|
Banned
|
Something to ponder, is their any justice remaining in the federal system? Convicted Duke Cunninhgam briber, Brett Wilkes, released from federal prison, pending his appeal, after just over a month in the slammer:
Quote:
http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/new...e_on_bond.html
A federal appeals court has ordered the release from prison of former Poway defense contractor Brent Wilkes while he pursues an appeal of his bribery conviction and 12-year sentence.
The order from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was issued Thursday by judges Thomas G. Nelson and A. Wallace Tashima. Wilkes was convicted in November of bribing former Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham and sentenced three months later to 144 months in prison. He immediately appealed the conviction and sought to remain free, but U.S. District Judge Larry Burns refused and ordered him into custody.
In a brief order, Nelson and Tashima said it was unlikely that Wilkes poses a danger to the community or would flee if he were released.
Moreover, the judges said his appeal raised a "substantial question" of law or fact, that "is likely to result in reversal, an order for a new trial, or a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment."
|
It took a former democratic governor of Alabama eight months and a CBS 60 minutes expose to win release from federal prison, pending outcome of his appeal, and Brett Wilkes, convicted of much more serious charges than Gov. Siegelman, managed to get released from prison in just over a month!
Quote:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/p...19wilkes2.html
Wilkes sentenced to 12 years in prison
By Angelica Martinez
UNION-TRIBUNE BREAKING NEWS TEAM
2:39 p.m. February 19, 2008
U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns urged Wilkes to admit his wrongdoing, something he politely refused to do.
“Today is a day to own up,” Burns said. “A guy who cares at least about his family should come clean to them.”
Wilkes thanked his family and friends for their support, and continued to deny guilt.
“I know they understand how helpless I've felt in the process because I couldn't speak out,” he said. “Your Honor, I've always maintained my innocence and I continue to.
“I believe in the justice system and I've respected your authority, even though I've not always agreed.”
Wilkes, 53, who had been free on bond, was convicted on Nov. 5 of conspiracy, bribery, fraud and money laundering in connection with the bribery scheme that brought down former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, once a highly respected war hero.
Cunningham pleaded guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion. He was sentenced to eight years and four months in federal prison in March 2006.
Prosecutors said Wilkes' decade-long bribery of the former congressman netted him $46 million.
During Wilkes' trial, prosecutors presented evidence that he showered Cunningham, a Republican congressman from Rancho Santa Fe, with expensive meals, gifts, fancy trips, cash bribes and prostitutes.
In exchange for the gifts and bribes, Cunningham, who then held a seat on a powerful defense committee, used his influence to earmark money in budgets and steer projects that benefitted ADCS, Inc., the Poway defense contracting firm that Wilkes owned.
An investigator said in court papers that the federal government lost at least $30 million and as much as $60 million on the contracts that ADCS was involved in.
Prosecutors wanted to have Wilkes sentenced to 25 years in prison and said that at a minimum, he should be given 16 years and eight months in prison, twice the length of Cunningham's sentence.
Federal prosecutor Phil Halpern said Wilkes deserved to be punished for a longer term because his case was different from Cunningham's. He said Cunningham was a war hero who resigned from office, gave up his possessions, cooperated with the government and saddled his family with debts to accept responsibility.
Probation officials had recommended a 60-year term for Wilkes.
The judge disagreed with prosecutors who contended Wilkes masterminded the scheme, yet said he was troubled by Wilkes' demeanor in court.
“Mr. Wilkes, you have not indicated any sense of contrition to this day,” he said.
“I'm not big on sending a message, but I do think people will pay attention to what happened here,” Burns said.
The judge said there were troublesome aspects to this case, which demonstrated how shrewd and exploitative Wilkes was.
Mark Geragos, Wilkes' prominent defense attorney, has filed motions requesting a new trial for Wilkes based on what he described as prosecutorial misconduct and errors made by the judge.
Burns denied the motions.
“What we're talking about is trial strategy and tactics,” he said. “But was it a legal error? I don't think so.”
Burns also rejected Geragos' complaints that Geragos had needed more time to deal with the complex case, telling the defense lawyer the court “was bending over backward to accommodate you.
“I think you spread yourself too thin,” he told the defense lawyer. “You're in high demand, but I can't do anything about that.”
|
Quote:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...ppen_in_am.htm
Political Trial of Don Siegelman
by Paul Craig Roberts Page 1 of 3 page(s)
http://www.opednews.com
Tell A Friend
Don Siegelman, a popular Democratic governor of Alabama, a Republican state, was framed in a crooked trial, convicted on June 29, 2006, and sent to Federal prison by the corrupt and immoral Bush administration.
The frame-up of Siegelman and businessman Richard Scrushy is so crystal clear and blatant that 52 former state attorney generals from across America, both Republicans and Democrats, have urged the US Congress to investigate the Bush administration's use of the US Department of Justice to rid themselves of a Democratic governor who "they could not beat fair and square," according to Grant Woods, former Republican Attorney General of Arizona and co-chair of the McCain for President leadership committee. Woods says that he has never seen a case with so "many red flags pointing to injustice."
