Source: Daily KOS
by Andrew Krieg
August 7, 2009
Netroots Nation hosts an unprecedented forum on Aug. 15 in Pittsburgh to help journalists learn how Bush administration prosecutors altered the U.S. political map by corruption investigations of Democrats, who were targeted by at least 5:1 ratios.
Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and former Pennsylvania Allegheny County Coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht will show how "selective prosecution" unfairly ruined careers and poses an ongoing threat to our legal system.
The forum is, "Reporting DoJ Misconduct Scandals: Why Netroots Remains Last Hope for Justice." The title reflects largely failed oversight by courts, Congress and traditional media – and the breakthrough reporting opportunity right now for others, based on major recent revelations.
I’m Andrew Kreig, a journalist/attorney who is moderating the forum after researching the public impact of DoJ's mid-term dismissals of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006. White House political advisor Karl Rove helped remove them, including seven on one day. Congressional hearings documented how so-called "Loyal Bushies" tried get rid of law enforcers who refrained from political hit jobs, such as pre-election indictments to affect an election.
Click here for rest of story and poll.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Langford, Blount, LaPierre lawyers seek to delay fraud trial
Lawyers for Langford, others want time to review
Source: The Birmingham News
by Jeremy Gray, News staff writer
July 21, 2009
Attorneys for Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford, Montgomery investment banker Bill Blount and lobbyist Al LaPierre are seeking to delay their trial on charges of mail fraud, bribery, money laundering and conspiracy until November.
In a request filed in federal court in Birmingham on Wednesday, attorneys Tom Baddley, Tommy Spina and Robert Joe McLean argue that a continuance granted in March that delayed the trial from May 4 until Aug. 31 did not give them enough time to review evidence.
On May 28, prosecutors gave the attorneys 500 gigabytes of information pertaining to the case, the attorneys wrote in their continuance request. However, prosecutors told defense attorneys the information was not evidentiary and not pertinent to the case.
Defense attorneys argue they need more time to review the material, and compared the situation to the prosecution of former Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, suggesting prosecutors intended "to bury the defendants in irrelevant material while fighting them on relevant material."
Attorneys for the three also offered these reasons for the delay:
Other recent corruption trials in Jefferson County "have changed the atmosphere in which this case will be tried" and the defense needs more time to prepare, they wrote.
Citing the economic downturn and "the effects of the indictment," they wrote that the defendants do not have "the finances necessary to provide an adequate defense."
McLean, an attorney for LaPierre, said Monday that U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Greene has not ruled on the request.
In a response filed Thursday, Acting U.S. Attorney James Phillips wrote that prosecutors have turned over all evidence to the defense.
"The United States has fulfilled its obligations and will continue to do so," Phillips wrote.
E-mail: jgray@bhamnews.com
Source: The Birmingham News
by Jeremy Gray, News staff writer
July 21, 2009
Attorneys for Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford, Montgomery investment banker Bill Blount and lobbyist Al LaPierre are seeking to delay their trial on charges of mail fraud, bribery, money laundering and conspiracy until November.
In a request filed in federal court in Birmingham on Wednesday, attorneys Tom Baddley, Tommy Spina and Robert Joe McLean argue that a continuance granted in March that delayed the trial from May 4 until Aug. 31 did not give them enough time to review evidence.
On May 28, prosecutors gave the attorneys 500 gigabytes of information pertaining to the case, the attorneys wrote in their continuance request. However, prosecutors told defense attorneys the information was not evidentiary and not pertinent to the case.
Defense attorneys argue they need more time to review the material, and compared the situation to the prosecution of former Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, suggesting prosecutors intended "to bury the defendants in irrelevant material while fighting them on relevant material."
Attorneys for the three also offered these reasons for the delay:
Other recent corruption trials in Jefferson County "have changed the atmosphere in which this case will be tried" and the defense needs more time to prepare, they wrote.
Citing the economic downturn and "the effects of the indictment," they wrote that the defendants do not have "the finances necessary to provide an adequate defense."
McLean, an attorney for LaPierre, said Monday that U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Greene has not ruled on the request.
In a response filed Thursday, Acting U.S. Attorney James Phillips wrote that prosecutors have turned over all evidence to the defense.
"The United States has fulfilled its obligations and will continue to do so," Phillips wrote.
E-mail: jgray@bhamnews.com
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
FOIA Requests Sent to US Attorney's Office
The Citizens for Equality organization has decided to take drastic steps to seek accountability on the part of the Government and the media in their pursuit of Jefferson County officials and their associates. Linked below are two Freedom of Information requests sent to the US Attorney's office in Birmingham and the FBI. Citizens for Equality believe that the information sought in these requests will shed light upon the highly conspicuous relationship between the US Attorneys office in Birmingham and various media outlets. The organization contends that their actions have resulted in an impediment to the guarantee of due process in the Northern District US Attorneys office.
