You are on page 1of 502

E-Filed 09/24/2012 @ 05:43:10 PM Honorable Robert Esdale Clerk Of The Court

Case No. _________ TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA In re: HOUSTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION Petitioner. ______________________________ STATE OF ALABAMA, by and through Attorney General Luther Strange, Petitioner, v. $283,657.68 U.S. CURRENCY, ET Al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

HOUSTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CASE NO. CV-2012-900266

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO HOUSTON COUNTY CIRCUIT JUDGE J. MICHAEL CONAWAY

ERNEST H. HORNSBY ASHTON OTT FARMER, PRICE, HORNSBY & WEATHERFORD, L.L.P. P. O. Drawer 2228 Dothan, AL 36302 (334) 793-2424 ehornsby@fphw-law.com aott@fphw-law.com

WILLIAM C. WHITE, II PARKMAN & WHITE, LLC 1929 Third Avenue North Suite 700 Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 244-1920 wwhite@parkmanlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Petitioner Houston Economic Development Association

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................... i APPENDICES .............................................. iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... v I. STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................... 1 A. The Parties ........................................... 1 B. The July 25, 2012 Raid of Center Stage and Subsequent Forfeiture Petition ........................ 2 C. Historical Relating to Recusal and Disqualification .................................. 3 1. 2. 3. 4. The Establishment of Country Crossing n/k/a Center Stage Development ......................... 3 The Prior Disqualification of Houston County Circuit Judges from Bingo Cases ........... 5 Country Crossing Closes .......................... 8 Former Governor Bob Riley’s April 28, 2010 Appointment of Judge Conaway ..................... 8

D. Procedural History Relating to the Motion for Recusal/Disqualification ......................... 10 1. HEDA’s Initial Motion to Recuse and the Subsequent Recusal of the Three Most Senior Houston County Circuit Judges ............ 10 The Forfeiture Case is Assigned to Judge Conaway, Who Denies HEDA’s Initial Unopposed Motion to Recuse without a Hearing ....................................... 12 HEDA’s Second Motion to Recuse that is Specific to Judge Conaway ....................... 14 i

2.

3.

4. 5.

The State Opposes Only Judge Conaway’s Recusal ......................................... 18 Having Rejected HEDA’s Request to File a Reply, the Trial Court Denies the Second Motion to Recuse ......................... 19

II. STATEMENT OF ISSUE AND RELIEF SOUGHT ................. 22 III. STATEMENT OF REASONS WHY WRIT SHOULD ISSUE ........... 22 A. Mandamus Standards ................................... 22 B. Petitioner Has a Clear Right to the Relief Sought, and the Trial Court Was Required to Recuse ........... 23 1. Recusal Standards under the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Due Process Clause .............................. 23 Judge Conaway’s Failure to Recuse is Inconsistent with Alabama law ................... 28 a. Judge Conaway’s orders evidence a fundamental misapprehension of the “appearance of impropriety” standard .......... 30 Prior Alabama decisions support recusal ....... 34 The State’s Recent Greene County Recusal Motion .................................. 35

2.

b. 3.

C. Petitioner Has No Other Adequate Remedy .............. 37 D. Jurisdiction Has Been Properly Invoked ............... 37 IV. CONCLUSION ........................................... 38 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................... 39

ii

APPENDICES EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 4 EXHIBIT 5 EXHIBIT 6 EXHIBIT 7 EXHIBIT 8 EXHIBIT 9 EXHIBIT 10 EXHIBIT 11 JULY 26, 2012 CONDEMNATION PETITION FOR FORFEITURE AND

SEPTEMBER 21, 2012 MOTION TO STAY AUGUST 24, 2012 MOTION TO DISMISS AND EXHIBITS THERETO AUGUST 24, 2012 MOTION TO RECUSE AND EXHIBITS THERETO SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 MOTION TO RECUSE/DISQUALIFY AND EXHIBITS THERETO SEPTEMBER FILING 17, 2012 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 REQUEST BY THE STATE TO FILE RESPONSE SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 RESPONSE BY THE STATE TO RECUSAL MOTION AND EXHIBITS THERETO RECUSAL ORDERS OF CIRCUIT BINFORD, AND MENDHEIM JUDGES ANDERSON,

SEPTEMBER 7, 2012 NON-RECUSAL ORDER OF CIRCUIT JUDGE CONAWAY SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 ORDER CONAWAY ON THE STATE’S RESPONSE OF CIRCUIT JUDGE REQUEST TO FILE

EXHIBIT 12 EXHIBIT 13

SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 REQUEST BY HEDA TO FILE REPLY SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 CIRCUIT JUDGE CONAWAY NON-RECUSAL ORDER OF

iii

EXHIBIT 14 EXHIBIT 15 EXHIBIT 16 EXHIBIT 17 EXHIBIT 18 EXHIBIT 19 EXHIBIT 20 EXHIBIT 21

RECUSAL MOTION OF THE STATE IN GREENE COUNTY FORFEITURE CASE JUNE 21, 2010 DOTHAN EAGLE ARTICLE MEDIA STORIES RELATING TO CRIMINAL BINGO TRIAL ADDITIONAL COURT CASE SUBPOENAS VERIFIED COUNTERCLAIM AND EXHIBITS SEPTEMBER 21, 2012 RESPONSE BY THE STATE TO MOTION TO STAY SEPTEMBER 21, 2012 MOTION BY THE STATE QUASH SUBPOENAS MEDIA STORIES CONCERNING TRIAL

