Posted by Confession: I have never been much one for conspiracy. Oh, I am sure there must be some that run as deep and wide as anything I could imagine, but for the most part, I am the doubting Thomas.
However, if conspiracies are your thing, The Locust Fork Journal has one that involves Karl Rove, Gov. Bob Riley, a stolen election, rumors of a legislator murdering a lover’s husband, a compromised judge, and more.
After you read it, get back to me on why Governor Siegelman would be expected to concede an election because of photos of a Jackson County Democrat putting up Bob Riley signs at a Ku Klux Klan rally.
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
Really, when you sit down and think about it, this conspiracy theory makes sense.
Lanny Young, the lobbyist who pled guilty, testified against former Governor Siegelman, and was sent to jail? In on the conspiracy.
Nick Bailey, the former Siegelman aide who pled guilty, testified against former Governor Siegelman, and was sent to jail? In on the conspiracy.
Curtis Kirsch, the Montgomery architect who pled guilty, testified against former Governor Siegelman, and was sent to jail? In on the conspiracy
The twelve jurors who found Siegelman guilty? Too stupid to understand the evidence presented to them as manipulated by prosecutors. Obviously in on the conspiracy.
The defense attorneys hired by former Governor Siegelman who helped choose this deficient jury? Once again, obviously in on the conspiracy.
The case offered by Jill Simpson truly does make sense. Three men plead guilty and serve jail time in order to serve the needs of their party on a regular basis. Wait. I forgot. All three are Democrats. Better add the Alabama Democratic Party to the list of conspirators.
Jill Simpson should be seen for the patriot she is. Who needs tangible evidence when one has an elaborate tale to tell?
All kidding aside, the case presented proves patently absurd. First, Steve “the Jug” Windom was not the Republican favorite for Governor. The state Republican Party insiders were backing Bob Riley as they knew that Steve Windom was a buffoon who Don Siegelman would have eaten for breakfast.
“Along the way, in their effort to raise money, Ms. Simpson tried to get the Rileys to help her collect on a contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency for one of her storm gypsy clients. It was a $4 million deal for cleaning up after an ice storm in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, a contract that was tied up in the federal bureaucracy in Washington. What’s a Congressman for but to help a constituent collect legally earned money being held up in Washington? She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.”
Illegal. Illegal. Illegal. Let me repeat that for all of those who missed the important line in this statement.
“She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.”
So, let me see if I can get this straight: Jill Simpson asked Bob Riley to use his office to speed up the federal bureaucracy in order to collect on a $4 million dollar contract. In return, “SHE PROMISED TO SPLIT THE MONEY WITH THE RILEYS (Emphasis added).”
So, our lead witness in the case for this conspiracy admits to attempting to bribe a public official. Interesting.
“Siegelman said in a recent interview that he conceded because his team figured the Alabama Supreme Court was stacked with a Republican majority and would side with Riley, so there was little point in insisting on a recount.”
Now, this is where the story gets interesting, as if attempted bribery were not interesting enough. Don Siegelman himself goes on record as offering the Republican Alabama Supreme Court as why he dropped out of the race. For Jill Simpson’s story to be true, then, Don Siegelman lied when he offered the Supreme Court as his reason for conceding defeat. The story goes on to state, though, that Siegelman believes everything in Simpson’s affidavit. Thus, Don Siegelman admits to originally lying about the reason he conceded defeat.
Let’s, for the sake of argument, assume Simpson’s story is true, despite that fact that, conveniently, she kept no copies of the pictures she has claimed to have taken. Obviously any rational individual, certainly one who is as politically astute as Simpson claims to be, would have kept copies. Set that aside for one moment. If these pictures even existed, does anyone actually believe that they would have caused Don Siegelman to concede defeat? One dirty trick by one attorney who has no direct ties to Don Siegelman caused him to concede. Really? A man like Don Siegelman, who has spent his entire adult life trying to be Governor, conceded defeat because of pictures of Bob Riley campaign signs at a Klan rally? What’s more likely? That Don Siegelman conceded because the Alabama Supreme Court was dominated by Republicans leaving little hope for victory, as Don Siegelman originally claimed? Or that pictures of Riley campaign signs at a Klan rally caused him to concede? Don Siegelman did not want to go to an Alabama Supreme Court stacked against him, lose, and forever be labeled a “sore loser,” hurting his political future in the process.
I will not go into the false claims made against Judge Mark Fuller which have already been debunked by previous posters, only to reiterate that the article posted misrepresents the $178 million contract that went to a company in which Fuller owns stock. While making these accusations, Simpson fails to provide one in trial example of bias by Fuller, only stating that he was biased. Fine then. Show the bias. Which ruling did he make that showed bias during the trial? Please enlighten us. Remember, merely saying “his refusing to recuse himself shows he was biased” does not show bias. Like any bad lawyer, you are asking for a conviction while failing to offer a crime committed. You must show an actual example of in trial bias to even begin to make such a claim.
I must confess, when I first read of the charges made regarding the conference call in question, I wondered whether the charges had some merit. Having read Jill Simpson’s story, however, I now hope that the Democratic Congress calls her before a committee. I hope every newspaper in the state of Alabama interviews her and puts the story on the front page. I hope the Alabama Democratic Party makes her its poster child.
Why? They will get the product they deserve. A person who attempted to bribe a Congressman making wild accusations of a grand conspiracy that fifteen minutes of reading can disprove. I actually want to thank Danny for linking this article. We are truly able to see the difference between solid blogging and nuts who give blogs a bad name.
