Uitleveren van verdachten aan Amerikaanse Rechtspraak gerechtvaardigd?

[Cees Binkhorst]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Het is voor mij onbegrijpelijk dat over het uitleveren van verdachten in
het kader van rechtspraak in de USA niet nog een keer goed wordt
nagedacht.

Een Federale rechter die hoogstwaarschijnlijk corrupt is en gedekt wordt
door het volgende echelon, in het veroordelen van een Gouverneur van een
een Amerikaanse staat.
De rechters en aanklagers in dit geval Republikeinen en de Gouverneur
Democraat!

Groet / Cees

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kreig/siegelmans-first-trial-ju_b_206546.html?view=print

Siegelman's First Trial Judge Blasts U.S. Prosecutors, Seeks Probe of
'Unfounded' Charges

One of the most experienced federal judges in recent Alabama history is
denouncing the U.S. Justice Department prosecution of former Alabama Gov.
Don Siegelman. Retired Chief U.S. District Judge U.W. Clemon of Birmingham
calls for a probe of misconduct by federal prosecutors ─ including
their alleged "judge-shopping," jury-pool "poisoning" and "unfounded"
criminal charges in an effort to imprison Siegelman.

The Siegelman prosecution by the Bush Administration Justice Department is
one of the most controversial U.S. criminal cases of the decade because of
claims that Republican political appointees ─ sometimes using career
prosecutors as public surrogates ─ unfairly targeted the Democratic
defendant to prevent his re-election in 2006 as governor.

"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," Clemon wrote U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder last
week. "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."

The remarkable letter by Clemon requests that that Holder investigate
misconduct by federal prosecutors arising from Siegelman's 2004 trial on
bribery-related charges. Clemon oversaw that trial until prosecutors
dropped the case. Prosecutors then shifted their effort against Siegelman
to a different Alabama federal district. Prosecutors obtained Chief U.S.
District Judge Mark E. Fuller of Montgomery to preside over the former
governor's trial. Fuller hated Siegelman because of his role in appointing
an investigator for scandals arising from the judge's controlling interest
in the military contractor Doss Aviation, according to on-the-record
sources cited in my Huffington Post article published May 15.

Meanwhile this week, protests against the federal court system's treatment
of Siegelman escalated on other fronts following the article, which was
entitled, "Siegelman Deserves New Trial Because of Judge's 'Grudge',
Evidence Shows....$300 Million in Bush Military Contracts Awarded to
Judge's Private Company."

The article revealed new evidence from such sources as Missouri attorney
Paul B. Weeks, who obtained Fuller's recusal from a civil case in 2003 on
the grounds that Fuller lacked the ethics needed to preside as judge.
During a conference call Monday for the news media, Weeks said that
Siegelman and his co-defendant Richard Scrushy each deserve a new trial
because Fuller should have disqualified himself from their criminal case
on the judge's own motion.

"The evidence is clear to me that Judge Fuller failed to disclose his bias
in the Siegelman case, and committed fraud on the court," said Weeks,
citing what he called the similar 1988 Supreme Court case Liljeberg v.
Health Services Acquisition Corp. (486 U.S. 847). "If a judge knows
something that others in the case don't know, and it would cause an
appearance of bias, he has an obligation to identify it and get out of the
case," Weeks said, as quoted by Alabama journalist Roger Shuler. "The
Supreme Court said in Liljeberg that the judge's failure to do this was
inexcusable."

In a related development, Siegelman's co-defendant Scrushy hired
Investigative Group International, a politically well-connected private
detective agency, to explore new grounds to win his freedom from prison.
Scrushy, former CEO of HealthSouth, Inc., has said he was the innocent
victim of a political "vendetta" against Siegelman. In 2007, Scrushy
mounted a major but unsuccessful effort to show that Fuller's Doss
Aviation holdings created the appearance of bias by the judge toward
federal authorities who are the contractor's major customers. Doss
Aviation services include training Air Force pilots and refueling Air
Force planes, including the President's Air Force One.

Separately, Alabama attorney Dana Jill Simpson distributed today on an
Alabama email list for Siegelman and Scrushy supporters an overview from
the Doss Aviation website of its global activities in 2007. Beginning in
February of that year, Simpson volunteered to help Scrushy avoid what she
regarded as wrongful imprisonment.

In April 2007, Fuller rejected the Simpson-assisted Scrushy arguments of
judicial bias. Simpson, a longtime volunteer for Republicans in opposition
research, then swore out an affidavit in May 2007 alleging to Fuller that
prominent Alabama Republicans had sought as early as November 2002 to
frame Siegelman. In September 2007, Simpson amplified her statement with
143 pages of sworn testimony before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's
staff. She swore, among other things, that she heard from a Republican
colleague in early 2005 that Fuller "hated" Siegelman, and would be
appointed as judge in his case to "hang" him. Those charges have been
denied in affidavits or media interviews by Republicans. Simpson says she
has no recollection of meeting Fuller, although he was a contemporary at
the University of Alabama.