FBI FOIA Request
Northern District of Alabama FOIA Request
FBI FOIA Request
Northern District of Alabama FOIA Request
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
ABA compares DOJ Disciplinary Agency to a Roach Motel
As the DOJ’s disciplinary agency all but disappears, judges take matters into their own hands
Source: ABA Journal
July 2009 Issue
By John Gibeau
The government’s evidence linking reputed mob figures Vincent “the Animal” Ferrara and Pasquale “Patsy” Barone to a 1985 murder was pretty thin—an accomplice who escaped prosecution in exchange for testimony against the pair.
But a little over a year after the 1990 racketeering indictments of Ferrara, Barone and six other members of New England’s Patriarca crime family, a federal prosecutor in Boston learned his putative star witness had recanted.
Yet the prosecutor never told defense about the recantation, which he and a detective recorded in writing. Indeed, the defendants didn’t learn of the memos until 2003, when the detective spilled the beans at a hearing on habeas corpus petitions they filed seeking their release from long prison sentences.
Ultimately both went free, Barone in 2003 from a life sentence and Fer rara in ’05 from a 22-year term. Chief U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf, who had imposed both sentences, was forced to cut them short.
The prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Auerhahn, was investigated by Massachusetts state bar authorities. Wolf dropped a dime on him after learning that Auerhahn’s boss had simply reprimanded him be hind closed doors. That just wasn’t good enough for Wolf, considering he had to release two defendants re garded as especially dangerous. Auerhahn still works at the U.S. attor ney’s office in Boston, pros ecuting terrorism cases.
But, going where few judges would, Wolf also penned an extraordi nary series of letters—first to Attor ney General Alberto R. Gonzales and then to his successor, Michael B. Mukasey—stating his case for stiffer punishment and voicing his frustration with the Justice Department’s secretive Office of Professional Re spon sibility, which is supposed to investigate complaints of mis con duct by prosecutors and law enforcement officials who work for the department.
“The department’s performance in the Auerhahn matter raises serious questions about whether judges should continue to rely upon the department to investigate and sanction misconduct by federal prosecutors,” Wolf wrote in a January 2008 letter to Mukasey.
Wolf, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, warned Mukasey that more jurists would begin punishing prosecutors behaving badly if the OPR didn’t.
“I anticipate this will become much more common unless the department’s performance in disciplinary matters improves significantly,” the judge cautioned.
Wolf’s stinging rebuke came not only from a veteran jurist, but from someone who as a young prosecutor helped set in motion the department’s disciplinary machinery in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal.
“As one who took pride in assisting Attorney General Edward Levi in establishing OPR more than 30 years ago,” Wolf told Mukasey, “I sadly doubt it is now capable of serving its intended purpose.”
Critics historically have regarded the OPR as inept at policing its own. Wolf’s exchanges with the attorney general also come amid calls for more transparency.
“I used to call it the Roach Motel of the Justice Department,” says Fordham University law professor Bruce A. Green, a former federal prosecutor and ethics committee co-chair for the ABA Criminal Justice Section. “Cases check in, but they don’t check out.”
The Justice Department established the OPR in December 1975 to investigate allegations of pro fes sional misconduct made against DOJ at torneys and, under certain circumstances, law enforcement personnel, including agents of the Fed eral Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
At the DOJ’s request, the section council deferred action in April on a resolution calling on Justice to disclose OPR findings in which it has documented intentional or otherwise serious misconduct. The move gave Justice more time to determine the extent to which a new Free dom of Infor ma tion Act policy presuming disclosure applies to the OPR.
The ABA had wanted the OPR to return to a Clinton-era policy favoring release when probes found inten tion al or serious misconduct, while weigh ing concerns for personal privacy and ongoing investigations.
Under the Bush administration, probes of misconduct often went undisclosed because of the poten tial for personal embarrassment. Upon taking office, President Barack Obama admonished all federal agencies that such personal or political considerations shouldn’t weigh against the public interest. Probes should not be withheld just because they might cause discomfort.
“These people should be embarrassed,” Green says.
Read Full Article...
Source: ABA Journal
July 2009 Issue
By John Gibeau
The government’s evidence linking reputed mob figures Vincent “the Animal” Ferrara and Pasquale “Patsy” Barone to a 1985 murder was pretty thin—an accomplice who escaped prosecution in exchange for testimony against the pair.