You are still not getting it. She was a Republican ON YOUR SIDE doing business the way the Bush Republicans do it. The way I see it, at least some Alabama red necks got some of the work instead of it all going to Haliburton.
Congressmen are asked all the time to help people from their state on crap like this. Fuller certainly didn’t hesitate to ask his buddy Terry Everitt for it. Nothing in the report deals with whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing. That’s how this crap works, for better or worse.
If it was up to me, I would make the government do the job and be held accountable for it. Look at the billions of dollars that have been lost to waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq – much of it to private contracters.
Do you like that? Are you OK with your tax money being wasted like that?
OK. They say ignorance is bliss. Y’all must be happy as clams : )
Ah. I see. I “just don’t get it.” No offense, but that is the last excuse of fools and liars.
Let me repeat that line from the article you wrote:
“Along the way, in their effort to raise money, Ms. Simpson tried to get the Rileys to help her collect on a contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency for one of her storm gypsy clients. It was a $4 million deal for cleaning up after an ice storm in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, a contract that was tied up in the federal bureaucracy in Washington. What’s a Congressman for but to help a constituent collect legally earned money being held up in Washington? She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.”
You are right in saying that Congressmen are asked to help their constituents with such matters all the time. Nothing wrong with that. What does not happen all the time is that constituents offer to split money with their Congressmen on federal contracts the constituent asks the Congressmen to see fulfilled. That’s called bribery.
Quick question, and it really is an easy one: Is what Jill Simpson asked Bob Riley to do illegal? A yes or no will do. Is offering to split the proceeds of a federal contract with a Congressmen if he sees it fulfilled illegal?
The answer of course is yes.
It seems as if the facts I presented bother you. Otherwise, you would spend less time talking about Haliburton and the Iraq War (the last bastion of conspiracy theorists) and more time answering the concerns I have raised. Instead, you have only undercut the case you and Simpson have tried, very poorly I might add, to make.
If it illegal as you claim, and I take it you are no lawyer and have never had a federal contract with FEMA or served in Congress, theni how does The Judge get away with it? In fact, according to Alabama law, none of this is illegal. The Feds used the Rico Statutes in this case, which were designed to catch The Mafia.
And why is all of your outrage directed at Ms. Simpson and me?
Are you really concerned with the law and your tax money, or are you just here to spin things for “he’s the man” Bob Riley?
Will, don’t waste your breath. I raised the ’storm gypsy” issue in post 29. But I think it is a perfect illustration of where Glynn is coming from.
Siegleman and his cronies don’t see anything wrong with taking a bribe or kickback for securing contracts. If Siegelman had been the Congressman, I’m sure he and Ms. Simpson would have split the $4 million (Ok, here’s another pause–a $4 million federal contract for storm gypsies–those “rednecks” that load up the trailers and rip people off after a storm? That alone doesn’t pass the smell test). So Siegleman didn’t see anything wrong with demanding Scrushy pony up $500 thousand to retire the debt from the lottery campaign (oh Glynn, Siegleman guaranteed the loads for that account personally, so that’s the personal benefit. When he got Scrushy to cough up the money Siegelman got to keep a half million that he would otherwise have had to use to pay off the loan). I actually believe Siegelman when he says he doesn’t believe he did anything wrong. He doesn’t have any fundamental understanding of the concept of right and wrong.
As I said earlier, my admiration for Riley is strengthened in that he didn’t participate in Ms. Simpson’s illegal kickback scheme.
And no, you are wrong again, since you have trouble reading, apparently.
Rob Riley asked Ms. Simpson to help the Riley’s raise money early on. She DID NOT go to them with this proposal. For the record, FEMA never did pay those Alabama boys for all that work cleaning up after the ice-storm in Arkansas. So no, they did not “gouge” any citizens, as some earlier posters claimed. It was contract work through the Bush adminstration with FEMA.
How can it possibly be illegal if no money ever changed hands?
Again, you seem to be a partisan spinner and not interested in justice.
As for all of those witnesses you mention, anyone who has ever covered any kind of a trial knows that witnesses who are willing to testify to save their own hides have very little credibility.
I guess you give them credence, why, because they are Democrats? Give us all a break and tell us who you are and how much money you’ve taken from Rob Riley to spend all this time spinning it for them?
If you haven’t been paid, you should be. Why waste all this time trying to discredit me and this story for free?
Meanwhile, I have to go now and do the national version of the story for another publication, so you will excuse me if I stop wasting words in a blah, blah, blog comment thread for free.
There is an obvious difference with what you describe Judge Fuller doing, of which you provide no evidence, and what Ms. Simpson admits to doing.
Judge Fuller owns stock in companies that do business with the federal government. He has made contributions to those in federal office, including Terry Everett. That’s all that we know in that regard, all that you have provided, and hardly any evidence of a crime.
On the other hand, Ms. Simpson freely admits to offering to split the proceeds of a federal contract with Bob Riley if he saw it fulfilled. That is an admission of attempting to bribe a public official, an offer, by the way, which was turned down.
There are two things with which I am currently concerned:
One, Ms. Simpson has admitted to trying to bribe a public official.
Two, you still have not responded to my original post. Instead, you are ignoring it, hoping I will stop asking you to comment.