The abuse of American justice by the Bush administration in order to ruin Siegelman is so crystal clear that even the corporate media organization CBS allowed "60 Minutes" to broadcast on February 24, 2008, a damning indictment of the railroading of Siegelman. Extremely coincidental "technical difficulties" caused WHNT, the CBS station covering the populous northern third of Alabama, to go black during the broadcast. The station initially offered a lame excuse of network difficulties that CBS in New York denied. The Republican-owned print media in Alabama seemed to have the inside track on every aspect of the prosecution's case against Siegelman. You just have to look at their editorials and articles following the 60 Minutes broadcast to get a taste of what counts for "objective journalism" in their mind.
The injustice done by the US Department of Justice (sic) to Siegelman is so crystal clear that a participant in Karl Rove's plan to destroy Siegelman can't live with her conscience. Jill Simpson, a Republican lawyer who did opposition research for Rove, testified under oath to the House Judiciary Committee and went public on "60 Minutes." Simpson said she was told by Bill Canary, the most important GOP campaign advisor in Alabama, that "my girls can take care of Siegelman."
Canary's "girls" are two US Attorneys in Alabama, both appointed by President Bush. One is Bill Canary's wife, Leura Canary. The other is Alice Martin. According to Harper's Scott Horton, a law professor at Columbia University, Martin is known for abusive prosecutions.
What was the "crime" for which Siegelman and Scrushy were convicted? Scrushy made a contribution to the Alabama Education Foundation, a not-for-profit organization set up to push for a lottery to benefit secondary education in Alabama, to retire debt associated with the Alabama education lottery proposal. Scrushy was a member of Alabama's Certificate of Need board, a nonpaid group that oversaw hospital expansion. Scrushy had been a member of the board through the terms of the prior three governors, and Siegelman asked him to serve another term.
Federal prosecutors claimed that Scrushy's contribution was a bribe to Siegelman in exchange for being appointed to the Certificate of Need board. In the words of federal prosecutor Stephen Feaga, the contribution was "given in exchange for a promise for an official act."
Feaga's statement is absolute nonsense. It is well known that Scrushy had served on the board for years, felt he had done his duty, and wanted off the board. It was Siegelman who convinced Scrushy to remain on the board. Moreover, Scrushy gave no money to Siegelman. The money went to a foundation.
As a large number of attorneys have pointed out, every US president appoints his ambassadors and cabinet members from people who have donated to his campaign. Under the reasoning applied in the Siegelman case, a large number of living former presidents, cabinet members and ambassadors should be in federal prison--not to mention the present incumbents.
How in the world did a jury convict two men of a non-crime?
The answer is that the US Attorney used Governor Siegelman's indicted young assistant, Nick Bailey, to create the impression among some of the jurors that "something must have happened." Unbeknownst to Siegelman, Bailey was extorting money or accepting bribes from Alabama businessmen in exchange for state business. Bailey was caught. Presented with threats of a long sentence, Bailey agreed to testify falsely that Siegelman came out of a meeting with Scrushy and showed Bailey a $250,000 check he had accepted in exchange for appointing Scrushy to the Certificate of Need board. Prosecutors knew that Bailey's testimony was false, not only because, according to Bailey himself, prosecutors had Bailey rewrite his testimony many times and rehearsed him until he had it down pat, but also because they had the check. The records show that the check, written to a charitable organization, was cut days after the meeting from which Siegelman allegedly emerged with check in hand.
It is a crime for prosecutors to withhold exculpatory evidence. The Washington Post reported on February 26 that Siegelman's attorneys have called for a special prosecutor after CBS quoted prosecution witness Bailey "as saying prosecutors met with him about 70 times. He said they had him regularly write out his testimony because they were frustrated with his recollection of events. The written notes, if they existed, could have damaged the credibility of Bailey's story, but no such notes were turned over to the defense, as would have been required by law."
In video documentaries available online, Bailey's friend, Amy Methvin, says that Bailey told her that he was going to parrot the prosecutors' line, "pay for play," "quid pro quo." Methvin says Bailey went into a speech about money exchanged for favors. "You sound like a robot," Methvin told him. "You would have it memorized, too, if you had heard the answers as many times as I have heard the answers," Bailey replied.
The prosecutors also had help from some jurors. On a WOTM Special Report hosted by former US Attorney Raymond Johnson, Alabama lawyer Julian McPhillips produced emails from two jurors about influencing other jurors in order to achieve a conviction. Jurors are not supposed to discuss a case outside the court or to consider information other than what is presented in court and allowed by the judge. The outside communication among the jurors is sufficient to declare a mistrial.