But a little over a year after the 1990 racketeering indictments of Ferrara, Barone and six other members of New England’s Patriarca crime family, a federal prosecutor in Boston learned his putative star witness had recanted.
Yet the prosecutor never told defense about the recantation, which he and a detective recorded in writing. Indeed, the defendants didn’t learn of the memos until 2003, when the detective spilled the beans at a hearing on habeas corpus petitions they filed seeking their release from long prison sentences.
Ultimately both went free, Barone in 2003 from a life sentence and Fer rara in ’05 from a 22-year term. Chief U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf, who had imposed both sentences, was forced to cut them short.
The prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Auerhahn, was investigated by Massachusetts state bar authorities. Wolf dropped a dime on him after learning that Auerhahn’s boss had simply reprimanded him be hind closed doors. That just wasn’t good enough for Wolf, considering he had to release two defendants re garded as especially dangerous. Auerhahn still works at the U.S. attor ney’s office in Boston, pros ecuting terrorism cases.
But, going where few judges would, Wolf also penned an extraordi nary series of letters—first to Attor ney General Alberto R. Gonzales and then to his successor, Michael B. Mukasey—stating his case for stiffer punishment and voicing his frustration with the Justice Department’s secretive Office of Professional Re spon sibility, which is supposed to investigate complaints of mis con duct by prosecutors and law enforcement officials who work for the department.
“The department’s performance in the Auerhahn matter raises serious questions about whether judges should continue to rely upon the department to investigate and sanction misconduct by federal prosecutors,” Wolf wrote in a January 2008 letter to Mukasey.
Wolf, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, warned Mukasey that more jurists would begin punishing prosecutors behaving badly if the OPR didn’t.
“I anticipate this will become much more common unless the department’s performance in disciplinary matters improves significantly,” the judge cautioned.
Wolf’s stinging rebuke came not only from a veteran jurist, but from someone who as a young prosecutor helped set in motion the department’s disciplinary machinery in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal.
“As one who took pride in assisting Attorney General Edward Levi in establishing OPR more than 30 years ago,” Wolf told Mukasey, “I sadly doubt it is now capable of serving its intended purpose.”
Critics historically have regarded the OPR as inept at policing its own. Wolf’s exchanges with the attorney general also come amid calls for more transparency.
“I used to call it the Roach Motel of the Justice Department,” says Fordham University law professor Bruce A. Green, a former federal prosecutor and ethics committee co-chair for the ABA Criminal Justice Section. “Cases check in, but they don’t check out.”
The Justice Department established the OPR in December 1975 to investigate allegations of pro fes sional misconduct made against DOJ at torneys and, under certain circumstances, law enforcement personnel, including agents of the Fed eral Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
At the DOJ’s request, the section council deferred action in April on a resolution calling on Justice to disclose OPR findings in which it has documented intentional or otherwise serious misconduct. The move gave Justice more time to determine the extent to which a new Free dom of Infor ma tion Act policy presuming disclosure applies to the OPR.
The ABA had wanted the OPR to return to a Clinton-era policy favoring release when probes found inten tion al or serious misconduct, while weigh ing concerns for personal privacy and ongoing investigations.
Under the Bush administration, probes of misconduct often went undisclosed because of the poten tial for personal embarrassment. Upon taking office, President Barack Obama admonished all federal agencies that such personal or political considerations shouldn’t weigh against the public interest. Probes should not be withheld just because they might cause discomfort.
“These people should be embarrassed,” Green says.
Read Full Article...
Letter to The Honorable John Conyers
Re. Misconduct in US Attorney's Office in AL
The Honorable John Conyers, Chairman
House Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Mr. Chairman:
I am writing to bring a very troubling matter to your attention regarding the actions of United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Alabama.
As a result of an investigation into possible corruption in Jefferson County, Alabama, the US Attorney’s office recently indicted and arrested Birmingham, Alabama Mayor Larry Langford; former Chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party William Blount; and former Executive Director of the Alabama Democratic Party Al LaPierre.
Mayor Langford's attorney sent letters to the prosecutors in April and May of 2008 making it clear that if Mayor Langford was in fact indicted, he would voluntarily surrender at a time and place of the US Attorney’s choosing. Mr. Langford was indicted on Monday, December 1 and arrested at his place of employment. The event was only prevented from being a media spectacle by the actions of Birmingham police officers who were serving as Mayor Langford's security detail. These officers interceded with Federal officials, keeping the event from turning into a media circus.
