I'm glad I found it now, but I should have found it sooner.
Don Siegelman's daughter Dana sporting a Free Don Siegelman T shirt
(Image by donsiegelman.org/) Details DMCA
Don't beat yourself up about it. You're light years ahead of anyone else on this one. I'm glad you found it, too. It makes me shudder that this story was hiding in plain sight all this time. It could so easily have continued to be overlooked. We have now spotted some egregious judicial behavior. This case has been plagued by that, by various judges along the way, including the conflict-of-interest, wife-beating Mark Fuller. [is it okay to say that?] 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?
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.
You can say that about the whole Siegelman case, Roger. Making a crime out of something that isn't a crime puts all politicians at risk - all of those who have to raise money for their campaigns, which is virtually everyone. So, why hasn't that aspect caught the attention of the press or, at least, politicians who could also be swept up in this just like Don Siegelman was?
I don't know, Joan. In Alabama, we've become pretty much a one-party state, and I think the Siegelman case has a lot to do with that. Democrats can't even find candidates to seriously run for many statewide offices, especially judicial seats. Why run for public office if it puts you at risk for prosecution, whether you committed a crime or not? Why give to a candidate for office, if it puts you at risk of prosecution, even if there was no illegal "quid pro quo"? Of course, if Democrats ever become nasty and ruthless, they could turn the tables on Republicans. It endangers our whole system, but the public doesn't seem to get that.
Sadly, I can't disagree with your assessment. Anything you'd like to add before we wrap this up?
I think the Charles Coody story is extremely important, and the mainstream press needs to treat it that way. Coody's actions, and the actions of those who might be covering for him, point to possible criminality. They also make you wonder what might be revealed in the Leura Canary recusal documents. Was someone pulling her strings during the Siegelman prosecution? How high does the wrongdoing go? The public needs answers to these questions--and more.