In her informal email today commenting on Doss Aviation's importance to
others concerned about the case, Simpson wrote (with punctuations and
capitalizations here formalized):

"This company was doing more than anyone could imagine....They, my
friends, really do appear to be almost a wing of the Air Force....In fact,
the $178 million, 10-year Doss In-Flight Screening Program was awarded
right during the middle of the Siegelman case....It is time our government
starts answering questions about how one company has been allowed to have
so much power providing fuel to our military and training our Air Force."

Clemon's letter to Holder and three Holder aides was about separate legal
circumstances. It was based on his nearly 30 years experience until his
retirement Jan. 31 supervising trials in every one of Alabama's federal
districts and two in Florida. Based on his first-hand oversight, Clemon
now seeks Holder's investigation of Siegelman's trial in 2004. Clemon
asked also for an investigation of the Justice Department's later
prosecution in Alabama's Middle District under Fuller.

Siegelman was convicted on seven of 32 counts in 2006 before Fuller, who
held prosecutors blameless for most of the many claims of prosecutorial
misconduct. Siegelman's convictions centered on his 1999 request to
Scrushy to donate to the Alabama Education Foundation, which advocated a
state lottery to improve public school funding. After Scrushy arranged for
$250,000 in donations to the foundation Siegelman reappointed Scrushy to a
state health care oversight board from which Scrushy had resigned after
serving under three previous Alabama governors. In 2000, Scrushy arranged
another $250,000 donation to the foundation before he again resigned from
the state board.

Prosecutors called the arrangement a bribe, or more technically, a
deprivation of the "honest services" that an official owes the public.
Defendants and their supporters said virtually every politician asks for
donations, either for campaigns or other causes. Facing a heavy sentence
on separate bribery charges, former Siegelman aide Nick Bailey provided
the key evidence against Siegelman for the jury conviction by suggesting
that the board appointment was illegally tied to Scrushy's donation. But
CBS 60 Minutes reported last year that Bailey underwent 70 practice
sessions with prosecutors before trial, and prosecutors failed to deliver
interview notes that are required to help the defense prepare for trial.

In 2007, Fuller imposed seven-year prison sentences on both defendants,
who were taken directly from the court to prison in shackles. Siegelman,
63, is temporarily free on bond after serving nine months. Scrushy, 56,
remains in prison.

In denying Scrushy's recusal motion before sentencing, Fuller wrote that
he is fair, and thus can remain on the case. The Justice Department and
the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals have insisted that any
complaints about Fuller's fairness are "untimely." The Justice Department
and appeals court say litigants must unearth evidence of bias before
trial, a position that receives mixed views by independent experts.

But Weeks says his 2003 evidence about Fuller, including actions by two
state of Alabama tribunals in a pension case, proved that Fuller is a
liar. Therefore, Weeks says, litigants cannot rely on any of the judge's
opinions, including his statements of being bias-free. Weeks says that his
recusal action, which also sought Fuller's impeachment and criminal
prosecution, is not part of the normal court file available to litigants
via the federal government's electronic data retrieval system, and never
received news coverage before Siegelman's trial.

Thus, Weeks says, the courts have additional reason to hold Fuller to the
standard established by the Supreme Court that a judge must disclose
possible conflicts and recuse himself. Fuller himself promised to do so
during his 2002 confirmation hearing. At the hearing, Fuller also avoided
entirely any question about his work as CEO and chairman of Colorado-based
Doss Aviation from 1997 to 2002 while he also held a full-time job as a
state district attorney in Alabama.

Both Siegelman and Scrushy have argued that they did not know about
Weeks's evidence before their trial in 2006, or about the extent of
Fuller's financial interests in Doss Aviation. Fuller was listed on a
Maine corporation filing as being the 43.75 percent controlling
shareholder of Doss Aviation. This was by far the largest shareholder of a
company that has received more than $300 million in federal contracts
since the beginning of 2006 while Fuller has presided over Siegelman's
prosecution. Critics claim that Siegelman case's was steered to Fuller
because he was a Republican political leader in Alabama before he was
named to the bench, and that Republican-dominated appeals court panels
have rubber-stamped Fuller and Department of Justice misconduct.

Fuller, the Justice Department and the three Republican judges on the
appeals court panel that vindicated Fuller and the Justice Department in
the March 6 decision each declined comment for this article, which is part
of a five-month research project. The full appeals court, which is
majority-run by Republican-appointed judges, on May 15 denied Siegelman's
request to appeal its March 6 decision affirming five of his seven
convictions.

So, Siegelman is due to appear before Fuller for resentencing unless he
wins a new trial or other favorable action from the Justice Department or
courts. The Justice Department last week sent a letter to the U.S.
probation office requesting that Fuller impose a 20-year sentence on
Siegelman. The Justice Department declined to release the text of the
letter except to the defendant.

Siegelman's complaints of unfairness have ramped up a protest by legal
experts and grassroots critics that is almost unprecedented in recent
years, aside from the simultaneous protests now occurring regarding U.S.
detention, rendition and torture of suspected terrorists. In April, for
example, a bipartisan coalition of 75 former state attorneys general --
the chief law enforcers of a more than 40 states -- wrote to the Justice
Department to protest Siegelman's prosecution.

