Comments (40)

Billy Pilgrim wrote on June 28, 2007 12:14 PM:

Do the clowns down there realize that the rest of the world is watching what is going on down there in Alabama? This is making the Stalin era show trails examplars of jurisprudence.

This is reminiscent of a passage in Hugh Trevor-Roper's "The Last Days of Hitler." With the Russian army only days away from Berlin and their own doom imminent, the bunker residents had one of their own shot to death for one last spasm of blood lust.

aquart wrote on June 28, 2007 12:15 PM:

Am I foolish in believing such a ridiculous ruling is grounds for appeal? It IS ridiculous, right???

jim wrote on June 28, 2007 12:18 PM:

Seems totaly unfair. I'd like to know more about judge fuller's background.

chisholm wrote on June 28, 2007 12:34 PM:

Jim--I just googled him and here's a piece from Harper's:

"Prosecutors initially brought the case before a judge in the Northern District of Alabama. He dismissed it with prejudice. The prosecutors then decided to go shopping for a new judge. And they liked the one they found. Not surprisingly, the federal judge handling the case – Mark E. Fuller – has a long record of deep engagement in Alabama Republican politics. He has consistently and quickly overruled defense objections, and also quickly overruled a motion that he recuse himself. The recusal motion asserted that Judge Fuller is the owner of a military contractor that received a $178 million dollar contract from the U.S. Government while the case was pending. The motion also ties one of the prosecutors handling the case to the contract awards. If these claims are correct, then Judge Fuller’s decision to preside over the case offers further evidence of irregularity. However, a judge is usually concerned not about improprieties as much as the appearance of improprieties.

This week, former Governor Siegelman faces sentencing before Judge Fuller. The federal prosecutors handling the case have demanded a sentence of thirty years in prison – in a case which should have been dismissed in the first instance and in any event involves no personal gain of any sort by Siegelman. The prosecutors’ sentencing request was further strong evidence that the case is a vendetta. No doubt a very harsh sentence will be issued.

And no doubt the case will not end there. The Siegelman prosecution is now receiving attention across the United States. No less than six attorneys general have written to Congressional oversight committees noting the gross irregularities and suspicious circumstances of the prosecution, and have requested that Congress conduct direct inquiries into what transpired in this case. The Siegelman prosecution will in all likelihood soon be exposed for what it is: one of the blackest moments in Alabama justice since the trial of the Scottsboro Boys."

I'm Dickens, He's Fenster wrote on June 28, 2007 12:34 PM:

Jeez its like the last tortured snaps of a rabid animal soon to be brought down and destroyed. It ain't prosecution, its persecution. They were right: The South WILL Writhe Again!

bobh wrote on June 28, 2007 12:38 PM:

Um...thats fucking unreal and illegal.

Acquittal means no ticky no timey.

ac·quit·tal (ə-kwĭt'l) pronunciation
n.

1. Judgment, as by a jury or judge, that a defendant is not guilty of a crime as charged.
2. The state of being found or proved not guilty.

So now ALL OF US can be sentenced for crimes which we are NOT GUILTY OF?

Is that judge a retard?

bobh wrote on June 28, 2007 12:39 PM:

Um...thats fucking unreal and illegal.

Acquittal means no ticky no timey.

ac·quit·tal (ə-kwĭt'l) pronunciation
n.

1. Judgment, as by a jury or judge, that a defendant is not guilty of a crime as charged.
2. The state of being found or proved not guilty.

So now ALL OF US can be sentenced for crimes which we are NOT GUILTY OF?

Is that judge a retard?

bobh wrote on June 28, 2007 12:40 PM:

Um...thats fucking unreal and illegal.

Acquittal means no ticky no timey.

1. Judgment, as by a jury or judge, that a defendant is not guilty of a crime as charged.
2. The state of being found or proved not guilty.

So now ALL OF US can be sentenced for crimes which we are NOT GUILTY OF?

Is that judge a retard?

Powkat wrote on June 28, 2007 12:40 PM:

Justice through the courts in dead in America. We can take it or we can impeach. I vote for impeach, because the alternative is ugly.

bobh wrote on June 28, 2007 12:41 PM:

Um...thats unreal and illegal.

Acquittal means no ticky no timey.