Mr. Blount and Mr. Lapierre voluntarily surrendered only to be arraigned with Mayor Langford in court with all three men forced to appear in shackles. When confronted by the media about the different manner the three defendants were detained, the U.S. Attorney's office said that all three were to be arrested, however no documents were produced to prove this nor to explain the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s inability to locate the two other men even though the FBI had their home addresses and their business addresses.
It is obvious these extreme measures were absolutely unnecessary and show a troubling desire on the part of the U.S. Attorney’s office to maximize the embarrassment and media exposure of its targets. Sadly, this latest spectacle is only the latest example of this office’s unprofessional and irresponsible behavior.
As you know, as a result of your committee's investigation and report in 2007, the U.S. Attorney, Mrs. Alice Martin, was referred by your committee to the Office of Professional Responsibility for investigation due to the office’s actions in the case of Don Siegelman.
The U.S. Attorney’s office indicted Governor Siegelman in 2004 in a case that was dropped for lack of evidence. In that case, Federal Judge U. W. Clemons scrutinized the prosecutions case, and ruled that there was a lack of prima facie evidence to proceed after the prosecution could not produce the witnesses that it had represented to the Court would prove their case.
In that case, Assistant, US Attorney Matt Hart, who is the lead prosecutor on the Langford case, was reprimanded from the bench after attempting to proffer knowingly false testimony from a witness and for leaking information to friendly media outlets even though the Judge had required the documents to be filed under seal.
Doug Jones, former U. S. Attorney for the Northern District, testified before your committee on October 23, 2007, that Matt Hart, then a Alabama Assistant Attorney General, told Doug Jones’s staff that he hoped the Bobo investigation would go to the highest levels of the Siegelman administration. Matt Horn was the Assistant U. S. Attorney in Birmingham that handled the 2004 case that he "hoped" the investigation, that at that time did not involve Don Siegelman, would "lead to Siegelman". Mr. Hart's comment implied that the U. S. Attorney’s office was targeting an individual and not prosecuting crime.
Subsequently, Mr. Hart was referred to the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility for investigation. OPR has not disclosed if there was an investigation or the results of that investigation, but Matt Hart continues to oversee investigations. He is on the Langford prosecution team.
The egregious behavior of this office continued into early 2007 as it was investigating corruption of the Alabama two year college system.
The Governor of Alabama, Bob Riley, announced that he would be aiding the Alabama Republican Party in raising 40 million dollars with the sole goal of winning control of the Alabama legislature. Within forty eight hours of Riley's pronouncement, The U.S. Attorney’s office leaked to the Birmingham News that its investigation into the Alabama two year college system would now include members of the Alabama Legislature.
Following through with the U.S. Attorney’s office pledge to widen its probe to include members of the Alabama legislature the office began targeting the Democratic members of the Alabama Legislature. In violation of state law regarding legal service on members of the legislature, the US Attorney attempted to serve subpoenas on 14 members of the Alabama legislature while their respective bodies were in session even to the point of attempting to have them served on the floor of the legislature. Of the 14 representatives subpoenaed, all were Democrats except two who were widely known to not tow the Republican party line and not in the good graces of Governor Riley. Though it has never been proven there seemed to be more than average media attendance to the legislative session on that day.
The Langford investigation centers on actions taken by members of the Jefferson County Commission from 2003 through 2007. One of those commissioners, Gary White was indicted in May, 2008. White was also a witness in the Siegelman case and played a role in introducing Richard Scrushy to Don Siegelman. According to an affidavit filed by Whites wife, an FBI agent wanted White to change his testimony about that meeting in order to be more damaging to Siegelman at Siegelman's sentencing hearing. After refusing, White reportedly was reminded by the agent that he continued to have this other investigation to be concerned about. White's wife states that her husband told the agent that he would not change his testimony and was not concerned about what would occur in the Jefferson County investigation. A few months later, Gary White was indicted by Alice Martin.
The only member of the commission who has not been indicted, Bettye Fine Collins, is a woman who is a member of the Republican National Committee and serves as Chair of the National Organization of Republican Women. She testified under oath that she took money from John Katopodis, who was receiving funding from the County at the same time she was voting on Mr. Katopodis’ organization funding. The irony is that Commissioner Gary White was indicted for similar actions.
Aside from what I feel is an abundance of evidence that this U.S. Attorney’s office selectively prosecutes individuals with whom it’s employees disagrees politically, it also has a history of gross incompetence and professional negligence.
The most blinding of which is the case of Alex Latifi and his company Axion. Martin targeted Latifi for prosecution and in the process, sought to destroy this man's business and his life, knowing full well that the "facts" they were asserting to the jury and to the judge were in fact NOT TRUE.
