Siegelman lawyers claim that U.S. Magistrate Charles Coody lied about reviewing Leura Canary documents

Don Siegelman

The federal judge who claims he reviewed documents in the Don Siegelman case related to the recusal of U.S. Attorney Leura Canary never actually saw any such documents, according to a court filing.

U.S. Magistrate Charles S. Coody, from the Middle District of Alabama, states in an order dated June 27, 2012, that he reviewed in camera (in private, in his chambers) all documents that Siegelman sought and found they contained "no exculpatory matter" that would "further" the former governor's claims. Coody proceeded to deny Siegelman's request for discovery, just as he had earlier denied a similar motion from codefendant Richard Scrushy, the former CEO of HealthSouth.

By our unofficial count, Coody became the first of at least six federal judges to deny discovery on the Canary-recusal issue--the others being trial judge Mark Fuller; a three-judge panel of the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals; and, most recently, U.S. District Judge Clay Land, who was appointed to hear the case in the wake of Fuller's wife-beating scandal.

All six judges to consider the matter have denied discovery by essentially following Coody's lead--and his claim that he had privately reviewed all relevant material that Siegelman requested. But Siegelman's lawyers state, in a brief dated August 26, 2013, that Coody never reviewed any documents related to Canary's recusal. (The brief is embedded at the end of this post.) In fact, the Siegelman team states that Coody only reviewed documents related to primary government witness Nick Bailey and never even ordered documents about Canary.

In essence, Siegelman's lawyers are calling Coody a liar--and they are saying that Coody's lies have tainted the defendants' cases for roughly 2 1/2 years now. Do they have a point? Let's consider Coody's words from the second paragraph of his order:

After reviewing the submissions and hearing argument of the parties, the court ordered the United States to produce for an in camera review all documents that would be responsive to the defendant's discovery requests. The court has carefully and thoroughly reviewed all material provided by the United States. The material does not further the defendant's claims, does not contain exculpatory material, and contains nothing justifying an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, for the more detailed reasons that follow, the court concludes that Siegelman's motion for discovery (doc. # 960) is due to be denied.

Near the end of his order, Coody returns to the issue:

The court has thoroughly reviewed in camera the documents that Siegelman seeks. . . . They do not support his hypothesis that other evidence exists to support his claim, nor is there anything in the material provided by the United States that is contrary to the evidence already in the hands of the defense.

Coody twice makes it clear that his denial of discovery is based largely on the fact that he has "thoroughly reviewed" all of the documents that Siegelman requests. And Coody's order makes clear that the most important of those documents likely are the ones involving Canary.

But in a brief filed a little more than one year later, Siegelman's lawyers state that Coody is mistaken--that he is, for lack of a more delicate term, a con man. In fact, defense lawyers point to specific documents, and cite precise language, that seems to prove Coody lied. From pp. 17-18 of the Siegelman brief:

The Magistrate Judge, however, did not order any Canary-related discovery. Instead, he entered two discovery orders, neither of which asked the government to turn over any documents related to Canary’s continued involvement in the prosecution. The two discovery orders required the government to turn over notes and documents “related to or developed from interviews of or meetings with Nick Bailey by any agent of the government.” Doc. 1042; see also Doc. 1040 (ordering Case: 12-14373 Date Filed: 08/26/2013 Page: 28 of 65 - 18 - production of “the binder provided to [an attorney] by his former client Nick Bailey”). Bailey had been a government witness who claimed that prosecutors had improperly shaped and scripted his testimony; his claims of testimony-shaping had nothing to do with Canary’s continued involvement in the Siegelman prosecution. Doc. 1096 at 5.

Having granted only Bailey-related discovery, the Magistrate Judge denied Siegelman’s request for materials relevant to Canary’s disqualification.

