Nominees needed for 10 Worst U.S. Prosecutors for 2008

I was searching for like-minded souls one night several months ago when I stumbled upon the “good” prosecutors at Bad Prosecutors. I felt right at home when I read this statement :

Welcome! This Blog is published by the Bennett Law Firm with Sherri Katz and Bob Bennett being principal contributors. For over thirty years, the firm has been involved in criminal, civil, and administrative investigations. Both Sherri Katz and Bob Bennett have served in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas. They consider themselves to be “good” prosecutors with experience in both state district attorneys offices and federal prosecutors with the United States Attorney’s Office. When we see bad prosecutors or prosecutors engaged in bad acts, we see a need to speak out and let the world know of our protestations and anger. Maybe you feel the same? If so, we hope you will share with us and others what bad prosecutors and bad prosecutorial acts the world needs to know about. Thru notoriety, recusals, and even disbarments, we hope to bring to justice to what some bad prosecutors do. (Emphasis supplied.)

Mr. Bennett is a partner with the Bennett Law Firm, L.L.P., which is

… the largest law firm in Texas that specializes in representing members of the legal profession in grievance matters and other professional concerns. Robert Bennett has represented lawyers before the Grievance or “Just Cause” in every part of the state in the last ten (10) years. Depending on the allegations brought by the State Bar Commission, he has generally been able to meet the expectations of his clients and negotiated a resolution that is acceptable.

Yesterday, Bob Bennett honored my blog with this comment asking for help in preparing his 10 Worst U.S. Prosecutors for 2008:

we are in the process of updating our 10 Worse Prosecutors for 2008 and would appreciate any nominations. We are looking at the prosecutors in Alabama. Any suggestions would be helpful.

I would start with Leura Canary, Stephen Feaga, Louis Franklin, Alice Martin, Richard Gregorie, Rachel Paulose and Dunn Lampton. Please leave a comment if you have any suggestions. Please also take some time to check out Bad Prosecutors.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Advertisements

Welcome, USDOJ.

Thank you for visiting The Grievance Project.  (Statcounter and Sitemeter information is at the end of this post).

Earlier today, your boss, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, testified before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Attorney General Mukasey concluded his prepared remarks with the following statement:

As I have said many times, to members of the public and to Department employees, it is crucial that we pursue our cases based solely on what the law and facts require, and that we hire our career people without regard for improper political considerations. It is equally crucial that the American people have complete confidence in the propriety of what we do. My promise to you is that I have done, and I will continue to do, what I can to ensure that politics is kept out of decisions about cases and out of decisions about career hiring at the Department of Justice.

I wouldn’t doubt that the minimal attention that Attorney General Mukasey has paid to the politicization at DOJ is, in fact, the outer limit of what he can or will do (or is allowed to do) to ensure that politics is kept out of the Department. What he has done, however, is simply not enough. If you’re an attorney at DOJ, whether in Arlington, Virginia (according to Statcounter), Washington, D.C. (according to SiteMeter) or elsewhere, you are likely to have an affirmative obligation under the rules of professional conduct in which you’re admitted to report the ethical violations of other attorneys, such as Alberto Gonzales, Kyle D. Sampson, Lisa Murkowski, Harriet E. Miers, Mark Everett Fuller, John Yoo and Michael B. Elston and Esther Slater McDonald, who engage in conduct that raises questions as the attorney’s fitness to practice law. Specifically, Rule 8.3 of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduc (.pdf) states that

A lawyer having reliable information that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

I encourage you to file a grievance against any former or current DOJ attorney who you know has breached his or her ethical obligations.

Rule 8.3 of the Washington, D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct similarly provides that

A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

VISITOR ANALYSIS
Referring Link No referring link
Host Name wdcsun23.usdoj.gov
IP Address 149.101.1.123 [Label IP Address]
Country United States
Region District Of Columbia
City Washington
ISP Us Dept Of Justice
Returning Visits 0
Visit Length 5 mins 19 secs
VISITOR SYSTEM SPECS
Browser MSIE 6.0
Operating System Windows XP
Resolution Unknown
Javascript Disabled

Navigation Path

Date Time WebPage
July 9th 2008 05:51:21 PM No referring link
grievanceproject.wordpress.com/state-grievance-procedures/
July 9th 2008 05:56:40 PM No referring link
grievanceproject.wordpress.com/state-grievance-procedures/
Domain Name usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address 149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
ISP US Dept of Justice
Location
Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : Virginia
City : Arlington
Lat/Long : 38.8782, -77.1054 (Map)
Language unknown
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; DOJ3jx7bf; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.5.21022)
Javascript disabled
Time of Visit Jul 9 2008 5:51:28 pm
Last Page View Jul 9 2008 5:56:48 pm
Visit Length 5 minutes 20 seconds
Page Views 2
Referring URL unknown
Visit Entry Page http://grievanceproj…rievance-procedures/
Visit Exit Page http://grievanceproj…rievance-procedures/
Out Click
Time Zone unknown
Visitor’s Time Unknown
Visit Number 1,827

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Starting to notice but not quite there.

At The Nation, Professor Stephen Gillers is correct when he writes in The Torture Memo that:

The press tends to overlook the lawyers when scandal breaks, focusing instead on their clients. That’s understandable, but in public and commercial life no serious move is possible (no corporate maneuver, no new financial instrument, no war, no severe interrogation tactic) without legal approval. Even if the advice proves wrong, the client, if sued or indicted, can claim reliance on counsel.

When lawyers in private practice mess up, they face serious jeopardy. They can be fired, sued for malpractice, disbarred or prosecuted. Yoo and Bybee face no such risks. The President won’t protest. He got what he wanted. And while a state disciplinary body can investigate, that is unlikely without Justice Department help.

I disagree that the involvement of the Department of Justice is required to instigate an investigation of Mr. Yoo, Mr. Bybee or any other unethical attorney in the service of the federal government. As I note here , anybody, from any state, can file an ethics complaint against any attorney practicing anywhere in the 50 states and Washington, D.C. Mr. Gillers continues:

In his book The Terror Presidency, [Bybee’s successor, Jack] Goldsmith, now a Harvard law professor, writes that the torture memos had “no foundation” in any “source of law” and rested on “one-sided legal arguments.”

* * *

How could two really smart guys authorize torture using “one-sided legal arguments” that have “no foundation” in law? How could they be guilty of a “stunning failure of lawyerly craft”? The sad answer seems to be that they knew what the President wanted and delivered: torture is OK if you call it something else. Detainees are outside the protection of due process and civilized law. The President’s authority is close to absolute. Anyway, no court can review him. (On this last point, the Supreme Court disagreed.)