The U.S. Attorney’s office sought to destroy this man - not to prosecute a crime. Not only was Mr. Latifi acquitted, but the injustice dealt him was deemed so outrageous by a federal judge, that the case was thrown out, and the judge ordered US Attorney Alice Martin to pay all court costs and all expenses the defendant had to pay in order to prepare his defense.
Mr. Chairman, there is no justification whatsoever for this U. S. Attorney’s office - which is under investigation for professional misconduct, who has knowingly targeted individuals for political purposes, and who knowingly prosecuted an innocent man - to be allowed to remain involved in the Langford case.
Since the American Bar Association’s article “Roach Motel” has stated the DOJ's disciplinary agency has all but disappeared, it is more important that Congress continues to hold the Department of Justice accountable for its employees’ misconduct. The question has to be asked if the Department of Justice is bold enough to engage in misconduct in these types of high profile cases what are they doing in the cases involving ordinary citizens that do not have the money or the resources to combat the power of the Government?
Sincerely,
Tracie Allen
House Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Mr. Chairman:
I am writing to bring a very troubling matter to your attention regarding the actions of United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Alabama.
As a result of an investigation into possible corruption in Jefferson County, Alabama, the US Attorney’s office recently indicted and arrested Birmingham, Alabama Mayor Larry Langford; former Chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party William Blount; and former Executive Director of the Alabama Democratic Party Al LaPierre.
Mayor Langford's attorney sent letters to the prosecutors in April and May of 2008 making it clear that if Mayor Langford was in fact indicted, he would voluntarily surrender at a time and place of the US Attorney’s choosing. Mr. Langford was indicted on Monday, December 1 and arrested at his place of employment. The event was only prevented from being a media spectacle by the actions of Birmingham police officers who were serving as Mayor Langford's security detail. These officers interceded with Federal officials, keeping the event from turning into a media circus.
Mr. Blount and Mr. Lapierre voluntarily surrendered only to be arraigned with Mayor Langford in court with all three men forced to appear in shackles. When confronted by the media about the different manner the three defendants were detained, the U.S. Attorney's office said that all three were to be arrested, however no documents were produced to prove this nor to explain the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s inability to locate the two other men even though the FBI had their home addresses and their business addresses.
It is obvious these extreme measures were absolutely unnecessary and show a troubling desire on the part of the U.S. Attorney’s office to maximize the embarrassment and media exposure of its targets. Sadly, this latest spectacle is only the latest example of this office’s unprofessional and irresponsible behavior.
As you know, as a result of your committee's investigation and report in 2007, the U.S. Attorney, Mrs. Alice Martin, was referred by your committee to the Office of Professional Responsibility for investigation due to the office’s actions in the case of Don Siegelman.
The U.S. Attorney’s office indicted Governor Siegelman in 2004 in a case that was dropped for lack of evidence. In that case, Federal Judge U. W. Clemons scrutinized the prosecutions case, and ruled that there was a lack of prima facie evidence to proceed after the prosecution could not produce the witnesses that it had represented to the Court would prove their case.
In that case, Assistant, US Attorney Matt Hart, who is the lead prosecutor on the Langford case, was reprimanded from the bench after attempting to proffer knowingly false testimony from a witness and for leaking information to friendly media outlets even though the Judge had required the documents to be filed under seal.
Doug Jones, former U. S. Attorney for the Northern District, testified before your committee on October 23, 2007, that Matt Hart, then a Alabama Assistant Attorney General, told Doug Jones’s staff that he hoped the Bobo investigation would go to the highest levels of the Siegelman administration. Matt Horn was the Assistant U. S. Attorney in Birmingham that handled the 2004 case that he "hoped" the investigation, that at that time did not involve Don Siegelman, would "lead to Siegelman". Mr. Hart's comment implied that the U. S. Attorney’s office was targeting an individual and not prosecuting crime.
Subsequently, Mr. Hart was referred to the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility for investigation. OPR has not disclosed if there was an investigation or the results of that investigation, but Matt Hart continues to oversee investigations. He is on the Langford prosecution team.
The egregious behavior of this office continued into early 2007 as it was investigating corruption of the Alabama two year college system.
The Governor of Alabama, Bob Riley, announced that he would be aiding the Alabama Republican Party in raising 40 million dollars with the sole goal of winning control of the Alabama legislature. Within forty eight hours of Riley's pronouncement, The U.S. Attorney’s office leaked to the Birmingham News that its investigation into the Alabama two year college system would now include members of the Alabama Legislature.