In a footnote on pp. 18-19, Siegelman's lawyers show that Coody offered pretty much the same language to deny Scrushy's request for discovery:

In denying co-defendant Scrushy’s similar discovery request, the magistrate judge wrote that “the court has laboriously reviewed the documents provided to it by the government related to this issue. . . . This is not a matter of withholding any documents; there are no documents.” Doc. 1070 at 19-20. Yet the magistrate judge failed to acknowledge that the “documents provided to it by the government” included nothing related Canary’s ongoing involvement. Indeed, the government was not ordered to turn over any Canary-related documents.

Coody, it appears, engaged in blatant subterfuge; Siegelman's lawyers caught him at it, but Coody's fellow jurists mindlessly followed his bogus lead.

What would genuine discovery regarding Leura Canary reveal about the Siegelman case? Why are federal judges resorting to deceit and chicanery to make sure it remains hidden from the public?

Appellate brief by former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman challenging prosecution recusal, Aug. 26, 2013 by Andrew Kreig

Why is an easy decision in the VictoryLand forfeiture case running about two months behind schedule?

Milton McGregor

When the VictoryLand forfeiture trial was conducted back in September, published reports indicated Circuit Judge William Shashy would have a ruling in about 45 days--which would have been around November 1. Here we are past January 1, into a new year, and we still have no ruling.

What gives? Perhaps Shashy figures that Alabama courts have handled electronic-bingo cases peculiarly for years, so he might as well stick with the pattern. But this one is especially hard to figure because it's not a complicated case; the facts and the law are clear that VictoryLand is due to have its property returned--and its casino should be reopened, after raids from the Alabama Attorney General's Office forced it to close in February 2013.

The issues are so clear-cut that Shashy should have been able to make a ruling at the close of testimony in September. Here are three reasons why:

(1) AG Luther Strange's primary argument has been that VictoryLand's e-bingo machines violate state statutes that prohibit slot machines and gambling devices. It has been long established under Alabama law, however, that the state constitution trumps a statute. And voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2003 that paved the way for e-bingo at the facility in Macon County.

(2) Strange also argues that the machines do not meet a lawful definition of bingo. But again, Amendment 744 is controlling law, and it states that the Macon County sheriff will "promulgate rules and regulations" for the operation of bingo in the county. The sheriff has found that the machines play a form of bingo, and by law, that should end the discussion. In fact, the machines at VictoryLand operated lawfully under the sheriff's definition for five years--and that only changed when former Governor Bob Riley, the beneficiary of funding from Mississippi Indian gaming interests, decided to launch a crusade against non-Indian facilities in Alabama.

(3) At September's trial, VictoryLand presented expert testimony that its machines were legal and did, in fact, play bingo. The AG's office presented no expert testimony, nothing to controvert VictoryLand's evidence. That would seem to make Shashy's ruling awfully easy--in a sense, the AG forfeited at trial.

A side issue seems to make the picture even more curious for the AG. Sonny Reagan, one of Strange's top assistants and his point man on gaming issues, was forced to resign in December over allegations that he had leaked information from a grand-jury investigation in Lee County.

If Strange has admitted that his chief bingo prosecutor has behaved in an unethical manner on one case, shouldn't the public be asking, "Well, how did Mr. Reagan handled his responsibilities in the VictoryLand matter and other bingo cases? Did he try to undermine the legal process in those cases?"

What if Shashy rules against VictoryLand? From here, it seems the casino and owner Milton McGregor would have grounds to ask not only for an appeal but also for a criminal investigation into Sonny Reagan's handling of the case.

We might have tracked down "Ernie," the mystery man who helped bring Bill Pryor gay-porn photos to light

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Courts continue to deny discovery on Leura Canary's 'recusal', which points to a cover-up in Siegelman case

Don Siegelman

The primary thrust of last week's Don Siegelman story, on the surface, was whether the former Alabama governor would be released from federal prison, pending an appeal before the U.S. Eleventh Circuit in January. New judge Clay Land, on the case in the wake of the Mark Fuller wife-beating scandal, denied Siegelman's request for release--and that was at the heart of almost all news coverage.