* * *

So maybe the best and brightest lawyers got it so wrong because they forgot whom they served. Maybe they acted politically, not professionally. If so, we are dealing with a perversion of law and legal duty, a betrayal of the client and professional norms, not mere incompetence, which would be bad enough. Whatever the reason, Jarrett should find that this work is not “consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys.” [H. Marshall] Jarrett[, counsel for the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility,] must hold the lawyers accountable if he means to restore OLC’s reputation and vindicate the rule of law.

I agree with Mr. Gillers’ characterization of these attorney’s actions but must again strongly disagree that it is Mr. Jarrett that must hold anybody accountable. To repeat myself: anybody, from any state, can file an ethics complaint against any attorney practicing anywhere in the 50 states and Washington, D.C.

In his response at Balkinization to Boalt (Cal Berkeley) School of Law Dean Chris Edleyn’s defense of John Yoo, Scott Horton explains in more detail why John Yoo should be held to account :

[T]he facts establish that the torture policies were settled upon and had in fact been implemented. The principal authors were facing severe blow back from career lawyers inside the government. And John Yoo was carted in to use the powers of OLC to silence lawyers protesting the illegality of what was done. I believe that an objective examination of the facts will show that this is precisely how John Yoo understood his role. In essence, he was not an independent legal advisor. He had become a facilitator, an implementor of the torture policies. His role had shifted from passive advisor to actor, pushing a process forward.

Dean Edley then states that the ethical accountability and legal liability of the legal advisor cannot be compared to those of the policy maker. This statement rests on a false understanding of the facts. But it also reflects a misconception of the established law. Indeed, Dean Edley asks what appears to be a rhetorical question:

Did the writing of the memoranda, and his related conduct, violate a criminal or comparable statute?

The answer to that question is “yes.” The liability of an attorney dispensing advice with respect to the treatment of persons under detention in wartime is subject to a special rule. It cannot be viewed in the same manner as advice given in a complex commercial dispute, for instance.

This principle was established by the United States in one of the most dramatic of the post-World War II proceedings, United States v. Altstoetter, the “lawyers’ case.” Following on the guidelines established by Justice Robert H. Jackson, the U.S. chief prosecutor, Telford Taylor, and his deputy, Charles M. La Follette, established clear principles of accountability for lawyers dispensing legal advice in circumstances virtually identical to those faced by John Yoo. There are three major principles relevant to John Yoo’s case that appear from the charge, accepted by the Tribunal. First, the case dealt with persons under detention in wartime (not POWs, in fact most of the cases in question addressed persons not entitled to POW or comparable protections). Second, it had to be reasonably foreseeable that the advice dispensed would result in serious physical or mental harm or death to a number of the persons under detention. Third, the advice given was erroneous. In fact several of the lawyers in Altstoetter were able to articulate far better defenses for their erroneous legal advice that John Yoo had, but the standard did not require it to be “outrageously” false, just incorrect.

Each of these criteria is satisfied with respect to Yoo’s advice under the torture memoranda. They explicitly address persons under detention. It was reasonably foreseeable that persons would suffer serious physical or mental harm or death as a result of the application of the techniques (in fact there have been more than 108 deaths in detention, a significant portion of them tied to torture). And the analysis was false, a point acknowledged ultimately by the OLC itself. Accordingly, a solid basis exists under the standard articulated by the United States under which John Yoo may be charged and brought to trial. * * *

However, my point here is not to make the prosecutor’s case against Yoo. It is to show that what he did raises not merely ethics issues, but actual criminal culpability . * * * (Emphasis supplied).

Also at Balkinization, Professor John Balkin asks whether John Yoo and Jay Bybee violated the canons of professional ethics. In drawing his conclusion, Professor Balkin considered, among others, the Gillers and Horton arguments that I highlighted above, and wrote:

My own conclusion is that Yoo and Bybee did violate their professional obligations to the President as constitutional actor, and to the country as a whole. The reason is a combination of their outrageous theory of presidential dictatorship and their all too eager assistance in what appears to be a conspiracy to commit war crimes. But I do not pretend that the question is at all an easy one.

Note that even if I am right that Yoo violated the canons of professional ethics, he has not been sanctioned by any court or professional organization, much less convicted of any crime by a domestic court or international tribunal. This is important to keep in mind in the debate over whether the University of California should discipline or investigate him.

While I also do not pretend that the question of whether these attorneys violated the canons of professional ethics is an easy one, I am confident that the answer to the question is ultimately yes. And if the answer is yes, then the question becomes what can you and I do to hold these attorneys accountable for their actions in addition to lobbying Congress, writing blog posts and comments, praying and waiting?

Consider first this from Mr. Horton in his response to Dean Edley:

A final aspect of Dean Edley’s memorandum troubles me. He is appropriately concerned about freedom of expression for his faculty. But he should be much more concerned about the message that all of this sends to his students. Lawyers who act on the public stage can have an enormous impact on their society and the world around them. They can make great sums of money. They can be a force for social good. And they can also be vessels of horrendous injustice and oppression. Indeed they can foment and advance a criminal design. * * *

Much of the nobility of this profession lies in the duty of a lawyer to exercise independent professional judgment and to warn a client from an enterprise which is not merely foolish but at times actually immoral and criminal. Elihu Root famously termed this the lawyer’s first calling. When confronted with a trying circumstance, John Yoo not only failed to give proper warning — He became an active part of an enterprise bent on overriding the most fundamental legal and ethical prohibitions. Perhaps a criminal enterprise. And that is and will likely be seen by future generations as a far more troublesome matter than Dean Edley recognizes.

Edley owes it to his institution and to the students it is training to accept the full ethical and legal challenges that the case of John Yoo raises, and to treat them earnestly. * * * (Emphasis supplied).

And also this from Mr. Horton from April 3, 2008:

It’s also time for the organized bar to act decisively. So far bar organizations have denounced the torture memoranda and issued learned reports and articles. But I’m still haunted by a question a student put to me following a presentation I made at Columbia University on Tuesday evening. “If the bar is so serious about this,” the student said, “then explain to me how it’s possible that John Yoo and his confederates haven’t been disbarred.” I started to answer about the complexity of the disbarrment process, but I stopped. The student was right. If the bar were serious about this, it should have used its disciplinary tools to deal with it. This is not a case of an eccentric academic mouthing some cock-eyed theories. It is about a government official using the power of a government office to induce people to commit serious crimes.

* * *

Silence will buy us a continuation of this corruption of our nation. But isn’t it worth raising your voice and articulating your anger to get our country back? It should start with insisting that Congress use the tools it has–oversight and the budget–to force changes. Say “no” to torture; it’s an easy first step on the road back to decency. (Emphasis supplied.)

I noted in response to this post then, and reiterate today, that appealing to this Congress is insufficient and that it is now for direct action by you, the citizen/activist. Each of you can file a grievance against each and every one of these attorneys whether you live in the same or a different state and whether you are personally involved in the matter or are just an interested citizen. By doing so, you can force these bar associations to investigate these matters. Take action: file a grievance.