Perhaps you can ease my mind by addressing these concerns. Remember, addressing concerns does not mean criticizing the President or Judge Fuller. It means explaining why Ms. Simpson tried to bribe a public official and responding fully to my original post.
Anonymous 54–It is not illegal to bid on a federal contract and win it. Judge Fuller did not receive a contract. A company in which he is an investor received a contract–THAT WAS BID! And guess what, that contract had nothing to do with the case or the individuals trying the case.
It is illegal to offer an elected official a bribe (quid pro quo) to obtain funds for you. Ms. Simpson’s own description indicates that she wanted him to greaee the wheels for her clients in return for half the proceeds. THAT’S A BRIBE! That’s not constituent services (and as I pointed out earlier, Dekalb county was not in Congressman Riley’s district anyway, she was not his constituent).
The fact that you don’t see anything wrong with this fits very well with your Democratic Party leanings. That’s apparently why none of the Democrats thought it unethical or unlawful for legislators to be paid by two-year colleges to secure higher appropriations from the legislature. Or Roy Johnson to pass out jobs to family, friends, egislators, and family of legislators to keep the two-year system in their good graces. Or the company owned by the Democratic Party Chariman’s family to overbill the state to pay for work on Roy Johnson’s personal property. Or taking state money from a two-year college foundation so that a legislator could pay off his personal gambling debts.
Yeah–this is all crystle clear now, and goes a long way toward explaining why the Democratic controlled legislature is such a cesspool of corruption.
Why should I respond when you show a fundamental lack of understanding of the law and what happened?
Again, I challenge you to come out of the closet and let people here know who you are and what your own fiduciary interests are. Otherwise, you have no credibility to challenge anybody’s journalism.
Glynn, I join Will in asking you to explain why Ms. Simpson was trying to bribe a public official. From your own words, she is the one who offered to split the proceeds from FEMA–she is the one that offered the bribe or the kickback. So what if Rob Riley asked her to help raise money? Plenty of candidates have asked me to help them raise money and I did not respond by offering a kickback scheme, I helped organize a fundraiser, or wrote letter or made phone calls.
I will guarantee that any credible national news organization that published this drivel will be discredited so fast they won’t know what hit them. I’m betting you are just putting it on another blog.
Susan, you just continue to show your own partisanship. If you were concerned with justice, you might also mention Tom Delay, Jack Abromoff and maybe Riley’s shenanigans with the Indian tribe money.
Please, for once, demonstrate that you care about justice, not just the corrupt governor you support. As far as I’m concerned, there’s plenty of corruption to go around. I’ve been covering politics since George Wallace was governor here and exposed plenty of corruption back in those days when Alabama was a one-party state.
I editorialized for making Alabama a two-party state in the early 1980s. I never said any of it was OK. I only pointed out, what anybody who actually follows the news on this knows, that the political money situation in Alabama is corrupt. The Birmingham paper has editorialized until they are blue in the face about this, but nothing has come of it.
Riley has done nothing to clean it up. In fact, just the other day, he vetoed an ethics bill that was unanimously passed in the Legislature – by Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
“Along the way, in their effort to raise money, Ms. Simpson tried to get the Rileys to help her collect on a contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency for one of her storm gypsy clients. It was a $4 million deal for cleaning up after an ice storm in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, a contract that was tied up in the federal bureaucracy in Washington. What’s a Congressman for but to help a constituent collect legally earned money being held up in Washington? She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.”
“She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.”
“She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.”
“She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.”
Your words, not mine.
You’re right, Glynn, no money changed hands. Why? Because Bob Riley did not take part in Ms. Simpson’s plan. Attempting to bribe a public official, however, is still a crime.
“As for all of those witnesses you mention, anyone who has ever covered any kind of a trial knows that witnesses who are willing to testify to save their own hides have very little credibility.”
The three men you speak of are currently in prison for corruption they committed with Don Siegelman. What that means is this: If what you say is true, and they were saving their own hides as you put it, Don Siegelman is guilty, as all three went to jail for committing a criminal conspiracy with Don Siegelman. The only way Don Siegelman could be innocent is if these men pled guilty to crimes they did not committ. Your argument, then, is this: These three men hated Don Siegelman so much that they were willing to lie and claim they broke the law, knowing full well they would go to prison, in order to harm Don Siegelman. Not exactly a strong argument.
“Meanwhile, I have to go now and do the national version of the story for another publication, so you will excuse me if I stop wasting words in a blah, blah, blog comment thread for free.”
Sounds as if someone is taking his ball and going home. Pray tell, for which publication are you writing the “national version” of this story?
“Why should I respond when you show a fundamental lack of understanding of the law and what happened?”
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe because if the story were true and I truly do not understand what happened, responding would be easy. That, of course, assumes the story is true.
Oh, and actually the ice storm you are mentioning happened in December of 2000. Bush wasn’t in office yet and I’m betting those “storm gypsies” couldn’t prove that they did the work they were claiming. You got a contract that signed with FEMA? You got invoices for the work they did? Otherwise they were trying to rip off the feds and I think FEMA was probably smart not to pay them (and that may be the last time I ever use the words “FEMA” and “smart” in the same sentence). But, again, it tells us everything we need to know that you see nothing wrong anything about this story.
From the Associated Press you so love:
Alabama governor vetoes ethics bill that passed unanimously
By PHILLIP RAWLS
The Associated Press
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) – The state Senate’s Democratic majority leader said Republican Gov. Bob Riley was trying to shield his own children when he killed government ethics legislation that passed the Legislature with unanimous bipartisan support.