1. Judgment, as by a jury or judge, that a defendant is not guilty of a crime as charged.
2. The state of being found or proved not guilty.

So now ALL OF US can be sentenced for crimes which we are NOT GUILTY OF?

Is that judge a retard?

Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 12:42 PM:

"Am I foolish in believing such a ridiculous ruling is grounds for appeal? It IS ridiculous, right???"

Back in the days of an independent judiciary there would have been grounds, but no longer.

Every day it looks more like it is too late to turn things around. The administration acts as if it is certain that its power will continue indefinitely, but why do they act so sure?

johnnydoughey wrote on June 28, 2007 12:42 PM:

"Sir, a jury of your peers have found you not guilty. I sentence you to five years in a maximum security state penitentiary. Consider yourself lucky this time..."

Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 12:43 PM:

Back in the days of an independent judiciary there would have been grounds, but no longer.

Every day it looks more like it is too late to turn things around. The administration acts as if it is certain that its power will continue indefinitely, but why do they act so sure?

bobh wrote on June 28, 2007 12:47 PM:

i am really sorry for the multiple posts...my trigger finger was twitching

chisholm wrote on June 28, 2007 12:54 PM:

It would be one thing if Fuller's partisanship were localized, but he is acting in the spirit of the Department of Justice. Think about that for a minute -- Republicans are truly threatening our way of life.

bobh wrote on June 28, 2007 1:02 PM:

"against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." comes to mind. I wonder when the civil war will be declared. Usually they start before they are declared so...who will be the first to pop a judge not for pro-abortion stances but for anti-Americanism. For sentencing a man for crimes he has NOT BEEN FOUND GUILT OF? Who will save us from this civil war in the making?

justadood wrote on June 28, 2007 1:04 PM:

One worry on my mind.....if Siegelman's case is tossed on appeal (especially if the ruling is as strongly worded it I suspect it might be), his house might suddenle find fire, and the house-critters find their maker(s)...

Typical Alabama strong-arm politics, and, GOoPer too, I'm finding

hgs3 wrote on June 28, 2007 1:16 PM:

Wow! are those people down in Alabama ok with this ? Why don't they just do it like they used to and get a rope.

unbelievable:

"It don't just rain on one man's house" Bob Marley

Roberta wrote on June 28, 2007 1:20 PM:

Okay, let me get this straight. Scooter Libby lies about his and others' roles jeopardizing national security by outing a CIA agent and gets 2-1/2 years. Siegelman gets brought up on charges about shenanigans with Alabama's lottery and can get 30 years.

My head hurts.

Siegelman's real crime was being in the way of a Republican gubernatorial candidate whom his cronies feared couldn't win in a fair fight. Sound about right?

nofltwlt wrote on June 28, 2007 1:26 PM:

Does this sound - JUST PLAIN WRONG - to anyone but me?

Did this judge get wiretapped and is now being blackmailed by the administration - or more specifically Karl Rove?

Glenn wrote on June 28, 2007 2:10 PM:

Folks, it has long been the law under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that ALL of a defendant's conduct, even related to charges for which he wasn't charged or convicted, may be taken into consideration on sentencing. That is partly why the Guidelines were ruled unconstitutional insofar as they mandate any particular sentence and were made advisory only. But as far as I know the principle still stands.

Legal Schnauzer wrote on June 28, 2007 2:16 PM:

I'm not familiar with the federal law Judge Fuller might be basing his ruling upon. But I am familiar with how Republican judges operate in Alabama's state courts. So it would not surprise me at all to learn that Fuller's ruling is contrary to law.

I was defendant in a civil case that went all the way to Alabama Supreme Court. Every judge involved was a Republican, riding into office on Karl Rove's campaign trickery in the 1990s and beyond. When the strange rulings began, I asked my attorney for an explanation. When he didn't have one, I went to my county law library and started educating myself. I quickly found that I was being royally screwed, and my attorney was covering for the judge. Rulings by the judge, almost in every instance, were contrary to actual law, statutory and case law.

I later discovered that the opposing attorney has a son (Dax Swatek)who raises money for Alabama Republicans (and has ties to Bill Canary, Jack Abramoff and others), and the attorney (Bill Swatek) has a long history of ethical violations with Alabama State Bar.

About three weeks ago, I started a blog on my experience. It has some interesting connections to the Siegelman situation.