And remember, it’s not just Yoo and Bybee. There’s Alberto Gonzales, Harriet E. Miers, Kyle D. Sampson, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Judge Mark Everett Fuller and many others.

E.M.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Call to Action

Far more eloquently than I have previously argued, Scott Horton called for action from the organized bar associations at No Comment last week:

It’s also time for the organized bar to act decisively. So far bar organizations have denounced the torture memoranda and issued learned reports and articles. But I’m still haunted by a question a student put to me following a presentation I made at Columbia University on Tuesday evening. “If the bar is so serious about this,” the student said, “then explain to me how it’s possible that John Yoo and his confederates haven’t been disbarred.” I started to answer about the complexity of the disbarrment process, but I stopped. The student was right. If the bar were serious about this, it should have used its disciplinary tools to deal with it. This is not a case of an eccentric academic mouthing some cock-eyed theories. It is about a government official using the power of a government office to induce people to commit serious crimes. (Emphasis supplied.)

* * *

Silence will buy us a continuation of this corruption of our nation. But isn’t it worth raising your voice and articulating your anger to get our country back? It should start with insisting that Congress use the tools it has–oversight and the budget–to force changes.

Mr. Horton is correct both in his description of what is at stake and his conclusion that action is required. Like Mr. Horton, I also encourage everyone to lobby Congress.

In addition to lobbying Congress, I would also encourage citizen activists to file grievances with the various bar associations against these attorneys. Note that you, an individual, can only lobby Congress to begin fulfilling its oversight role. However, each of you, can file a grievance against each and every one of these enabling attorneys even if you live in a different state and even if you have nothing to do with the case. You can force the bar associations to begin to take action.

It definitely is time for action.

E.M.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Alberto Gonzales: Not just unethical, but criminal?

As reported by Jason Leopold at the Online Journal on February 29, 2008, (h/t nonnie9999), Alberto Gonzales not only engaged in unethical conduct, but likely also engaged in conduct that was criminal:

John McKay, the former US attorney for the Western District of Washington who was also fired in late 2006 for reasons that appear to have been motivated by partisan politics, wrote in a lengthy article in the January edition of the Seattle University Law Review [incorrect link in original document] that Iglesias’s firing stands out among the other eight federal prosecutors because it demonstrates “the very real prospect of improper interference with an ongoing criminal investigation involving public corruption and the seeking of political advantage.”

“Violations of the obstruction of justice statute may have occurred and should be investigated,” McKay wrote. “Even as the role of the White House remains shrouded in its claims of executive privilege, 23 certain White House employees appear to have been heavily involved in the dismissal of U.S. Attorney Iglesias. In several e-mails it appears that these officials were reacting directly to the complaints of Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) and the ongoing investigation into public corruption in New Mexico. For example, Deputy White House Counsel Bill Kelley smugly e-mailed Gonzales’ Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson to report that Domenici’s office was ‘happy as a clam’ on learning of Iglesias’s ouster. Senior Counselor to the President Karl Rove bragged about Iglesias’s dismissal by proclaiming ‘he’s gone’ to the New Mexico Republican Party Chairman, who had previously complained to Rove about Iglesias.”

* * *

This chain of events troubles McKay who wrote in his law review article that former Attorney General Gonzales ultimately approved Iglesias’s termination with the full knowledge that it was based on partisan politics.

Gonzales admitted “he took multiple phone calls from Domenici concerning [Iglesias], urging that he be replaced, and has admitted that [President Bush] spoke with him about the ‘problems’ with Iglesias,” McKay wrote.
”Gonzales has even admitted that one of the reasons that Iglesias was fired was because Senator Domenici had “lost confidence” in Iglesias. “While these allegations are troubling under any analysis, a thorough and independent investigation is necessary to determine whether criminal laws have been violated,” McKay added. “Among the considerations facing the inspector general is whether the actions of former Attorney General Gonzales constituted obstruction of justice by removing Iglesias.”

Don’t hold your breath waiting for justice. No attorney employed by the Michael Mukasey-led Department of Justice will initiate an investigation of and pursue a criminal prosecution against Alberto Gonzales. As Leopold reports, they’re too busy fighting voter fraud:

Recently, the OPR contacted Iglesias’s former executive assistant, Rumaldo Armijo, to interview him about whether he was pressured by Pat Rogers, a Republican attorney in Albuquerque, and Mickey Barnett, a Republican lobbyist, to bring charges of voter fraud against Democrats in the state, Iglesias confirmed when asked about the matter during an interview.

Rogers was affiliated with the American Center for Voting Rights, a now defunct non-profit organization that sought to defend voter rights and increase public confidence in the fairness and outcome of elections. However, it has since emerged that the organization played a major role in suppressing the votes of people who intended to cast ballots for Democrats in various states. Rogers is also the former chief counsel to the New Mexico Republican Party, and was tapped by Domenici to replace Iglesias as US Attorney for New Mexico.

Rogers did not respond to emails seeking comment.

Armijo was also unavailable for comment. During his tenure in the US attorney’s office he was in charge of issues related to voter fraud in New Mexico. Iglesias said in an interview that he launched an in-depth investigation into claims of voter fraud in New Mexico and found the allegations to be “non-provable in court.” He said he is certain that his firing was due, in part, to the fact that he would not file criminal charges of voter fraud in New Mexico. Iglesias added that, based on evidence that had surfaced thus far and “Karl Rove’s obsession with voter fraud issues throughout the country,” he now believes GOP operatives had wanted him to go after Democratic-funded organizations in an attempt to swing the 2006 midterm elections to Republicans.

Armijo spoke to the Senate Ethics Committee last year about numerous telephone calls and emails dating back to 2005 he received from Rogers related to voter fraud, and Iglesias’s alleged failure to investigate the matter while Iglesias was US attorney, Iglesias confirmed.

Last May, House Democrats released a transcript of an interview congressional investigators had with one of Gonzales’s senior Justice Department staffers, Matthew Friedrich, in which Friedrich recounted that over breakfast in November 2006, Rogers and Barnett told him they were frustrated about Iglesias’s refusal to pursue cases of voter fraud and that they had spoken to Karl Rove and Domenici about having Iglesias fired.

“I remember them repeating basically what they had said before in terms of unhappiness with Dave Iglesias and the fact that this case hadn’t gone anyplace,” Friedrich said, according to a copy of the interview transcript. “It was clear to me that they did not want him to be the US attorney. And they mentioned that they had essentially . . . they were sort of working towards that.”

According to media reports, Rogers said he does not recall speaking to Rove about Iglesias.

Additionally, Barnett and Rogers met with Monica Goodling, the Justice Department’s White House liaison, in June 2006 to complain that Iglesias was ignoring voter fraud. Goodling’s meeting with Rogers and Barnett took place at the urging of a colleague. Rogers also drafted a lengthy letter that he sent to Domenici detailing what he claimed were Iglesias’s prosecutorial failures, Iglesias said he had been told.

