Rob Riley

In 2002, during the Justice Department’s investigation of Siegelman’s administration, a federal prosecutor emailed the son and campaign manager of Siegelman’s principal Republican opponent updating him on the confidential probe, according to a Justice Department document obtained by the Project On Government Oversight and reported here for the first time.

In the email, the prosecutor said he had been “thwarted” after starting an investigation “into the Siegelman administration.” He added that it was “frustrating for me and a small group of like minded conservative prosecutors” to “fight the tide in order to do the job we are sworn to do.”

In listing the people OPR interviewed, the Justice Department letter summarizing the probe does not name Rob Riley, the son of and campaign manager for Siegelman’s political rival Bob Riley and the recipient of the “like minded conservatives” email. As a result, it is unclear whether OPR contacted him.

The DOJ letter also offers no indication of why the prosecutor emailed Riley in the first place, and on whose instructions, if anyone’s. Nor does it say whether Riley replied or took any subsequent action. It does not explain how the “small group of like minded conservative prosecutors” fit into the picture, or why the prosecutor injected his own political leanings and those of his colleagues into the matter.

The unanswered questions also include who may have “thwarted” the conservative prosecutors and why, and what penalty the prosecutor faced, if any, for sending the email.

“I do not recall receiving the email in 2002, but I had nothing to do with the U.S. Attorney’s Office pursuing charges against Don Siegelman,” Rob Riley told POGO, noting that the contact would have occurred more than a decade ago. “I also do not recall being contacted by OPR one way or the other.”

The letter summarizing OPR’s investigation into prosecutors’ handling of the Siegelman matter shows that the internal watchdog singled out four prosecutors for at least some criticism, but nonetheless concluded that “political motivation” played no role in the case.

One of those singled out was Leura G. Canary, an experienced DOJ career lawyer who served as U.S. Attorney for Alabama’s Middle District, where Siegelman was tried and convicted.

A few months before Bob Riley defeated the incumbent Siegelman in the 2002 election, Canary formally recused herself from the Siegelman investigation. She did so following accusations, widely disseminated by the Siegelman camp, that she had a variety of political conflicts of interest. For example, citing public records, a lawyer for Siegelman protested that one of Siegelman’s political opponents had paid fees to Canary’s husband, a prominent Republican consultant.

In a letter explaining Canary’s recusal, Deputy Assistant Attorney General David Margolis wrote that DOJ had found no conflict, but that out of “an abundance of caution,” Canary would withdraw from the case anyway. She issued a similar statement.

Don Siegelman

Soon after she contacted the prosecution team, it did in fact seek such a gag order, though a judge refused to grant one.

OPR minimized this example of Canary’s continued involvement in the case. It found that “Canary did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment in connection with her recusal from the Siegelman case.”

At another point, the DOJ letter refers to a separate attempt in 2004 by the Northern District of Alabama to prosecute Siegelman for corruption. A federal judge with nearly 30 years tenure threw that matter out of court, later calling it “completely without legal merit” and “the most unfounded criminal case over which I presided in my entire judicial career.” Citing the 2004 case, the judge wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder calling for an investigation of prosecutorial misconduct in Siegelman’s subsequent 2006 conviction.

OPR had a different view. It concluded that, while the evidence in the 2004 case was “weak, the decision to prosecute. . .did not violate the Principles of Federal Prosecution.”

According to the DOJ letter, OPR had a procedural complaint. It found that the U.S. Attorney who brought the case, Alice Martin, “exercised poor judgment by failing to comply with Department guidelines” requiring her to “provide timely notice” of Siegelman’s indictment to DOJ headquarters.

Reached by POGO, Martin said, “We exercised great judgment in bringing the case, after a grand jury indicted Siegelman.”

The letter also says that “evidence did not support” an allegation that appeared in TIME magazine in 2007. That story, written by the author of this article, cited FBI documents showing the prosecution relied on a witness who gave incriminating evidence against Siegelman and two prominent Republican politicians in Alabama. Investigators and prosecutors allegedly ignored the evidence against the two Republicans.

The letter says OPR concluded that investigators and prosecutors did not pursue those matters because of “concerns” about the witness’s “credibility” as well as a “lack of resources.” The letter also reports that a lawyer in DOJ’s Public Integrity Section later re-interviewed the witness and determined that his allegations “lacked merit” and were probably “time barred” from prosecution. The letter says nothing about why, given those weaknesses, prosecutors chose to have the witness testify for four days at Siegelman’s trial, where the witness’s allegation figured in about half of the 32 corruption counts brought against the ex-governor. . . .