Beneath the surface, and somewhat buried in Land's 31-page opinion, was an issue that is much darker and potentially explosive. In fact, it points to a cover-up of criminal behavior that, if fully exposed, could rock our democracy. (See opinion at the end of this post.)

We're talking about discovery, specifically an inquiry into the supposed recusal of Leura Canary, the U.S. attorney over the Middle District of Alabama, where the Siegelman case was held. On page 3 of his order, Land states that discovery on the Canary recusal is one of three issues Siegelman raises on appeal--then the judge waits until the final four pages to address it, stating that "the Court leaves the most difficult issue for last."

Why is it the most difficult issue? Because Leura Canary clearly had a financial interest in the outcome of the Siegelman case; her husband, Bill Canary, had served as a paid consultant for Siegelman's political opponents. That violates Siegelman's fundamental due-process right, under the Fourteenth Amendment, to an impartial prosecutor, which Land addressed as follows:

It is indisputable that a defendant in a criminal prosecution is entitled to an impartial, disinterested prosecutor who does not have a personal financial interest in the prosecution. Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 803-04, 809-10 (1987). The reason is fundamental to our system of justice:

"The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done." 

Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935); accord 18 U.S.C. § 208(a) (prohibiting federal prosecutors from representing the Government in any matter in which they or their family members have a financial interest).

Siegelman presented evidence that Leura Canary had a financial interest in his case, and that has been prohibited by U.S. Supreme Court precedent for roughly 80 years.

Thanks to whistleblower Tamarah Grimes, Siegelman presented evidence that Canary did not abide by her announced recusal. Part of Siegelman's case before Land was a request to conduct formal discovery on the issue of Canary and her failure to fully recuse. By my unofficial count, Land became the sixth judge to deny such discovery. (That total might be seven if you count Bill Pryor's possible role as a fixer for certain conservative interests.)

And there is little doubt that Siegelman is entitled to discovery, under the law. As his lawyers wrote in a 2013 brief:

Even if these manifestations of Canary’s continuing involvement were not, by themselves, sufficient to warrant reversal, the district court erred by refusing to order further discovery. When discovery is sought in support of a motion for a new trial, discovery should be ordered “where specific allegations show reason to believe that the [defendant] may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief.” Arthur v. Allen, 459 F.3d 1310, 1310-11 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 908-09 (1997)). 

A district court’s failure to order discovery is an abuse of discretion if it is “too soon to declare out of hand that the new evidence” might support the defendant’s new-trial claim. United States v. Espinosa-Hernandez, 918 F.2d 911, 914 (11th Cir. 1990); see id. at 913 (“The District Court abused its discretion in denying [the defendant’s] motion for discovery into [the government’s] alleged misconduct and in denying the motion for a new trial without first conducting an evidentiary hearing.”).

Both U.S. Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent indicate Siegelman is entitled to discovery regarding Canary and her recusal. He is entitled to evidence that might show that his due-process right to an impartial prosecutor was trampled?

Clay Land

So why have Land and other judges on the case denied discovery by engaging in a splitting-hairs debate about whether Canary's failure to recuse represents a "harmless error" or a "structural error," which would require reversal of convictions--or at least a new trial? Why has at least one judge resorted to flagrant subterfuge in denying discovery? (More on that in an upcoming post.)

The answer, in our view, is that discovery regarding Leura Canary would reveal that the Siegelman case was, in fact, a political prosecution. And it would reveal who was pulling Leura Canary's strings, to help ensure that the case ended with a conviction.

Who might those persons have been? We don't know, at the moment, but they probably go to very high levels of the federal government, at the time. And that probably is why federal judges, including Clay Land, are so invested in a cover-up.

