rise before I get to the fourth paragraph. It’s compelling.
Siegelman’s story is skin-crawling creepy. Although it’s easy to see why Rove and the Bushies don’t want him to testify, they can’t stop the evil they set in motion from boomeranging right back on them.
If Siegelman can manage to rise above seeking revenge (which would be a challenge), then I hope that he can help explain why everyone is jeopardized by the legal mutations that BushCheney have inflicted throughout DoJ.
Remember that many REPUBLICANS signed that request asking Congress to investigate Siegelman’s case. This is not about partisan politics. One of the ex-AGs is from my state, a fine Republican with a good reputation. Those Republicans aren’t going to roll over and be quiet if Siegelman isn’t allowed to testify, trust me on this one.
Oh they might let Mr. Siegelman travel to DC, but it will be the biggest, longest perp walk you’ll ever see, with the media making him out to be the Capone of our time, complete with easily refutable, yet not refuted lies.
third time’s a charm.
I’ve got it narrowed down to:
a) multiple accounts
b) serious plagiarism
What do I win?
I am confused. If the DoJ can happily ignore contempt charges, then why can a sub-branch of the same ignore a subpoena?
I am not saying they couldn’t refuse, just that there is a long established process for getting federally incarcerated witnesses transported to places where their testimony is needed. It is just my opinion that if Conyers really wants him, and the process is followed, that he will be brought.
A cosmic link called multiple personality syndrome.
But can DOJ say no to this request? Why wouldn’t they? Mukasey weighing the backlash vs damage from S’s testimony?
Sorry for the barrage of q’s but I am surprised that this is being reported as a done deal. If I were Mukasey I would have to think long and hard about this.
Can you imagine the hullaballoo and wrath if he’s not released to testify before Congress?
Please, people…. Conyers surely has his ducks in a row, and that 60 Minutes piece was powerful. It’s a reasonable assumption that the good citizens of Alabama would raise holy hell if the Congressional Committee was spurned.
There’s no way politically that Siegelman doesn’t get flown to D.C.
Wow…. blessings on John Conyers and his staff.
I think that is right. However, there does need to be a battle cry to some extent on this to get the media portrayal in the correct frame before the Goopers install their wrong frame. Because you know they will coordinate between media plays and the usual diversion play at any hearing itself.
With our luck, it will be in closed session..
And damn, with MSNBC covering Hillary/Obama, the event won’t even get the
full coverage…
Justice tried to keep an incarcerated witness from testifying before and it didn’t work. From my scandals list
Is that prescient or what?
Nice! And that is exactly the process and thinking I was relying on; although I didn’t know or had forgotten that case.
Siegelman is no longer a prisoner.
Mr. Siegelman may want to be teleported from his cell to DC. Or travel by armored tank.
I had the same thought.
But in view of the attention -much of it from Republicans – on this case, the Bushies and Rove had better pray nightly that not one single hair on Gov. Siegelman’s head is the least little itty bit harmed.
My mind turns to legal tactics, as usual. I wonder what effect this appearance might have on his bond application? How will the appeal court react to whatever he might say – will they take it as extrajudicial pressure on them, and affirm o? What can Siegelman say that he didn’t get the opportunity to say at his trial? The Republicans on the Committee will get a crack at him too, and they might ask him questions that are designed to get him to plead the 5th while his case is still before the courts, and use that to trash the appearance. If Siegelman’s appearance is to be effective, it will be as an anchor to get Karl and his girls in front of the Committee.
These thoughts crossed my mind as well. Testimony in DC impacting his appeal, etc. I hadn’t thought about the Republican smear angle, however.
So far, Siegelman’s attorney has said he will answer any and all questions. That is gutsy. I do think this puts some pressure, and some heat, on the CCA in relation to his release motion; and rightfully so I might add. Personally, I would like to see the clerk of that district court hauled in to answer some questions on the transcript, because what has occurred on that front is total BS.
Bmaz my understanding is although there has been much written about the transcript, it actually has not held up the appeal of the case in Chief.
The court reporter died as you know. A new one was appointed, Risa something or other. She had other pending deadlines, but she hopped on the transcript and finished it. I may not have the latest on this, but it’s my understanding Siegelman’s attorney has not filed his first appellate brief yet on the conviction or Case in Chief. I believe the briefs are now in as ordered by Judges Black and Marcus assigned to rule on the appeal bond (the order which I linked I believe in the link I put up just now from FDL was on November 7 by the two judges asking the government and the defense to brief the appeal bond, and of course they will be arguing Gioncala in the Eleventh which is the case there.
If the briefs are now in, and the reply briefs on the appeal bond, Black and Marcus are sitting on the decision of freedom.
The appeals clock cannot start until the attorneys get their brief in, and they have had the transcript for the better part of this month. I know Siegelman’s website railed about this but Governor Siegelman obviously wasn’t versed in Eleventh Circuit FRAPS.
You know, from your lofty perch as EW part deux, you might want to call Conyer’s committee people and get them to request the clerk guy to appear.
Ditto to that suggestion!
EOH plus bmaz-
You do not think Conyer’s committee will have any impact? Rove must be wondering WTH is up with this?
O/T “Them there nuuklars getting a look-see.” bmaz, my decommissioned question was spot on…quarterly inventory on all nuke parts and nukes and they missed the four fuses for over a year? Sure…
I suspect knowing how the Eleventh Circuit and these two judges work, the Conyers hearling will have zip over zero over nada affect on Siegelman’s appeal bond which Judges Black and Marcus hold in their hands. They’ve had the briefs. They were antagonized by Fuller having the chutzpah (is that a Canadian word too?) to blow off their original order in September to write a memorandum opinion (we call them that here from the district courts)to explain why he denied Siegelman’s appeal bond. The second time that the two Eleventh Circuit judges pointed ordered Judge Fuller, the trial court judge to brief his denial, he grudgingly did so. I think that will help Siegelman. But the judges are going to be pretty independent of any Congressional hearing I can guarantee you. However, the background of this case, and the stubborn delay of Fuller in giving his reasons, and most importantly that Black and Marcus and their law clerks can probably find a way within the framework of the Giancola standard used in the Eleventh Circuit I outlined that Siegelman has met that standard, I give him a good shot at an appeal bond.
BTW here is a Nina Totenberg story on the deal with Soukas testifying.
http://www.npr.org/templates/s…..Id=9533571
Hey bmaz you are doing a good job here. Thanks
OT
Interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK24qS1mPFo
I think that we should distill the best comments, research from FDL and EW threads and get them to Conyers. If I’m not mistaken, Christy Smith was on a panel with Conyers inside of two weeks ago so I suspect both EW and Christy have some points of contact with Conyers.
I’d like to remind everyone of how judges who were US attorneys work–that is like snails who need bilateral total knee operations. It is a common misconception in the Siegelman case that Siegelman’s appeal has been held up by Judge Fuller. Judge Fuller has justly been the target of some blame particularly for possible illegal deals that might involve bribery and conflicts, chronicled by Scott Horton, but again I want to make it clear Fuller and the court reporting situation has not actually held up the case in Chief appeal one nanoscintilla of a second. In that regard, Scott Horton, who has done yeoman work investigting this case.
Siegelman’s appeal clock does not start until his two appellate attorneys who also defended himin the trial court file their oppening appellate brief. They have not done this. When that brief hits the Eleventh Circuit Clerk’s office, then the briefing schedule will start. The new Court Reporter wrote Chief Judge Lanier Anderson when she took over for the original reporter who unfortunately worked through the trial while he was dying of cancer–many people would not have.
Anderson gave her until the end of this month to complete the transcript, but she finished well ahead of schedule and Appeal Clock does not start until lawyer gets first appellate brief filed. This is governed by the rules, i.e. Eleventh Circuit F.R.A.P.S.
Two judges on the Eleventh Circuit from Florida, Susan Harrell Black and Stanley Marcus. (Does a middle name used give one more professional dignity than just “Yo Suz?”)–John Riggins grabbed O’Conner in a restaurant and told her to “losen up Sandy baby!” She did loosen up in a profound way. She put your good friends Bush and Cheney in the White House.