Allen Weh, the New Mexico Republican Party chairman, told McClatchy Newspapers in March that he urged Rove to use his influence to have Iglesias fired because Weh was unhappy with Iglesias’s alleged refusal to bring criminal charges against Democrats in a voter fraud investigation.

At best, nothing will happen until Attorney General John Edwards(?) can order an investigation on January 21, 2009. But the fact that justice will not be served by the Department of Justice does not mean that justice must be denied:

ANY person residing in ANY state can file a grievance against Alberto Gonzales.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mark Everett Fuller

The Preamble to the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct states, inter alia, that

A lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials. While it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process.

As a public citizen, a lawyer should seek improvement of the law, of the administration of justice, and of the quality of service rendered by the legal profession. As a member of a learned profession, a lawyer should cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients, employ that knowledge in reform of the law, and work to strengthen legal education. A lawyer should be mindful of deficiencies in the administration of justice and of the fact that the poor, and sometimes persons who are not poor, cannot afford adequate legal assistance, and should therefore devote professional time and civic influence in their behalf. A lawyer should aid the legal profession in pursuing these objectives and should help the bar regulate itself in the public interest.

In multiple instances, Mark Everett Fuller has failed to adhere to these – and many other – standards of conduct.

Mark Everett Fuller was nominated by President George W. Bush on August 1, 2002 to the U.S. District Court in Alabama and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 14, 2002. Since taking the bench, Judge Fuller has breached various rules of professional conduct, most notably in his handling of the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Judge Fuller should be investigated by the Alabama State Bar Office of Legal Counsel to answer for his violations of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The following analysis establishes the factual basis needed to file a grievance against Judge Fuller. Due to the complexity of the case, I have quoted extensively from the work of Scott Horton to establish a factual basis for Judge Fuller’s violations.

Personal Information:

  • Name: Hon. Mark Everett Fuller
  • Firm: U. S. District Court
  • Address: One Church Street
    Montgomery , AL 36104-0000
  • Phone: (334) 954-3640
  • Fax: (334) 954-3649
  • Date Admitted: September 27, 1985
  • Law School: Alabama, University of

Grievance Information: Alabama

Allegations:

Judge Fuller improperly failed to recuse himself from the prosecution of Don Siegelman

Scott Horton, a contributor to Harper’s Magazine and author of the weblog No Comment for Harper’s website, has been following the prosecution of Don Siegleman and has written extensively on the subject. In his article Mark Fuller and the Siegelman Case, Mr. Horton provides background for review of this matter:

In 2002, Don Siegelman lost the governorship of Alabama to Bob Riley by 3,000 votes, raising suspicions of electronic vote tampering. According to an affidavit 1

[Footnote] 1. The affidavit was prepared to serve a limited-purpose challenge to the role of Terry Butts, who appeared as a lawyer in the Scrushy/Siegelman case, had previously worked for Governor Riley.

by lifelong Republican Dana Jill Simpson, on November 18, 2002, soon after Siegelman’s defeat, a conference call was held among Bob Riley’s senior aides, and during the call William Canary, a prominent Alabama Republican, said “not to worry about Don Siegelman” because “his girls”— meaning two U.S. attorneys, Alice Martin and Canary’s wife Leura, both of whom subsequently indicted Siegelman—would “take care” of the governor; furthermore, Karl Rove was described as “pursuing” Siegelman with help from U.S. attorneys in Alabama. (Time has a thorough article on the issue, with a response from Canary.)

In November 2003, one year after Siegelman’s defeat, the Mobile Press-Register published a poll showing that in the event of a rematch between Riley and Siegelman, Siegelman would prevail. 2

[Footnote] 2. Bill Barrow, “Riley’s Ratings are Low: Governor Would Trail Moore, Siegelman in 2006 Race,” Mobile Press-Register, Nov. 16, 2003, p. 6..

I spoke with sources within the Alabama GOP who told me that this poll set off alarm bells and was cause for a number of meetings and discussions about how to deal with the “Siegelman problem.” Before long, I believe, a solution to that problem manifested itself in the form of an indictment.

The Tuscaloosa Case
In May 2004, Alice Martin brought the case on claims that Governor Siegelman, with two other men, had been involved in an effort to rig bids on a state project in Tuscaloosa. After a series of recusals, the case came before the Chief Judge of the Northern District, U.W. Clemon, in Birmingham. As reported in the Montgomery Advertiser, Martin was opposed to Clemon handling the case and attempted to force his recusal. Clemon, however, rejected the Justice Department’s request that he step aside. He also refused to allow the defense to portray the proceedings as a “political conspiracy,” but also expressed skepticism that the government had enough evidence to make out a case of conspiracy, which was the principal count. In my analysis of the case, I found that Clemon asked penetrating questions of the prosecutors, and when their answers reinforced his suspicions, he demanded that they present a prime facie showing of their case before allowing the matter to proceed. When they were unable to do this, Judge Clemon dismissed the conspiracy case with prejudice, and with that, the first effort to prosecute Siegelman imploded in October 2004.

Enter Mark Fuller
But there was more to come. In October 2005, federal prosecutors indicted Siegelman on new corruption charges in Montgomery, Alabama, a different judicial district distinct from the Northern Alabama district in which Clemon had previously dismissed similar charges without prejudice. In theory, federal judges are assigned to cases at random. But according to a well-placed Alabama GOP source who wishes to remain anonymous, some senior figures in the Alabama GOP appear to have known from the start that this case was going to be handled by a man they counted a friend, namely, George W. Bush–appointee Mark Fuller. Regardless of whether the GOP had the power to influence case assignments, Mark Everett Fuller was in fact assigned as judge who presided over the grand jury proceedings in this second effort to prosecute Siegelman.

* * *

Mark Fuller and the Siegelman Case, Scott Horton, July 31, 2007

Mr. Horton further describes the personal animosity held by Judge Fuller for Mr. Siegelman which should also have resulted in Judge Fuller’s recusal in this matter:

Fuller’s tenure as District Attorney for Alabama’s 12th Judicial Circuit lasted from 1997, when he was appointed by Republican Governor Fob James, through 2002, when, based on recommendations from Alabama Republican Senators Richard Shelby and Jefferson Sessions, he was nominated by President George W. Bush for a federal judgeship in the Middle District of Alabama in Montgomery. Fuller was confirmed in November 2002.

A routine state audit of Fuller’s office for the period from October 1999 to April 2001, found that “there were a few incidents of insufficient or incomplete documentation of disbursements” at the office. (A copy of the audit report can be found here.) State auditors recognized that Fuller, as district attorney, had very broad discretion in budget, so they did nothing to challenge these payments.

