Thursday, May 28, 2009

Did Former Siegelman Lawyer Have a Glaring Conflict?

Let's return to our storyline about Birmingham attorney and prominent Democrat Doug Jones.

We have a number of questions for Mr. Jones. They are based partly on his rather hostile response to our reporting about a massive federal lawsuit involving Birmingham-based HealthSouth Corp. And they are based partly on our own research about a fine ethical line Jones and fellow attorney Rob Riley seem to be walking between the HealthSouth civil case and the criminal case involving former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

So, on to our questions for Mr. Jones:

* Re: Your representation of Don Siegelman in his criminal case--You state in your critique of my reporting that you have been liaison counsel in the HealthSouth securities-fraud lawsuit since its inception in August 2002. A key figure in that case, of course, has been former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. In your testimony before a subcommittee of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in October 2007, you state that you became lead counsel on Siegelman's defense team in January 2003, not long after the former governor's lawyer, David Cromwell Johnson, died. In your role as Siegelman's lead counsel, you learned in July 2004 that Richard Scrushy was to be a central figure in the government's case against Siegelman. Didn't this present a clear conflict of interest for you? You are serving in a lawsuit against Richard Scrushy and others connected to HealthSouth. Then you learn that Scrushy is to be an integral part of the government's case against your client, Don Siegelman. Why didn't you remove yourself from the Siegelman case immediately? Did you tell the former governor and Mr. Scrushy about your apparent conflict, especially considering that they were being tried together? Why did you remain on the Siegelman case until early 2006, and then withdraw not long before it went to trial?

* Re: The statute of limitations in the Siegelman case--Public documents indicate the prosecution was tardy in bringing the case against Siegelman and Scrushy. Corrupt federal judges have allowed the government to get away with bringing a case that falls outside the statute of limitations. But it appears you didn't help matters any. In your Congressional testimony you stated:

There was a concern from the prosecutors that the five year statute of limitations was about to expire with regard to the appointment of Mr. Scrushy to the CON Board, which had occurred in late July, 1999. The Government wanted more time to try and fill in the evidentiary holes in the case and asked us if Governor Siegelman would sign a tolling agreement extending the statute of limitations for an additional 30 days.

Because we were convinced from our conversations that the other matters had either been written off and/or were such that we did not believe any crime had occurred, we agreed to have the Governor sign the tolling agreement.

As a layperson, I find this mind blowing. The government had almost five full years to build a case, they admit to you that they have failed to do it, and you convince your client to give them more time? What on earth were you thinking? Has it occurred to you that Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy wound up in prison largely because of this bone-headed decision? And you question whether I know what I'm doing in my field, journalism? Seems to me that Siegelman would have pretty strong grounds for a legal-malpractice case against you.

* Re: Your motives and alliances in the HealthSouth lawsuit--More than $500 million worth of settlements have been announced in this case, with you representing plaintiffs against Richard Scrushy and others. Sounds like things are going pretty well for the plaintiffs--and the plaintiffs lawyers. By continuing to represent Siegelman after you learned of Scrushy's involvement in the criminal case, did you learn anything that has proved useful in the civil case? Have you and your clients profited from your involvement in the Siegelman defense? How important was the HealthSouth lawsuit to the future of your former firm, Whatley Drake & Kallas?

* Re: Your alliance with Rob Riley--You state in your response to my reporting, that you have no knowledge of Riley's involvement in a health-care company, Performance Group LLC. Actually, you do. You've admitted you read my post about it, which references public documents that are easily available to you. (In fact, I would be glad to send them to you.) Rule 8.3 of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct states that a lawyer possessing unprivileged knowledge of misconduct "shall report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation." Public documents, which you are aware of, indicate that Rob Riley owns a company that has engaged in "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." It is your duty to report this information to an appropriate authority. Do you intend to fulfill your duty?

* Re: Your alliances with UAB--How many times have you represented UAB, or people affiliated with UAB, in legal matters? Public records indicate you represented six UAB administrators in the Brittany Benefield case, which might be the ugliest chapter in UAB history. Benefield was 14 years old when she enrolled at UAB and moved into a campus dorm. She allegedly became a sexual plaything for several UAB football and basketball players and wound up suing the university.

I ask about your ties to UAB administrators because here is something I find interesting: I wrote about Rob Riley's involvement in the HealthSouth litigation on March 13, 2008. Thanks to your comments a few weeks ago on an Alabama-based listserv, we know that is a sensitive topic for you. We also know that two of Riley's partners in Performance Group LLC are on the staff at UAB. On April 16, 2008--a little more than a month after I wrote the Riley/HealthSouth piece--the harassment from my boss at UAB got so bad that I wound up complaining to her superior about age discrimination and filed a formal grievance in UAB Employee Relations. Roughly three weeks after I filed the grievance, I was fired, contrary to multiple university policies.