Both of these judges know the implications of keeping a white collar defendent in jail awaiting his appeal. It’s often not done. The appeal bond is a separate issue. It’s assigned to two Eleventh Circuit Judges, Black and Marcus, and they have been taking their sweet time in deciding on Siegelman’s freedom. He could have and should have been out–and they could have and should have rendered that opinion. They issued a briefing schedule for the appeal bond, and rebuked Fuller for not responding to their order to elaborate on his reasoning for denying an appeal bond (unusual for the Eleventh Circuit or any circuit to do and a good sign for Siegelman).
In the Eleventh Circuit, you always argue the standards as nebulously defined by United States v. Giancola, 754 F.2d 898 (11th Cir.1985) I’ve gone into arguing Giancola for Siegelman’s release here.
On November 7, Black and Marcus ordered Fuller to submit a memorandum opinion after he refused, and both Siegelman’s lawyers and Franklin, now the acting AUSA in this case and on the appeal, were ordered to submit 30 page limit briefs and then 15 page reply briefs.
I wish him well. The more information submitted to Conyers’ staff along the lines of threads here and on FDL the better.
I dunno about this. As you stated, the briefing schedule does not get set until a transcript is produced. So Siegelman’s lawyers have not been able to file their briefs because they had no transcript to work off of. The absence of a transcript has without question been the holdup there. But it goes much further in that arguments for release bond pending appeal are generally decided on the apparent strength of the grounds for appeal, so, again, not having the transcript available to flesh out your grounds would materially affect that too. There was no reasonable explanation or reason for the transcript to have been so delayed, even with the original court reporter dead. Modern court reporting equipment used in Federal trial courts produce a working transcript that is, on average, 98% or so accurate on the spot and in real time as the testimony is given live in court. There is simply no excuse for not having another substitute reporter make the minor corrections to certify the working transcript for appeal long, long ago. So i don’t think this transcript situation is as explainable or innocuous as you say.
The briefing schedule is set when the brief is filed by the appellant and of course as you say, the transcript is required and very necessary to use in citing for any number of purposes, FRE misinterpretations, objections, arguments in the appellate briefs that spring from the transcript. But in this case, the way things turned out the transcript production just didn’t cause delay very much if at all. The Eleventh Circuit is just slammed with drug cases as is every circuit because of the ridiculous sentencing guidelines that evolved around crack that have stuffed the BOP for years. And the courts have been slow to execute the relief that was made possible by the Sentencing Commission and the Judicial Conference a couple months ago for 19, 500 inmates to have their sentences potentially cut. SCOTUS BLOG is doing an admirable job of following this closely.
If you look closely at this timeline, while people keep jumping up and down, and most appeals of cases in chief, this appeal has not been significantly delayed by the transcript. And I stress the transcript has been completed for almost a month. But what I do want you to look at–and I fleshed out the dates in some of the posts I’ve done here or at FDL, Fuller did intentionally and like a putz (how’s that for professional legal analysis) hold up the appeal bond by refusing to issue his reasons in a memorandum opinon that was first ordered by the Eleventh Circuit in September, than again in November. This was egregious–and this is where the actual nefarious delay in this case actually was.
In the Eleventh Circuit, motions for appeal bond are decided more on whether the Giancola burden has been met, or whether they think that the defendant has a substantive chance of succeeding in his appeal. And that gets nebulous. I can show you cases in the 5th Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit where both very conservative circuits who are reluctant to reverse the trial judge’s lattitude on this denied appeal bond in White Collar cases. I will show you a case.
The same attorney who was behind the scenes orchestrating Greg Craig’s attack on Bill Clinton’s impeachment proceedings is Paul Mogen, an outstanding appellate lawyer at Williams and Connelly who clerked in the D.C. Circuit.
The defendant was an attorney who was accused of mail fraud in a serpentine situation with a video poker business that he operated. The Fifth Circuit denied the New Orleans attorney named Cleveland an appeal bond. He rotted in the BOP for about two years. When the Supreme Court granted Cert. in Cleveland, they immediately ordered Cleveland released on appeal bond. So the Fifth Circuit was in the position of saying adamantly that they did not think Cleveland had a chance ( or really that Mogin had a chance getting cert. let alone winning the case). The Supreme Court granted cert. so that kind of scotched the Fifth Circuit’s analysis and opinion Mogin and Cleveland had little chance of getting cert or winning.
Then the Supreme Court decided Cleveland v. US 531 U.S. 12 (2000) 9-zippity the zip. That’s an important case, because it has deep federalism implications and also implications on state primacy over the feds in matters of state licensure–video poker licensure just happened to be the vehicle here.
Actually every time the Eleventh Circuit looks at an appeal bond that has not been granted by the District Court the Giancola standard is front and center and the focus of their analysis. I have to tell you and I think you’ll agree when you read the case, that Giancola is very nebulous because they pretty much say that they can decide that standard however they like.
You may know Barry Tarlow because I know you spent time in California. A friend of mine who is a Harvard Law Prof joined his practice for a while. He wrote this article by Barry Tarlow for Champion Bail Pending Appeal : The Bail Reform Act. This goes over the Giancola analysis, but having seen their opinions on different appeal bonds in White Collar cases this is a murky standard that is an “enigma enshrouded in a mystery” to borrow a phrase a famous pathologist used to describe diseases.
Thanks by the way for the stellar job you’ve been doing here, and I particularly appreciated your connecting the dogs in the Hatfill investigation with cases where there use was actually attempted. Nice digging.
The transcript was completed early this month. The briefs were not. I understand fully that transcripts are integral for briefing but now that they have the transcripts, the ball is in their court bmaz to file the briefs.
Given that the average case in the Eleventh Circuit takes about 18 months for an opinion at best if their is oral argument granted (and that is 17.5% of cases filed in the Eleventh Circuit), what Siegelman needs now is to be sprung. The transcript has not impacted the appeal in the case in chief all that much when you consider that the unusual event occurred–a dying court reporter working his way through the trial, and the appointment of a new one who finished her transcription ahead of the time (end of March) that Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit Lanier Anderson granted her when she wrote him.
I think that’s the better argument about the delays in Siegelman’s appeal. The transcript has been materially delayed, and not for credible reasons.
Unlike Libby, Siegelman was taken out in manacles, held incommunicado, and routed through several jails before ending up needlessly far away in Louisiana, itself conveniently reeling from the aftershocks of Katrina and far away from his family, lawyer and supporters and Alabama’s painfully uninterested media.
Unless their court reporters are using equipment from the 80s or something (not much chance of that), I am pretty sure of that which i speak, because i have been there and done that. The machines in use now literally compile real time transcripts into desk top boxes and monitors at each counsel’s table and at the judge’s bench. As it is happening live; and they are VERY accurate. This shit in Siegelman just doesn’t hold water.
There seem to be two “threads” here, both of which get yanked by the unseemly delays in producing the trial transcript. The appeal itself, which PetePierce has commented on at length, and the hearing for whether to grant bail pending appeal.
As PetePierce says, the former can be a lengthy business, which makes the latter rather, uh, important for a non-violent, white collar crime that presents no flight risk.
Siegelman was treated egregiously before and after the trial, from forum shopping the case, to taking Siegelman out in manacles from the court room, to Fuller’s refusal to recuse himself in the face of obvious conflicts. (The list is considerably longer.)
One commenter wondered whether this was a valid case of political prosecution or “another Spitzer”. Based on Scott Horton’s reporting, that seems an easy question. Siegelman was prosecuted for actions that weren’t criminal. Combine his treatment with Canary’s pattern of conduct in attacking Democratic state representatives in Alabama, and “losing the file” in connection with leads that led to GOP operatives, and “political prosecution” seems the most accurate description.
From what i have seen, I agree with Horton that this was a no good persecution as opposed to a valid prosecution. There are indeed twin threads regarding the transcript; but they are interrelated in that once the release pending appeal has been denied in the District trial level, there is a reluctance for the CCA to overturn it without having solid, fleshed out appellate grounds that look like potential winners, and this is hard to do without the transcript. The fucking verdict was rendered by the jury in June of 2006. It is simply not credible to view this as a normal appellate process timeline for a criminal case. And that goes for the release motion AND the appeal on the merits. I stand by my assertion that this is complete BS.
The important issue that you’ve done a good job of underscoring in comments here and elsewhere is the lurid way that DOJ has conducted this prosecution, Cyril Wecht M.D.’s prosecution, Geoffrey Fieger’s, and Christopher Christie (New Jersey USA’s investigation of Senator Bob Menedez at the apex of his campaign for Senate and a number of others to wield as a political axe.
