Connect with us

Courts

Opinion | A new low for the Alabama Supreme Court: A most unethical appointment

Josh Moon

Published

on

Mike Hubbard is going to get away with it. 

Or, at least, he’s going to get away with some of it. The Alabama Supreme Court is going to step in and overrule a jury that acted intelligently and applied the law properly, and it’s going to toss some of the former Alabama House speaker’s felony convictions. 

Because that’s what the Big Mules in Alabama want. And this court and these justices have proven time and again that what matters in Alabama isn’t what’s right or what’s just or what falls within the bounds of judicial precedent. 

It’s what the guys with lots of money want. 

If you doubt that, I have two words for you: Sonny Reagan. 

Last week, Reagan’s hometown newspaper reported that the Alabama Supreme Court had appointed Reagan, who is a circuit court judge in Coffee and Pike counties, to the statewide judicial ethics committee. 

It was, without a doubt, the least ethical appointment to an ethics committee in the history of ethics. 

For those of you unfamiliar with Reagan’s past — and the story from the Southeastern Sun certainly wouldn’t have clued anyone in — let’s recap why his appointment is more than a tad suspect. 

Advertisement

Reagan was, once upon a time, a deputy attorney general working in Luther Strange’s administration. He lost that job after he was accused by Strange and others in the office — all of whom provided rather compelling evidence — of feeding inside info to Hubbard’s defense team while Reagan’s co-workers were investigating and prosecuting him. 

To facilitate this, Reagan, without explanation and without disclosure, hired the same attorneys who were representing Hubbard. And it was alleged that Reagan participated in office conversations and strategy sessions, and then fed that inside info to those attorneys. 

But wait, it gets worse. 

Reagan also shared the same legal counsel as another indicted lawmaker in the case, Barry Moore. And then he worked on that case for the AG’s office. Without ever telling anyone that he had the same attorneys — for no apparent reason. 

But wait, it gets even worse. 

Strange was so incensed by Reagan’s actions — and let me just say, being too corrupt for Luther Strange, mouthpiece for opioid companies, is quite the achievement — that he publicly commented on his intentions to fire Reagan. 

In a statement to AG’s office employees that was later released to the media, Strange wrote: “While he was sharing legal counsel with the indicted defendant Moore and Speaker Hubbard, Mr. Reagan was privy to confidential inter-office communications involving fellow prosecutors, investigators and staff members relating to the Lee County Special Grand Jury. 

“For months, Mr. Reagan took part in inter-office conversations related to the Special Grand Jury, all the while concealing his simultaneous representation by the criminal defense team. By doing so, Mr. Reagan not only breached his duty of loyalty to the State of Alabama, but he also violated the trust of you, his colleagues.”

In a separate release, the prosecutor who was appointed to oversee Hubbard’s prosecution, the late Van Davis, said Reagan had taken actions “to impede or obstruct the investigation …” into Hubbard. 

This is the guy the Alabama Supreme Court appointed to an ethics committee. 

Oh, but wait, I’m not finished. 

Reagan later testified in the case against Hubbard — for the defense — in an effort to get Hubbard’s indictment tossed out. Reagan told grand tales of how the prosecutors — his former co-workers — had violated the rules in trying to indict and convict Hubbard. The judge bought none of it. 

That testimony came after Reagan refused to answer questions in front of a grand jury — invoking his Fifth Amendment protections — about his relationships with Hubbard and Hubbard’s mentor, former Gov. Bob Riley. Reagan had served on Riley’s staff and was his point man on legal issues involving the bingo wars.

In the end, Reagan resigned before he could be fired. He never challenged the allegations against him in any meaningful way. They still follow him like a stench. 

But the Alabama Supreme Court justices don’t care. 

Because Reagan is friendly with the Rileys — Rob Riley was one of those attorneys he hired — and the Rileys still control a whole lot of political money in this state. If you doubt that, just take a peek at the Riley-associated PACs that have dumped thousands into the campaign accounts of the ALSC justices. 

It’s deplorable.

