Siegelman is unable to appeal his convictions BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN DENIED ACCESS TO A TRANSCRIPT OF HIS TRIAL.

This is not the case at all. The Democratic party of Alabama website is not written by attorneys knowledgable on how appellate law works in the federal system. I have explained the appeals situation in great detail with links
here–Siegelman’s appeal bond is at CA 11 and his transcript is on the way.

In brief–the court reporter in the district court,Jimmy Dickens died; he was replaced and the new reporter wrote Chief Judge Lanier Anderson asking for more time to complete the transcript due to her other duties. He gave her an extention to March 31, 2008. If you’ve never seen a trial transcript, I can tell you that a trial transcript from a two week trial fills a couple boxes on average. This was a two month trial. Of course the length depends on the number of witnesses and the arguemnts over FRE and the lattitude a judge gives the attorneys to argue and make statements.

Siegelman’s freedom has nothing to do with his trial transcription being finished. I wonder from his website if he knows that, but his lawyers are very experienced and hopefully they explained it to him and his family.

Now to the appeal itself–his attorneys have to write the first appellate brief to start the clock in the Eleventh Circuit. In the Eleventh Circuit, 17.5% of appeals make the cut to oral argument. They are screened by a staff of scores of attorneys who are not law clerks. The ones that don’t get oral argument are decided and 1-3 sentence per curiam opinions are issued. This is tragic but it’s a result of a glut of cases since the crack laws have overwhelemed the appellate pipeline. I have explained this in great detail in the link.

What Siegelman’s attorneys could do, is to file their brief if it were even completed before the reporter finishes the transcript and make a motion for leave to send the transcript when it is done due to the unusual circumstance of death and replacement by AOC of the court reporter.

In any Circuit, the FRAPS (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure) as tweaked for that circuit as the Circuit’s rules govern the time clock. Here’s the skinny for you.

But the transcript is not holding up the appeal of the conviction at all. Siegelman’s website gives that impression but that’s not the case. The clock doesn’t start in the Eleventh circuit for a briefing schedule until the defense attorneys file their first brief.

The briefs and reply briefs from Vince Kilborn and McDonald the defense attornies that will follow are important in this case, so it is going to take some time for them to be completed anyway.

Bottom line–transcription is not holding up the appeal here. The appeal bond was delayed though by the stubborn behavior of the trial judge in first refusing to follow the order of the Eleventh Circuit to supplement his opinion on the denial of the 18 U.S.C. § 1343(b)(1)(A) appeal bond motion. In the Eleventh Circuit, what is always argued besides that your client is not a flight risk/risk to community (argued everywhere in trying to spring someone) is meeting the standard of a “substantial question” which has been defined in the Eleventh Circuit as “a ‘close’ question or one that very well could be decided the other way.” This language comes from the precedent on appeal bonds in the Eleventh Circuit United States v. Giancola, 754 F.2d 898 (11th Cir. 1985).

I hope this and the links behind the link here clarify things for you.

Siegelman is unable to appeal his convictions BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN DENIED ACCESS TO A TRANSCRIPT OF HIS TRIAL.

This is not the case at all. The Democratic party of Alabama website is not written by attorneys knowledgable on how appellate law works in the federal system. I have explained the appeals situation in great detail with links
here–Siegelman’s appeal bond is at CA 11 and his transcript is on the way

In brief–the court reporter in the district court,Jimmy Dickens died; he was replaced and the new reporter wrote Chief Judge Lanier Anderson asking for more time to complete the transcript due to her other duties. He gave her an extention to March 31, 2008. If you’ve never seen a trial transcript, I can tell you that a trial transcript from a two week trial fills a couple boxes on average. This was a two month trial. Of course the length depends on the number of witnesses and the arguemnts over FRE and the lattitude a judge gives the attorneys to argue and make statements.

Siegelman’s freedom has nothing to do with his trial transcription being finished. I wonder from his website if he knows that, but his lawyers are very experienced and hopefully they explained it to him and his family.