Fuller’s replacement Gary McAliley, however, 1

[Footnote] 1. Someone with direct knowledge of the situation told me that McAliley was Fuller’s “nemesis.” Whether this was true at the time, it is true that McAliley soon became a thorn in Fuller’s side.

appointed by then-Governor Don Siegelman, started another audit and began to investigate Fuller for salary spiking–the practice of making extraordinary payments to a person who is on the verge of retirement–in this case, presumably, because an Alabama rule for determining state pensions counts an employee’s earnings for the highest three years of the last 10 years of work. The McAliley audit concluded that Fuller allowed his chief investigator Bruce DeVane an extra $70,000 in 2000-–close to twice DeVane’s annual 1999 salary—to “compensate him for working nights and weekends on developing policies and procedures manuals for the district attorney’s office.”

[Image of a photo of Fuller at a 2005 law clerk reception appears in original post.]

The Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA), which administers pension payments to former state employees, determined that the payments to DeVane were irregular and decided not to take them into account in calculating DeVane’s retirement benefits. DeVane went to court to force their hand. His star witness: Mark Fuller, now a federal judge in Montgomery. Fuller testified that he could legally pay DeVane any salary he wished and expressed the view that the state was bound to support his decision.

The following editorial, in the RSA’s newsletter Advisor in September 2003, described the case as the RSA saw it:

In December of last year, Judge Fuller appeared before the ERS Board wanting to “spike the retirement benefit” for a former employee, Mr. Bruce DeVane. When Judge Fuller was District Attorney for Pike County, he had given Mr. DeVane an 89% pay increase from $80,301 to $152,014 for one year only. If this additional payment were considered regular salary, his retirement income would have been increased by $1,000 per month or $330,000 over his expected lifetime. The Board rightfully denied the benefit spike. The Montgomery Advertiser editorial of December 5, 2002, congratulated the Board in standing tall to prevent a “ . . . back loading of salaries to boost pensions . . . .”

On February 22, 2006, the Enterprise Ledger summarized the case as follows: 2

[Footnote] 2. Kim Lewis, “Salary ‘Spiking’ Case,” Enterprise Ledger, Feb. 22, 2006. Reproduced in the Retirement Systems of Alabama Advisor, Vol. 31 No. 9, March 2006. [End Footnote.]

A former investigator for Coffee and Pike counties has not given up claims that the state owes him an additional $14,000 a year in retirement. Even though a Montgomery County judge dismissed Bruce DeVane’s case against the Retirement Systems of Alabama, DeVane’s attorney is hopeful the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals will reverse the judge’s decision.

In a civil lawsuit that took nearly two years to settle, Judge Eugene Reese, upheld a decision by RSA to spare Alabama taxpayers and deny DeVane’s claims to what RSA refers to as “extraordinary compensation.” During the January 2004 bench trial, DeVane’s former boss, U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, who was district attorney for Coffee and Pike counties at that time, testified on behalf of DeVane. As DeVane’s boss, Fuller claims he could legally pay DeVane any salary he deemed suitable . . . .

Indeed, RSA lawyers had argued successfully that the jump in DeVane’s salary constituted an “extraordinary” circumstance that did not merit attention in calculating DeVane’s overall retirement pay. D.A. Gary McAliley, who did not return calls requesting comment, testified that the payments were, as a matter of operating procedure within his office, extraordinary. The state court sided with the RSA and McAiley, rejecting the views put forth by Fuller.

The head of the RSA is David G. Bronner—a highly regarded figure in Alabama’s state administration who oversees billions in pension funds. Bronner did not respond to my requests for comment, but he did publish a column on the matter, entitled “Sarcasm: Justice in Bama,” in the August 2007 Advisor. In the piece, he draws a connection between the DeVane case and the fact that Fuller later refused to grant the RSA the ability sue Enron in Alabama state court. He wrote:

I do not like U.S. District Judge Fuller nor does he like me. The RSA had to go through the entire state court system to prevent Judge Fuller’s buddy from ripping off the RSA. Shortly thereafter, Judge Fuller tried to sandbag the RSA by preventing our claim (by doing nothing) against the ultimate crook–Enron! Fortunately, the RSA prevailed on both issues.

In 2002, in the wake of the audit, Fuller simply said that the criticism of him was “politically motivated.” See also New District Attorney Named, December 23, 2002

But think about that for a moment. Fuller, an Alabama Republican stalwart, leaves for the federal bench—then finds his work as District Attorney under investigation by his replacement Gary McAliley. Fuller’s federal position was secure but his reputation was bruised, and he responded to his critics by insisting he left the D.A.’s office in “sound financial condition.” But he also let it be known that he felt that he was under political attack—by a recent Siegelman appointee. Given that, ask yourself: why would Fuller, a man with very good reason to have a grudge against Siegelman’s entire operation, not recuse himself from judging Siegelman?

To me, it looks like there was a score to settle.

Judge Fuller: A Siegelman Grudge Match? by Scott Horton, August 2, 2007.

Indeed it does. Judge Fuller’s personal animosity is further described by reporter Laura McGann at TPMMuckraker:

Dana Jill Simpson wasn’t just worried about Rove’s involvement in Gov. Don Siegelman’s (D-AL) case. She also testified that she heard about a behind-the-scenes arrangement to ensure which judge would get the case — a judge sure to “hang” Siegelman.

Simpson said that Gov. Bob Riley’s (R) son, Rob Riley, told her in a 2005 conversation — one where Riley also said that Rove was pushing to have the Justice Department investigate Siegelman — that Judge Mark Fuller would get the case because Fuller, an active Republican, had a beef with Siegelman over an audit.

We’ve posted the portion of the interview where Simpson discusses Fuller here.

Q And did he talk to you about Mark Fuller’s politics or political work?

[Simpson] He did.

Q What did you talk about in that regard?

[Simpson] I asked him — he made a statement that Fuller would hang Don Siegelman. And I asked him how he knew that, if he got him in his court. And he said that Fuller was — had been on the Executive Republican Committee at Alabama — in Alabama before he been a judge and he also told me about a backlogging case, which is what you call the salary spike. He called it the “backlogging.”

Q And did [Riley] say any more about what Don Siegelman had to do with those audits that put Mark Fuller out?

[Simpson] He said that Don Siegelman had caused Fuller to get audited. That’s what Fuller thought. He hated him for that.

Republican Lawyer Interview with House Judiciary Panel Released by Laura McGann, October 10, 2007.

Mr. Horton describes additional acts of misconduct by Judge Fuller in his handling of the Siegelman matter:

When the jury retired, half of the members favored acquittal, and the other half, who according to subsequent statements felt they were doing what Judge Fuller wanted them to do, supported conviction. The jury initially deadlocked, sending the judge a note stating that they could not resolve the case. The judge responded by suggesting that he would be prepared to hold them indefinitely, including over the upcoming holiday. An anonymous source supplied defense counsel with evidence that some jurors were engaged in inappropriate conduct, among other things reading press accounts of the case and discussing how to pressure other jurors into a conviction with outside evidence.