Good point about the geographic scope of these apparently political prosecutions. While not limited to swing states, they seem focused there.
Alabama (and Mississippi under Barbour) seems sui generis, a “prize” Rove has worked on for fifteen years, one he seems bent on delivering to the local GOP. It’s also a bell weather, keeping the South from veering off Nixon’s Southern Strategery course.
I don’t want to belabor the point, but their wasn’t that much delay in the appeal of the case in chief due to transcript delay. And if the Eleventh Circuit grants oral argument (17.5%) of the time–and likely here, you’re talking a cool 18 months before you see an opinion submitted to the Federal Reporter.
As I’ve said, I’ve watched the Eleventh Circuit themselves (Fuller did here and they did a bit) delay a decision on an appeal bond as much as two years while the white collar defendant rotted his ass off in a BOP cube.
The defendants in my experience can brook a long haul for oral argument and an appeal much better when they are home and free than when they are beying abused significantly by BOP employees or bussed around from facility to facility which prevents them from contacting their attorneys or their family–rousted in the middle of the night–held in segregation for months with next to no phone calls if they can get any time in the long lines–shipped without any of their legal work, and their communication with attorneys disrupted systemically while they are being bussed from place to place. It does create overtime pay for the BOP/DOJ busdrivers however.
Britney Reverend Wright America is blissfully unaware of this disruption in attorneys’ commications with their clients (often appellate briefs sent to inmates is stolen and hidden in some Captain or Leuitenant’s drawer), but Federal Defenders are very familiar with it.
I know the dates. The transcript has not significantly delayed the case in chief at all. No one can point to dates showing us how the transcript has delayed this case in chief.
Eleventh Circuit wake up call. They take 18 months to decide an appeal at the fastest if it makes the cut to oral argument. Less than 1/5 of cases in fact do in the Eleventh Circuit. 17.5% of appeals filed get oral argument. Although a case could be published without it and theoretically not every case granted oral argument is published, for a case to have precedent and be published, it is without exception going to be granted oral argument.
Again considering the court reporter died, this appeal of the conviction has not been significantly held up. Further, this defendant has money–and the vast majority of defendants don’t. Granted this case IMHO should not have been brought, and the step and fetchit by the DOJ is Rove’s hands on DOJ writ large, but Siegelman’s attorneys could have
1) Requested daily transcripts–that gets done in federal cases when the money is there
2) Started crafting their appeal based on the daily transcripts if they wanted.
BTW, Siegelman’s lead attorney is a damn busy guy. He has other appeals and trials, and that is impacting getting this briefing schedule going in all probability.
If you think the appeal was held up significantly by the transcript, please show me where and how given the dates.
The real delay
It might be appropriate to urge Conyers to get Scott Horton to appear before his committee given the research Scott has done and time he has devoted in investigating the background of this case and the origional participants’ ties to Rove and Judge Fuller’s behavior off the bench in the context of his land deals with the Republican Administration in Alabama.
S is being released on appeal, per TPM
I haven’t read anything yet as to websites or papers today, so that is indeed good news.
Good news indeed.
Canary’s “girls” — those are the two whose testimony I want to watch. Do we really want Karl there at the same time? Wouldn’t it be better to work up (down) to him, wearing away every possible defence he might have before he even appears?
Good idea about having Leura Canary testify. But since her USA office would be defending its prosecution in Siegelman’s appeal, they are likely to beg off.
Perhaps, though, Conyers could use this hearing as the rationale for poking DOJ a little harder about all those Seigelman-related and other documents they are, uh, waiting for from the DOJ. Throw a few logs on that fire, Mr. Conyers, warm things up a bit.
FABULOUS that the 11th Cir. granted Siegelman bond pending appeal. He’s already served over a year, scrubbing latrines while Libby luxuriates in his WingNut Welfare job and $5000 suits, all while Judge Fuller putzes about not delivering up the trial transcript.
Could one of the law-talkin’ persons explain how this works? I mean, I see the problem, and yet, if there is evidence that something has gone wrong in a persecution — excuse me, prosecution — as we have all read there may well be in this one, the prosecutors can’t just use “pending case” as an excuse indefinitely, can they? There has to be a way through that.
bmaz has thoughts on your question. I think it’s pretty clear cut that a prosecutor could not disclose his or her history or views on a case whose appeal is still pending before a court. Patrick Fitzgerald, for example, could not have testified under similar circumstances about the Libby case.
The administration isn’t bound not to discuss these matters in the same way; they could have commented on collateral issues. They have, instead, used that excuse to avoid commenting on embarrassing topics.
Had the administration commented on matters ancillary to the Libby case, they would have created a public record. They avoid that like the plague: one reason el Presidente refuses to speak words at odds with his version of the facts is that it would be “doing his opponents’ job for them”.
That’s political CYA, not leadership. But if there’s one thing these guys are good at, it’s avoiding liability for their mistakes while pinning it on their enemies. They’re not competent at much, but they are masters at that.
I’ll try again, in my amateur way: if you think you have evidence of possible misconduct on the part of a prosecutor, do you really have to wait until the particular case involved is finished?
bmaz and petepierce are more informed. Generally, “evidence of prosecutorial misconduct” by a DOJ lawyer, such as a USA or AUSA, would be handled first by the Office of Professional Responsibility at DOJ, an office whose title is now a contradiction in terms. It has reportedly been corrupted as badly as the OLC under Bradbury, or the Civil Rights division under Hans von Spakovsky & Co.
OPR’s responsibility is generally limited to “professional misconduct”, actions that are illegal, unethical or negligent conduct for a practicing as an attorney. Other types of misconduct or illegal behavior would be investigated by the DOJ’s Inspector General, apparently less corrupted than OPR, but with a limited reach.
Ordinarily, one of those two offices would investigate and recommend further action, from nothing to removal from a project, an office or the DOJ, and/or criminal prosecution, which they would handle.
The problem is obvious: no one outside DOJ has jurisdiction to act and DOJ won’t. The system has no work arounds for this level of corruption. In effect, Al Capone gets to audit his own tax returns and pronounce them compliant.
Congress and the public can draw attention to the matter, to get the president to act. The president’s response would be, “So?” Congress could also impeach the Attorney General or a USA. But Congress seems afraid of its own shadow, much less Mr. Cheney’s, and will not impeach.
What we can do is document and remember. Regarding the Don Siegelman’s, and there are many, I think there’s a case for some early pardons by the next president. We should also forcefully demand that neither the next president nor Congress, “put these things behind us” by forgetting they ever happened. Cheney was wrong, it was wrong to pardon Nixon. It would be wrong to pardon Cheney and Bush before investigating and documenting their illegal actions.
“Awright Cletus, cut ‘im loose.”
bmaz
you are gettin’ really good.
a pleasure to read.
thanks for a number of fine posts in the last week or so.
Thanks, but I’ll be glad when mom gets home; I’m getting hungry….
Thanks from me as well, bmaz. You are a wonderful host. I’m grateful for your kindness as well as your fine posts.
Sorry OT
Hungry? Have you seen this interview on Charlie Rose’s program
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…..index.html
My thanks, too. You’re helping to satisfy my Daily Fix.
Bob in HI
If Siegelman is innocent, then I applaud your efforts, but if this is another Eliot Spitzer, Jenna Six, Duke Lacrosse incident with the facts about the crimes being readily apparent and indisputable, I think that it will become another perp walk with the Press and the Republicans getting more than their share of hits in.
It is hard to get people to worry about how the fox was trapped, when there is irrefutable evidence that he swallowed the goose.
Democrats spend too much time nitpicking on these lost causes. After a while people turn them off as nothing more than nitpickers.
The more important things that I think should be stressed are like about how John McCain is getting older, and more irritable each day, and more stupid about Iraq, or about how Iraq (according to PBS yesterday) is going to cost 3 Trillion or maybe more.
Complaining too much about how criminals were convicted seems to be a waste of air. They have lawyers to handle this kind of thing.
My suggestion for additional witnesses:
– Scott Horton, lawyer and civil rights proponent who has championed the Siegelman case in Harpers, while the MSM yawns.
– The producer(s) of the 60 Minutes episode on Siegelman.
Put ‘em on the program and let the GOP committee members recommend their two of their own.
I think we ought to urge all FirePups in the Metro DC area to come to the hearing. If it’s full, we can rotate, or rendezvous at a suitably comfortable Irish rugger bar (in honor of She Who Must Be Obeyed) a few blocks down Mass. Ave from the Capitol.