We will say this for Judge Land. His opinion hints that he does have a conscience, and he is troubled by the way the Siegelman case has been handled. Consider this from the opinion, on the subject of discovery:

Defendant has been prevented from making the record more robust. Thus, he faces an unenviable conundrum. He is told: “You have not produced enough evidence to support your claim.” And when he responds, “but all of the evidence is in your control and not available to me, so let me have a chance to see it ,” he is told, “too bad, you don’t get to see it because you have not produced enough evidence to support your claim.” It sounds like an unsolvable riddle: “To win, A must prove “X.” B is in control of the evidence relevant to “X” and will only give A a peek at that evidence if A first proves “X.” How does A win? Impossible--unless C, who has authority to order B to allow A to see evidence relevant to “X,” intervenes.

Land then comes real close to saying that he believes the trial and appellate courts have gotten it wrong on the issue of discovery:

The Court finds that a substantial question exists as to whether the district court erred by denying Defendant the opportunity to engage in discovery to support his prosecutorial misconduct claim.

That wasn't enough for Land to order Siegelman's release. But it should tell the public that something deeply troubling is going on--and at least one judge pretty much admits it, although he apparently lacks the courage to fix it.

Siegelman order--Clay Land by Roger Shuler

New judge in Siegelman case decides to protect his corrupt colleagues by denying request for release

Don Siegelman

Today's ruling that former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman will not be released pending a January hearing on his latest appeal is a sign that the federal judiciary in the South--and perhaps across the country--is in full damage control. It's also a sign that Clay Land is not an honest or courageous judge, even though he does a better job of his predecessor, Mark Fuller, in trying to act like one.

Land's primary grounds for denying Siegelman's request for release was that the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals had already ruled on matters related to Leura Canary's recusal in the appeal of Siegelman codefendant Richard Scrushy. Siegelman argued that Canary, former U.S. attorney under George W. Bush, did not honor her recusal--and presented ample evidence that Canary remained involved with the case long after she had supposedly stepped aside. Land admitted that Siegelman had raised ""significant issues that deserve serious consideration." (See order at the end of this post.)

But then the judge, from the Middle District of Georgia, dropped back to punt. In essence, he said, "The trial court and appellate court have already ruled on this issue, and it would make the judiciary look bad if I corrected them now. Please understand that I'm not saying the previous rulings are correct; there's a good chance they are not. In fact, this case is riddled with incorrect rulings, including the fact that prosecutors brought it well outside the five-year statute of limitations. Heck, convicted child rapist and former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky got more favorable treatment in court than did Mr. Siegelman and Mr. Scrushy. But I don't have the courage to stand up and say my fellow judges got it wrong. Unfortunately, our courts are not about dispensing justice; they are about protecting the judiciary and legal elites."

That's what we mean by damage control. The federal judiciary in the South has taken a much-deserved pounding in the past 12 months or so. First came revelations that Eleventh Circuit judge Bill Pryor, whose duty station is in Birmingham, has ties to 1980s and '90s gay pornography via nude photographs that appeared at a Web site called badpuppy.com. Then came reports that Fuller, the original trial judge on the Siegelman case, had been arrested for beating his wife in an Atlanta hotel room. That was followed by thunderous calls for Fuller's resignation, plus a vow from U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Alabama) that she will initiate impeachment proceedings when Congress gathers again in January.

Just yesterday, we had a report here at Legal Schnauzer that Pryor--because of his gay-porn secrets--is vulnerable to blackmail by conservative interests led by GOP guru Karl Rove, who once was Pryor's campaign manager in a run for Alabama attorney general. Our report stated that Pryor has become a "gatekeeper" or "fixer," ensuring that cases of particular importance turn out in a favorable way for the Rove faction.

Pryor's reputation as a fixer apparently extends to state-court matters because, as we reported earlier this week, prominent Alabama Republican Rob Riley sought out the judge for possible intervention in a Lee County grand-jury investigation that threatens the Riley Political Machine.

In that kind of environment, where flagrant corruption has become the norm, is it any wonder that Don Siegelman's request for release was denied? When will the public demand a federal investigation that likely would send numerous bad actors--including judges, lawyers, and politicians--to federal prisons? When will the public turn to the kind of protests we've recently seen in Ferguson, Missouri, and New York City over apparent police misconduct?