The Justice Department declines to comment on Clemon's letter or to
release photos of its relevant officials, aside from Holder. Republican
holdovers still run most U.S. attorney's offices. Among them are
Connecticut's U.S. Attorney Nora Dannehy, who continues also to lead a
long-running investigation of allegations that the Bush White House
interfered with Justice Department decision-making around the country.
Holder said on April 9 that no specific investigation of the Siegelman
case was underway. In a related development, former White House advisor
Karl Rove reportedly testified to a federal grand jury last week. But
details are secret by law.

This secrecy helps make Clemon's letter an important part of the debate.
This is especially so given his vantage point as the chief judge in
Alabama's Northern District from 1999 to 2006 and his current freedom to
speak as a retired judge.

As background, the Bush Administration's Justice Department announced
Siegelman's first prosecution in May 2004 on charges of defrauding
Alabama's state health care program. The case was assigned to Clemon after
three other judges recused themselves. Federal prosecutors unsuccessfully
sought to force transfer of the case away from Clemon. He is a Columbia
University Law School graduate and a Democrat who took office in 1980
after nomination by President Jimmy Carter. The federal appeals court
rejected the prosecution's claims that Clemon was biased against
prosecutors, and the case proceeded to trial in the fall of 2004.

Clemon's letter last week to the Justice Department said that U.S.
Attorney's office "undertook considerable judge-shopping" in its attempt
to steer the Siegelman case away from him in what he called "a baseless
and futile effort to have me disqualified." Clemon, who introduced his
letter by saying that he was writing as "a private citizen," continued as
follows:

"Two of the AUSAs [Assistant U.S. Attorneys] rather blatantly attempted to
poison the jury pool. After the Defendants moved that any alleged [Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure] 404(b) materials be filed under seal, and with
full knowledge that the motion was under submission, the AUSAs on the very
next business day filed the materials as a matter of public record. The
predictable poisonous publicity ensued. Although both AUSAs were
subsequently sanctioned, the success of their efforts necessitated my
decision to sequester the jury."

Clemon continued:

"The testimony of the witnesses called by the Government at the James
conspiracy hearing [one that is requested under the 1979 federal appeals
court case U.S. v. James] conclusively established that there was
absolutely no basis for a conspiracy charge. When I granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the conspiracy count, the AUSA forthwith
moved to dismiss the remaining case against Mr. Siegelman and Mr. Hamrick
[Paul Hamrick was a former aide to Siegelman. In 2006, the jury acquitted
Hamrick of all charges in his second trial with Siegelman]. The motion was
granted, and the case was dismissed with prejudice against those
Defendants."

In a footnote in his letter, Clemon cited testimony by the former
Siegelman aide Bailey, a key government witness in both the first and
second federal prosecutions against the former governor. In that 2004
court testimony, Bailey denied that he knew about "an unlawful conspiracy
of any kind," a story that Bailey would change in his later testimony
before Fuller.

"I have no personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding
Mr. Siegelman's subsequent prosecution and conviction in the Middle
District of Alabama," Clemon continued in his letter last week. "But given
my experience with his unwarranted prosecution in the Northern District,
and in the interest of ensuring that Justice Department cases are handled
fairly and consistent with its commitment to justice, I strongly support a
thorough investigation by your office of allegations of prosecutorial
misconduct in Mr. Siegelman's prosecution in the Middle District."

The Justice Department declined to release the Clemon letter, which will
be posted shortly on my website www.EagleViewDC.com. The website already
has many other source documents and several articles regarding the federal
prosecution against Siegelman and Scrushy cited in the comprehensive
Huffington Post article published on May 15. That article featured
perspectives of the Missouri attorney Paul Weeks, who was making his first
published comments drawing lessons from his 2003 impeachment effort
against Fuller to the Justice Department's Siegelman prosecution.

Weeks has said that Fuller held a grudge against Siegelman for appointing
a state district attorney who helped Weeks and others investigate Fuller's
alleged conspiracy to defraud Alabama's state pension system of $330,000.
The pension conspiracy allegedly was to cover up Fuller's role in serving
as CEO of Doss Aviation. In late 2002, Fuller described criticism of the
pension fight as "politically motivated." No indictment or impeachment of
Fuller ever occurred.

Weeks amplified his views today on the "My Technology Lawyer Radio Show"
that I co-host with Internet radio pioneer Richard Scott Draughon. The
interview tape is available here.

A political independent, Weeks says he remains available to cooperate with
authorities in any investigation of Fuller, which he tried unsuccessfully
to initiate in 2003. He drove to Washington, DC then to hand-deliver
copies of his 180-page affidavit and exhibit about Fuller to key officials
at the Justice Department, to House Judiciary Committee leaders, and to
all members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He says he received no
response to his 2003 effort, but is more hopeful now.

"After the investigation," he says, "I was convinced that Fuller was a
danger to the federal judiciary. He had no sense of right and wrong, no
respect for the public, and certainly no respect for the law."

Fuller and relevant Justice Department officials were invited to comment
on this report, which will be updated with their comments.

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********