Judicial corruption in state courts is a huge problem in this country. The FBI has prosecuted cases across the South and in all other regions of the country. But the feds touch only the tip of the corruption iceberg. And with our current Justice Department, Democrat judges are much more likely to be prosecuted than Republicans.

Legal Schnauzer wrote on June 28, 2007 2:18 PM:

More info on behavior of Republican judges in Alabama state courts is available here.

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/

Glenn wrote on June 28, 2007 2:18 PM:

Folks, it has long been the case that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines allow the judge to consider ALL "relevant conduct" in fashioning a sentence, even that for which the defendant was not charged or even acquitted. To some extent, that is why the Guidelines were ruled unconstitutional insofar as they were mandatory, and they are only advisory now. But as far as I know, the principle still stands.

Billy Pilgrim wrote on June 28, 2007 2:18 PM:

Can the Mark Fuller be disbarred for this conduct?

itsbenj wrote on June 28, 2007 2:19 PM:

if it was dismissed with prejudice, how did they just "shop" for another judge? you can't do that! a case dismissed with prejudice can't be brought back up...

mbbsdphil wrote on June 28, 2007 2:36 PM:

This court seems intent not just on making reversible errors, but on inviting review by the federal judicial ethics system.

The state bar(s) should also examine the licenses of these federal prosecutors, since the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility is apparently the most corrupted department in Mr. Gonzales' Justice [sic] Department. There seems ample evidence to support an inquiry into whether this prosecution is for corrupt purposes rather than the non-partisan administration of justice.

Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 2:38 PM:

"He dismissed it with prejudice."

What about the prohibition against double jeopardy? Or was that in the old constitution?

Shit, there are no courts left to find this unconstitutional.

sailmaker wrote on June 28, 2007 2:38 PM:

Whatever happened to 'beyond a reasonable doubt'? Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? I guess they have gone the way of habeas corpus. It is not like Gov. Don Siegelman has prior convictions or anything. I hope there are appeals.

mbbsdphil wrote on June 28, 2007 2:39 PM:

The War of Southern Aggression is not yet over; it is alive and well inside the GOP.

Glenn wrote on June 28, 2007 2:43 PM:

sorry for the double post. It's not because I thought my comment was so brilliant it needed to be said twice, honest.

Northern Observer wrote on June 28, 2007 2:56 PM:

Politcal show trials have come to America.
Reinforces my theory that the USA won the cold war but in the process changed the country to be more like the heartless russian totalitarians they opposed.
Certainly the republican party is toxic, and in a two party democracy it's fatal to have half of the electorate mobolized around an agenda of toxicity. It's how states fail and constitutions fall. Time for a second American Republic? I mean the French have had five, why should the US be different?

Maybe I'm too pessimistic. We won't see the big picture until the results are in NOV 5 2008. Boy is that gonna be a big election.

Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 3:04 PM:

I'm serious here, how did they avoid jeopardy?

buck turgidson wrote on June 28, 2007 3:31 PM:

Alabama has never been known for its impartial justice system. Why start now? But let's not worry too much about Siegelman--guilty or not, he should win on appeal. Instead, let's direct the energy in a different direction--no, not impeachment of Bush and Cheney (good idea, thought). Not only presidents can be impeached--judges are fair game as well. And Judge Fuller is a prime candidate with no deadlines and endgames. Nail his ass to the wall!

dixiegrl wrote on June 28, 2007 3:45 PM:

The charges against Seiglman which were thrown out in 2004, were brought by Alice Martin, in the Northern district of Ala. You know, one of Canary's "girls".

Btw ..Alice Martin and Leula Canary, 2 of the 3 Alabama USA's, are listed in the Ala. bar registry.
The 3rd USA, Deborah J. Rhodes, of Mobile, Ala. used to work in San Diego USA office. DOJ shoved her into the Mobile office when the previous USA "abruptly" resigned.
I looked her up today in the Ala. Bar listing, she is not there.
Alabama requires membership in the state's bar association to practice law in the state.