The statement by Majority Leader Zeb Little, D-Cullman, brought quick responses from the governor and his family.
“It’s absolutely untrue. I don’t know where they make up this stuff,” said Minda Riley Campbell of Birmingham, the governor’s daughter.
Riley called the criticism from Little and other Senate Democrats “another attempt to cover up their dismalfailure to pass” any of the ethics legislation he proposed in the recently completed legislative session.
In the session that ended June 7, Rep. Marcel Black, D-Muscle Shoals, sponsored a bill that that would have expanded the definition of lobbyists who must register with the State Ethics Commission and file quarterly reports with the commission about their activities.
For years, the law has only covered people who regularly try to influence the Legislature. Black’s bill would have expanded it to include people who attempt to influence the awarding of state contracts that are not competitively bid.
…
The House passed the bill 101-0 and the Senate approved it 30-0. Riley had until Sunday night to sign it into law, but he killed it by not signing it.
Black, the bill’s sponsor, said he was “extremely disappointed by the governor’s decision to kill it.
“I thought this fit right in with his stance on transparency and openness in government,” he said.
Senate Democrats were stronger in their criticism.
“It is widely held in Montgomery that Gov. Riley’s children lobby their father on behalf of entities desiring no-bid state contracts,” Senate Majority Leader Zeb Little, D-Cullman, said.
“This legislation would have further shined the light of day on the lobbying activities of the governor’s family, but Gov. Riley vetoed the bill,” Little said in a statement Tuesday.
Senate budget committee Chairman Roger Bedford, D-Russellville, recalled that when Riley first took office in 2003, he gave his department heads signs for their desks that said, “If you buy it, bid it.”
“His veto shows Gov. Riley is not serious about no-bid contracts involving his own administration. He ran on the issue and now he’s running from it,” Bedford said.
Campbell and Riley’s son, Birmingham attorney Rob Riley, were singled out by Democrats in their statement.
The governor’s children have been actively involved in his campaigns, and sometimes stand in for him, as Campbell did Friday night at a Republican Party dinner in Birmingham. But Campbell said her role doesn’t extend to lobbying her father, and Democrats couldn’t cite any examples because she hasn’t done it.
…
The governor, who was in France on an industry-hunting trip, blah, blah, blah…
I love it when someone uses “…” in an article. It tends to cover the most revealing portion. Let’s see what Glynn used “…” to ignore in this article:
“Jim Sumner, executive director of the State Ethics Commission, said Tuesday legislators developed the bill without consulting the commission. If they had, he said he would have explained that it was ‘far broader than they realized’ and could have affected thousands of people doing business with the state.”
And:
“Rob Riley agreed with his sister, saying, ‘That has never happened.’
“The governor, who was in France on an industry-hunting trip, said in a statement, ‘In four and a half years, not one single time has any family member ever lobbied me about a contract. If these legislators are serious about this proposal, then just limit it to my family and I will be happy to sign it.’
“Riley’s communications director, Jeff Emerson, said Black’s bill was redundant because the existing process for the Legislature’s Contract Review Committee to review state contracts calls for the disclosure of anyone lobbying on behalf of the contracts.
“Sumner said that if the bill had become law, doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers and many others getting routine state contracts would have had to register with the Ethics Commission. Sumner estimated the impact would have been in the thousands.
“‘It was extremely broad,’ he said.”
So, what did Glynn….oh, sorry, “Anonymous” overlook in the article? Nothing important. Just the executive director of the State Ethics Commission saying the bill would have affected thousands of individuals and the explanation that the Legislature’s Contract Review Committee already requires the disclosure of anyone lobbying on behalf of a state contract. Other than that, nothing really.
Of course, it still fails to respond to the concerns raised about Glynn’s article. At this point, though, is anyone surprised?
Not to mention the Tuscaloosa News and Dacatur Daily (hardly concervative papers) both having editorials praising Riley for vetoing the bill. Which, BTW, has WHAT to do with the subject at hand? Unless Glynn is trying to shift away from an argument he is losing badly.
Everyone here already has seen you are an anonymous partisan, Susan, so why continue an argument I’ve already won? Your man Riley is not interested in ethics, truth or justice … and neither are you, obviously.
Come on over to my blog, reveal your true identity, and I will engage you. Otherwise, you have NO credibility.
Can’t answer Susan’s or my questions, Glynn?
And SHE’S the one with no credibility. Well, at least she didn’t try to bribe a public official.
Glynn ‘Blah, Blah, Big Time’ LocustFork should have brought his lunch and maybe a a second helping of lithium. Nice job Will (don’t get it) and Susan (don’t care about justice). Maybe you’ve noticed by now that Glynn has some cognitive defects that make rational discussion difficult.
Don’t you mean Reactionary discourse?
71 – :-)
All,
Glynn is quite the character. First, Danny is kind enough to provide a link from a popular, reputable blog to his conspiracy theory story. Commenters question some of Glynn’s facts and logical conclusions. Glynn responds by calling me a racist, insulting this blog and all who frequent it, denigrating a university that has been in U.S. News’ top 50 colleges for a decade and a half (best in the state), and to top it all off calling Alabamians dumbasses. All the while he boasts about his factual accuracy, while ignoring proof of inaccuracies, and constantly demanding that we come to his blog.
