tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post7777027143663456198..comments2024-03-12T21:13:06.850-05:00Comments on Legal Schnauzer: Al.com's Kyle Whitmire proves his ignorance about the law surrounding the Don Siegelman prosecutionlegalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-74898831695878613982015-03-13T23:39:53.632-05:002015-03-13T23:39:53.632-05:00I would be interested in learning more. You can co...I would be interested in learning more. You can contact me via private e-mail at rshuler3156@gmail.comlegalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-62560085570149898532015-03-13T22:19:48.838-05:002015-03-13T22:19:48.838-05:00Mr Schuler I would direct you to documents that ar...Mr Schuler I would direct you to documents that are archived with the state of Alabama. In the documents there is a folder of information identifying four men , with two businesses in Alabama that exceed 100 million dollars in assets. The folder's contents outline a comprehensive organized multi-kilo drug importing network that controls multiple member of the judiciary. My understand is that Mr Siegelman was schedule to meet with DEA officers outside the state. that meeting did not happen. A prosecutor and judge who are directly controlled by that network were responsible for his prosecution. He was to quote one " a dead man walking" once that file hit his desk. I would urge you and others to carefully review the public documents that contain affidavits of law enforcement officers who are familiar with this case. They are discoverable. This network is headquartered in Barbour county and one of the men is one of the most successful lawyers in the state. If your serious about asking why what happened to Gov Siegelman really occurred, I suggest you review these documents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-55727063906407536802015-03-13T21:44:51.443-05:002015-03-13T21:44:51.443-05:00I would encourage anyone who really wants to under...I would encourage anyone who really wants to understand the Siegelman case to read the McCormick opinion to which we link above. The two sides in Siegelman didn't agree on much, but they agreed that McCormick was controlling law. It's two key provisions, as it relates to Siegelman:<br /><br />(1) McCormick's contention that conviction of an elected official under the Act requires, under all circumstances, proof of a quid pro quo, i. e., a promise of official action or inaction in exchange for any payment or property received. (SCOTUS agreed with McCormick's contention.)<br /><br />(2) The receipt of such contributions is also vulnerable under the Act as having been taken under color of official right, but only if the payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act. In such situations the official asserts that his official conduct will be controlled by the terms of the promise or undertaking.<br /><br />Like Siegelman, the McCormick case involved botched jury instructions by the trial court. McCormick only got straightened out when it went all the way to highest court in the land. SCOTUS, unfortunately, has refused to hear the Siegelman case.<br /><br />The jury instruction in Siegelman should have required (for conviction) proof of a quid pro quo (something for something) agreement or promise, and it had to be explicit. The instruction did not require that, and thus, was unlawful. <br /><br />That's the case in a nutshell, although a whole lot of other stuff was going on.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-18849267456629398622015-03-13T15:05:52.881-05:002015-03-13T15:05:52.881-05:00If your readers are interested in knowing more abo...If your readers are interested in knowing more about what REALLY happened in the Siegelman case, see a movie trailer that explains a lot of what happened. Here's a link: http://goo.gl/W3r63aStevehttp://www.killingatticusfinch.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-82855833759159127192015-03-13T12:44:31.196-05:002015-03-13T12:44:31.196-05:00Kyle seems to practice "trust me" journa...Kyle seems to practice "trust me" journalism, as in, "I can't explain how the Siegelman trial was 'fair,' but I was there, so you can trust me that it was."<br /><br />Sorry, Kyle. You work for al.com, and we don't trust you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-88348799576105296622015-03-13T09:24:22.387-05:002015-03-13T09:24:22.387-05:00al.com is deeply invested in the fiction that the ...al.com is deeply invested in the fiction that the Siegelman case was correctly decided. It's too late for them to turn back now. They can't admit they were wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com