U.S. law enforcement apparently is infested with rogue officers, but our guess is that the judiciary (state and federal) is even worse. Clay Land's ruling today just adds to a mountain of evidence that a major shakeup is in order.

Siegelman order--Clay Land

Rollins grandchildren win favorable ruling from appellate court in battle over family trust funds

Glen Rollins (right) and other members
of the Rollins family in court.
(From dailyreportonline.com)

Four adult grandchildren of the late co-founder of Rollins Inc. last week received a favorable ruling from the Georgia Court of Appeals in a long-running battle over trust funds in one of the South's most wealthy families.

A trial court had dismissed the grandchildren's claims, but the appellate court found the case presented factual issues that should go to a jury, according to an article by Alyson Palmer at dailyreportonline.

The grandchildren are suing their father, Gary W. Rollins, and their uncle, R. Randall Rollins, who head Orkin Pest Control and its parent company, Atlanta-based Rollins Inc. Gary and Randall Rollins are the sons of the late O. Wayne Rollins, founder of Rollins Inc. O. Wayne Rollins started the family's business empire with his brother, the late John W. Rollins Sr.

The John Rollins side of the family is based mostly in Delaware and the Carolinas, and it includes Ted Rollins, who recently was removed as CEO of Campus Crest Communities. Ted Rollins has been the subject of numerous posts here at Legal Schnauzer, mainly because of his central role in a grossly unlawful divorce case in Shelby County, Alabama, from his second wife, Birmingham resident Sherry Carroll Rollins. Also, Ted Rollins has student-housing developments at four Alabama campuses (South Alabama, Troy, Jacksonville State, and Auburn), even though he has a criminal conviction for assault from the brutal beating of his stepson.

The Georgia court case does not involve Ted Rollins, but the controversy involves millions of dollars and recently attracted the attention of Forbes magazine, with reporter Clare O'Connor producing a major investigative report.

At the heart of the case are trust funds that O. Wayne Rollins established for his grandchildren, with the recipients having limited access to them. That strategy seems to run in the Rollins family. As we reported in a previous post, Sarah Rollins of Birmingham (the daughter of Ted and Sherry Rollins) has a trust fund established by John W. Rollins, and she has reached the age where, by law, she is entitled to information about the fund. Sherry Rollins states that nothing about the fund has been disclosed to her daughter, while Sherry, Sarah, and her sister Emma have relied on food stamps off and on for several years.

What's the gist of the ongoing court case in Georgia? Here is how Alyson Palmer explains it:

The siblings complain that their father and uncle have established unfair distribution systems at odds with the terms of the trusts created for their benefit by their grandfather. . .

In their lawsuit, filed in 2010, the plaintiffs contend that, after their grandfather died in 1991, their father and uncle breached their duties when they made various changes to the structure, leadership, holdings and distribution methods used within the various family entities held within the trusts. They point to a "conduct-based distribution system" imposed by their father and uncle after their grandfather's death that made distributions from entities held in the trusts based on factors such as the plaintiffs' attendance at entity shareholder meetings and engagement in "serious pursuits." They also complain that their father and uncle unilaterally amended the agreement for a family partnership held within the S-trusts, the Rollins Investment Fund (RIF), to concentrate power in themselves and permit non-pro-rata distributions to themselves at their own discretion. . . .

The plaintiffs claim the changes amounted to breaches of trust and breaches of fiduciary duty. They say their father threatened to cut off distributions to them entirely if they sued and that he and their uncle had Glen Rollins fired from his position at the family company, where he had worked for his entire career.

The establishment of trust funds comes with significant tax advantages and can involve huge sums of money. How much is at stake in the Rollins case. Alyson Palmer provides an idea:

Giving some hint as to how much money is at stake, Wednesday's decision said the plaintiffs, in support of their allegations of inequitable distributions, say that Gary and Randall received a total of $46.7 million from RIF between 1993 and 2011, while the four plaintiffs received a total of $53.5 million from RIF during the same time.