Following through with the U.S. Attorney’s office pledge to widen its probe to include members of the Alabama legislature the office began targeting the Democratic members of the Alabama Legislature. In violation of state law regarding legal service on members of the legislature, the US Attorney attempted to serve subpoenas on 14 members of the Alabama legislature while their respective bodies were in session even to the point of attempting to have them served on the floor of the legislature. Of the 14 representatives subpoenaed, all were Democrats except two who were widely known to not tow the Republican party line and not in the good graces of Governor Riley. Though it has never been proven there seemed to be more than average media attendance to the legislative session on that day.
The Langford investigation centers on actions taken by members of the Jefferson County Commission from 2003 through 2007. One of those commissioners, Gary White was indicted in May, 2008. White was also a witness in the Siegelman case and played a role in introducing Richard Scrushy to Don Siegelman. According to an affidavit filed by Whites wife, an FBI agent wanted White to change his testimony about that meeting in order to be more damaging to Siegelman at Siegelman's sentencing hearing. After refusing, White reportedly was reminded by the agent that he continued to have this other investigation to be concerned about. White's wife states that her husband told the agent that he would not change his testimony and was not concerned about what would occur in the Jefferson County investigation. A few months later, Gary White was indicted by Alice Martin.
The only member of the commission who has not been indicted, Bettye Fine Collins, is a woman who is a member of the Republican National Committee and serves as Chair of the National Organization of Republican Women. She testified under oath that she took money from John Katopodis, who was receiving funding from the County at the same time she was voting on Mr. Katopodis’ organization funding. The irony is that Commissioner Gary White was indicted for similar actions.
Aside from what I feel is an abundance of evidence that this U.S. Attorney’s office selectively prosecutes individuals with whom it’s employees disagrees politically, it also has a history of gross incompetence and professional negligence.
The most blinding of which is the case of Alex Latifi and his company Axion. Martin targeted Latifi for prosecution and in the process, sought to destroy this man's business and his life, knowing full well that the "facts" they were asserting to the jury and to the judge were in fact NOT TRUE.
The U.S. Attorney’s office sought to destroy this man - not to prosecute a crime. Not only was Mr. Latifi acquitted, but the injustice dealt him was deemed so outrageous by a federal judge, that the case was thrown out, and the judge ordered US Attorney Alice Martin to pay all court costs and all expenses the defendant had to pay in order to prepare his defense.
Mr. Chairman, there is no justification whatsoever for this U. S. Attorney’s office - which is under investigation for professional misconduct, who has knowingly targeted individuals for political purposes, and who knowingly prosecuted an innocent man - to be allowed to remain involved in the Langford case.
Since the American Bar Association’s article “Roach Motel” has stated the DOJ's disciplinary agency has all but disappeared, it is more important that Congress continues to hold the Department of Justice accountable for its employees’ misconduct. The question has to be asked if the Department of Justice is bold enough to engage in misconduct in these types of high profile cases what are they doing in the cases involving ordinary citizens that do not have the money or the resources to combat the power of the Government?
Sincerely,
Tracie Allen
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Justice Dept. Whistle-Blower in Alabama Case Is Fired
Source: The New York Times
By John Schwartz
July 9, 2009
A Department of Justice whistle-blower who accused prosecutors of misconduct in the closely watched federal corruption trial of former Gov. Donald E. Siegelman of Alabama has been fired, and claims retaliation is the reason. The government denies that it was retaliating.
The whistle-blower, Tamarah T. Grimes, worked as a legal aide with the team prosecuting Mr. Siegelman and Richard M. Scrushy, the former chairman of HealthSouth, on bribery and corruption charges.
Both men were convicted in 2006 in a case that Mr. Siegelman, a Democrat, and supporters say was politically motivated.
Ms. Grimes filed her complaints in 2007 under whistle-blower protection laws, accusing prosecutors of several misdeeds. Included were improper communications with jurors and the continuing involvement of the United States attorney for Alabama, Leura G. Canary, long after Ms. Canary, a Republican, said she had removed herself from the case because of partisan ties.
Ms. Grimes received word of her firing on June 9 from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, according to a statement she issued.
In her statement, Ms. Grimes called the firing, which was first reported on a Harper’s Magazine blog, “the price for opposition.”
On June 1, she had sent a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that laid out her concerns in the case; that letter was included by the legal team for Mr. Siegelman in filings seeking a new trial.
A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, Tracy Schmaler, said Ms. Grimes’s firing had no connection to the misconduct claims.
“The department takes seriously its obligation under the whistle-blower law and did not violate it with regards to the termination of this employee,” Ms. Schmaler said, declining to offer further comment “for privacy reasons” in a personnel matter.