Follow me on this timeline: Write about Riley/HealthSouth in March, get harassed unmercifully by supervisor in April, get fired in May. Call me paranoid, but I see a possible cause and effect going on there.

You admit in your response that you tried to squash Sam Stein's original report at Huffington Post about Riley and HealthSouth. Having failed in that effort, is it safe to say that you, Riley, and perhaps UAB officials weren't happy to see a Birmingham blogger (me) pick up on it?

Here's the bottom-line question: Given your ties to Rob Riley and UAB, do you know anything about who is behind my unlawful termination?

Anyone who has followed my blog for a period of time knows that I've studied and written about honest-services mail/wire fraud extensively. I strongly suspect that honest-services fraud, and perhaps other federal crimes, are present in my firing.

As a former federal prosecutor, you surely are concerned about such matters. And as a private attorney, you are pursuing a fraud case involving HealthSouth. What about UAB? Are you concerned about fraud that has gone on there? Do you have firsthand knowledge of such fraud?

Here is one final question: In your critique of my post on an Alabama listserv, you actually don't criticize my original reporting at all. Rather, you seem irked about issues that first were raised in Sam Stein's report at Huffington Post.

In fact, you state that anyone familiar with the appointment of lead and liaison counsel in the HealthSouth lawsuit would laugh at the notion that Rob Riley's entry into the case was connected to Siegelman or the result of "legal-political insider trading."

Stein, however, quotes an anonymous source who says that Riley entered the case specifically because of his political connections. And a key source in Stein's case was Scott Horton, a New York attorney, Columbia University law professor, and legal-affairs contributor for Harper's magazine.

Horton, by the way, did not seem to find Riley's role to be a laughing matter. Stein reports:

"[Riley] very aggressively thrust himself into that suit as a late comer," said Scott Horton, a law professor at Columbia University who has written extensively on these issues for Harper's magazine. "He knew that Fuller had made statements suggesting that he felt he had once been a target of a politically motivated attack by Siegelman. He knew that this would make someone predisposed against Siegelman and perfect hanging judge. And he would reap the benefit of the class action suit on the side."

Stein went on to discuss connections between Riley's knowledge of the criminal case and his role in the civil case. Again, Stein quoted Horton. And Horton wasn't laughing:

"Rob Riley approved of the strategy of dragging Scrushy into the [criminal] case because it would have benefits for him in the class action suit," said Horton. "It was clear that he was intently following what was going on in Fuller's court and knew that the conviction of Scrushy in that case would have strong benefits in the class action suit."

Are you saying that Scott Horton doesn't know what he's talking about?

And here's an even better question: If a Scrushy conviction would pay dividends for Rob Riley in the civil case, it also would pay dividends for you, wouldn't it? After all, you were even more directly involved in the Siegelman/Scrushy criminal case than was Rob Riley. And unlike Rob Riley, you were involved in the HealthSouth lawsuit from the beginning.

The questions Scott Horton raises about Rob Riley would also apply to you, wouldn't they?

Is that why you were so interested in quashing Sam Stein's reporting on the subject? Is that why you were so irritated by my reporting on the subject?

Does all of this have something to do with why I currently find myself out of a job?


Anonymous said...

For a journalist, you're a darn fine cross-examiner, LS!

Anonymous said...

LS: Cross-examination is the key and in my own "criminal case" I watched a master stroke this into the courtroom, the "opposition" was so intent on the TESTILIES, it did not see the slap down until too late.

Nice job alright in reminding the attorney even a lay person is bright enough to be a "fact finder."

The question/s I would ask this "lawyer" is | ARE:

1. How much blackmail has the machine (one world government cult) been able to collect on your family and you?

2. Are you also one of the "cultists" (EU paedophilia too big to fail blue blood lineage)?

3. Did the machine pay you gold to do what you did to Siegelman, et al? How much gold and/or how much silver ... just what was the remuneration for such work ... AND, what did this machine also offer to your family and you in the "future" world of their new world order, one world government?

4. Or, simply, are you one of the poly-addicted, genetically manipulated "Monarch Slaves" who no longer has a brain cell working and that is why the deeds of anti-human and therefore truly insane prevails as "law?"

It is difficult to remain kind to those who have allowed the brain to be harvested by the likes of a Karl Rove.

Pond scum is not capable of synapses.

Anonymous said...

I'm back and I am not a poltergeist.

I have an ongoing case in the FEDERAL COURT and I am Pro Se.