As long as the Department of Justice keeps the report about its internal investigation under wraps, it will be impossible for anyone to independently assess the Department’s investigation into itself or the soundness of its conclusions.

Rob Riley

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.

Bill Pryor at badpuppy.com

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.

Bill Pryor at badpuppy.com

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.

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

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.

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.

Don Siegelman

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).

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.”).

Clay Land

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.

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.

Don Siegelman

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.

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.

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 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.

Richard Scrushy

The magistrate’s representations as to the discovery requests relating to the e-mails to or from U.S. Attorney Canary are at odds with the record. The wording of the order denying discovery as to these e-mails states that he “laboriously reviewed the documents provided to it by the government related to his issue.” . . . The magistrate’s finding that “there is no evidence to support the defendant’s supposition ‘that other e-mails’ exist,’” . . .  clearly implies that the in camera review included the e-mails specifically requested by Scrushy in his discovery motion. However, since the Government was never ordered to produce any materials relating to the U.S. Attorney’s failure to honor her recusal, it is not surprising that the in camera review would find no such e-mails.

These findings are further undercut by the supplemental showing that Scrushy made in support of his motion for discovery. . . .  Scrushy cited to a summary judgment motion filed by the U.S. Attorney’s office in a Freedom of Information Act proceeding.

A declaration attached to the summary judgment motion by Middle District of Alabama First Assistant Sandra Stewart shows that documents relating to the recusal of the U.S. Attorney not only exist, but had also been indexed. These materials include the entire file of the then-First Assistant and a CD containing “all the captured electronic records from U.S. Attorney Canary’s computer system.” . . .

At the time the magistrate found that no such documents existed, he was on notice that documents relevant to this issue had been gathered and indexed in the D.C. District Court proceeding.

Ted Rollins

* Campus Crest Communities' previous management team was removed on the back of multiple blunders and loss of credibility.

* The company's operations are getting streamlined by an exit from construction and development as well as from multiple joint-ventures.

* The dividend payout is finally reduced to a prudent and sustainable level.

* Recently announced actions would solve most of the relevant problems and should close the huge discount to peers.

The not so good work by the prior management with multiple value-destroying blunders led to the loss of investor confidence. Previously unresolved portfolio acquisitions, disappointing new deliveries, heavy reliance on joint ventures, underperforming international redevelopments are only some of the issues faced by the company.

On top of this, the earlier dividend payout was at a rate above the Funds From Operation (FFO), which implied high risk of its cut and created another source of investor confusion.

Until recently, CCG was construction and development company as well as owner and operator of student properties. Development activities led to cash flow volatility and elevated risk, when at the same time REIT investors typically want high and stable dividend income. This resulted in a mismatch in terms of what investors wanted and what the company offered, which contributed to CCG's discount to peers.

Recent business restructuring activities gave rise to a number of impairments and one-off charges, which temporary depress accounting earning creating negative sentiment around the company.

Don Siegelman

U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Charles Coody this morning ordered U.S. Attorney George Beck to present for Coody's inspection a copy of a binder used by a key prosecution witness [Nick Bailey] in the 2006 corruption trial of former Gov. Don Siegelman and HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy.

Coody's order came a day after attorneys for Siegelman and Scrushy asked the magistrate to make government officials release documents that could show the two men deserve a new trial. Coody's order did not deal with any other documents.

Siegelman, former HealthSouth Chairman Richard Scrushy and former Siegelman transportation director Mack Roberts filed recusal motions, citing alleged conflicts of interest Coody has in the case. They included Coody’s wife hearing two of her students discuss frustrations by their road contractor father, who was a witness before a grand jury that indicted Roberts, and Coody’s grown children’s employment with or ownership of some of HealthSouth’s 396 million shares of stock.

U.S. Magistrate Charles Coody said his ability to remain impartial won't be affected by his son-in-law's position as a HealthSouth executive. Scrushy, who has pleaded not guilty to charges he bribed former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, had said Coody should recuse himself.

"My son-in-law has never discussed with me anything about internal corporate information to which he is privy," Coody said. "I have assured myself that my son-in-law's position with HealthSouth did not bring him into contact with any matter in dispute in this criminal case." . . .

Siegelman and two former cabinet members charged in the corruption case had sought Coody's recusal as well, saying he coached a debate team whose members included daughters of a potential witness. All the defendants have pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors opposed the requests, saying in a filing Thursday that Coody didn't "intimate that he could not be impartial."

Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Judge Fuller referred Scrushy’s motion for production to a Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation on whether any of the requested discovery was needed to decide any of the grounds for a new trial and thus should be made available to Scrushy’s counsel. The Magistrate Judge ordered the Government to produce the discovery in camera. The Government complied. After examining the discovery, he concluded that none of it supported any of Scrushy’s grounds for a new trial. He therefore denied Scrushy’s motion for discovery.

Scrushy appealed the Magistrate Judge’s discovery decision to the District Court, arguing that the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that the discovery provided no support for his motion for a new trial. Judge Fuller rejected Scrushy’s argument and denied his motion. Without saying so explicitly, the Magistrate Judge, and thus Judge Fuller, found Scrushy’s grounds for a new trial facially insufficient as a matter of law.

Moreover, there is no evidence that Canary’s emails influenced any decisions made by the U.S. Attorney’s office in prosecuting Scrushy. Canary’s limited involvement in his case did not deprive Scrushy of a disinterested prosecutor. In fine, Judge Fuller did not abuse his discretion in rejecting ground (4) of Scrushy’s motion.

Center Stage Alabama casino

In accordance with the foregoing, we reiterate today that the game traditionally known as bingo is not one played by or within an electronic or computerized machine, terminal, or server, but is one played outside of machines and electronic circuitry.

We invite readers to click on the link above and read the entire Cornerstone ruling. Taken as a whole, it states that the court was focusing narrowly on: (1) The electronic-bingo facility in Lowndes County; and (2) The lawfulness of the preliminary injunction against the Riley defendants.

That's it--nothing about any other bingo facility in Alabama, nothing beyond a right or wrong ruling on a preliminary injunction.

VictoryLand casino

Amendment No. 744 further authorizes the sheriff of Macon County to “promulgate rules and regulations for the licensing and operation of bingo games within the county.” In force at all times relevant to this action were the “Second Amended and Restated Bingo Regulations for the Licensing and Operation of Bingo Games in Macon County” (“the sheriff's regulations”), promulgated by the Macon County sheriff pursuant to Amendment No. 744.

The stated purpose of the sheriff's regulations is to “adopt the policy of the Attorney General in limiting the conduct of Class B bingo gaming in Macon County thereby allowing the Sheriff to more effectively regulate and enforce the proper conduct of bingo games.”

“Bingo” is defined in § 1 as

“any game of chance known as bingo, including any bingo game permitted by federal law, (whether or not electronic, computer, or other technologic aids are used in connection therewith) which is played for prizes, with cards bearing numbers or other designations, and [in] which the holder of the card covers such numbers or designations when objects, similarly numbered or designated, are drawn or electronically determined, and in which the game is won by the first person covering a previously designated arrangement of numbers or designations on such cards. The bingo game must incorporate the typical features of traditional bingo, including, but not limited to, a grid of five horizontal and five vertical squares, numbers randomly selected, and a preordained winning pattern. Alternative entertaining displays such as spinning reels and other video or mechanical graphics are permitted but must not affect game play. Just as in traditional bingo halls, players on electronic bingo machines must compete against one another. Consequently, the electronic machines must be linked so that players are competing against each other. . . . "

However, Strange's memo was more reserved about what role, if any, the attorney general's office — which has engaged in high-profile activity against gambling over the past four years — would continue to have.

Strange said his office would continue to provide answers to legal questions, but told D.A.s to contact the newly-formed Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA) for "assistance or additional manpower" in enforcing the state's gambling laws.

Mike Lewis, a spokesman for Strange, said Thursday the memo was meant to instruct "local law enforcement on what is legal and illegal and encouraged to follow the guidelines and the law." However, he declined to say whether the attorney general's office would continue to take the lead on gambling prosecutions.

Jeffrey Toobin

Since the midterm elections, President Barack Obama has been acting as if he feels liberated from parochial political concerns. After taking action on immigration, Cuba, and climate change, he should take on another risky, if less well-known, challenge by commuting the prison sentence of Don Siegelman, the former governor of Alabama. . . .

Throughout Siegelman’s legal ordeal, the Supreme Court has been in the process of deregulating American politics, most notably in the 2010 Citizens United decision. In that case, the Justices found that money is speech—that contributing to a political campaign amounts to a protected activity under the First Amendment. As the appeals court in Siegelman’s case noted, the charges in his case “impact the First Amendment’s core values—protection of free political speech and the right to support issues of great public importance. It would be a particularly dangerous legal error from a civic point of view to instruct a jury that they may convict a defendant for his exercise of either of these constitutionally protected activities.”