The department investigated Ms. Grimes’s accusations, and in its report last October said the Alabama prosecutors had not “violated any law, rule or regulation” or engaged in mismanagement. The report said the evidence “strongly supports” the positions taken by management in the dispute.
The House Judiciary Committee, however, released a report the next month criticizing the Justice Department report as incomplete and “one-sided.”
Ms. Grimes had been on administrative leave for much of the previous year.
By John Schwartz
July 9, 2009
A Department of Justice whistle-blower who accused prosecutors of misconduct in the closely watched federal corruption trial of former Gov. Donald E. Siegelman of Alabama has been fired, and claims retaliation is the reason. The government denies that it was retaliating.
The whistle-blower, Tamarah T. Grimes, worked as a legal aide with the team prosecuting Mr. Siegelman and Richard M. Scrushy, the former chairman of HealthSouth, on bribery and corruption charges.
Both men were convicted in 2006 in a case that Mr. Siegelman, a Democrat, and supporters say was politically motivated.
Ms. Grimes filed her complaints in 2007 under whistle-blower protection laws, accusing prosecutors of several misdeeds. Included were improper communications with jurors and the continuing involvement of the United States attorney for Alabama, Leura G. Canary, long after Ms. Canary, a Republican, said she had removed herself from the case because of partisan ties.
Ms. Grimes received word of her firing on June 9 from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, according to a statement she issued.
In her statement, Ms. Grimes called the firing, which was first reported on a Harper’s Magazine blog, “the price for opposition.”
On June 1, she had sent a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that laid out her concerns in the case; that letter was included by the legal team for Mr. Siegelman in filings seeking a new trial.
A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, Tracy Schmaler, said Ms. Grimes’s firing had no connection to the misconduct claims.
“The department takes seriously its obligation under the whistle-blower law and did not violate it with regards to the termination of this employee,” Ms. Schmaler said, declining to offer further comment “for privacy reasons” in a personnel matter.
The department investigated Ms. Grimes’s accusations, and in its report last October said the Alabama prosecutors had not “violated any law, rule or regulation” or engaged in mismanagement. The report said the evidence “strongly supports” the positions taken by management in the dispute.
The House Judiciary Committee, however, released a report the next month criticizing the Justice Department report as incomplete and “one-sided.”
Ms. Grimes had been on administrative leave for much of the previous year.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Federal Judge Spotlights Misconduct by Federal Prosecutors in Siegelman Case
Source: Harper's Magazine
By Scott Horton
May 22, 2009
U.W. Clemon, formerly Alabama’s most senior federal judge, has written a scorching letter to Attorney General Eric Holder itemizing gross misconduct by federal prosecutors involved in the Siegelman case and demanding that the Justice Department open a full investigation into the matter. “The 2004 prosecution of Mr. Siegelman in the Northern District of Alabama was the most unfounded criminal case over which I presided in my entire judicial career,” he writes. “In my judgment, his prosecution was completely without legal merit; and it could not have been accomplished without the approval of the Department of Justice.” Clemon goes on to note that prosecutors engaged in judicial forum shopping, attempted to poison the jury pool, and filed and pressed bogus charges.
Holder has declined to release the full text of the letter, but it was quoted at length in an article by attorney-journalist Andrew Krieg at the Huffington Post. Clemon, who retired from the bench at the beginning of the year in order to return to the practice of law, issued the letter more than a year after handing down a decision in United States v. White, which I discussed in “Corruption in a U.S. Attorney’s Office.” Judge Clemon found “disturbing evidence” suggesting that prosecutors had attempted inappropriately to pressure a witness to give false evidence against Siegelman. Notwithstanding these startling conclusions, documented in a published court opinion,it appears that the Justice Department took no steps to investigate the allegations of serious misconduct.
In recent weeks, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed five of seven counts of the Siegelman conviction in an opinion issued by three Republican judges. The case was referred back to a fourth Republican judge, Mark E. Fuller, for re-sentencing. The ruling prompted further cries for a reexamination of the case, as 75 former attorneys general from 40 states, both Democrats and Republicans, wrote Holder noting gross irregularities in the case and improper conduct by prosecutors who secured the conviction.
In the last week, a number of serious allegations have resurfaced concerning Judge Fuller, who came to preside over the criminal charges against Siegelman following a series of unusual maneuvers by federal prosecutors highlighted in Clemon’s letter to Holder. The Siegelman case came into Fuller’s court just as a series of hard-hitting accusations of judicial misconduct were filed with the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section (“PIN”). PIN, whose leaders are now themselves the targets of a special prosecutor’s investigation, led the prosecution of the Siegelman case. In the last week, Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks, whose affidavit making charges against Fuller was first secured and published here, has spoken publicly about the matter for the first time and has provided considerable further detail to his accusations. Weeks stated:
I just wish I had known about Siegelman’s case before his trial so they [defendants and attorneys] could have been able to understand the kind of animus Fuller has to have for Siegelman. I guarantee that Fuller blames Siegelman for my affidavit. If you look at how Fuller treated Siegelman, he clearly hates him.