Instead of responding to our points Glynn cowers behind the belief that the anonymity of some automatically absolves them of all credibility. It beats having to respond to their reasonable claims. Well Glynn, you know who I am and I assure you that I am not on the payroll of anyone even remotely associated with our state government. Respond to my claims. If you like, I can echo the claims of others so that you might feel more comfortable responding to them as well.
You’ve not successfully challenged any facts or conclusions. It’s has already been shown that the few people in on this discussion are anonymous partisans. None of the lurkers have disparaged. They must think you are the idiots, in part because you can’t read.
So no, I’m done responding to you – unless you want to engage on my blog. It’s pretty clear to me that this blog is biased, so why bother to attempt to educate you?
Go to the Alabama Secretary of State’s website. Click on corporations. Click on search for officer, director, incorporators. Type Fuller, Mark E.
You will see that Mark E. Fuller is listed as President of Doss Aviation. Now, some – without going to look at this document – will immediately say that is a 2002 filing reflecting data from the year BEFORE he became a judge. The only problem is that you will at the bottom of the document that it was last updated in 2006.
Fuller said in his order refusing to recuse that he divested himself of Doss BEFORE he became a judge. Now, go to the form and look at the address he uses. One Church Street, Montgomery, AL. Does anyone know what is at that address? The Frank M. Johnson Federal Courthouse.
“It’s has already been shown that the few people in on this discussion are anonymous partisans.”
Ironic, Glynn, that the post this comment was made is posted by Anonymous.
Further, how has that been shown? Just because you make a statement does not mean it is fact. You must first prove what you say is true before it is taken as fact.
Lost in all this, I am still waiting for a response to my original post.
Terry, do you know why that has been updated? Because since it was filed Mark Fuller became a federal judge. Consequently, his home address is concealed to prevent individuals who wish him harm from knowing where he lives. This is a fairly common practice for federal judges, actually.
How does that explain the fact that it is against the canon of judicial ethics for a federal judge to an officer or director of a for profit corporation?
(1), a judge may hold and manage investments, including real estate, and engage in other remunerative activity, but should not serve as an officer, director, active partner, manager, advisor, or employee of any business other than a business closely held and controlled by members of the judge’s family.
http://www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/ch1.html
This blog software, whatever it is, does not remember personal information, at least in this browser. It’s too much trouble to keep pasting it in there. With Moveable Type, which is what is used at the Locust Fork News and Journal at LocustFork.Net, you don’t have to keep doing this. Maybe it’s a PC thang.
And again, to keep repeating this because apparently you couldn’t read it the first time, anonymity is not any way to come across as credible. Even the Constitution provides for being able to face one’s accusers. I publish real journalism on a Website under my real name. You just argue incessantly in a blog comment window, and no one is allowed to verify your veracity. They are just utterly bored by your incessantness.
Keep filling it up. It will just drive away any reasonable people who just might want to learn more about the real subject of how the Bush Justice Department has been corrupted by politics. That’s the subject of the story. My story was one example, which has now made national news and created just another embarrassment for Alabama.
But no, I have no obligation to respond to you point by point here, when your point is no point at all. Do you really think a blog comment section is like Hannity and Colmes, where a partisan slugfest is political theater?
Maybe it is over here, although it seems to be pretty one-sided. Not sure how that could be fun for long. At least even Hannity and Colmes has a liberal on the show. The parties responsible for the vast majority of the posts here clearly have no objectivity, and don’t even know the definition of objectivity.
Good points Terry. Keep it up. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State’s Website now seems to be down…
Thanks for the judicial ethics link though. Good stuff…
Well my name IS Susan which is more identifying than “fast2write” and I’ve provided as much information as “Terry” and far more than all the anonymous posters (one of whom is Glynn himself).
And, having read the Constitution, one is guaranteed the right to face his accusers in a court of law. This is just a blog and we are having a debate–which is, I’m pretty sure, covered under the first amendment. I’m thinking someone is taking himself WAY too seriously.
I’m having the same problem as Glynn with the SOS web site, but there is one site that is working: DossAviation.com. On the front page, one sees that Frank G. Hunter is the President of Doss Aviation.
Glynn, I now see why you would like people to come to your page to debate the matter: No one has responded on your blog. I am not trying to be insincere when I say this: I am sorry no one has responded on your web site. I know that you put a lot of work into it and to see the comments regarding your work appearing on another web site can be disheartening. I truly mean that.
With that said, however, you cannot honestly say that you are publishing real journalism when you refuse to respond to legitimate criticism of your work. I’m not asking you to agree with what I say. All I ask is that you respond to my original post. Your refusing to respond only weakens your argument, as it implies you cannot. For all I know, you could tear my comments to shreds. Until you respond, though, all you are doing is showing people that my criticism of your article has touched a nerve in you and that you are unable to respond, as my criticism is accurate.
So, all I am asking is this: If I am wrong, ignorant, and do not understand the situation, as you claim to be the case, show me up. Prove me to be the imbecile you say. Otherwise, claiming that you are the only objective individual posting here only shows your own inability to defend your statements.