It used to be that the Supreme Court — even in this state — held some level of respect for the rule of law. Certainly, Alabama’s has a history of poor decisions dating back through the Jim Crow days and beyond, but on a daily basis, attorneys could typically count on the ALSC justices to mostly follow the law and precedent. Outside of a few pandering matters, that was even true with Roy Moore. 

But it’s no longer true. 

Today, Alabama’s Supreme Court justices are completely beholden to the powerful and rich in this state. They have shirked their responsibility to the law, and they behave no better than cowardly servants, willing to embarrass themselves and the court itself in exchange for the good graces and campaign dollars of the Big Mules.

And as the Reagan appointment clearly shows, there is apparently no bottom to how low they will sink to do so.

 

Josh Moon is an investigative reporter and featured columnist at the Alabama Political Reporter with years of political reporting experience in Alabama. You can email him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter.

Advertisement

Courts

DOJ’s dropping of charges against Flynn may raise question in Siegelman case

Brandon Moseley

Published

on

Defenders of former Gov. Don Siegelman suggested that U.S. Attorney General William Barr’s dropping of federal charges against General Michael Flynn raises questions of the prosecution of Siegelman.

Flynn, a retired Lt. General, was President Donald Trump’s first national security adviser. He was investigated under the Logan Act as part of the wider Russian collusion investigation into the 2016 election, when Trump defeated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

A preeminent scholar in prosecutorial misconduct, Professor Bennett Gershman, has now proclaimed the prosecutors of former governor Siegelman are the ones who should have been charged with a federal crime.

“Yes, the prosecutors should be in jail,” Gershman said. “Of the thousands of prosecutorial misconduct cases I’ve written about, the government’s bad faith described in Stealing our Democracy stands out and may be without parallel.”

“Stealing our Democracy” is Siegelman’s new book. The new book raised more questions of prosecutorial misconduct.

David C. Iglesias is a former Republican U.S. Attorney for New Mexico. He is now an associate professor of Politics and Law at Wheaton College in Illinois.

“If you doubt that politics are the mortal enemy of justice, read Stealing Our Democracy,” Iglesias said. “This is a sobering reminder of the vast powers the federal government has wrongfully used as a sledgehammer to achieve a conviction at any cost. Terrible things happen when you mix politics with prosecutions.”

The White House maintains that the prosecution of Flynn was a political exercise. White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany blasted the effort to prosecute Flynn.

Advertisement

“The FBI exists to investigate crimes. But in the case of Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, it appears that they might have existed to manufacture one,” McEnany said at the White House press briefing. “As the motion filed by the Department of Justice yesterday explained, the FBI set out to interview General Michael Flynn, when they had no predigate [sic] — predicate for any investigation of any crime.”

“Over the past week, we learned, from a handwritten note, the true intent behind the FBI’s investigation of Lieutenant General Michael Flynn,” McEnany explained. “The very day that then-FBI Director Jim Comey sent agents to the White House to interview Flynn, the FBI discussed what their intent was beforehand. This is what they said: “What is our goal? Truth, admission? Or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” These notes, in addition to other evidence, raise serious questions about the handling of the — of the FBI’s handling of Michael Flynn’s case.”

Siegelman’s supporters maintain that is what happened to the former Governor.

Law Professor John Farmer is the former Dean of Rutgers Law School and seems to agree with Professor Gerhman.

“Don Siegelman’s story is nothing less than an American tragedy,” Farmer wrote. “Understanding the abuses he experienced may well be the first step to ending them and to healing our broken politics.”

Siegelman is the only Democrat to be elected as the Governor of Alabama since 1982’s election of George C. Wallace (D). Siegelman served as Governor from 1999 to 2003. He was narrowly defeated by then-Congressman Bob Riley, R-Ashland, in the 2002 election after just one term as Governor. Siegelman was mulling a run for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States in 2004.

Siegelman claims that he was then targeted by President George W. Bush’s Department of Justice and claims that he was prosecuted on the orders of GOP strategist and top Bush White House political strategist Karl Rove.