Judge Bill Pryor's ties to gay pornography helped turn him into a "gatekeeper" for conservative interests

Bill Pryor at badpuppy.com

You might think that Bill Pryor's ties to 1980s and '90s gay pornography would hurt his chances of becoming a federal judge. But Pryor's gay-porn background actually helped him receive a lifetime appointment on the federal bench, according to our sources--plus a report from a veteran investigative journalist.

Legal Schnauzer received considerable national attention when we reported in fall 2013 that nude photographs of Pryor had appeared at the Web site badpuppy.com. But Wayne Madsen, who writes from his base in Washington, D.C., apparently was first to break the news in 2009. 

While the story has an undeniable titillation quality to it, Madsen points out its serious implications for our democracy. That's because the unsavory activities in Pryor's background make him vulnerable to a not-so-subtle form of blackmail while serving on the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

In fact, our sources say conservative forces pushed George W. Bush to make the appointment not because of any legal expertise on Pryor's part, but because his secrets make him controllable. Madsen calls Pryor a "gatekeeper" for Republican interests. Others have called him a "fixer," that he protects Karl Rove's agenda on the bench. Rove once served as Pryor's campaign manager in a race for Alabama attorney general.

Either way, Pryor appears to be a judge of dubious integrity. And that might be why prominent Alabama Republican Rob Riley reportedly has asked Pryor to intervene in an Alabama criminal probe that threatens to ensnare a number of individuals loyal to former Governor Bob Riley, Rob's father.

Will Pryor actually try to pull strings behind the curtain in order to thwart a grand-jury investigation in Lee County, Alabama? It might be too early to tell. But if that's what Rob Riley is hoping for, he probably turned to the right federal judge. This is from Wayne Madsen's June 2009 report:

June 15, 2009 -- Is there a closet door closed at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta?

William H. ("Bill") Pryor, Jr., the former Attorney General of Alabama who was involved in the political prosecution by the Bush administration of Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman and who squeaked by U.S. Senate confirmation after being nominated by George W. Bush to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, appears to have a little something in his "closet." Pryor was confirmed by the Senate in 2005 in a 53-45 vote, his nomination being secured by a bi-partisan agreement between Senator John McCain and thirteen "Gang of 14" senators to force an "up or down" vote on three stalled Bush federal court nominees. Pryor was 43 when he was sworn in as a federal judge.

According to WMR sources in Alabama, Pryor, who now acts as a gatekeeper on the 11th Circuit for the Bush interests in Florida, Alabama, and other states in the jurisdiction, advertised himself during his younger days on a gay website called "Bad Puppy." There are also rumors from informed sources that naked photographs are held by some top Republicans and conservatives as an insurance policy that Pryor rules the correct way on issues on the 11th Circuit bench.

How many cases have received unlawful interference from Bill Pryor? Could they include the high-profile case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman?

We don't have answers to those questions at the moment, but it's important to note this key point from Madsen--it's Republicans, not Democrats, who have tended to use this information against Pryor--to help ensure that some parties receive favorable treatment, while others are cheated.

The GOP angle is in keeping with our experience. The copies of the Pryor photos we received came from individuals with Republican political leanings.

Rob Riley appears to be in desperation mode as Lee County probe threatens the family political machine

Rob Riley

Members of Alabama's Riley Political Machine appear to be on the verge of panic as a state criminal investigation comes closer to focusing on their unsavory activities.

Birmingham attorney Rob Riley, son of former Governor Bob Riley, reportedly reached out to current Governor Robert Bentley and a sitting federal judge in an effort to derail the ongoing Lee County grand-jury investigation. Our research indicates the federal judge in question is Bill Pryor, who sits on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals but perhaps is best known for nude photographs that tie him to 1980s and '90s gay pornography, via the Web site badpuppy.com.