So I figure one possible outcome is that a few US Atty people in Alabama could be sacrificed in a PR move engineered to improve Republican/McCain’s chances.
Leen: Enough with the OT. Start a blog.
sorry but go watch that video clip (at Salon) if you have not all ready done so. It is really worth it.
consistency of OT police is not too much to ask
87,100
I hadn’t read this when I kept predicting that Siegelman had a good chance to be sprung pending appeal, and this makes an already OK day even better.
Siegelman has done been sprung from the Clutches of BOP
Siegelman release
at Raw Story
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/….._0327.html
The real delay was in the appeal bond being granted and Fuller held it up. I’ve also seen the Eleventh Circuit take over a year in deciding whether to grant an appeal bond–close to two years in some cases, so Siegelman did pretty well in being sprung today.
He has the comforts of home in Alabama tonight, and it will be interesting to watch and see if Congress has the balls to pry into a scumbag DOJ that makes the Soprano family look like choir boys. As Bmaz has pointed out and the lawyers who headlineat FDL in one way or another the rotten core of DOJ is in Main Justice primarily and what they do to the district offices. But this case with the Canarys and Alice Martin gets into beyond the pale territory in my book.
14 – yes and yes.
The only thing that would make any Congressional investigation worth much (since they can’t do anything vis a vis Siegelman’s conviction) other than the attention which should help him personally some, would be if something were actually going to be done about Fuller and “the girls” heading up DOJ’s USA slots in ‘bama.
But that won’t happen, will it? You don’t dislodge a Fuller except by “off the table” impeachment or incarceration, do you? And Mukasey won’t take any action on “the girls” I never expected him to be get the AG nomination from Bush if he was going to do much about Bush’s own crimes, but I really had hoped at one point for some kind of minimal amount of decency and competence with respect to restoring credibility and integrity in other areas where he could operate without being as bound by “done deals” that it took to get him in office.
I’ve lost most of the respect I had for him as a Judge, which was actually quite a lot.
Siegelman really should by Scott Horton a beer as one of his first priorities after he gets out on appellate bond.
You had respect for Mukasey as a judge after his 9/11 follies????
Yep, absolutely. This is a point pretty much ignored by the media. Mukasey’s behavior post 911 consistently from the bench and his mistreatment of material witnesses and other defendants is largely ignored.
Christy Smith made this point last month, and I’ve often wondered why when there are attorneys on staff at newspapers more of them don’t cover legal issues. Yes, there are Supreme Court reporters like Linda Greenhouse who stopped by Harvard Law and graduated on her way to becoming the NY Times Pulitzer Prize winning reporter (for her reporting of the Federalism issues in Printz in 1998, but there aren’t nearly enough and legal issues are reported poorly in the press.
Now that I agree with 100%.
Skdadl – I don’t know the answer to this off the top of my head; I can see some problems with the concept though. I don’t know about the Congress invading the province of a prosecutor while a case is ongoing. I was thinking more along the lines of putting Karl Rove under oath regarding his puffing denials, because Dana simpson has already appeared and testified under oath. Lets see if Rover wants to head into perjury land. Maybe a couple of the other lurid players from down there like the Rileys. Congress had no issue playing hardball with Roger Clemens; lets do the same for these assholes.
Sadly, Scott Horton did. He has recanted with grace and literary vehemence. The law, and a law partner scorned?
That’s okay, I felt the same way about Scruggs to some extent (although he was certainly never my law partner); unfortunately it looks as if I was wrong. I really didn’t want to believe the accusations, and there were huge potential holes that were enough for me to hang my hat on at the time. But that was wrong it appears….
In a case unrelated to this one, but interesting that may merit a thread, powerful longtime LA Attorney Bert Fields has informed DOJ that if he is called as a witness in the Anthony Pellicano illegal wiretapping trial, he will invoke his 5th Amendment rights not to testify.
Fields hasn’t been indicted, but I belive he should have been and should be.
Day of Embarrassment for Hollywood in Court
53 – I’m not sure what you mean by a delay of the “case in chief” but no briefs could be filed without the hard copy transcript production. That should have been avaialable, as bmaz indicated, in days. If it had been, the briefs could have been filed months ago and what the 11th Cir did today could have been done months ago. I think that’s pretty much the point on the delay of the transcript.
No one could have had good, accurate, solid, cover all bases, briefs ready to go the instant the transcript was produced, bc of all the references and likely quote and Exhibit references needed from the transcript.
I think you are perhaps confusing/conflating the issue of the substantive appeal points – which will take awhile to get determined – with the request to free Siegelman on appeal bond – which was something that (as we can see from the result) does not normally take long. Courts usually rule pretty promptly – often in the negative, on whether or not to allow someone to be free pending appeal.
So the transcript issue was always an issue about Siegelman’s loss of liberty. Fuller’s delay with the transcript insured that Siegelman did not get the order that came through today several months ago. The actual timing of the 11th circuit hearings and rulings on the substantive issues isn’t something that anyone was as concerned about to my knowledge. THe concern was over trying to get him freed pending the appeal and the [in]action on the transcript prevented that. fwiw
Nope. Not necessarily so. I’ve seen situations where the court reporter is moving, has medical problems, has other pending transcripts, and they would laugh at your claim that the transcript should have been ready in days. I can tell you that right now that is not happening in many district courts. Often the trial is over and 2-3 months later the transcript is completed and that’s a straight up fact.
Again this is a little like Clinton’s obsession with the Commander in Chief test Mary–the one she won’t reveal how she has passed. Everyone keeps saying Fuller delayed the appeal bond ecause Fuller delayed the transcript. He delayed it but the transcript had nothing to do with the delay.
No one has shown me with any specificity at all how that happened. He did not. And I’m not defending Fuller at all due to other reprehensible conduct in this case and off it.
I’m not conflating anything. Fuller did delay the appeal bond but not in any way shape or form is the transcript on point as to how he delayed it.
And your claims to the contrary, I’ve seen the Eleventh Circuit take their sweet time in deciding appeal bonds. I haven’t followed this issue in the Seventh Circuit where Indiana sits. I do remember won 3 page opinion I read from Judge Posner though. A female inmate had a young daughter. She was not in any high security facility or even a medium security facility. She was in a female camp.
Often the BOP (you’ve heard of revenge voting in the news lately) will want to screw an inmate so they transfer them so far from home they’ll never see anyone they know. It’s one of their ways of fucking with them. It can be as minimal as looking crosseyed at one of their cretins.
BOP with no reason (disciplinary or other wise) transfered the mother. She could no longer visit with her daughter and it disrupted their relationship for many years. Posner and his law clerked used a phrase familiar to Dick Cheney, because in their 3 page published opinion, they said “So?” I remember thinking it would be appropriate if Posner were deprived of seeing his grandchilderen and eating lunch on Saturday’s with them at the Standard Club in Chicago for double the length of time. He then defied the Eleventh Circuit judges on this appeal bond, Black and Marcus by refusing their order to issue a detailed memorandum opinion explaining the ruling and when he did refuse he took 3 more months. That gets us into November 7, when the Eleventh for the second time (Black and Marcus) issued an order (and I’ve linked these before at the Lake and here as well in other threads on Siegelman) for Fuller to give them the memorandum opinion. This took us into early 2008. At that time Risa, the court reporter was well on her way to finishing the transcript and she finished it toward the end of February. If you can tell or show me again precisely what in the world transcript wise help up the appeal bond, by all means please do.
Again it was Fuller jerking the Eleventh and the defense attorneys and their client around–but not with the transcript. That’s what I tried to get accross. People seem to be fixed on that transcript–it did little to delay ruling on the appeal bond. Further Marcus and Black asked for the attorneys Franklin for the gov and Siegleman’s two to submit briefs on the appeal bond–arguing Giancola and they asked for reply briefs from each and that took some time and those weren’t ordered until November.
Fuller delayed the granting of the appeal bond by taking his sweet time in the first place in ruling on it–2-3 months. District court judges who understand what it is to practice defense law in a federal court room, and those can be difficult to find, will rule promptly. I’ve seen a district court judge hold up an appeal ruling for two years, and the attorney in the case wasn’t agressive enough in motioning the Eleventh Circuit to move his ass. When this was done, his ass moved.
