 |
| (From documentary.org) |
Atticus v. The Architect: The Political Assassination of Don Siegelman will begin at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday (5/10/17). Doors open at 6:30 p.m., and the full event runs until 10 p.m. (The film's trailer is embedded at the end of this post.)
The film, directed by Steve Wimberly, was three years in the making and includes interviews with many of the central players in the Siegelman case. From a press release about the premiere:
The film exposes the dark underbelly of political corruption that led to what legal experts call the malicious prosecution and wrongful conviction of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. Insiders, both Republicans and Democrats alike, have come together to tell the world about this horrible injustice, and reveal the overwhelming evidence of judicial misconduct that has remained hidden from the public for far too long.
We have published several hundred posts here at Legal Schnauzer, far more reports than any other news outlet. We also have provided more details about judicial misconduct in the case, including a five-part series titled "The Cheating of Don Siegelman."
Considerable evidence points to Karl Rove, "the architect" of George W. Bush's political ascension, as the driving force behind the Siegelman prosecution. The documentary reportedly includes an interview with GOP felon Jack Abramoff, who describes the reasons Republicans were determined to take down Siegelman, a rare Democrat who maintained political clout in the conservative South. The motivation, according to the Abramoff interview, largely involved Indian gaming money.
The documentary reportedly shines unflattering light on a number of prominent Alabama political and legal figures, including Bill Canary, Leura Canary, Bob Riley, Rob Riley, and Alice Martin.
As we have reported multiple times, Siegelman and Scrushy were convicted of a "crime" that does not exist under U.S. law. That is one of the reasons many legal analysts consider the Siegelman case the most egregious political prosecution in U.S. history. Several of those experts are interviewed in the documentary:
The prosecutor that indicted Siegelman for bribery was married to the campaign manager of Siegelman’s opponent in an upcoming election. Prosecutors were allowed to get away with a staggering degree of prosecutorial misconduct. Siegelman political foe, Mark Fuller, was selected to preside over the trial, and has since been forced off the bench for ethics violations.
The judicial abuse and malfeasance ran so deep, that for the first time in American history, 113 former States Attorneys General from both parties united together to protest the deliberate injustice that was directed at Don Siegelman.
Tickets for the premiere are available through Ticketmaster or at the Alabama Theatre box office, which opens at 6 p.m. on Wednesday.
Atticus v. The Architect Trailer from Peppertree Films LLC on Vimeo.
Glad to hear this is out. Hope it will educate the public.
ReplyDeleteI think it will educate people when it hits places like NYC and Boston, but it's not going to affect the knuckle-draggers in Alabama. A few enlightened people in Alabama already understand the Siegelman case was a scam, and I'm sure this will add to their understanding of what happened.
ReplyDeleteI know someone who has seen the film at a private screening, and he said it is well done and "very revealing." It contains a most interesting interview with Jack Abramoff, plus major take downs of GOP cockroaches like Bob Riley, Rob Riley, Bill Canary, etc.
ReplyDeleteI hope Siegelman will be able to attend.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that he won't be allowed to attend. A number of other key figures connected to the case and the film will be there.
ReplyDeleteI hope it goes into the election theft in 2002 Baldwin Co. I'm getting sick of tainted elections. Not sure there is any reason to vote anymore.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that the film goes into the election theft quite extensively.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any intel or insights on Kevin Newsom, the Bradley partner who just got nominated to the 11th Circuit? I guess that's the same seat Kallon had been nominated for.
ReplyDelete@11:22 --
ReplyDeleteThe main intel I have on Newsom is that he used to work for Bill Pryor and the two have a close personal relationship (cough . . . cough). I'm working with a number of sources to get details on the Pryor/Newsom relationship, which is pretty well known in the Bham legal community.
Also, I can say that I've never come across anyone affiliated with Bradley Arant who has a shred of integrity. I see no reason to think Newsom will be any different. I'm sure Sessions and Pryor and their "boys club" are the ones pushing for Newsom, which means he would be a horrible appointment.
A. 9:55 a.m. Not every one in the south is a "knuckle dragger". Films such as this one inform people of all ages, backgrounds, etc. and yes some times even change people's minds.
ReplyDeleteOne could say it doesn't really matter what people in Boston, New York or elsewhere think. They don't have the problem Alabama has. That is why it is important that the film is shown in Alabama. Its clearly demonstrates how bad things have gotten. Films such as this can have a great impact so yes it ought to be shown in Alabama first.
the film is also a warning to all citizens of what can happen if you don't pay attention to your democracy. You will loose it and turn into something found in a 3 world dictatorship.
He got caught taking a bribe. Get over it. Has happened, and still happens, in Alabama all the time. How the hell can someone be worth more than a million dollars who has never had a job outside of a state constitutional office (other than one 4 year stint) from the time he literally graduated from law school? Don spent most of his post college and post law school life in government, yet he manages to become rich. Democratic Party corruption, IYAM.