Two emails in particular, which I was able to obtain from pleadings filed with the court, indicate that outside materials were being downloaded from the Internet and used by these jurors in an effort to pressure their wavering peers:

Exhibit 23:
“….judge really helping w/jurors…
still having difficulties with #30
…any ideas???
keep pushing on ur side
did not understand ur thoughts on statute
but received links.
[first name of Juror B]

Exhibit 24:
“I can’t see anything we miss’d. u?
articles usent outstanding! gov & pastor up s—t creek.
good thing no one likes them anyway. all public officials
r scum; especially this 1. pastor
is reall a piece of work
…they missed before, but we won’t
…also, keepworking on 30…
will update u on other meeting.
[first name of Juror B]

Normally such evidence would result in dismissal of the jury and an order directing a new trial, but not here. Fuller refused to subpoena the email records in question, to question the jurors about the allegations of improper conduct, or to allow counsel to do the same. When the defendants sought to notify the Internet service providers so that the records could be preserved, the motion was summarily denied. Then Fuller, acting to protect the “sanctity of the jury,” adjourned the case for one year before sentencing—long enough for most Internet service providers to automatically dispose of emails maintained on their servers.

Judge Fuller and the Trial of Don Siegelman by Scott Horton, August 3, 2007.

Mr. Horton also reports on a motion filed by Don Siegelman’s attorneys to recuse Judge Fuller from hearing the case due to his conflicts on interest:

The recusal motion rested upon details about Fuller’s personal business interests. On February 22, 2007, defense attorneys obtained information that Judge Fuller held a controlling 43.75% interest in government contractor Doss Aviation, Inc. After investigating these claims for over a month, the attorneys filed a motion for Fuller’s recusal on April 18, 2007. The motion stated that Fuller’s total stake in Doss Aviation was worth between $1-5 million, and that Fuller’s income from his stock for 2004 was between $100,001 and $1 million dollars.

In other words, Judge Fuller likely made more from his business income, derived from U.S. Government contracts, than as a judge. Fuller is shown on one filing as President of the principal business, Doss Aviation, and his address is shown as One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama, the address of the Frank M. Johnson Federal Courthouse, in which his chambers are located.

[Image in original not reprinted here.]

Doss Aviation, Inc. (motto: “Total Quality Service Isn’t Expensive, It’s Priceless”) and its subsidiary, Aureus International, hold contracts with a number of government agencies. Quoting from defense counsel’s motion for recusal (emphasis in the original):

Doss Aviation, Inc. has been awarded numerous federal military contracts from the United States government worth over $258,000,000, including but not limited to: An , August 2002 contract with the Air Force for $30,474,875 for Helicopter Maintenance, a November 2003 contract with the Navy for $5,190,960 for aircraft refueling, a February 2006 contract with the Air Force for over $178,000,000 for training pilots and navigators, and a March 2006 contract with the Air Force for $4,990,541.28 for training at the United States Air Force Academy. The February 2006 contract with the Air Force for over $178,000,000 is for 10 ½ years, but is renewable from year to year . . .

An Enterprise Ledger article dated April 3, 2005, states that “FBI agents, military and civilian pilots and medical professionals all over the world wear (Aureus International) products which are cut, sewn, inspected, bagged and shipped from its home in Enterprise.”

Doss Aviation and its subsidiaries also held contracts with the FBI. This is problematic when one considers that FBI agents were present at Siegelman’s trial, and that Fuller took the extraordinary step of inviting them to sit at counsel’s table throughout trial. Moreover, while the case was pending, Doss Aviation received a $178 million contract from the federal government.

The Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice intervened, saying almost nothing about the merits of the motion, but attacking the professional integrity and motives of its adversaries. Here’s an excerpt from the government’s response:

[section title] II. The Petition is the Latest Implementation of Defendant Scrushy’s Bad Faith Strategy to Attack the Integrity of the Judicial Process

As discussed above, the United States submits that the defendant’s Petition is a meritless attack on the District Judge who presided over his conviction by a jury. In light of federal courts’ warnings, cited above, to avoid bad faith manipulations and forum-shopping, the United States notes the following indicators of defendant’s bad faith throughout these proceedings.

Even a quick review and judicial notice of the media accounts surrounding this litigation makes evident that the Petition is just another part of an ongoing and considered strategy of attacking every aspect of the judicial process . . . Immediately after the trial, counsel for defendants Siegelman and Scrushy falsely attacked the conduct of the jury . . .

This, of course, fails to address the legal merits of the motion, merely beating up on opposing counsel.

Judge Fuller denied the motion for recusal. His decision raises three issues:

First, Fuller suggests that he is merely a shareholder in an enterprise. In fact, Fuller’s 43.75% interest in a company with a handful of shareholders makes him the controlling shareholder in a tightly held business.

Second, Fuller derides as a “rather fanciful theory” that he would be influenced by the fact that his business interests derive almost entirely from Government contracts, including from the litigant before the court. It seems that Fuller would have us believe that the process of issuing these contracts is divorced from the political world in Washington. That’s absurd: an examination of press statements surrounding contracts awarded to Doss Aviation shows that Fuller’s political mentor, Representative Terry Everett, is regularly cited in connection with the contract awards. Moreover, the entire process of Department of Defense contract awards is now notoriously politicized through “earmarking” and similar processes that effectively allow legislators to steer lucrative contracts into the hands of their political friends. 1

[Footnote] 1. Case in point: immediately after Fuller’s sentencing of Don Siegelman, Siegelman’s Republican successor Bob Riley disappointed his G.O.P. supporters in Cullman County by canceling his appearance at a dinner there and making a sudden and unexpected trip to Washington. Riley stated that he was going to meet with officials at the Department of the Air Force with respect to an important new contract for Alabama—but Riley also met with Senator Jefferson Sessions and two White House aides. He may have missed dinner in Alabama, but that doesn’t mean he missed out on pork.

Third, Fuller states that he “made several rulings in favor” of the defense. I looked through the record, attempting to find the rulings to which Fuller is alluding, and I can’t find them. It is true that Fuller endorsed rulings that were made by the assigned magistrate-judge on some points, but a review of the record will show that Fuller was relentless in his support for the prosecution and his rejection of defense claims.

At the Edge of Judicial Ethics
The recusal motion points to the difficulties of a federal judge continuing to hold active business interests with entities that litigate before them. Usually, judges divest themselves of such interests and place their holdings in a blind trust. But the evidence offered here raises serious question as to the amount of distance Fuller has put between himself and the business interests that provide the bulk of his income. And in this case there has been at least one clear-cut breach. “Fuller’s designation of his judicial chambers as his address in connection with corporate registrations,” said Nan Aron of the Washington-based judicial oversight organization Alliance for Justice, “clearly runs afoul of the rules, as does his retention of any office, including as agent for service of process.”