It feels worse than the movie Poltergeist and I am devastated at the little girl who was used up for the ongoing greed of horror films.

Thus, in her memory of dying as a beautiful innocent (not much different than the film industry of our country today) ...

I hope I am going to have something significant to share about all this since the DEFENDANT is, US Bank, et al. and this means my opponent is THE Federal Reserve System or should we just call them what they aren't:


Call them what they are:

POLTERGEIST and worse, a film industry that snuffs out innocents in the name of greedy profits and this does not stop until the child dies.

Nice folks: ZIONISTS.

I sued US Bank in state court. US Bank removed the case to Federal Court and my attorney who I had been friends with for more than forty (40) years was too intimidated to go forward.

SOOOO, I decided to represent myself in spite of the most horrible advice I've ever gotten from lawyers: DO NOT, THE FEDERAL COURT IS A VERY UNFRIENDLY FORUM and on and on it goes with respect to the club of liars who do not want any truthtellers and this is because the GAME by the PLAYERS is too much fun for it to stop.

They love their time lines. The love of the game to see which one gets to KICK ASS, merely the intellectual pursuit of a boring life.

I do not wish to be cruel to attorneys at law, hell I even had the stupid moment where I married one.

DAMAGED. Attorneys have been purposely damaged in America and one of the most glaring I've witnessed is the inability to actually study and fight the true laws in, of, by, through, to, and thus, FOR THE United States!

Good GOD look at this country and there are more than a million attorneys licensed in America.

I am not kidding, I have never seen anything like this -- the fear these people have is incredible.

I cannot understand why any one of these "professionals" would want to belong to a club of nit wits with respect to the laws that have been faux introduced, and BUREAUCRATS have basically set laws which govern in the US.

CONSUMER RIGHTS AND PROTECTION. This is the law/s which can be relied upon in this:


It is an ISM and Karl Marx was also used -- he said cooperation NOT communism.

Any ISM enslaves or yokes humanity.

Therefore, NO ISMs.

Corporate Fascism is what we are experiencing in this time and it is called: CORPORATISM or call it what it truly is, GLOBALISM.

Now, there are decent attorneys who know the consumer protection and consumer rights law/s.


BUT, and this is the BIG BUTT with most all lawyers other than April -- unless it is a million dollar case they are not interested.

And for good reason it is a sport the Romans played: slaughter for fun.

I'll stop here for now. My second cousin is Karl Marx himself so I am going to be writing in a stream of consciousness and give LS complete poetic license to edit my horrible attempt at the King and Queen's language, English.

LS, should you like, I send you emails and you can respond to me and then I can get you my case step by step, thus far.


Anonymous said...

Shakespeare wrote the play:


It was about a Jew.

However, Shakespeare's play had a much deeper message than just writing about an insatiable predatory monster | ravenous beast, a 'human being' who happened to be a Jew.

I am not anti-semitic and neither was Shakespeare although he has been accused of such nonsense due to his play.

His play, I believe was | is, just as important a message | story, as the Bible teaching: Judas who betrayed the Christ.

His play was a masterpiece regarding the JEW stigma of being a "Merchant," and the insanity of this man who would only accept a pound of flesh, in "the exchange." Fascinating play - Shakespeare was ahead of his time or he is, classical.

This is a problem in America - where did all the classics go in education?

I'll get into the 1967, time frame and the Bible being purposely reintroduced into the schools and other places - everywhere, sowing the seeds of Shylock. The OLD TESTAMENT usurped the NEW, and therefore, we in America were under a new spell. It was one of the main nails in our coffin of freedom, dead and readying to have our country buried in the new world order of one world government - ready or not as William Greider already warned.

A new religion secretly emerged to fertilize the minds for SHYLOCKS' play in modern times. IT (SHYLOCK) has grown and now the name is CORPORATION.

New name, however the game is the same.

Gamers and players who always need to win and therefore, losers do.

Who are the losers?

The plays ARGUMENT/s IN COURT, can give new meaning to the word "law."

Unfortunately, in this new world order of GLOBALISM, we the people of planet earth, every one - are victims of an ancient idea manufactured by the truly criminally insane of our species.

Why in heaven and earth do we continue subscribing to the idea, here in America (with the US Constitution fully protecting), that there are human being SHYLOCKS .. who are ACTUALLY?! .. entitled to their pounds of flesh and whoa, look at how Shakespeare did indeed write the play of all plays since the times have not changed.

But, who exactly, are the midwifes of such abominations, such as but not limited to: pounds of flesh IN EXCHANGE ...