I’ve seen the Fifth Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit refuse to grant an appeal bond, and the Supreme Court ordering the release the second they mustered four cert votes. It happened in the Carl Cleveland case I know well that I cited above. Cleveland won a reversal 9-0 after the Fifth Circuit refused to grant him bond. He spent two years in the BOP slam, and the Supremes issued an order for his release.
Cleveland was a white collar defendant. Paul Mogin did his appeal and Mogin also orchestrated Clinton’s defense in the blue dress case in the House and Senate with Greg Craig. He was an attorney in New Orleans, and I suppose attorneys are considered white collar. I guess it depends on whose viewpoint.
I want to emphasize I ‘ve seen Circuit courts drag their feet on appeals bond rulings for White Collar defendants, and much more often when the transcript had gathered dust and been done for months, I’ve seen the trial court judge refuse to issue a ruling just because he or she could until they were goosed by motions to the appropriate circuit–in one case I know well the Eleventh.
60 – yeah, on the whole, I did. I think he at least did some things that others wouldn’t regarding Padilla and access to counsel and he stood up to the Cheney pressure of sending Comey and Clement back to him to chastise him over his rulings. And I thought some of his writings, while not what I totally agreed with – incorporated some sound, valid aspects and were not dismissive of the concerns that I have, but instead weighted them a little differently, but while giving them some weight and effect.
You have to know about me that I am in many ways a law and order kid – used to have tremendous respect for people like prosecutors who are willing to put themselves in a position where really nasty people have reasons to know their names and not like them much. Pretty much felt the same about police, state troopers, etc. I have low tolerance for guys in those positions who really go corrupt or who really go over the edge with power and can get ballistic over that – but I also cut a lot of slack for things done in the heat of scarey moments or times when a call has to be made asap and it’s hard to get it right and I think they are all underpaid and underloved. Or I did pretty much. I have to admit, while I still think the same about police, I really have had years to keep souring over those who have continued to show up and work for torture every day, every way – or to support by silence.
I think I’ve made the confession here before that many years back I distributed campaign materials for Lugar and a lot of years back but not as many, I supported Warner in VA (not Mark, John) In 2000 I would as likely have supported McCain as Gore if McCain had won (although in Clinton’s first run I actually backed Paul Simon in the primary).
Good to know that I’m not the only one here with a checkered political history.
As Mr. Siegelman would say, tis better than stripes.
On Mukasey, I will say that nothing he did on waterboarding and the illegal wiretaps surprised me though. I didn’t think for a moment that there was any way that anyone would get nominated who was not cast iron going to let Bush off the hook for his personal crimes.
Of the list of possibles that were put up, though, I did think Mukasey was the smartest, strongest willed, and cleanest. And with Keisler as counterpoint, I guess what I did think was that while Mukasey – or anyone who Bush would put up – would go along with torture and illegal searches and seizures and mass telecom felonies and disappearing children and adults and signing off on State Secrets to cover up crime, etc. (I know the waterboarding thing surprised Horton, but while I was upset I can’t say it surprised me) – still, I thought that he would take the reins some going forward and would put a curb on the nonsense.
That didn’t happen.
64 – Depends on the questions, imo. But they will use that excuse no matter what the questions, as well as deliberative process related prosecutorial decision making privileges, and so the end run will be in part how hard Congress would push and whether they would do anything to force compliance.
But it is a far different thing to ask a prosecutor to disclose the substance of their prosecutorial decision making than it is to ask them, under oath, if Karl Rove ever contacted them (or their spouses) about the case.
[I still wonder what it is that the disbarred atty discussed at the party that set this whole thing in motion. ]
Heh. Or I could have just waited for Mary.
O/T, but also for Mary (posted somewhere earlier, but you’ve probably not seen it): the SCC gives the gov’t lawyers a hard time.
How could I forget Mary?
None of us can forget Mary. Mary haunts us. Mary cures us of our crushes on the wrong guys. Mary is, y’know, Mary.
76 – thanks so much for that link. Much better reports and prior links than anything we get here.
Interested readers here might want to check Horton’s blog – just up is a media alert that Horton will be on Dan Abrams this evening. 9 EST, 6 PST, but also in your browser at msnbc.com
OT — And Goooo Cougs! (Not sure I can really stand to watch the Cougs/Tarheels game, but I’m sure that I can find some rose colored glasses…
I want you to know that as a loyal Pac-10 fan, I was pulling like hell for Wazzou, but it was a little brutal for the Cougs. Very nice season though. Xavier/West Virginia awesome game to watch.
Just spent some time tonight reading up about Siegelman at Raw Story and it really is fascinating and creepy to realize how tightly interconnected the Siegelman story seems to be with GOP corruption — not only of justice, but of campaigns, elections, and judicial appointments.
– Abramoff wanted the casino money; he viewed Siegelman as a threat because the Gov wanted a lottery to help fund state education.
– Abramoff’s ‘associate’ was Michael Scanlan, who’d worked for (current AL Gov) Riley. And that puts Scanlan in the Rove/Ralph Reed/Abramoff nexis.
– Pryor was the AG who refused to allow a vote recount, thereby throwing the Governorship to Riley (following suspicious electronic vote tallies) in 2002. Prior later refused to recuse himself in Siegelman’s legal case.
In other words, there’s a lot more here than ’simply’ a political prosecution.
There also appears to be vote fraud, campaign finance violations, and incredibly partisan judicial appointments.
Siegelman must have quite a few stories to tell.
I only hope that at least a few of those Congresscritters can show up well prepared and ask questions — rather than simply emote, or grandstand.
——————
OT – Gosh, bmaz, I think that may be the kindest thing you’ve ever said about Wazzu. Glad you saw at least one good game….it sure wasn’t the game the Cougs played in. But there’s always next year…
Many’s where are you?
In fact, Abrams was all over the Siegelman story at the top of his program, saying that he’s gonna stay on the story. He billed it as a blockbuster event, and featured the Rove connection. His story line looked like he’d been reading this blog. They read statements by the Alabama Republican party, but their panel of 3 did not contain any supporters of Siegelman’s conviction. So maybe the MSM is starting to get this one.
Bob in HI
Anyone think that the Governor of Puerto Rico is a political prosecution too? He says it is. He’s a Democrat. I don’t know much about it, but I’m sure it wouldn’t surprise anyone here.
OT, DiFi grouches about evident dissolution of JLewis public corruption investigation; evidently AG ordered entire unit dispersed, no more close scrutiny as an integral unit, rather, cases followed on less priority basis. I wonder if this reorganization mandate is solely in that one jurisdiction or if this is yet another US attorney impact dilution lite.
link was there
wow, I hope he still testifies before congress, I hope his release isn’t based on silence or “national security”
Mary’s a bigmouth who vents a lot.
bmaz (and lhp and cboldt and massacio and probably many others) are much better and more reliable sources on litigation stuff than I am. Not that I stay quiet just because they know more.
I trust you, Mary. You reminded me of my spine. Rationalizing of “renditions” and “enhanced interrogations” — bottom line: no.
Eh, I only throw bombs from the cheap seats. I try like hell to avoid actually going to court anymore; it is easier and less frustrating that way (also cuts down on the booze budget).
When I grow up (I’m 64 now, but I’m not done yet), I wanna do something that will cause Mary to say something like the above about me. High praise indeed, bmaz et al.! Thank you for all you do here!
Bob in HI
you know, this belongs downstairs I guess but it’s really important
rachael maddow reported on an 18 year old that set up a “defense company” and they landed millions of dollars for trading 40 year old ammo from china and sending this crap to our troops
talk about privatizing failure, this is the epitome
The person in question is 22 and the crappy ammo he sold was for the Afghan forces. As I said earlier today, seeing something as lamebrained and stupid as this happen explains why so many other equally stupid and disastrous things have happened. The idiots are in charge.
I think it was Mary who reminded me that Mukasey was the judge in the initial proceedings against Padilla. I still don’t understand why people thought Mukasey hardened his positions so much more on the second day of his confirmation hearings. If you go back, all the dodges were there on day one. It was just on day two that Senators went back and verified some of this dodginess. Anyway since that first day of the hearings, nothing that Mukasey has done surprises me. In fact, he spurred me to enunciate my Mukasey Principle: Anyone who voluntarily works for this Administration is admitting they don’t have a shred of integrity. Look at Mukasey. Case closed.
That should have been available, as bmaz indicated, in days.