2002 Annual Report
© 2007, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Alabama
Reporting
Address…: DOSS AVIATION INC
3320 W CAREFREE CIR
COLORADO SPGS, CO 80917-2805
Agent As
Reported..: FULLER, MARK J
10 INDIGO PL
ENTERPRISE, AL 36330-8110
President
Of Corp…: FULLER, MARK E
ONE CHURCH STREET
MONTGOMERY, AL 36104
Secretary
Of Corp…: CASSADY, JOE C
306 WILLOW DR
ENTERPRISE, AL 36330-3425
Alabama
Business..: GOVT CONTRACTING
124 COMMERCE DR
ENTERPRISE, AL 36330
General
Business..: GOVT CONTRACTING
PO BOX 1393 HWY 59 N
SHEPHERD, TX 77371
Telephone
Number….: 719-570-9804
Processed
By Revenue: 05-19-2006
I really appreciate the freaking sympathy, Will, but in fact, there are thousands of comments on blog posts on the site. Just not like this, where I don’t really care, because I would not allow a bunch of anonymous posters to go on and on commenting like this on my site. The substantive discussions are much more educated and reasoned. I know some people are into the blogity, blog business, although they are WAY in the minority. I have one friend lurking here now from New Orleans who gets a kick out of seeing little blog commenters go on and on about nothing.
Publishing journalism has nothing to do with responding to you in a blog comment window. If you actually think you have legitimate criticism, post it where it belongs, by the story itself, so the whole world can see it. They aren’t here, obviously, although my traffic numbers show they are over there…
If you want anyone in the world who matters to see it, other than a few partisans in this state, you will have to try it over there. Otherwise, it’s just like Jim Croce sang, “pissing in the wind…”
Glynn,
One correction that needs to be made is that Doc’s Political Parlor actually gets more hits than LocustFork. Google gives Docs a 5/10 and LocustFork a 4/10. Both sites are serious places of discussion for Alabama politics, but there is no reason to besmirch Doc’s Parlor because you don’t like some of the posters.
Susan,
Are you really that dense? My name is a link to my Website, where I post a full resume with many links to articles I have written over the past 30 years. The way the Web works, putting Susan as your name proves nothing, not even that you are a woman. In fact, since the early days of AOL, it has been common practice for people to post under fake names and even fake gender names. So sorry, that doesn’t cut it…
Terry, if you visit Doss Aviation’s web site, you will see what I mean. Not even Richard Scrushy, in his motion to have Mark Fuller removed from the trial, suggests that he is still President of Doss Aviation.
Fuller’s Steamroller Full Speed Ahead
Posted by Glynn Wilson at 11:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Feaga Shows Political Bias
Posted by Glynn Wilson at 01:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Appeals Court Refuses to Remove Judge from Siegelman, Scrushy Sentencing
Posted by Glynn Wilson at 11:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Jill Simpson’s Affidavit May Help Justice Prevail in the Siegelman, Scrushy Case
Posted by Glynn Wilson at 11:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thousands. Literally thousands.
Please, just respond to my post, Glynn. It isn’t very difficult.
In fact, here’s what I’m going to do: I will repost my original comments on your web site. If I do so, however, you must agree to respond to my comments. How does that sound?
You think they are in the process of wiping that Secretary of State’s Website : ) ???
Glynn, how can we miss you if you won’t go away? It is amusing how you repeatedly threaten to stop commenting here and you deride people who do comment here – and then you come right back and leave a bunch of comments.
“…because I would not allow a bunch of anonymous posters to go on and on commenting like this on my site.”
In other words, the reason Glynn wants to shift the debate to his site is so that he can delete comments that justifiably challenge his supposed facts and logic. He doesn’t control Doc’s and it must be killing him to see people challenge him and he is powerless to delete their comments! I would like to remind you Glynn that I have made my identify clear and you still refuse to respond directly.
“The AP in this state is not the best bureau in the country, to say the least.”
Then in comment 65 you used an AP story, well the part of the story that jived with your opinion, by Phillip Rawls of the Alabama AP Bureau that you think so highly of. Are they only right when they agree with you?
That’s how the partison blog game is played, right? The purpose is misdirection and innuendo of inauthenticity, etc. Hoisting you on your own petard, so to speak, a Bush-Cheney Republican perfected ploy : )
On a blog with real investigative journalism, as opposed to an all comments all the time links site, that is not the game.
Y’all like this game, so keep on playing it. I’m into having an effect. The more you post, the more you drive off a seriously interested audience.
So hey. Fill it up, baby…
Glynn, if you visit your site, I have reposted my original comment from this page. Having done what you asked, I eagerly await your response.
It’s on the way, Will…
OK, Will, you’ve got an answer, although I suspect it won’t help you much, since you don’t seem to be really interested in truly understanding this story or why it would be done.
As for the traffic business, I was talking about a wider audience of people from New York, D.C., Oregon, Louisiana, Cuba, Europe, places like that. I have no idea what kind of traffic this site gets, but I will say I guess I understand why people comment on it. It may be easier and faster in that respect than Moveable Type. And allowing quickly updated anonymous comments is a way to get traffic. But we’ve been hit by the spammers before, so it’s not as easy, I guess. We chose it two and a half years ago because the folks at Press Think used it, and at that time, it was the best software we could find.
Glynn, I was going to let your first swipe at Danny’s chosen blog software go, but now you’ve accused him of selecting WordPress simply so that he can generate traffic by allowing anonymous comments. The problem is on your end. Every time I visit Danny’s site my browser remembers my info and dutifully enters it automatically. Same thing on my blog. Just because your personal computer settings do not cache your data (on your own hard drive) does not mean that Danny is trying to attract traffic in some underhanded manner.
Here, finally, is Glynn’s response with mine to follow:
The list of witnesses is impressive, but as any one knows who has ever covered a trial, been in on a trial, sat in on a trial, watched a legal TV show about trials knows, witnesses who give testimony to save their own hides are suspect.
