Timing suspicious in Siegelman opinion
By Staff
Bob Martin, The Alabama Scene
Last Wednesday afternoon, Mark Fuller, the United States District Court judge who presided at the Don Siegelman trial, made his second attempt to satisfy the U. S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta concerning his decision not to release the former governor on bond pending appeal.
The only reason Fuller initially gave the court after its first request last Sep. 27 was that Siegelman was not likely to be successful in his appeal.
That apparently wasn’t good enough for the court so on Nov. 7 the judges told Fuller again to “promptly” give them additional reasons why Siegelman should not be released on bond pending appeal. He didn’t give them a whole lot more this time in a 30-page opinion, which was basically a replay of his initial reasoning.
When his reply was made public Wednesday it had been 57 days since the second request from the 11th Circuit was received at the federal courthouse in Montgomery and over three months since the appellate court first told him to “promptly” give the court additional reasons.
The timing and reasoning of the opinion are interesting. It is virtually lifted from the arguments of the prosecutors and the first 10 or so pages are basically wording from the criminal indictment. One legal observer opined that it is “a very shoddy piece of work, which leaves little doubt why he wouldn't want it published.” It was released stamped "not for publication."
The timing is also suspect.
An article runs on the Associated Press wire, Siegelman’s lawyers file their motion to compel, and the next day Fuller releases his opinion.
Some Siegelman defenders have alleged that Fuller still holds a grudge against Siegelman over the former governor’s appointment of the district attorney who succeeded him in that office and launched an investigation into some of Fuller’s activities.
They claim his delay in answering the appeals court and the unusual delay in the preparation of the transcript in the case — a year-and-a-half already — is happening because Fuller wants to see Siegelman serve as much time as possible in the event he is successful on appeal. I find that a stretch, but Fuller’s actions to date have, to some extent, buttressed that proposition.
Ticketgate, Part II
If Montgomery Rep. Alvin Holmes doesn’t get his two Iron Bowl tickets in the future, he now knows who to call: his own fellow state lawmaker, House Minority Leader, Rep. Mike Hubbard of Auburn.
The Huntsville Times reported last week that Hubbard, who runs the sports marketing firm, ISP at Auburn, controlled 6,564 premium tickets at Jordan-Hare Stadium last year.
Holmes, who claims Auburn snubbed him in the 2007 Iron Bowl, because he didn’t get the two tickets all other legislators got for the game, might even persuade Hubbard to put him in one of the three skyboxes he controls. ISP at Alabama also gets a very generous share of tickets to Crimson Tide games, but falls way short of Hubbard’s take.
Hubbard correctly notes that most of the tickets are used for marketing purposes and that the university gets a cut of ISP revenues.
Preservationists battle
Bronner over building
The Landmarks Foundation and the Montgomery Historical Society are stirring opposition to the construction of what they call “an eyesore building” which they say will ruin the vista up Dexter Avenue to the state Capitol.
The building will be built over and around the decaying, asbestos-filled old state Judicial Building, which has been vacant for 15 years. Bronner said the plan is likely to tick off historic preservation groups, but he doesn't care.
He said Montgomery lacks available Class A office space, and it needs more to continue luring white-collar jobs downtown.