ReplyDelete@7:33 --
ReplyDeleteSorry, but you're wrong. There was no evidence of an illegal quid pro quo, and even if there was, the case was brought almost one year outside the statute of limitations. There also was no quid pro quo jury instruction, one of many signs that Judge Mark Fuller was corrupt, and he since has been booted off the bench for beating his wife. I guess you are into support wife beaters. One mistake Siegelman made was hiring Doug Jones as his lawyer. Jones took $300,000 of he guv's money and did zero to help get an innocent man off. Look at how many local Democrats, many of them black, hire Doug Jones for a lawyer. Then look how many of them are found innocent. I can't think of any. Oliver Robinson might as well start fitting himself for an orange jumpsuit because he's heading for prison with Doug Jones as a lawyer.
If you are remotely interested in facts and law -- and I'm sure you aren't -- you might try reading this:
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2009/07/cheating-of-don-siegelman-part-v.html
I have known Don Seigelman for 35 years. I have seen, first hand, how he glad handed big donors and did their bidding. One of them was a relative of mine, who in exchange for a campaign contribution got a paved road to private property - almost one mile of pavement of state expense. And no, I am not going to name the relative or further details, like you don't reveal your sources. I won't argue with you about Doug Jones. He is and was, what he is and was. I won't argue with you about Fuller. He turned out to be a drunken wife beater. But that isn't why Seigelman and Scrushy got convicted. It was more than the $500k payment for Scrushy's seat on the CON. There was other evidence of Seigelman's malfeasance in office. Again, he got rich while "serving" in constitutional offices. That doesn't happen without him being on the take. Scrushy got screwed because he got away with fraud in federal court in Birmingham.An Seigelman had gotten a pass from Clemons a couple of years earlier. Biggest screw job against the US Attorney's office ever.
ReplyDelete@9:29 --
ReplyDeleteI don't care if you've known Siegelman for 85 years, you are wrong. He wasn't charged with anything involving a paved road to private property. He wasn't charged with "malfeasance in office." He wasn't charged with getting rich. He wasn't charged with "being on the take." He had specific charges -- primarily federal funds bribery regarding the Scrushy donation -- and that requires an explicit quid pro quo. There was no evidence of such a transaction and no such jury instruction. Plus, the case was brought way beyond the statute of limitations, and you simply can't argue against that.
I've done more research and more reporting on the Siegelman case than any other journalist on the planet, so you are arguing with the wrong guy.
You don't exactly come to the party without a bias. Your hate of everything republican is obvious. Seigelman's appointment of Scrushy to the CON, in which Healthsouth stood to profit tremendously, was the quid pro quo. There was testimony that Seigelman confirmed that. You can argue all day long the testimony was not credible. But it was accepted by the jury. Seigelman's multiple appeals over the last 10 years have failed. I guess Rove controls the courts at all levels, even the Obama laden Supremes. Seigelman got screwed so badly that Obama refused to pardon him or grant clemency.
ReplyDeleteI come to the party with knowledge of the facts and the law -- and you do not. You don't even know what a quid pro quo is, and Siegelman did not confirm anything because he did not testify at the trial. I didn't say the evidence wasn't credible; it was nonexistent. In your last two or three sentences you resort to sarcastic stupidity, and that's apparently all you've got.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to go back over my posts on the Siegelman matter, including appellate rulings, and find a single instance where my analysis was wrong. Give it a shot; let's see what you come up with.
So in order to avoid a conviction for a quid pro quo bribe, all a defendant has to do is refuse to testify at trial. Right.
ReplyDelete@7:12 --
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that. You said there was testimony that Siegelman confirmed something at trial. I pointed out that Siegelman didn't testify at trial, so your scenario probably could not be true. If someone testified at trial that Siegelman confirmed something, that likely would be inadmissible hearsay. Given that Fuller was the judge, it's possible he improperly allowed hearsay into the trial.
I've written here that I thought Siegelman and Scrushy should have taken the stand. Scrushy has been quoted as saying he wishes he had taken the stand. So, no, refusing to take the stand is not a good way to avoid a conviction in a federal funds bribery case.
But your scenario almost certainly didn't happen because Siegelman did not testify. Hard to confirm something when you don't testify.
Be advised of what "gang stalking" is and what DOJ's Community Policing Program......really is.
ReplyDeleteIt's a Covert War.com ( see that site).
Moving was your smartest move.
Having a brother who is a lawyer helps.
Staying mobile in a small RV is possible and cheap....use the vast fed lands for free camping.
Keep moving
Thomas --
ReplyDeleteThanks for an unusual comment. What is gang stalking? What is community policing really about?
Why was moving my smartest move?
Brother lawyers might help some people, but mine is worse than worthless. Not sure he has an ounce of integrity.