Flynn’s guilty plea was overturned and the case against him lifted with the aid of AG William Barr and the Trump Department of Justice after being investigated and prosecuted by Barack H. Obama’s holdovers at the DOJ, whom some Republicans accuse of attempting a legal coup against the incoming Trump officials. Siegelman on the other hand was prosecuted during the 2006 election when he was running to regain the Governor’s mansion. Siegelman, then under a legal cloud, lost the Democratic primary to then Lt. Governor Lucy Baxley (D). Baxley was then trounced by Gov. Riley. Siegelman was convicted by a jury of his peers and his convictions were upheld by the federal court system, spending years in prison until 2017.

Siegelman claims that his new book raises more questions of prosecutorial misconduct in his case.

Continue Reading

Courts

Gov. Kay Ivey extends public health emergency, issues COVID-19 lawsuit protections

Eddie Burkhalter

Published

on

Gov. Kay Ivey on Friday extended the formal “public health emergency” for 60 days, beginning May 13. 

Ivey also issued another proclamation that provides liability protection for businesses and health care providers from being sued over COVID-19 matters if those businesses and health care providers “comply with or reasonably attempt to comply with applicable public health guidance.”

Ivey’s order also states that the emergency liability protections would cover businesses and health care providers unless they show “wanton, reckless, willful or intentional misconduct.” 

“I want to do everything within my authority to protect businesses as Alabama’s economy gets up and running again,” Ivey said in a statement. “As we resume operations, the very last thing a business owner needs to worry about is a frivolous lawsuit from responding to COVID-19. Let me be clear, this in no way shields them from serious misconduct. If someone knowingly abuses the public during a time of crisis, they should be held accountable and prosecuted as such.”

Ivey is to hold a press conference at 11 a.m. to discuss possible changes to her “safer-at-home” order. The new proclamations issued Friday morning are separate from the state’s public health orders.

The existence of the states of emergency simply allows the governor to take extraordinary steps to deal with an emergency situation.

Eighth proclamation summary:

  • The order provides safe harbor to health care providers, businesses, and other entities to encourage “reopening our state.”
  • The order protects health care providers from a frivolous lawsuit based on actions they took or failed to take as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • The order protects businesses from frivolous lawsuits when they conduct COVID-19 testing or distribute PPE to help protect people from COVID-19.
  • The order “in no way shields these groups from claims of egregious misconduct. Claims based on egregious misconduct would be allowed to proceed,” according to the governor’s office.

Ninth proclamation summary:

  • One provision allows for probate judges to improve procedures for administering the July 14 primary runoff election.
  • Probate judges would be allowed to reduce the number of poll workers, if necessary. They would also be allowed to conduct poll-worker training remotely.
  • Another provision “cuts red tape for electric co-ops seeking to obtain emergency loans.” This will “help ensure that electrical cops are still able to provide electricity to their members during this public health emergency.”
  • A final provision will extend the formal “public health emergency” for 60 days, beginning May 13.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Courts

Appeals court refuses to lift injunction prohibiting Alabama from banning abortions

Chip Brownlee

Published

on

A federal appeals court Thursday refused to lift a preliminary injunction prohibiting Alabama from banning abortions during the COVID-19 epidemic.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday issued a ruling that denied the state of Alabama’s request to stay a preliminary injunction issued by federal district court Judge Myron Thompson.

The decision ensures that the injunction prohibiting the state from banning abortions as part of its COVID-19 response will remain in effect throughout the appeal. Abortion care will continue to be available.

“Today, the court refused to allow Alabama to use the COVID-19 crisis as a pretext to prevent patients from accessing abortion care,” said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “This is a critical victory that recognizes that government response to the pandemic must be grounded in public health, not politics.”

The decision comes after Attorney General Steve Marshall appealed Thompson’s partial blocking of the state’s temporary ban on abortions amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

In his order, Thompson said of Alabama’s temporary ban on elective procedures, “for some group of women, a mandatory postponement will make a lawful abortion literally impossible. Under Alabama law, a woman’s window for seeking a lawful abortion is limited: abortion becomes illegal when the probable post fertilization age of the fetus is at least 20 weeks.”