It seems clear that Siegelman was conducting the seedy, but routine, business of contemporary American politics. Scrushy contributed because he wanted something in return, which is why many, if not most, people contribute to political campaigns. (George Will made this point in a column in defense of Siegelman.) Why do “bundlers” become Ambassadors in congenial countries? Why do local contractors support mayoral candidates? Why do real-estate developers give to prospective (and incumbent) governors? Because they want something. Siegelman was convicted because the quid pro quo was too “explicit”—but, beyond the conversation about what Scrushy might want, there was no clear evidence that it was. Thanks to the courts, the line between illegal bribery by campaign contribution and the ordinary business of politics has all but disappeared. Throwing a man in prison for activity at the murky barrier between the two is simply unjust.

The former HealthSouth CEO commented that Toobin is among the many journalists who have accepted a false prosecution narrative that Scrushy donated $500,000 in 1999 to the non-profit Alabama Education Foundation in order to obtain appointment to a governor-appointed regulatory board.

Scrushy . . . said the sum was $250,000 and it came from HealthSouth at the request of a fellow businessman, not Siegelman -- and Scrushy did not want to serve on the board. . . .

In a comment posted Jan. 14 on the Free Don Facebook page maintained by Siegelman supporters, Scrushy disputed Toobin's factual summary of the case, including regarding that of the chief prosecution witness, former Siegelman aide Nick Bailey. Scrushy's comments, with minor typographical changes made here, were:

I never gave a single dime to Governor Siegelman and the facts show this but for some reason the jury didn't care about the facts either and neither did the prosecutors or the judge.

First, I never wrote a check to him [Siegelman] and he never received any money. HealthSouth did donate $250,000 to the Alabama Democratic party along with Alabama Power, Alfa Insurance and many other companies and those funds were used to pay back the money the party had borrowed to pay the marketing expenses for the Educational lottery foundation.

The prosecutors kept saying that I gave the Governor $500,000. They said it in the courtroom and to the press over and over till they got it to stick in the minds of the jury and people everywhere. The press played right into their lies and propaganda. This actually helped them win the case and till this day every single article that is written about this case states that I gave the Governor $500,000 which is totally false.

I have repeatedly told the press, newspapers, magazines and television that I never gave the Governor a dime, but the press continues with the lies of our Government prosecutors. Their PR campaign was effective and it continues to have legs regardless that it is totally false.

Brunwasser: Pragmatically speaking, what difference does it make? If the judges are corrupt, incompetent or both, what makes you think that anyone will give your revelations the attention they deserve?

Shuler: Good question. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals certainly is not going to do anything about it. They've already denied Richard Scrushy's appeal, in which he raised the Coody issue, and the three-judge appellate panel just ignored it. It looks like the Obama DOJ is going to sleepwalk through the entire eight years he's in office. So, I don't necessarily think my revelations will receive much attention--beyond what I give them on Legal Schnauzer. And I have more posts coming on the subject. The only way I see to advance this issue is for the public to become engaged and somehow reach key media outlets that might take it to a broader audience. This is a case of a judge cheating and lying in a way that has caused individuals to go to prison and have unjust felony convictions on their records. If the public doesn't care about a story like that . . . well, God help our democracy.

Rob Riley

Ms. Simpson described a 2005 conversation with Rob Riley in which Mr. Riley stated that, in late 2004, Karl Rove had contacted the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice to press for further prosecution of Don Siegelman, and had also stated that the case would be assigned to a federal judge who “hated” Mr. Siegelman and who would “hang Don Siegelman.” (50-57) According to Ms. Simpson, Mr. Riley stated:

* that the case against Don Siegelman in the Northern District had been “miserably messed up” by United States Attorney Alice Martin and had been dismissed by a federal Judge in 2004 (48-50);

* that, with that case out of the way, Mr. Siegelman was “the biggest threat” to Governor Bob Riley – Rob Riley’s father – in the coming 2006 Governor’s race (48);

Karl Rove

* that the new case against Mr. Siegelman would be brought in the Middle District of Alabama and would be assigned to Chief Judge Mark Fuller, whom Rob Riley knew from college (50-53);

* that “Fuller would hang Don Siegelman” because he believed Mr. Siegelman had caused Fuller to be audited in a former position which had exposed some questionable financial dealings by Fuller (56-57); and

* that Mr. Siegelman would be indicted on charges related to Richard Scrushy because Mr. Scrushy was very unpopular and it would be useful to link the two men together. (84-85, 106).