Paul Wren wrote on June 28, 2007 4:26 PM:

This judge has just provided the defense with excellent fodder for the appeal. Perhaps justice will be served fairly at some point.

alabama wrote on June 28, 2007 5:18 PM:

Judge Mark E Fuller's privately owned company doss aviation.com Received one hundred and seventy eight million dollar contract for inflight training for airforce on May 15 2006 that was right during the middle of the scrushy/siegelman trial can you imagine the glee he felt while sitting on the bench listening to the siegelman /scrushy case and his company has no lobbyist supposedly I wonder how he got that contract what did he have to do to get that contract. who did he have to talk to to get that contract? I wonder if Fuller was friends with Karl Rove. Fuller prior to being a Judge was a campaign manager for Terry Everett a congressman from the WIRE GRASS AREA OF ALABAMA. Terry Recently helped get Troy state university a visit from Rove. Hmmmmmmmmmm Fuller works for Everett............everett talks Rove into coming to Alabama this spring. For all ya'lls info Fuller is making all flight suits for airforce, navy, marines, and army. He is now training pilots in pubelo colorado and running mini base out there, he is hauling gas all over the united states to airforce planes and navy tankers. He is providing maintence for the airplanes for airforce. Making clothing for the fbi. Who is this Judge why is he sitting on the bench in Alabama and who is helping him get these contracts without a lobbyist these are questions that need to be answered. If you want to know more about this Judge go to doss aviation.com then click employment tab at botton of that page you will see a little book icon that says contracts above it click it you will be in for big surprise this judge and about six of friends own a company that is servicing the airforce in unbelievable ways. Then tell me this Judege doesn't have conflict also see aureus international.com this is his clothing division and then look at judicial watch site at his disclosure form where is aureus? Poor Mr. Scrushy and Mr Siegelman never dreamed the man sitting on the bench had these kinds of connections to the federal government. No one would. Justice will not be served until this gentleman is off the bench

Dardango wrote on June 28, 2007 9:18 PM:

Well, Siegelman got 7 years. Do Dems now realize the type of people they are dealing with?

They will take away your freedom in pursuit of their political agenda. Still wanna reach across the aisle.

CalD wrote on June 29, 2007 10:12 AM:

One thing I don't seem find in any of this -- here or in the linked articles. If Siegelman was charged with 32 crimes, and acquitted on 25 of them, what were the remaining seven charges he was found guilty on and is there any reason to believe he actually did those those things? And would seven years be an entirely inappropriate sentence for those seven charges if he had done them?

Also, is there any reason to suspect, other than coincidence of timing, that the defense contract in which the judge had an interest was some kind of quid pro quo for fixing the case? I would think that if the mere fact that the judge's company does business with the defense department is enough the disqualify him from hearing a federal case about something as seemingly unrelated to defense procurement as this, he would pretty much have to quite one of his jobs altogether, wouldn't he? If he's a federal judge then hearing federal cases is pretty much what he does.

IOW: The question I'm trying to answer is, would I be upset on the substance of this case if Siegelman were a Republican? Mind you I'm not defending Fuller or the prosecutors or questioning Siegelman's sainthood in any way and I'm certainly not suggesting that Karl Rove is anything other than evil incarnate, risen up from the depths of hell to walk among men. I'd just like to know a few more of the facts of the actual case against Siegelman before jumping to any conclusions.

CalD wrote on June 29, 2007 10:15 AM:

One thing I don't seem find in any of this -- here or in the linked articles. If Siegelman was charged with 32 crimes, and acquitted on 25 of them, what were the remaining seven charges he was found guilty on and is there any reason to believe he actually did those those things? And would seven years be an entirely inappropriate sentence for those seven charges if he had done them?

Also, is there any reason to suspect, other than coincidence of timing, that the defense contract in which the judge had an interest was some kind of quid pro quo for fixing the case? I would think that if the mere fact that the judge's company does business with the defense department is enough the disqualify him from hearing a federal case about something as seemingly unrelated to defense procurement as this, he would pretty much have to quite one of his jobs altogether, wouldn't he? If he's a federal judge then hearing federal cases is pretty much what he does.

IOW: The question I'm trying to answer is, would I be upset on the substance of this case if Siegelman were a Republican? Mind you I'm not defending Fuller or the prosecutors or questioning Siegelman's sainthood in any way and I'm certainly not suggesting that Karl Rove is anything other than evil incarnate, risen up from the depths of hell to walk among men. I'd just like to know a few more of the facts of the actual case against Siegelman before jumping to any conclusions.