Two more cases show a curious attitude towards recusal. First, notwithstanding his former membership in the Executive Committee of the Alabama Republican Party, Fuller participated in the resolution of a highly contentious litigation involving interests of the Executive Committee in a case entitled Gustafson v. Johns decided in May 2006.

Second, there is a case now pending in the Middle District that was initially assigned to Fuller, involving a government contract for the procurement and modification of two Russian helicopters. In the middle of the case sits Maverick Aviation, Inc., of Enterprise, Alabama—the same town from which Fuller hails and where his business operations, which would appear to be similar in scope to those of Maverick Aviation, are sited. From the facts described in several accounts, the company would appear to be a direct competitor with Doss Aviation. Fuller, however, handled this case for several months before his recusal was sought and obtained. The recusal order has been placed under seal, making it impossible to learn what conflicts the parties saw in the matter, nor why Judge Fuller felt free to handle the case for some time before withdrawing. It could be legitimate, or it could be a coverup, and there is no way to find out with the seal in place. 2

[Footnote] 2. Sean Reilly, “Bribery Case Involves Russian Copters, Classified Info,” Mobile Press Register, Mar. 7, 2007, p. 01A.

A judge has the responsibility to raise conflict issues on his own initiative—to disclose them to the parties appearing before him, and, when appropriate, to drop out of a case. Judge Fuller, on the other hand, as a committed senior Republican and part-owner of a large business that survives on government contracts, has presided over cases that relate to his personal interests. And that raises questions about the kind of justice he dispensed in the Siegelman case.

The Pork Barrel World of Judge Mark Fuller by Scott Horton, August 6, 2007.

Mr. Horton discussed whether Judge Fuller’s involvement in the Siegelman case was proper with legal ethicist Professor David Luban, the author of the author of Legal Ethics and Human Dignity:

1. Judge Fuller is a Republican, and before coming to the bench he worked on a number of Republican campaigns. He served as a member of the Alabama Republican Executive Committee at a time when Don Siegelman was a Democratic state office holder. Was it proper for Fuller to sit as a judge in the Siegelman prosecution?

There’s a well-accepted legal standard for when a judge should disqualify himself from a case: the judge should bow out when his impartiality can reasonably be questioned. That’s the standard in both the judicial code of ethics and in federal law. The point is to maintain confidence in the fairness and integrity of the legal system. Keeping that in mind, the bare fact that Judge Fuller is a Republican clearly isn’t enough to raise questions. Most judges belong to one party or the other, and a lot got their job on the bench because they were active party members. We expect that they can put mere party sympathy aside when they try cases. But on these facts, Judge Fuller was a lot more than just an active party member. He was a electoral strategist, an executive committee member, and an anti-Siegelman campaigner. How can a reasonable person fail to have doubts about his impartiality? If you’ve spent years organizing the “Beat the Yankees” Club, you should not be umpiring a Yankees game–even if you think you can call the game honestly.

2. In addition to his political engagement, a Siegelman appointee questioned some extraordinary payments Fuller made while he was a district attorney. There was a litigation in which Fuller testified, and the court ruled against him and for the state retirement agency. Fuller was quoted as stating that this was “politically motivated.” Does this raise any questions?

If Judge Fuller complained that it was “politically motivated,” it sounds like he might be blaming Siegelman for it. Without knowing the context it’s hard to tell whether the judge was complaining only about the appointee, or the governor as well. If the latter, it means that the judge had expressed a grudge against Siegelman and obviously should not be trying his case.

3. Judge Fuller appears to derive most of his income from a closely-held business in which he remains the controlling shareholder. The business is almost entirely involved with government contracts, with the Department of Defense and Department of Justice as contractors. What is your reaction when you look at the recusal motion, in which this was set out in some detail, the Justice Department’s response, and Judge Fuller’s ruling?

Generally, the standards for recusal motions are tough, to discourage parties from judge-shopping. I started reading these papers with that viewpoint—namely that the defendant had an almost impossible case to make. But the more I read the papers, the more I was persuaded that this actually was one of those rare cases where the burden was met. Remember: the legal standard is whether you can reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. If so, the law requires the judge to disqualify himself. This is not a run-of-the-mill criminal case where a judge’s commercial side-dealings with the government would not raise a question about pro-government bias. This one is a politically charged case involving a former governor in which political leaders in Washington, D.C., who ultimately exercise tremendous control over the process of military procurement contracts, are likely to take great interest. Given the amount of money Judge Fuller’s company gets from government contracts, any reasonable person would question how impartial he could be. He should not have taken this case, and with a recusal motion made, he had no option but to drop out.

What amazes me about these facts is that they combine past political activism against the governor, a possible grudge against the governor, and the judge’s company’s financial dependence on the government’s good graces. If they’re right (I don’t have any independent knowledge of that), any one by itself would raise reasonable questions about the judge’s ability to be impartial. Taken together, we have a perfect storm. Under these circumstances, impartiality would take superhuman self-control, and we don’t expect judges to be superhuman. The recusal standard is designed so that we don’t have to expect it.

4. You read the Justice Department’s papers, which were filed both by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Montgomery and by the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.

I was troubled by the papers filed by the Department of Justice. Half the argument is an ad hominem attack on their adversary’s attorneys for daring to question the government’s fairness. Without offering any evidence, it accuses them of bad faith, and it’s loaded with insulting adjectives. The motion makes it look like the government is blowing smoke to deflect attention away from the real issue.

But rhetorical overkill isn’t the main problem. The most troubling problem is that the Justice Department’s Professional Integrity Section joined this response. That was a real lapse of professional judgment. PIN (as it’s called) is in charge of policing public officials. That includes judges as well as elected officials. Under some circumstances, PIN could be called on to make an independent after-the-fact assessment of Judge Fuller’s conduct. By signing onto the Justice Department’s submission at this point, before there’s been a hearing on the recusal motion, the Public Integrity Section makes it virtually impossible for it to do its oversight job later, because it’s already staked out a position on the case before hearing all sides of the argument.

An Interview with Legal Ethicist David Luban Regarding Judge Mark Fuller by Scott Horton, August 7, 2007.

Mr. Horton details additional improper conduct of Judge Fuller:

Back in October 2002, Brown filed a FOIA request, Brown v. Ashcroft, to compel the Justice Department to release documents relating to the case. The case was bounced down to Montgomery and assigned to Mark Everett Fuller. Shortly after the suit was filed, Justice responded, releasing over 1,000 documents, and then seeking summary judgment on the grounds that the relief that Brown was seeking had been granted.

Two years later, Fuller disposed of this case acting sua sponte. He struck the names of Alice Martin and John Ashcroft from the caption and then dismissed the case for “failure to state a claim,” concluding that Brown’s letters of request had been too vague.

Fuller’s conduct is bizarre. There was nothing vague about the letters, and indeed, the Justice Department found them in order and processed the request. It appears to me that Fuller was spinning, trying to clean up the record in a way that would eliminate Alice Martin’s name from public visibility. He had become a far more engaged defender of the Gonzales Justice Department than the department was of its own interests. And that’s also the posture he adopted at the Siegelman trial. Is this the way an impartial federal judge handles a matter?