Now to the appeal itself–his attorneys have to write the first appellate brief to start the clock in the Eleventh Circuit. In the Eleventh Circuit, 17.5% of appeals make the cut to oral argument. They are screened by a staff of scores of attorneys who are not law clerks. The ones that don’t get oral argument are decided and 1-3 sentence per curiam opinions are issued. This is tragic but it’s a result of a glut of cases since the crack laws have overwhelemed the appellate pipeline. I have explained this in great detail in the link.

What Siegelman’s attorneys could do, is to file their brief if it were even completed before the reporter finishes the transcript and make a motion for leave to send the transcript when it is done due to the unusual circumstance of death and replacement by AOC of the court reporter.

The briefs and reply briefs from Vince Kilborn and McDonald the defense attornies that will follow are important in this case, so it is going to take some time for them to be completed anyway.

Bottom line–transcription is not holding up the appeal here. The appeal bond was delayed though by the stubborn behavior of the trial judge in first refusing to follow the order of the Eleventh Circuit to supplement his opinion on the denial of the 18 U.S.C. § 1343(b)(1)(A) appeal bond motion. In the Eleventh Circuit, what is always argued besides that your client is not a flight risk/risk to community (argued everywhere in trying to spring someone) is meeting the standard of a “substantial question” which has been defined in the Eleventh Circuit as “a ‘close’ question or one that very well could be decided the other way.” This language comes from the precedent on appeal bonds in the Eleventh Circuit United States v. Giancola, 754 F.2d 898 (11th Cir. 1985).

I hope this and the links behind the link here clarify things for you.

But the transcript is not holding up the appeal of the conviction at all. Siegelman’s website gives that impression but that’s not the case.

In any Circuit, the FRAPS (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure) as tweaked for that circuit as the Circuit’s rules govern the time clock. Here’s the skinny for you.

Siegelman’s attorneys,

I don’t believe there is a chance of the proverbial ice cube in hell that we are going to see a SC from Mukasey ever on this or anything else.

I would expect no meaningful investigation whatsoever of this, not even a customary milquetoast investigation by OPR. Ain’t gonna happen.

However, on the litigation front, the ball is in the Eleventh Circuit’s court now, specifically the appeals bond motion after a fiasco of sorts in delay and stupid brief writing on the part of the district court judge and his law clerk. The Eleventh Circuit has issued an order that briefs be filed on the appeals bond from the parties, and then supplemental briefs be filed. Judges Susan Black (GHW Bush appointee) and Stanley Marcus have the decision and I feel optimistic that Governor Siegelman will get an appeals bond. The last brief by defense was filed 2/19.

I have not been able to find the link for the briefs on the appeals bond. I do have links for the memoranda opinions and the Eleventh Circuit order issued November 7, 2007 though. I also feel optimistic that Siegelman has a good chance for a remand or reversal on the appeal of the conviction.

I’ve contexted Siegelman’s appeal and the standard for appeal bond with the precedent always argued in the Eleventh Circuit Siegelman Appeal Situation Currently.

The Eleventh Circuit order is here.

if ya beg to differ, then you gotta differ, you can’t beg to differ then just pass, what’s up with that ???

(wink)

bullying the House Democrats ain’t working either

I beg to differ

http://blog.locustfork.net/ind…..s-simpson/

It includes information that didn’t get prominent billing in the case, like

- the judge who oversaw Siegelman’s “conviction” (after the first judge threw the case out) is a major stockholder in a company that received a $170 million contract to supply uniforms etc to iraq WHILE THE CASE WAS IN PROGRESS.

- Siegelman is unable to appeal his convictions BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN DENIED ACCESS TO A TRANSCRIPT OF HIS TRIAL.

- Siegelman appears to have lost by a very narrow margin in 2002 AFTER a Republican operative showed up with a laptop at 3 AM and ADJUSTED VOTE TALLIES from digital voting machines and a “recount” showed a 6000 vote margin that put the Republican over the top.

- Prior to this Jill Simpson was involved in a scheme to photograph supposed Siegelman operatives at a KKK rally, an apparent Rove-directed set-up.