What’s remarkable is that Siegelman has never been given a real chance to show why it’s not appropriate for Fuller to be his judge. The material I produced was never available. I think it was put into a separate file to keep it hidden.
Following the court of appeals decision to strike two of the seven counts on which Siegelman was convicted, the federal prosecutor on the case has suggested that he will seek to increase Siegelman’s sentence from seven to twenty years. Siegelman’s attorneys cite this as further evidence of vindictive motive on the part of the prosecutors. The Obama Justice Department has not yet announced a replacement of the prosecutors involved, and the Bush Justice Department’s team remains in control of the case. Attorney General Holder’s office advised the Huffington Post that notwithstanding the long-standing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, now amplified by a large group of attorneys general and the state’s former senior federal judge, the Justice Department had no investigation of the accusations underway.
By Scott Horton
May 22, 2009
U.W. Clemon, formerly Alabama’s most senior federal judge, has written a scorching letter to Attorney General Eric Holder itemizing gross misconduct by federal prosecutors involved in the Siegelman case and demanding that the Justice Department open a full investigation into the matter. “The 2004 prosecution of Mr. Siegelman in the Northern District of Alabama was the most unfounded criminal case over which I presided in my entire judicial career,” he writes. “In my judgment, his prosecution was completely without legal merit; and it could not have been accomplished without the approval of the Department of Justice.” Clemon goes on to note that prosecutors engaged in judicial forum shopping, attempted to poison the jury pool, and filed and pressed bogus charges.
Holder has declined to release the full text of the letter, but it was quoted at length in an article by attorney-journalist Andrew Krieg at the Huffington Post. Clemon, who retired from the bench at the beginning of the year in order to return to the practice of law, issued the letter more than a year after handing down a decision in United States v. White, which I discussed in “Corruption in a U.S. Attorney’s Office.” Judge Clemon found “disturbing evidence” suggesting that prosecutors had attempted inappropriately to pressure a witness to give false evidence against Siegelman. Notwithstanding these startling conclusions, documented in a published court opinion,it appears that the Justice Department took no steps to investigate the allegations of serious misconduct.
In recent weeks, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed five of seven counts of the Siegelman conviction in an opinion issued by three Republican judges. The case was referred back to a fourth Republican judge, Mark E. Fuller, for re-sentencing. The ruling prompted further cries for a reexamination of the case, as 75 former attorneys general from 40 states, both Democrats and Republicans, wrote Holder noting gross irregularities in the case and improper conduct by prosecutors who secured the conviction.
In the last week, a number of serious allegations have resurfaced concerning Judge Fuller, who came to preside over the criminal charges against Siegelman following a series of unusual maneuvers by federal prosecutors highlighted in Clemon’s letter to Holder. The Siegelman case came into Fuller’s court just as a series of hard-hitting accusations of judicial misconduct were filed with the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section (“PIN”). PIN, whose leaders are now themselves the targets of a special prosecutor’s investigation, led the prosecution of the Siegelman case. In the last week, Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks, whose affidavit making charges against Fuller was first secured and published here, has spoken publicly about the matter for the first time and has provided considerable further detail to his accusations. Weeks stated:
I just wish I had known about Siegelman’s case before his trial so they [defendants and attorneys] could have been able to understand the kind of animus Fuller has to have for Siegelman. I guarantee that Fuller blames Siegelman for my affidavit. If you look at how Fuller treated Siegelman, he clearly hates him.
What’s remarkable is that Siegelman has never been given a real chance to show why it’s not appropriate for Fuller to be his judge. The material I produced was never available. I think it was put into a separate file to keep it hidden.
Following the court of appeals decision to strike two of the seven counts on which Siegelman was convicted, the federal prosecutor on the case has suggested that he will seek to increase Siegelman’s sentence from seven to twenty years. Siegelman’s attorneys cite this as further evidence of vindictive motive on the part of the prosecutors. The Obama Justice Department has not yet announced a replacement of the prosecutors involved, and the Bush Justice Department’s team remains in control of the case. Attorney General Holder’s office advised the Huffington Post that notwithstanding the long-standing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, now amplified by a large group of attorneys general and the state’s former senior federal judge, the Justice Department had no investigation of the accusations underway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)