Justice Department Should Set Aside Siegelman Verdict
June 10th, 2009Whistle-Blower Jill Simpson Issues Rare Public Statement
by Glynn Wilson
In response to a new story in The Huffington Post Wednesday about a conflict of interest on the part of the judge who presided in the federal case against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, attorney and whistle-blower Jill Simpson issued a rare, lengthy public statement today calling on the Obama Justice Department to immediately set aside the convictions of Siegelman and release his co-defendant Richard Scrushy from prison.
In her statement, included in full in the comments below, she details misdeeds on the part of the Bush Justice Department’s Public Integrity Division, including hiding evidence, and comes to this conclusion.
“As a result of these misdeeds the DOJ should immediately release Mr. Scrushy and file motions to set aside the convictions. To do anything less is just plain wrong,” she said. “It is important for our Justice Department to seek Justice, not just to seek to win. Justice will only be served at this point by the release of Mr. Scrushy and by the convictions being set aside.”
Based on her research into the case, and an affidavit filed by another attorney named Paul Weeks, she says once again that Fuller had a conflict of interest that was never disclosed to Siegelman’s attorneys and that he should have recused himself form sitting in judgment in the case.
She revealed her knowledge of a conflict of interest on the part of Judge Fuller to me in the very first story written about this nearly two years ago.
Weeks detailed a political vendetta on the part of Chief U.S. District Judge Mark E. Fuller against Siegelman dating back to Siegelman’s term as governor and Fuller’s days as a local district attorney from Enterprise, all in an affidavit that was in the possession of the Bush Justice Department but completely ignored by the Public Integrity Division investigating the case.
“The time has come for those at the Department of Justice to admit their wrong doings by accepting responsibility for not providing the Weeks affidavit, and for allowing an attorney who is supposed to be over investigating a complaint on a judge to defend that judge in another matter without ever disclosing his conflict,” she said.
She indicated she was exercising her First Amendment right as a citizen to speak out on the injustice that has occurred at the U.S. Department of Justice in the Siegelman-Scrushy case because it was the right thing to do.
“Not to speak out in my opinion would be wrong because it will allow this ridiculous injustice to continue,” she said.
From his reporting on the case, attorney and investigative reporter Andrew Kreig has stored a number of the documents in the case on his Web site, including some of the most relevant exhibits here.
Tags: Obama Justice Department Should Set Aside Siegelman Verdict
June 10th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
The statement of Jill Simpson issued today:
I thought your readers would like to know about some research that I did back around April 25, 2007. At that time I sent what I discovered to a reporter for the Gadsden Times. The information that I sent was about a man named Bill Welch. Mr. Welch is from the Department of Justice and is the man from DOJ who showed up to respond to the Fuller recusal motion in the Don Siegelman case. The information that I sent at that time is this:
“Bill Welch you mentioned in your article is the top guy at the Department of Justice for Public Integrity I did a little research and thought you would want to know this guy was appointed to this post about one month ago. Further if you check out the justice department of public integrity it has exclusive jurisdiction of investigating federal judges. The question I have for you is why the justice department would send the chief of his department to help Lewis Franklin when they know they may have to investigate this judge because of this potential conflict. The chief of public integrity can’t be defending a judge in pleadings and investigating Judge. Further, they could have sent head guy of criminal division. I believe this guy directly reported to Gonzales. I wonder if Gonzales is trying to create a conflict sending this guy if he handles this case he can’t be in charge of investigating the Judge since his department has exclusive jurisdiction. This is a big mistake for justice department. This story could go national because of this. I can see headline: U.S. Justice Department corruption chief defends corruption in Alabama. This guy is saying it’s OK for federal judge to be federal contractor. He needs to read criminal laws. Federal employees can’t contract with the government while federal employees.”
At the time I sent this I had no idea what an important role Mr. Welch was going to play in this matter. I knew at the time his conduct was very questionable. Today I as a whistle-blowing witness feel compelled to lay it all out there and speak out about what I know about Mr. Welch and his involvement in the Alabama case.