Nope. Not necessarily so. I’ve seen situations where the court reporter is moving, has medical problems, has other pending transcripts, and they would laugh at your claim that the transcript should have been ready in days. I can tell you that right now that is not happening in many district courts. Often the trial is over and 2-3 months later the transcript is completed and that’s a straight up fact.
Again this is a little like Clinton’s obsession with the Commander in Chief test Mary–the one she won’t reveal how she has passed. Everyone keeps saying Fuller delayed the appeal bond ecause Fuller delayed the transcript. He delayed it but the transcript had nothing to do with the delay.
No one has shown me with any specificity at all how that happened. He did not. And I’m not defending Fuller at all due to other reprehensible conduct in this case and off it.
I’m not conflating anything. Fuller did delay the appeal bond but not in any way shape or form is the transcript on point as to how he delayed it.
And your claims to the contrary, I’ve seen the Eleventh Circuit take their sweet time in deciding appeal bonds. I haven’t followed this issue in the Seventh Circuit where Indiana sits. I do remember won 3 page opinion I read from Judge Posner though. A female inmate had a young daughter. She was not in any high security facility or even a medium security facility. She was in a female camp.
Often the BOP (you’ve heard of revenge voting in the news lately) will want to screw an inmate so they transfer them so far from home they’ll never see anyone they know. It’s one of their ways of fucking with them. It can be as minimal as looking crosseyed at one of their cretins.
BOP with no reason (disciplinary or other wise) transfered the mother. She could no longer visit with her daughter and it disrupted their relationship for many years. Posner and his law clerked used a phrase familiar to Dick Cheney, because in their 3 page published opinion, they said “So?” I remember thinking it would be appropriate if Posner were deprived of seeing his grandchilderen and eating lunch on Saturday’s with them at the Standard Club in Chicago for double the length of time. He then defied the Eleventh Circuit judges on this appeal bond, Black and Marcus by refusing their order to issue a detailed memorandum opinion explaining the ruling and when he did refuse he took 3 more months. That gets us into November 7, when the Eleventh for the second time (Black and Marcus) issued an order (and I’ve linked these before at the Lake and here as well in other threads on Siegelman) for Fuller to give them the memorandum opinion. This took us into early 2008. At that time Risa, the court reporter was well on her way to finishing the transcript and she finished it toward the end of February. If you can tell or show me again precisely what in the world transcript wise help up the appeal bond, by all means please do.
Again it was Fuller jerking the Eleventh and the defense attorneys and their client around–but not with the transcript. That’s what I tried to get accross. People seem to be fixed on that transcript–it did little to delay ruling on the appeal bond. Further Marcus and Black asked for the attorneys Franklin for the gov and Siegleman’s two to submit briefs on the appeal bond–arguing Giancola and they asked for reply briefs from each and that took some time and those weren’t ordered until November.
Fuller delayed the granting of the appeal bond by taking his sweet time in the first place in ruling on it–2-3 months. District court judges who understand what it is to practice defense law in a federal court room, and those can be difficult to find, will rule promptly. I’ve seen a district court judge hold up an appeal ruling for two years, and the attorney in the case wasn’t agressive enough in motioning the Eleventh Circuit to move his ass. When this was done, his ass moved.
I’ve seen the Fifth Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit refuse to grant an appeal bond, and the Supreme Court ordering the release the second they mustered four cert votes. It happened in the Carl Cleveland case I know well that I cited above. Cleveland won a reversal 9-0 after the Fifth Circuit refused to grant him bond. He spent two years in the BOP slam, and the Supremes issued an order for his release.
Cleveland was a white collar defendant. Paul Mogin did his appeal and Mogin also orchestrated Clinton’s defense in the blue dress case in the House and Senate with Greg Craig. He was an attorney in New Orleans, and I suppose attorneys are considered white collar. I guess it depends on whose viewpoint.
I want to emphasize I ‘ve seen Circuit courts drag their feet on appeals bond rulings for White Collar defendants, and much more often when the transcript had gathered dust and been done for months, I’ve seen the trial court judge refuse to issue a ruling just because he or she could until they were goosed by motions to the appropriate circuit–in one case I know well the Eleventh.
We are not talking about 2-3 months here. Seigelman’s trial was in the summer of 2006, and the transcript was not available until last month?? and you say there’s nothing unusual about it?
Yo Yo Seamus. I’ve posted extensively on this with a background of having watched the Eleventh Circuit and judges in their district courts for years.
But you and other people are reading the timeline in this case. Two and three months is the relevant time period both times in which Fuller refused, dragged his feet, obfuscated, and obstructed getting the appeal bond moving. Again the transcript wasn’t the factor. Fuller’s dragging was. Had the court reporter not died, and a new one had to finish a transcript she didn’t do, let’s say that she finished the transcript in October.
The timeline I’m trying to show you is that when asked to rule for the first time, Fuller delayed ruling. This was independent of the transcript. Then in September 2007 the Eleventh Circuit ordered Fuller the trial court judge (and I’ve posted links to these orders which you did not read, or you wouldn’t have commented as you have), to issue a memorandum opinion. He simply sat on their order, and then said, in late October that he would not obey it in a terse, disrespectful and very rare tone of defiance. This is a picture of a trial court judge not a transcript holding up the appeal bond. Then on November 7, the Eleventh Circuit judges who made the decision that feed Seligman issued Order Number II to Judge Fuller. He took his time and finally issued a memorandum opinion.
Lanier Anderson, Chief Judge of th Eleventh Circuit in the meanwhile received a request from the new court reporter in Alabama who asked for more time. Fuller had nothing to do with this. He gave her until the end of March but she completed the transcript around the end of February. When the order was issued to Fuller by the Eleventh Circuit tandem of two judges they also ordered the lawyers to brief, and then when they had filed a brief they were given leave to file a reply brief. This order for the briefs from the attorneys was issued on November 7. So we are now far out from the summer and Mary’s claim of a transcript in two days.
What Mary and apparently you have failed to realize is that during these months, Judge Fuller is metaphorically giving the Eleventh Circuit the finger, and he not the transcript is dragging the appeal bond ruling out.
And hey Seamus, he’s been freed. I can tell you that in the Eleventh Circuit when a trial court judge refuses bond, they rarely reverse him.
So Siegelman while correctly feeling colossaly screwed by Rove and his pawns as to the case brought and the dynamics behind it is damn lucky, let me say this again damn lucky that Black and Marcus issued the appeals bond.
Because the eleventh circuit nearly always and I mean07% of the time gives deference to the opinion of the trial court judge. And the vast majority of the time, they could give a rats ass about the reasons for the opinion. This case is extraordinary in that they made an issue of forcing the trial court judge to issue an extensive memorandum opinion which they rejected out of hand when they had it and they had the four briefs from the two lawyers.
The transcript had a minimal or negligible effect on this timing for about the tenth time.
If Gov. Siegelman does take a trip to Washington I hope that he is guarded by the good guys.
97 – I think this is getting a bit beaten to death, but I’m still at the same place vis a vis what I thought you were originally saying, but I’m not sure you are arguing the same points or that we don’t have a miscommunication.
In any event, I have never known of release pending appeals motions/rulings in a high profile case to be held up for months because of a transcript delay.
I have known of transcripts that took awhile – but never in a high profile criminal case (i.e., more civil than criminal case holdups and generally no lawyers pushing). In a matter involving a Governor’s going to jail and all the press coverage and requests as well as the crimnal and high profile aspects – nope, I can’t think of any federal court Judge in Indiana or KY (which is the 6th) nor when I was in VA (in the 4th) who wouldn’t be crucified for 5 month transcript delay on a matter involving a Governor going to jail.
This wasn’t 2-3 months, it was twice that, but even with that, I think things are now going to arguments that are different than what I interpreted you as saying originally and the context I gave it. Your original posts seemed to me (I may have misinterpreted) to be not so much that the delay was reasonable, but rather that there was no detriment to Seigelman from the delay of the transcript because ”the appeal” had not been delayed.
and
So what I was pointing out was that the claim of detriment to Seigelman by those focused on the transript delay was NOT a delay in the overall, ultimate ruling on ”the appeal,” which would take time, but rather that they could not get to the issue of a release pending ruling without the transcript – they couldn’t get him sprung while waiting ”the appeal” until the transcript went up.