Sonny Reagan was forced to resign as deputy attorney general for leaking information about the grand jury, which so far has focused mostly on House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn). But Bill Britt of Alabama Political Reporter (APR) writes that Team Riley still is trying to force the Lee County inquiry off balance, partly by attacking Prosecutor Matt Hart.

In an article released yesterday, titled "Is Conspiracy At Play To Thwart Justice in Hubbard Case?" Britt reports that Rob Riley and others are taking extraordinary steps to undermine the investigation. At the heart of the scheme is a game of legal musical chairs, with Rob Riley and Bill Baxley representing multiple clients in an apparent effort to use attorney-client privilege as a way to get inside information. Writes Britt:

The public face of Hubbard’s legal team has been J. Mark White, but the attorney of record is, and has been, Rob Riley. This was confirmed by Riley’s office. It is believed that Riley is the one who suggested that White represent Hubbard and that Baxley defend Moore.

Strange’s memo makes it clear that Reagan's representation by attorney’s allied with Moore and Hubbard, created an “irreconcilable conflict of interests,” that compromised his, “duties of loyalty and confidentiality to the State,” and undermined grand jury's investigation for “his own personal interest.”

Strange describes a situation where a sitting Deputy Attorney General is sharing confidential information with attorneys, who, under the guise of attorney/client privilege are free to use this information to protect and defend their clients in a manner the law never imagined.

Here, a cast of characters all linked to former Gov. Bob Riley through relationships, both familial and financial, are talking to Reagan and each other through their attorneys.

Such a scheme, Britt reports, dances dangerously close to criminal territory:

Bill Pryor at badpuppy.com

It has been revealed that not only did Reagan conspire to reveal confidential information to those under indictment or investigation, but that he also participated in an attempt to have white collar crimes chief Matt Hart removed from the case by means of a bogus personnel complaint. It is widely believed, by those inside and outside the Attorney General’s office, that Reagan drafted the complaint against Hart with the help of those who had been actively engaged in advising Hubbard. As with other actions possibly taken by Reagan and the attorneys such a collusion would not fall under attorney/client privilege or the ethics code of the State. And certainly privilege does not extend to lawyers aiding clients in furtherance of a criminal activity.



How desperate is Rob Riley? The answer appears to be "very," Reports Britt:

It had been known for months that Reagan worked in concert with others inside the Attorney General’s office to lay the foundation for a bogus complaint against Hart. It is not known at this time if Riley or Baxley had any influence in the plot to remove Hart, but it is not outside the realm of possibilities given Strange’s statement. It has been said by a number or political operatives that Rob Riley allegedly reached out to Gov. Bentley as well as a sitting federal judge in an attempt to thwart the Hubbard investigation.

It is believed that the Attorney General’s Chief Deputy Kevin Turner was instrumental in Reagan’s scheme to oust Hart and that he is still causing friction within the office designed to slow the investigation.

The federal judge in question almost certainly is Pryor. He sits on the Eleventh Circuit, which is based in Atlanta, but his "duty station" is at the Hugo Black Federal Courthouse in downtown Birmingham.

We strongly suspect that Rob Riley and Pryor have collaborated on dubious activities before, including my unlawful arrest in October 2013.. At least one investigative journalist has reported that Pryor essentially serves as a "fixer" for conservative interests represented by former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove. The journalist reports that Pryor's ties to gay porn are well known among Republican factions, and they use that knowledge to essentially blackmail him into making sure key cases turn out in their favor.

Would a sitting federal judge actually interfere with a state criminal probe? When you are talking about Bill Pryor, the answer probably is yes--and it's likely that Rob Riley knows that.

Today's Siegelman hearing is over in Montgomery, and Judge Land will issue a written order later this week

Today's hearing in Montgomery for former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is over, and U.S. District Judge Clay Land is expected to release a written order regarding possible release later this week.