Around the time I wrote the above letter I learned about the Maverick case that is mentioned today in Andrew Kreig’s article I had an attorney retained in another matter at that time and he was representing one of the defendants in the Maverick case. He told me about the Department of Justice wanting Judge Fuller out of the Maverick case because they knew he had a conflict. Luckily at the time, I told the Scrushy legal team who confmned my allegations with that lawyer. Today in Mr. Kreig’s article the Department of Justice is denying being involved in the removal of Judge Fuller from the Maverick case. I do not know if the person who responded to this knows the truth but clearly what was said by the DOJ spokesperson was false. They knew about Judge Fuller and they asked for his removal.
Additionally, Bill Welch has in the last couple of months become the whipping boy at the DOJ in the Alaskan case. His conduct is no worse there than it is here in Alabama. It is my understanding that they claim the reason they set aside the verdicts in Alaska in the Steven’s case and asked for the release from prison of Kott and Kohring is because of the fact that they claim Mr. Welch hid evidence. Clearly in Mr. Siegelman’s and Mr. Scrushy’s case here in Alabama Mr. Welch was involved in misconduct. Instead of researching whether their allegations were true about the Judge, Mr. Welch showed up in the case and defended the Judge. His job was to look at these kinds of allegations to determine if there is corruption or
misconduct.
He was the head guy at the Department of Justice over that very division. If he had done his job instead of rushing to defend Judge Fuller he would have found the Paul Weeks affidavit in his office that laid out all kinds of misconduct. He would have had a duty to have provided a copy to the Siegelman-Scrushy legal team. Instead this lawyer who had been in charge of this division for all of one month buried his head in the sand and defended the Judge without ever investigating even what was in his own files in his own office.
It is important to note that Weeks maintains that he never received any notice after he delivered the copy of these documents to the Public Integrity Division of the DOJ. What this means is that Bill Welch had a conflict of interest from the moment he appeared in the Siegelman-Scrushy case because he had in his office an open file with an affidavit with over one hundred and eighty pages of exhibits that should have been turned over to the Siegelman-Scrushy team in 2005 when their case started. At the very least it should have been turned over when Scrushy made the motion for recusal Instead, this one month head of Public Integrity section of the Department of Justice elected to either hide the Weeks affidavit or was too incompetent to even know it was in his office.
Either way it does not matter, the Department of Justice had a duty to turn over the Weeks affidavit and failed miserably in doing so. As a result of this, Mr. Scrushy has spent almost two years in jail and Mr. Siegelman spent over nine months. The time has come for those at the Department of Justice to admit their wrong doings by accepting responsibility for not providing the Weeks affidavit, and for allowing an attorney who is supposed to be over investigating a complaint on a Judge to defend that Judge in another matter without ever disclosing his conflict.
As a result of these misdeeds the DOJ should immediately release Mr. Scrushy and file motions to set aside the convictions. To do anything less is just plain wrong. It is also time for the Department of Justice to stop saying things in the press that they are not sure are true. It is important for our Justice Department to seek Justice, not just to seek to win. Justice will only be served at this point by the release ofMr. Scrushy and by the convictions being set aside.
Today I am exercising my first amendment right as a citizen to speak out on the injustice that has occurred at the United States Department of Justice in the Siegelman-Scrushy matter as regards Mr. Bill Welch. Not to speak out in my opinion would be wrong because it will allow this ridiculous injustice to continue at the United States Department of Justice.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Jill Simpson
June 11th, 2009 at 8:19 am
I agree with Jill Simpson, I want to exercise my 1st amendment right also, as I have said before……this is the most unjust case in the history of the law books. Our Department of Justice in this case are the very ones that should have been investigated long ago.There have been too many misconduct happennings with this case.
I agree, Mr. Scrushy needs to be set free and charges on both of these men cleared forever.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Thank you for your continued reporting on these matters, Glynn.
I’d like to further emphasize the point that the unethical and dishonorable conduct in the prosecution of these men isn’t limited to the DoJ attorneys prosecuting these cases but also includes unethical conduct by Judge Mark Everett Fuller, the federal judge who presided over the trial. I have detailed Judge Fuller’s unethical conduct here.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
[...] Obama Justice Dept. Should Set Aside Siegelman Verdict | Locust Fork News-Journal [...]