That was what I believe Horton complained about – not that ”the appeal” was delayed, but that they couldn’t get a ruling on release, which would typically (not always, but almost certainly in such a high profile case) be done far in advance of the final appellate ruling, without the transcripts – so my point was that I believe you were arguing a different point than Horton. He was more worried about the release, you were more worried about the appeal.
I don’t dispute that you’ve seen transcripts take awhile, or that appellate courts often do not let even white collar criminals have release pending appeal when they do get around to ruling, or that the delay on the transcript will have a whole lot of difference on when the final appellate ruling is issued (although for you clock ticking reference, the clock is ticking on how long that ruling takes the whole time the transcripts and filings are delayed, because that delay precedes all response periods and scheduling orders).
I do think that Horton et al are correct that Seigelman could not get his shot at release without the transcripts going up and that the transcript in this day and age in a high profile case involving a Gov should never have taken so long and that Fuller could have and should have made it happen more quickly.
BTW, I agree Posner is an ass and that there is a lot of finagling on where someone gets sent, with the hope of disenfranchising them and their families or getting a plea based on post-sentencing destination. I wasn’t saying, and I dont think Horton was either, that releases are routine or guaranteed. I was trying to say that, whatever the effect on ’the appeal’ you can’t take a swing if the pitcher is holding the ball. And when that ball gets tossed may not affect the ultimate score, you can’t take bases OR strike out without the pitch. Here, the pitch took too long. This wasn’t the pee wee leagues and the ump didn’t do his job.
But I’m not sure we are adding much anymore, so I’ll leave it.
So what I thought had been your point originally was that there was no way to say that the delay in getting the transcript to the court delayed the ”appeal” because they weren’t going to get around to ruling on the appeal for awhile anyway, and what I was trying to make was the point that Horton and others were complaining, not about how long it might take the 11th to rule on the overall appeal, but rather that they were saying Seigelman was having to stay in jail without even a chance of getting released UNTIL the transcripts went up and Fuller was not lighting a fire to get the transcripts sent up more quickly.
So that yes, your point that the appeal would take a long time was a point, but it wasn’t what they were getting at and what they were getting at was a matter of (and I still agree with them on this) legitimate criticism of Fuller – that he allowed the transcript to take way too long to go up to the 11th and in doing so, prevented Seigelman’s lawyers from having the ability to get him released at an earlier date in a more timely fashion. I still think that and I was reacting to your query as to whether or not anyone could show how the delay hurt Seigelman in any way.
Just back from opera rehearsal, Il Trovatore, if anyone cares, and wanted to weigh in on Posner. He calls himself a “public intellectual”, which just shows the sorry state of US thought. The bankruptcy bar is upset about a recent decision in which he complains about a Trustee who filed a suit he didn’t like, and suggests the bankruptcy court needs to do a better job of supervising trustees. Apparently he doesn’t realize that we work for hours, but don’t get paid if we don’t win.
It’s probably a fair guess there’s more than one opera maven among the regular commenters here ;-))
97–That would be me.
who wouldn’t be crucified for 5 month transcript delay on a matter involving a Governor going to jail.
That’s just not the case. I grew up in the Sixth Circuit, and someone in my family was law clerk to Boyce Martin (that’s the Sixth Chief Judge) and there have been delays in the trial courts. Those crucifixions that you imagine don’t quite occur on the ground. There is a hell of a lot of defference to the trial court judges. I can certainly speak for and have spoken about situations in the Eleventh where I saw a trial court judge delay ruling on an appeal bond for two full years. He wasn’t crucified. Again, some attorneys are more aggesive in moving the ball than others. I wouldn’t let a trial court judge sit on a motion without moving the Circuit Court of Appeals to make him move, but whatever Siegelman’s attorneys did, the Eleventh Circuit did little to stop Fuller from dragging things out. Again the transcript wasn’t the factor; and the transcript didn’t hold up this appeal bond, and saying it did doesn’t change Fuller’s two delays when ordered to issue a memorandum opinion dealing with his reasons for appeal bond denyal, and then the months after those six months when the Eleventh Circuit asked for four briefs on this matter from the attorneys.
The lawyers could have pushed more specifically and more forcefully in this appeals bond time line, and so could judges Black and Marcus by respectively motioning for and requiring brief time periods to move the appeals bond alone. I’ve seen reprehensible dragging by both the Eleventh Circuit and certainly trial judges in this respect and it’s not unusual.
That’s nice, but that didn’t happen here. And now he’s out. What’s of far more interest is how as Bmaz posed we could get at what really drove this case and I know you want to.
I’ve seen transcripts take a while whether the case was “high profile” or “low profile.”
I appreciate this, but what I wrote I saw. It wasn’t fiction. Again you keep using the phrase transcript and holdup as if the transcript caused any holdup in this case and it did not.
Fuller caused the appeals bond ruling to string out for months, and the Eleventh Circuit was rather passive given that Fuller was acting like an idiot. They should have taken charge and put a time limit on the little bastard. Again, I don’t know about the Seventh, although I have seen Posner act like a prick in published opinions, but the Eleventh nearly always without exception gives deference to the trial court whatever the ruling is. And you keep using the term high profile case as if you think that if someone is important, as in former Governor of a state it changes the landscape on opinions. It’s been my experience that isn’t what drives opinions in the Eleventh Circuit whatsoever and in fact, most other Circuits. And one could argue here and Horton has vigorously, that Fuller had an axe to grind with Siegelman and a favor to do for current governor Bob Riley.
You keep assuming the transcript had impact her on the timing when in fact Fuller’s extreme dragging in issuing rulings and defying and obfuscating when the Eleventh Circuit two judges required an opinion from him was the reason for the delay.The only pending ruling in this case was the appeals bond, Mary, and it wasn’t held up by a transcript delay. It was held up by an obstinate Judge Fuller delay.
I would also point out if Judges Stanley Marcus and Susan Black, who both have had experience working as AUSA’s had wanted to, they could have leaned on Fuller more specfically and given him deadlines once he defied them. They could have (and I’ve seen this done for appeals motions) put a several day requirement on the lawyers and the trial court judge for getting the Judge’s memorandum opinion done and the attorney’s respective briefs. That might have expedited the appeals bonnd, given that Fuller had taken his sweet time during both orders from Marcus and Black to elaborate on his denial of Siegleman’s bond.
They chose not to.
The attorneys for Siegelman, both very experienced, could have chosen to include that request in their various motions to the Elventh Circuit and they did not.
Yep Mary. I wish I had a buck for every time I’ve sketched out the timeline again. Fuller’s delay not the transcript caused those six months and on November 7 Eleventh Circuit two judges required 4 briefs of the lawyers–two briefs and two reply briefs when they ordered Fuller for the 2nd time to supply a memorandum opinion.
The Eleventh Circuit did not specify a time frame.
As to detriment, only an idiot thinks it’s not critical to try to get your client out of prison sooner than later. I have tried to emphasize the role Fuller played not in holding up the transcript, but instead in holding up his opinion requested by the Eleventh.
You totally have neglected that they didn’t make a decision on the release because while the transcript was being finished, they twice ordered Fuller to elaborate on his reasons in a memorandum opinion and after taking three months the first time he refused. Thenwhen ordered the second time, Fuller took three months again to issue an opinion. 3+3=6 (transcript aside). Then the attorneys took time in getting in their brifes on the appeal bond and the defense needed not specifically the transcript, but Fuller’s opinion so they could consider it in their brief and reply brief as ordered by the Eleventh Circuit in the context of Giancola.
Horton focused on the transcript confusing most of his readers with that misplaced focus, but he also noted the delay caused by Fuller’s defiance of the Eleventh Circuit’s order.
I’ve tried to spell that out repeatedly.
What I’m emphasizing to you is that I have seen trial court judges function as absolute pricks knowing that they were holding up an appeal bond release decision, defiantly sitting on even a ruling itself let alone a memorandum opinion of the ruling and knowing they were going to deny release in the first place. They weren’t spending long days and nights agonizing over their decision. And in those cases,I saw the appellate courts and sometimes the attorneys do little to goose the trial court judge. That’s not my approach to pricks that are delaying because they think they can.
And I guess you’ll continue to ignore Fuller’s six months overall delay in providing reasons for his opinion when the Eleventh Circuit ordered them. What did you think when you read the orders that I linked and the timeline showing Fuller ignored them? Or did you read it?