It is my understanding Windom was the early favorite, maybe well before the polling picks up. Although I wasn’t here covering that story. I’m sure some online research would pluck it out, but that was not the focus of the story. Since Ms. Simpson was involved in the Riley campaign from the start, I’m sure what she remembers is as accurate if not more so than what you remember. She is a more trusted source, so to speak.
I fully reported, from an interview with Don Siegelman, why he says he conceded. Your leap to conclusions doesn’t make any sense, except in a hyperactive partisan sense.
The Klan story in this case serves to show the reader how dirty tricks politics is played in this state, where it apparently originated and where Bush and Rove went to school to learn how to do it from the masters from the 1960s – Sandy Trammel and George Wallace. It really matters not whether that particular dirty trick DID the trick. Obviously it didn’t, and that’s clear in the story. But that particular story was ignored by all the other press who found out about it, and the purpose of my story was to tell as much of Jill Simpson’s story as possible, so you, the reader, could get more aquainted with her and the facts than you could have before in the previous coverage.
There are copies of the photos somewhere, and at one time, they were on the Web. Perhaps Rob Riley could produce them? He’s the one who paid for them : )
I’m no lawyer, but as it was reported, there’s nothing illegal about raising money for candidates in this state and hiding it in Pacs and all kinds of places. I know for a fact the paper companies gave Guy Hunt money in “love offerings” at Sundy church, where Hunt used to fly in a state plane. He was never busted for that by the Feds, who at that time were also Republicans.
And it is no crime to lobby a Congressman to help “grease the skids” for progress in collecting federal contracts. What is puzzling is your defense of a $178 million contract to the judge who presided in the case, but you seem to have a problem with a small town lawyer representing bona fide Alabama workers getting them paid for legitimate work.
Plus, the Rileys approached her about raising money for them. This was a way to facilitate that, I suppose, although again, I’m no lawyer and not making any judgments about that. I just reported what she told me, which illustrates some interesting things about how Alabama politics is played, wouldn’t you say?
If you are of a mind, check out the
Code of Conduct for United States Judges and you will find the line: “…a judge … should not serve as an officer, director, active partner, manager, advisor, or employee of any business other than a business closely held and controlled by members of the judge’s family.”
Unless the E. in Fuller stands for Everitt and they are related, and I’m told they are not by a reporter in Montgomery, this would raise some eyebrows about the dude sitting in judgement while doing business with the Justice Department (the FBI) sitting at the table in front of him. I’ve interviewed several people since first reporting that, and to a person they all said it would definitely give them a queasy feeling have the judge in business with the feds while sitting in judgement. Whether the appeals court will rule on that issue on appeal, or a higher court, is not for me to judge. But it is worth raising in the story before the 11th Circuit ruled.
No one said he showed bias during the trial. That’s out of left field and has nothing to do with the subject or substance of the story, which is an example of how the Bush administration has injected politics into the judicial process. Any basic government text book will show you that the judicial branch is supposed to be as removed from politics as possible. Of course it is not totally removed from politics ever, especially in Alabama where state judges are elected. Federal judges are appointed for life, so they have a higher obligation to remove themselves from potentially embarrassing business relationships. It has already been reported, and I think there will be more in the Sunday papers, about the judge divesting himself to some extent over the years of both Doss and Aureus. But the research I saw in Rainsville showed he was still not just a stockholder, but a majority, controlling owner, at least during the trial.
Your last comments show you either didn’t read the story, or you didn’t get the point. And you didn’t disprove anything. This is a classic example of misdirection and attacking the messenger to attempt to confuse things for partisan political advantage.
As for you final comments, it is too bad you didn’t have the patience to do an original comment tha would be understandable to the general readership here.
FYI: Everybody: This is Will, an anonymous partisan Riley supportin’ commenter from Doc’s Political Parlor blog.
There’s a massively deceptive thread going on over there all about how this story is a “conspiracy,” with engineers and dog knows who trying their level best to convince the local blogosphere that they have credible information over there, but that everything over here is a bunch of lefty nonsense.
As my regular readers already know, we can’t even get admitted to the Liberal Blog Hive at BlogAds.com, since we are “a news site.”
I hope that answers your questions, Will, but I suspect it will somehow be inadequate.
Did I get to all your most profound points : ) ?
Man, you guys will stop at nothing to be deceptive. I never implied anything of the sort.
I was talking about blogs where the comments are the content, which is what this site seems to be. There’s a digest of news links from Alabama, then people comment on it. There’s no original content here. Nothing wrong with that. A lot of blogs work that way. Mine doesn’t, that’s all. Not interested in that. In fact, my news page gets as much if not more traffic than the blog, which I just partially updated for Sunday, btw.
The Tuscaloosa News stuff will not be up until sometime in the morning. They update at 4 a.m..
Also, we can link to original stories from the news page to the blog, which makes it quite interesting, for the truly interested.
LocustFork.Net/News
Let me begin by explaining the situation to those not reading from Doc’s Political Parlor. On said web site, Glynn’s story regarding Jill Simpson was linked, which caused quite a bit of discussion on that web site’s comment section. Most of the comments were negative and critical of Glynn’s story and Ms. Simpson’s account in general. Many had shown what were in their opinion holes in the story, to which Glynn found one reason or another not respond to the bulk. Thus, I agreed to post my original comment on this web site if Glynn would at long last respond to it.