To put it bluntly in the terms of the House of Rothschild, it was TRADERS OF FLESH, and this SHYLOCK, was the agent himself who stole more than $3million from the infamous MIDDLE EAST family of antiquity (Prince Willam of Germany) who used pond scum Mayer Amschel to transfer the ROYAL family funds of WAR, to LONDON, whilst he escaped for his life due to the ABOMINATION OF WARS FOR PROFIT, and only the royals did indeed enjoy the fruits of their labor - mass murder for profit!

This is coming in two (2) parts since the new CIA MOSSAD et al. have begun to interrupt their most dangerous enemy ... the www ... this has stopped me here, to be continued ...

Anonymous said...


Karl Rove is an Agent Hound of War and his insatiable beast to behave criminally insane with full immunity and impunity, too:

IS provided to him in spades - see his army of court jesters who are Shylocks to be sure.

The question still arises:

WHO have been the MODERN DAY TRADERS OF FLESH ushering in a prison planet here in the 21st Century!?????

"...ISDA came out with the Master Agreements, the rules and definitions and the structures for the biggest unregulated casino in the world. SAVVY LAWYERS of the leading law firms in the world were engaged to "LEGALISE" and make "PALATABLE" the devious schemes ...


"... INTERNATIONAL SWAP & DERIVATIVES ASSOCIATION ... ISDA is the organization that spawned the US$500 trillion global derivatives market. This is the organization that designed and manufactured most, if not all the derivative products -- the FINANCIAL WMDs ...

"...My first brush with the ISDA was in 1996 when as an ATTORNEY I was invited to attend a seminar organized by Bank Negara. At the seminar, I exposed the various kinds of fraud that could be committed by the abuse of derivative financial products ...

MATTHIAS CHANG, Attorney at Law, is from Malaysia and the quotes here in this post at LS are from his book:

"THE SHADOW MONEYLENDERS" and the Global Financial Tsunami.

It is the third in his 'trilogy.'

He is an attorney worth knowing since the obvious DNA of human being rather than the Shylock is indeed within his altruistic gene internal and external structure.

The American government was structured as it is on purpose and GLOBALISM has been the nails in the coffin, slowly but surely. The case of Don Siegelman more than proves to the entire WORLD, that, US courts are simply the forum for the Shylocks to trade their flesh in modern times dressed up all 'civilized' in robes and other fancy suits, ties and oh those expensive shoes to walk the walk.

But, where is, TALK THE TALK, lawyers: The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America!???

No, the laws are purposely manufactured by the Shylocks.

What to do Americans?

Wake-up, first and realize the NEWS IS OWNED BY THE SHYLOCKS.

Uh oh, with a nation full of mostly uninformed, we are looking at a reflection of another how many thousands of years - to still reign in THE MERCHANTS OF VENICE.

We have the law, here in the US, which takes the SHYLOCKS (each and every one and this especially includes KARL ROVE, et al.) to BRAND THE TRUE AMERICAN ONE:


What GOD intended and not this SHYLOCK god government of earth.

More on the CASE with attorneys who appear SHYLOCKS in the highest degree: inhuman.

I have a story about the ATTORNEYS AT LAW who represent the SHYLOCKS -- it should not chill the bone marrow of every honest breathing American.

In a word, tragically.


Our LEGAL SYSTEM is indeed an incubation of SHYLOCKS and we can either allow these miscreants to terrorize us into remaining too stupid to read the REAL LAW, or we can begin by demanding the 'governing bodies' to stop committing high crimes against us in the poisons purposely killing we the people for the harvesting of shareholder profits.

SHYLOCKS profiteer in chemicals manufactured in every product we need and want, taking our flesh in every honest breath plus now this sixty (60) plus year "Ponzi-scheme" heist of our work product we make, is bubbling into protoplasm to be recycled it is now clear - but, our news is too late for us to see it coming.

Medical science is a SHYLOCK invention to create the circle of shareholder profits and this is why health care can never be touched - transnational (think globalism) profit sharing.

The courts retire on the profits of this system which SHYLOCK rules.

Thanks for posting this stuff LS.


Robby Scott Hill said...

Excellent investigative work Roger! I'll be coming around to some of the issues you touched on in my blog once work slows down. The more I learn about this case, the more I think Don Siegelman should have represented himself and even asked for jury nullification. In a fair courtroom with a competent defense attorney who did not have conflicts of interest, this case would have been dismissed because the prosecution did not follow procedure. I don't care who these guys know, where they went to school or what government offices they've held. As a former government employee, I can tell you that career and especially retired government lawyers are among the most incompetent. They spend all their time playing kiss the politicians' butts and never really get into the nuts and bolts of the law. They are hatchet men who are called on to bury the opposition of the politicians and their campaign donors.