Marshall and the state of Alabama have argued that State Health Officer Scott Harris’s order “covers all elective medical procedures, including abortions.  The purposes of the order are to promote social distancing and ensure that scarce healthcare resources—including personal protective equipment for medical providers—are available for the fight against COVID-19.”

“This ruling ensures that everyone in Alabama can continue to make the decision about whether to have an abortion for themselves,” said Randall Marshall, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama. “We will keep fighting to hold our politicians accountable to protecting the needs of our communities, rather than using the pandemic to further an anti-abortion agenda.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Corruption

Will Mike Hubbard ever go to jail? Yes. And likely soon.

Josh Moon

Published

on

Mike Hubbard is likely going to prison within the next couple of months. 

Hubbard, the former Alabama House speaker, had his conviction on 11 felony ethics counts partially upheld last week by the Alabama Supreme Court. The justices overturned five of the charges and sent them back to the Alabama Criminal Court of Appeals for review, but upheld six of his charges. 

And those six matter a lot. 

Under the original sentence imposed by Lee County Circuit Court Judge Jacob Walker, Hubbard was set to serve four years in prison and eight years of probation. That sentence was structured in a manner that all but assured that Hubbard would serve that time unless the entire verdict against him was overturned. 

It wasn’t. And a source familiar with the ALSC’s opinion in the case told APR that the justices were fully aware that their opinion would not lessen Hubbard’s jail time. 

That ALSC opinion puts an end to Hubbard’s appeals bond that has allowed him to remain a free man as his case worked its way through the appeals process over the past four years. 

According to the Lee County Circuit Court clerk’s office, once a final determination is made by the ALSC on charges that result in a sentence, that opinion is the final piece supporting the need for an appeals bond.

Basically, there are no additional avenues for appeal that could possibly result in Hubbard not serving his prison sentence, so the bond has to be revoked and Hubbard sent to prison.  

Advertisement

Once Walker receives the certificate of judgment from the ALSC showing it upheld the counts that related to Hubbard’s sentence, that should prompt Walker to revoke the bond and Hubbard will be notified that he is expected to begin his prison term. 

According to Scott Mitchell, the clerk of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, that certificate of judgment can’t be issued by the ALSC until at least 14 days have passed. That span allows both the prosecution and defense time to submit requests for rehearings on ALSC’s opinion. Should either side do so, consideration of those requests by ALSC could add more time. 

“It’s really hard to say (how long it might take) — it’s such a case-by-case thing,” Mitchell said. “It could be anywhere from weeks to a couple of months before we get it.” 

It is also not uncommon for one side or the other to ask for an extension of time to file their requests for a rehearing, which would add additional time. 

However, once that certificate is sent out by the ALSC, it should trigger Walker to revoke the appeals bond. 

The Criminal Appeals Court will also have to review Hubbard’s case and issue a new decision that considers the ALSC’s opinion on the six reversed counts. That process is likely to take much longer.

“Again, a lot of factors play into that and it’s hard to determine how long any one case might take,” Mitchell said. “I’d say you’re looking at a few months at least.”  

It will only add to the extraordinary length of this case.

Hubbard was convicted in June 2016 on 12 felony counts for using his office for personal gain and directing public business to his clients. Court testimony and evidence revealed Hubbard was making more than $600,000 per year in “consulting” contracts, mostly for work in areas in which he held no prior work experience.  

Since his conviction, a team of attorneys working for him — and financed by his campaign funds and various other entities — have challenged every word of his conviction, accusing the prosecution of misdeeds and attacking the state’s ethics laws — which Hubbard helped write — as overly broad and vague. 

Those appeals have been successful in getting half of the charges knocked down. But because Hubbard’s prison sentence was tied to only a couple of the specific charges, those decisions will not lessen his jail time.

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Authors

Advertisement

The V Podcast

Facebook

Trending

.