Now, on to business. Glynn feels that anyone who engages in a plea deal with the government is suspect. We have actually had this conversation already, so I will repost my comments from that exchange: “The three men you speak of are currently in prison for corruption they committed with Don Siegelman. What that means is this: If what you say is true, and they were saving their own hides as you put it, Don Siegelman is guilty, as all three went to jail for committing a criminal conspiracy with Don Siegelman. The only way Don Siegelman could be innocent is if these men pled guilty to crimes they did not commit. Your argument, then, is this: These three men hated Don Siegelman so much that they were willing to lie and claim they broke the law, knowing full well they would go to prison, in order to harm Don Siegelman. Not exactly a strong argument.”
Glynn is also trying to change the facts as presented in the story. Ms. Simpson describes Steve Windom as the favorite of Republican insiders during the 2002 primaries. This was not and has never been the case. It may be true that Windom led in the polls in the early days of the race. With that said, however, Steve Windom was never the favorite of Republican leaders in the state. This is important to remember, as Ms. Simpson uses this idea, that she helped defeat the Republican leadership by working for Governor Riley, to cement her credentials as someone who is both politically astute and connected.
As to the Klan story, Ms. Simpson uses it to suggest that those pictures caused Governor Siegelman to concede the race. As has been noted at some detail, such charges are ludicrous, as Siegelman himself stated that he dropped out because of an Alabama Supreme Court dominated by Republicans. Ms. Simpson argues that it was her pictures of Riley campaign signs put up at a Klan rally by a Democratic operative that made Siegelman drop out, as opposed to an unfriendly court. For a political animal such as Don Siegelman, the latter reason seems far more likely. No one familiar with the situation can honestly believe that the actions of a single lawyer with no ties to the Siegelman campaign would cause him to concede.
Further, as I have stated before, there is no proof that the story Ms. Simpson offers is even true. If these pictures were so important to the Riley cause, wouldn’t she have kept at least one copy? We are expected to believe that Ms. Simpson is a politically astute individual with connections in the highest level of Republican politics, yet she did not even bother to keep a single copy of evidence to corroborate her story?
True, there is nothing illegal about raising money for a candidate. What Ms. Simpson describes is not campaign fundraising, though. Here, in Glynn’s own words, is what Ms. Simpson attempted:
“Along the way, in their effort to raise money, Ms. Simpson tried to get the Rileys to help her collect on a contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency for one of her storm gypsy clients. It was a $4 million deal for cleaning up after an ice storm in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, a contract that was tied up in the federal bureaucracy in Washington. What’s a Congressman for but to help a constituent collect legally earned money being held up in Washington? She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.”
Repeat:
“She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.”
What Ms. Simpson did was attempt to bribe a public official. Had she hosted a fundraiser or called political friends in order to raise funds, there would be no problem. Instead, she offered a sitting Congressman half the proceeds of a federal contract if he would expedite the matter for her. That, simply stated, is bribery. Thus, the source of this conspiracy theory admits that she attempted to bribe Bob Riley, who turned her down. Had she just asked for help expediting the contract, there would be no crime committed. Instead, however, Ms. Simpson is guilty of attempting to bribe a public official with public funds no less, a serious offense to say the least.
On the other hand, Glynn offers the case of Judge Mark Fuller to condone Ms. Simpson’s attempted bribery. Granted, it is an attempt to change the subject when the facts do not suit his needs, but let us examine Judge Fuller. Judge Fuller owned stock in a company that does business with the federal government. He is not, as Glynn implies, an officer in that company. He was, at one time, its president, but he gave up that position upon becoming a federal judge and divested himself of stock in that company. He did not receive a $176 million contract. The company did. With that established, Glynn still refuses to offer any example of in trial bias against Governor Siegelman. Saying that he did not recuse himself is not bias against Siegelman, as the judge would have actually had to commit some sort of act against Siegelman to have harmed him. I ask, once again, for any example of in trial bias by Judge Fuller. If there was no in trial bias, what does Siegelman have to complain about?
In closing, let me say, I am in no way tied to Governor Riley, as Glynn suggests with no evidence to back such a claim. I am merely a follower of Alabama politics who sees an individual attempting to besmirch the intelligence of the people of Alabama. We are supposed to believe that a woman who admits to attempting to bribe a public official has come forward with evidence that exonerates Don Siegelman, a woman who offers no attack upon the actual charges against Siegelman but, instead, has created an account that any sort of investigation shows to be filled with inaccuracies. I ask Glynn, once again, why he is willing to overlook Ms. Simpson’s admission of attempting to bribe then-Congressman Riley? Why does he not provide an example of how Judge Fuller showed in trial bias against Governor Siegelman? Why is it that Ms. Simpson claims that supposed pictures of Riley campaign signs at a Klan rally caused Siegelman to concede in 2002, yet not one copy of any of those pictures exists? Until he can fully answer those questions, the article offered shows nothing but intellectual dishonesty.
Classic misdirection and a waste of bandwidth and a waste of anymore of anyone’s time who is seriously trying to get to the bottom of it.
I will say again, to anyone who wants to read some journalism that enlightens the situation, come on over the LocustFork.Net. Clearly this is a propaganda site only, where people who do not identify themselves and have no real expertise falsely accuse other people of crimes without any regard for the consequences of those accuations.
Sayonara
People who “have no real expertise falsely accuse other people of crimes without any regard for the consequences of those accuations.”
….What’s that saying about the pot and the kettle?