He’s out now. You’re free to lodge a complaint with the Eleventh Circuit as to Fuller’s conduct. If you do, I wouldn’t focus on a fictional transcript delay. I’d focus on a real delay in issuing rulings that were ordered by the Elevnth Circuit because that’s precisely what happened. The Judicial Conference tightened up discipline ever so slightly last month but in no meaningful fashion.
This is done by BOP and often in cooperation with AUSAs who want to try to squeeze a potential incarcerated snitch into testifying the way they want at trial. I’ve also seen judges write letters to BOP requesting modifications of designations as in the case where Posner fucked up the family in regards to this mother and little girl, and I’ve also seen AUSAs who were mothers of small children flippantly do their best to fuck up the visiting situation because they could.
There are always reams of trees wasted about DOJ programs for playgrounds, etc. youth centers and enhancing and protecting the lives of children and their is next to no publicity about the many times they participate in getting prisoners transfered where they can’t see their families, or arguing strenuously in favor of it or in defense of BOP when a 2241 motion is filed.
See from the EOUSA Reading Room:
FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS
(28 U.S.C. § 2241-53, 2255)
I’ve tried to be explicit. Even if the transcript had been ready on day last of the trial, there would still have been the same delay here because of Fuller’s foot draging.
Why do you omit the timeline of Fuller’s holding up the appeal bond by witholding his rulings and then refusing to give the Eleventh Circuit the rationale in the form of a memorandum opinion for six months that they ordered him to supply them?
Mary you continue to focus incorrectly on the transcript and adamantly refuse to mention the timeline of Fuller’s delay in rulings on the appeal bond, and his delay in producing the memorandum opinion the eleventh Circuit had to order him to produce twice. That was what they wanted to rule on his appeal bond. I don’t know and much care what the Sixth and Seventh Circuit’s use or allege they use to rule on Appeal Bonds. I do know that everyone who does appellate work in the Eleventh Circuit is focused on Giancola and I included a pretty decent analysis of it from Champion above and in all my links and comments on this case for the last two months.
I still think that and I was reacting to your query as to whether or not anyone could show how the delay hurt Seigelman in any way.
Wasn’t the transcripts. Was the delay of Fuller that caused the timing and part of the equation was the failure of the two Eleventh Circuit judges to be prescient and headsup in requiring a time limit for Fuller to move his ass.
I also explicitly told you the Court reporter wrote Lanier Anderson, Chief Judge in the Eleventh and she outlined other work she had to do and Anderson bought into her argument. Fuller wasnot going to do a transcript, and he wasn’t going to appoint a third reporter, and frankly no judge would.
You failed to mention
1) Fuller’s role in dragging on the appeals bond ruling and holding this up which caused it to drag for months.
2) Judge Black and Marcus failed to require time windows for Fuller and the attorneys to file the opinion and their four briefs in a timely fashion.
Had their been no such thing as a transcript, this would have still dragged things out for eight months.
Hope I’m clear.
As to what would help now, it would help to get the major points showing Rove orchestrated this through his soldiers like Leura Canary and Alice Martin to Conyers.
Ok – I didn’t leave it – somehow a couple of spare paragraphs were there after I thought I ended. I couldn’t get my quotes to click and when I went back to put them in by hand I must have lost my place. *g*
Heh. Check out this bunk in the NYT. “Mukasey Vows Corruption Crackdown”:
Well, that is reassuring. Especially coming on the heels of the big indictment of yet another Democratic governor. Here is my favorite part of the oh so awesomely fair and factual reporting:
I guess they just plum forgot to mention that although the Bush DOJ prosecutes both Democrats and Republicans, they prosecute Democrats at a ratio of almost 5:1 over Republicans.
Oops. Here is link for NYT article.
Holy mackerel.
I’ll see y’all tomorrow morning, but I’d say that y’all have a problem with this Mukasey feller.
Richard Posner is one of them most prolific writers in the federal judiciary with about 29 books and lists of articles in magazines that far outweigh his law review contributions.
He is also one of the most cowardly judges cowing to anything the Administration advances in the context of 911.
I’ve linked the law review article from Stanford Law Review showing these numbers, althoug some dispute the statistical analysis. I don’t.
COOL STUFF ALERT – Okay all you wheeliacs who see this, check back in about 45 minutes or so; I got something you are going to want to check out.
What a tease!
Well, while we’re all waiting with bells on our toes for bmaz to return, ya’ll might want to check out the NYT’s article of “Tapes’ Destruction Hovers Over Detainee Cases“. This part caught my eye:
All roads lead to Rove…
Just watching Chris Matthews, doing quick news roundup: he did about 7 seconds saying Siegleman’s out of jail, the “dems are salivating”. That’s it.
Watching, it looked to me like he was doing an… “I better hurry up and get past this one.”
Apparently, this is not news… ///???
Not news? Pffftttt.
Abrams did a good job; gave some context, background, highlighted Rove’s history in Alabama, and his guests (Cong. Arthur Davis, Scott Horton) always articulate. Someone with Abrams’ show put in a lot of work putting together that background tape on Siegelman together, but it was very coherent.
Should you be interested, you can watch msnbc.com shows online at your convenience, rather than wait for the teevee (unless you TiVo ;-))
When I can, I peruse cable late afternoon news… flipping between CNN/MSNBC/FOX. It’s always juevenile, but at least I know what these guys are telling their audience. Did so yesterday for 1st time since I think Wed.
Only mention of Siegleman I saw was as I mentioned. Nothing on Fox or Blitzer (could of missed a Blitzer nugget, but there was definately nothing even remotely informative/comprehensive).
Yes, I saw. I don’t know viewership stats… any idea how many watch Abrams vs. 5pm Blitzer/Matthews etc?
I’ve been reading Horton’s articles on this since the beginning… followed all the DOJ/USA firings (I live in Spokane & Albuquerque: Mckay (Wa.) & Iglesisas (NM) both high on radar w/that one). Neither paper of record (Spokesman Review: Spokane & ABQ Journal: ABQ) gave anything close to thorough, factual coverage of either incident. In the Iglesias matter, the ABQ Journal (ABQJ) instead went after Iglesias both on front page and OpEd, covered for both Domenici & Heather Wilson, and printed (at least) 3 Iglesias hit pieced by RNC Attn Pat Rogers attributing him as “An Albuquerque Attorney” (Google him… he’s a NM RNC dirty trickster w/long record).
ABQJ has printed one article on Siegleman… an OpEd piece by Cynthia Tucker (no mention of 60 mins piece or Horton’s articles): Tucker actually got the facts of Seigleman charges wrong, entirely missed problems w/Judge Fuller, said nothing about conflicts of prosecutors… etc etc.
My point: for casual viewers/readers depending on our local papers and “after work” cable news, based on what I’ve seen, these folks are bound to be un/mis-informed on entire range of DOJ malfeasance & Siegleman in particular.
I read the blogosphere speculating Siegleman’s appearance @ Conyer’s hearings will “blow this thing open” and other such hopeful hi-light of this issue. I’m not so sure… based on what I’ve seen, I wouldn’t be surprised if Siegleman’s appearance is entirely ignored by these “news” services… perhaps even spun as crooked dems grandstanding to embarrass “exonerated” (eg: not indicted by Fitz) Rove.
In this same vein, ABQJ published a whole series of OpEd’s by Paul Greenburg defending upcoming Gitmo show trials along w/defense of BushCo “torture” policies… but printed nothing… nothing on various JAG resignations/complaints, Colonel Morris Davis comments/resignation, nor anything whatsoever regarding circumstances of arrest/detention for most of these prisoners.
Also, nothing at all on Maher Arar whatsoever in ABQJ. Arar’s satelite testimony before congress was on CSPAN, but I saw no mention anywhere else (even in blogosphere).
So anyway, my remark @ 121 was intended as snark. It’s also reflective of my “prime time” cable news observations on this matter. I’m highly skeptical that Siegleman issue will rise to anything more than a blip on the screen of MSM coverage.
And, as aside, I was rather shocked (right word? I dunno ) in watching the CABLE roundups yesterday to see Obama’s pastor is still the front/center discussion consuming most of their time, w/every Tom/Dick/Harry pundit weighing in on what it all means. Surreal IMO.
Honestly, I think MSM swift-boating has gotten worse since ‘04, not better. MSM news in my localities, AFAIC, is non-ending fairytale & accountability has degenerated. Not trying to be depressing here, just realistic.