The Alice Martin Perjury Inquiry by Scott Horton, September 8, 2007.

And the allegations of unethical – as well as criminal – conduct by Judge Fuller are not limited to the Siegelman case. As reported by Mr. Horton:

I have received a copy of an affidavit (8.7Mb PDF) filed by a Missouri attorney in 2003 which details a number of charges of unethical and criminal conduct against Judge Mark Fuller. The attorney sought Fuller’s removal from a high-profile litigation which related to a prominent Republican who was close to both the current President Bush and his father.

The attorney, Paul Benton Weeks, had been involved as counsel for plaintiffs in a civil action called Murray v. Scott & Sevier, which had originally been filed in Kansas and was later transferred to Montgomery and assigned to Judge Fuller. Weeks, reached by telephone this morning, advised me that he did a routine background check to discover what kind of judge he was up before. “I was astonished by what I found,” Weeks said. Immediately after the papers were filed, Weeks said that Fuller was removed as the judge handling the case.

In the affidavit, Weeks accuses Fuller of engaging in criminal conduct both before and after he came on to the bench. The charges include perjury, criminal conspiracy, a criminal attempt to defraud the Retirement System of Alabama, misuse of office as a District Attorney, and an obstruction of his background check by the FBI in connection with the review of his appointment by President Bush to the bench. (I faxed a copy of the affidavit to Fuller’s office and also left a message asking for comment, but received no reply; if Fuller does reply I’ll update this post.)

Weeks’s allegations were transmitted to Noel Hillman, the head of the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice, among other recipients. Hillman’s office has responsibility to conduct investigations into allegations concerning wrongdoing by federal judges.

This means that at the time that Fuller was presiding over the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman, a prosecution brought by Noel Hillman’s Public Integrity Section, he was or should have been the subject of an investigation by the Public Integrity Section. [Italics in original] * * *

Weeks’s allegations are focused on Fuller’s conduct in connection with “salary spiking” involving two of his employees in the District Attorney’s office. Fuller’s testimony, which Weeks says was contradictory and which changed materially in the course of the matter, was disbelieved both by the RSA and by an Alabama court handling the matter. Weeks calls Fuller’s statements under oath perjured. * * *

Weeks’s affidavit reflects interviews with Fuller’s successor in the district attorney’s office and with senior officials at the RSA, who confirm the allegations against Fuller. “Judge McAliley then said that he had met with RSA officials and that every member on the RSA board believed Mark Fuller had lied and that Fuller had lied under oath.” [Italics in original.]

Weeks notes that after the affidavit was transmitted to the Justice Department, no individual from Noel Hillman’s group ever contacted him to follow up on any of the allegations or to request any of the documentation that was cited in the affidavit.

* * *

2003 Affidavit Raises More Serious Questions About Siegelman Judge, by Scott Horton, October 16, 2007.

Rules Violated:

  1. RULE 3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL
  2. RULE 3.5 IMPARTIALITY AND DECORUM OF THE TRIBUNAL
  3. RULE 8.3 REPORTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
  4. RULE 8.4 MISCONDUCT

Text and comments of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct violated by Mr. Fuller

The immorality of torture leads – inevitably – to prosecutorial misconduct

At Balkinization, Professor David Luban discusses how the adoption of a torture regimen results in this additional unintended consequence: government lawyers are systematically violating “ethics rule[s] forbidding them from speaking with parties who have legal representation without obtaining consent of the party’s lawyer.” Professor Luban explains in greater detail:

This is the “no-contact rule” in the ethics codes. Under existing law, contact forbidden to lawyers is forbidden to their agents and investigators as well. Rather clearly, the Clean Team were doing investigations on behalf of the prosecution, and in fact the Times story [link] quotes a government official who confirms the role that prosecutors played in guiding the Clean Team.

All the Guantanamo detainees are represented by lawyers handling their habeas corpus and Detainee Treatment Act cases. And the Clean Team re-interrogations are poster children for exactly the evil that the no-contact rule was designed to remedy: getting a represented party to make admissions that he would never make if his lawyer had the opportunity to advise him.

* * * [I]n 1998, Congress passed the McDade Amendment, which requires federal prosecutors to abide by state ethics rules, including the no-contact rule. * * * Military lawyers aren’t covered by the McDade Amendement [sic], but their own ethics codes contain the no-contact rule, and require them to follow state bar rules. [Link here to the adopted rules of professional conduct for all 50 states plus Washington, D.C.]

The ABA’s version of the no-contact rule reads: “In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order.” (State and military rules are similar.)

In the Guantanamo cases, three questions occur. First, is the subject of the representation the same? The Clean Team wants witnesses to talk about 9/11 and who was involved; the habeas lawyers are challenging the legality of their imprisonment. These are not identical legal issues, but the overlap is obvious: both have to do with who the detainee is, who he knows, and what the nature of his involvement with Al Qaeda is, if any. It’s hard to believe that the Clean Team interrogations are not about “the subject of the representation.”

Second, are the prosecutors authorized by law to question represented persons without the consent of their lawyers? As far as I know, no such law exists (do readers have information to the contrary?) And third, were the Gitmo prosecutors authorized to send out the Clean Team by a court order of the military commissions? If so, has it been made public? Revealed to defense counsel? Was there an adversarial hearing over whether such a court order would be proper? I’m fairly confident that the answer to the last set of questions is no. Put it all together, and it looks like the activities of the Clean Team stem from unclean prosecution tactics.

So what rationale do these government lawyers use to justify their actions? Professor Luban explains:

[T]he government does not consider the detainees’ lawyers to actually represent them, because the habeas and DTA lawyers were not assigned by the military commissions Appointing Authority. In an e-mail to me, [Charles] Swift[, who represents Salim Hamdan,] posed the question this way: “When is an attorney not an attorney?” Answer: when the government wants to pretend that the attorney’s client is unrepresented, in order to send the Clean Team in to get information that will avoid all the unpleasantness that torture raises in regimes that purport to respect the rule of law. * * *

Professor Luban correctly concludes:

Admittedly, in the grand scheme of things prosecutorial violations of the no-contact rule don’t have nearly the significance of all the other things wrong with Guantanamo and the military commissions. But the Clean Team and its investigations are part of something that goes much deeper than infractions of the ethics rules: dealing with tortured evidence in a legal system that purports to be civilized. * * *

* * * For years, critics have predicted that – along with all its other evils – torture would make it harder to bring terrorist criminals to justice. Those chickens are now coming home to roost. Small wonder if prosecutors have to cheat on their professional ethics to try to make the stain go away.

The damages caused by the arrogance, recklessness and incompetence of the Bush administration and its lawyers continue to increase. Had enough? File a grievance.

E.M.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,