However, Federal District Judge, Mark Fuller, a George W. Bush appointee, ignored the tainted jury. Fuller's handling of the case suspiciously favored the prosecution. He bore a strong grudge against Siegelman. Fuller had been an Alabama district attorney before Bush made him a federal judge. Fuller's successor as district attorney was appointed by Siegelman and produced evidence that suggested that Fuller had connived with his former senior assistant in a "pension spiking" scheme, which some viewed as a fraud or attempted fraud against the state retirement system.
Despite his known animosity toward Siegelman, Fuller refused to recuse himself from Siegelman's trial. According to the WOTM Special Report, Fuller owns a company that was receiving federal money during Siegelman's trial. Fuller did not disclose this conflict of interest. The charges raised by 60 Minutes cast the trial as Karl Rove's effort to rid the Republicans of the candidate they could not beat. The strange conduct of the presiding Republican judge, who had recently become a rich man as the company he owned was awarded a mass of discretionary federal contracts, only raises more very troubling questions.
1 | <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/opedne_paul_cra_080301_it_does_happen_in_am.htm">page 2 link</a> | <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/3/opedne_paul_cra_080301_it_does_happen_in_am.htm">page 3 link</a>
Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how Americans lost the protection of law, is forthcoming from Random House in March, 2008.
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/us...ma.html?ref=us
Freed Ex-Governor of Alabama Talks of Abuse of Power
By ADAM NOSSITER
Published: March 29, 2008
.....On Thursday, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, ordered Mr. Siegelman released while he appeals his conviction, overturning an earlier decision by an Alabama federal judge who had ruled that the former governor should remain in jail. State Democratic officials have accused that judge, Mark E. Fuller, of playing politics because of his close ties to Republicans.
The investigation, trial and conviction of Mr. Siegelman, a veteran politician, has become a flash point for broader Democratic contentions that politics has influenced decisions by the Justice Department under President Bush, including the firings of several United States attorneys, and other federal prosecutions besides Mr. Siegelman’s.
In June 2006, a federal jury here convicted Mr. Siegelman of taking $500,000 from Richard M. Scrushy, the former chief executive of the HealthSouth Corporation, in exchange for an appointment to the state hospital licensing board.
The money was to retire a debt from Mr. Siegelman’s campaign for a state lottery to pay for schools, and his lawyers have insisted it was no more than a routine political contribution. They also cited the fact that Mr. Scrushy had served on the licensing board under three previous governors, as an indication that appointment to it could not have been deemed a reward.
Federal prosecutors say Mr. Siegelman was liable on the loan, and thus had a personal interest in the money.
The appellate court ruling said Mr. Siegelman had raised “substantial questions” in his appeal. That was seen by the former governor’s lawyers and other supporters as a signal that their central contention — that he was wrongly convicted for ordinary political activity — has hope of prevailing.
At least one legal expert, previously skeptical of Mr. Siegelman’s arguments, said he was “surprised” by the new ruling, which he characterized as unusual.
“It’s quite rare for the appellate court to substitute its view and displace everything that came before,” said the expert, Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University School of Law.
The ruling was “not a promise of reversal, but it should give him great confidence,” said Mr. Gillers, suggesting that the ruling could have been influenced by “contextual” factors like the firings of the federal prosecutors.
Speaking by telephone outside the prison, Mr. Siegelman said he had confidence that the federal appeals court, which now considers his larger appeal, would agree with his view of the case.
Otherwise, he said, “every governor and every president and every contributor might as well turn themselves in, because it’s going to be open season on them.”
In Alabama, the Siegelman case has inflamed partisan passions, with Republicans describing Mr. Siegelman’s term from 1998 to 2002 as deeply corrupt, and Democrats furious over what they depict as a years-long political witch hunt.
In a sworn statement, a Republican lawyer and political operative, Jill Simpson, told of hearing one of Mr. Rove’s allies here, William Canary, discussing Mr. Siegelman during the 2002 governor’s race, and saying “that he had already gotten it worked out with Karl and Karl had spoken with the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice was already pursuing Don Siegelman.” The United States attorney here, Leura G. Canary, is married to Mr. Canary.
That statement has been the basis for a tide of speculation about possible conspiracies that continues to swirl here.
Mr. Siegelman has been one of this state’s most visible political figures for decades, having also served as secretary of state, attorney general and lieutenant governor. He was elected governor in 1998, but was narrowly defeated by a Republican in 2002, while he was under a much-publicized investigation.
Early Friday, the former governor completed his prison chores for the day — mopping a barracks area — and waited for his wife and son to pick him up for the eight-hour drive home to Birmingham, Ala.
“I was in prison,” Mr. Siegelman said afterward, when asked about his life at Oakdale. “I was treated like a prisoner. I’m not going to complain about the way I was treated.”
He added: “It feels great to be out. I wish I could say it was over. But we’re a long way from the end of this.”
|
Last edited by host; 03-28-2008 at 07:56 PM..
|
07-06-2007, 07:20 PM