Siegelman is expected to stay in the Montgomery County Jail until the decision is reached.

If Siegelman is released, he would be free pending the outcome of a U.S. Eleventh Circuit hearing on his appeal, set for January 13.

Sonny Reagan's forced resignation in AG's office raises the specter of criminal charges and disbarment

Sonny Reagan (right), with Bob Riley

The forced resignation of Sonny Reagan answers one question: How would Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange react to charges that one of his most high-profile deputies had leaked information about the ongoing Lee County grand-jury investigation?

Many more questions remain unanswered, and the episode hints that the state's ruling conservative elites often have their priorities out of whack when it comes to matters of loyalty and law. In an internal memo announcing the departure to AG employees, Strange essentially said Reagan was playing for one football team while tipping off the other team about plays to come. Reagan turned himself into a mole, a plant, a backstabber, and his actions raise this question: Is it possible for a lawyer to go any lower than this guy has gone?

Let's ponder just a few questions raised by Reagan's ouster:

* In his memo, Strange says Reagan "shared counsel" with two of the investigation's primary targets--House Speaker Mike Hubbard and State Rep. Barry Moore. What exactly does Strange mean by the term "shared counsel"? It appears he means that Reagan actually provided legal assistance to two individuals who were the subject of his own office's investigation. Again, how low can this guy go?

* Strange says Reagan "forged relationships with persons, outside the Office of Attorney General, who had an interest in undermining the Lee County Special Grand Jury's investigation." Who were these people, what was the nature of any communications Reagan had with them, and did they actually undermine the investigation?

* Were these individuals part of what has come to be known as "the Riley machine," headed by former Governor Bob Riley and his lawyer children, Rob Riley and Minda Riley Campbell. Reagan once served as a legal advisor to Bob Riley, so he clearly is in the Riley inner circle--as are Hubbard and Moore. Does the rule of law matter to those in the Riley orbit? Are their loyalties strictly to the Riley agenda, as opposed to Alabama taxpayers who pay their salaries?

* Will Reagan become the target of a criminal investigation? What about those with whom he communicated? Acting Attorney General Van Davis hinted that criminality was involved when he announced that Reagan had been placed on administrative leave in September, using verbs such as to "impede" and "obstruct" in describing the alleged conduct.
.
* What charges might be brought against Reagan and his cohorts? A state charge of obstructing governmental operations certainly is a possibility. If the misconduct invokes federal jurisdiction, that could lead to charges such as obstruction of justice, conspiracy, racketeering, and more.

* Where is the Alabama State Bar on all of this? How could Reagan possibly keep his bar card after committing acts of such brazen dishonesty?

* Reagan's lawyers in his appearance before the grand jury were Rob Riley and Bill Baxley. Did they know about Reagan's misdeeds? Did they participate in them? If so, what kind of professional and criminal sanctions might await them? Could they be disbarred or indicted, along with Reagan.

* Reagan has been the point man in the crusade against non-Indian gaming that started in 2008 under Bob Riley and has continued under Strange. Reagan has been the chief courtroom antagonist for several electronic-bingo casinos around the state that have been subjected to raids and seizure of equipment that appears to be legal under various constitutional amendments, but has been deemed illegal gambling machines by Riley, Strange, and Reagan. In fact, a judge is due to rule any day in a forfeiture proceeding involving the VictoryLand casino in Macon County. Given Reagan's dishonesty toward his colleagues in the AG's office, how has he treated adversaries in the courtroom setting? Have VictoryLand and other electronic-bingo facilities received fair shakes in their battles with a proven cheater named Sonny Reagan? If not, should their equipment be returned, and their facilities reopened?

* We know that Reagan unlawfully was trying to help Mike Hubbard and Barry Moore. But what about other members of Team Riley, including Big Bob himself? Insiders have speculated that prosecutors have the ammunition/information needed to "dismantle" the Riley Machine. Will the "Unmasking of Sonny Reagan" be a pivotal step in that process?