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 823-825, 880 (1986) ........................... 25, 26 Bryars v. Bryars 485 So. 2d 1187, 1189-1190 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986.) ....................... 28 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. 868, 876 (2009) ................... 24, 25, 26, 27 Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 617 (1993) ............ 24 Ex parte Bryant, 682 So. 2d 39 (Ala. 1996) ............... 35 Ex parte Duncan, 638 So. 2d 1332, 1334 (Ala. 1994) ....... 28 Ex parte Fowler, 863 So. 2d 1136, 1140 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) ................................. 25 Ex parte George, 962 So. 2d 789, 791 (Ala. 2006) ......... 23 Ex parte Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 776 So. 2d 76 (Ala. 2000) .............................. 12 Ex parte Monsanto Co., 862 So. 2d 595, 603, 604 (Ala. 2003) .......................... 23, 27 Ex parte Parr, 20 So. 3d 1266, 1269 (Ala. 2009) ......................... 15, 23, 37 Ex parte Price, 715 So. 2d 856 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) ................................. 34 In re Kensington Int’l Ltd, 368 F.3d 289, 302 (3d Cir. 2004) ....................... 32 In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955) ................ 24

v

Matter of Sheffield, 465 So. 2d 350, 355, 357 (Ala. 1984) .......................... 24, 31 Murray v. Scott, 253 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001) ............................ 32 Potashnick v. Port City Const. Co., 609 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1980) .......................... 32 United States v. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152, 157 (5th Cir. 1995) ....................... 32 United States v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732, 745 (11th Cir. 1989) ....................................... 32 State v. Moore, 988 So. 2d 597, 601 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007) ............................. 27, 28 Ward v. Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 61-62 (1972) ........... 24 Statutory Authorities 28 U.S.C. § 455 .......................................... 32 Ala. Code § 11-81-224 (1975) ............................. 5

Ala. Code § 11-99B-1 et seq. .............................. 4 Ala. Code § 12-2-7(2) .................................... 38 Ala. Code § 13A-12-30 ..................................... 3 Other Authorities Ala. Const. Am. 569 .................................... 2, 3 Ala. R. App. P. 21 ....................................... 38 Canons of Jud. Ethics, Canon 1 ........................ 31-32 Canons of Jud. Ethics, Canon 2, subds. A, B, C. .......... 24

vi

Canons of Jud. Ethics, Canon 3, subd. C(1)(a) ........ 24, 25 JIC Advisory Opinions 96-617, 92-454, 94-516 .............. 7

vii

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS I. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Parties.

The State of Alabama, through the Attorney General (the “State”), is the respondent in this mandamus proceeding and is the petitioner (Appendix in the underlying 1, action for civil Ex.”).

forfeiture

Exhibit

hereinafter

“App.

The State has named as respondents to the civil forfeiture petition Devices” “$283,657.68 (identified by U.S. serial Currency,” number), “691 and Gambling

unidentified

“Gambling Records.” (Id.,pp.1-9.)1 The State has identified several entities with likely possessory and/or ownership

interests in the defendant property, one of which is the Houston Economic Development Association (“HEDA”), the

petitioner in this mandamus proceeding.

(Id.,pp.9-10.)

On August 24, 2012, HEDA made a limited appearance in the forfeiture (App. case Ex. through 3.) the is filing an of a motion to

dismiss.

HEDA

Alabama

non-profit

corporation, in good standing, that operates as a private club.
1

As the holder of a Class C Special Permit issued

In quoting the State’s description of property, HEDA should not be understood as agreeing that those descriptions are accurate. 1

pursuant Houston

to

and

in

accordance (the

with

a

Resolution

of HEDA

the is

County

Commission

“Commission”),2

authorized to operate bingo games within a leased location that is a part of the multi-use facility currently known as Center Stage Alabama (“Center Stage”). 2; Exs. A & B to App. Ex. 3.) B. The July 25, 2012 Raid of Center Subsequent Forfeiture Petition. Stage and (App. Ex. 3, pp. 1-

On July 25, 2012, agents of the State executed a search warrant at Center Stage f/k/a Country Crossing, which is located in Cottonwood, Alabama. warrant was issued the (App. Ex. 3, p. 2.) day by Houston The

previous

County

Circuit Judge J. Michael Conaway, who is believed to have been attending a judicial conference in Fairhope, Alabama at the time and who is now presiding over this case in the
3

trial court.

(App. Ex. 5, p. 9.)

The State’s agents

seized property and cash from the Premises, but no persons have been arrested to date.
2

(App. Ex. 3, p. 2.)

The Resolution (Ex. B to App. Ex. 3) governs the operation of bingo games under Ala. Const. Am. 569 to the Alabama Constitution within Houston County. 3 There are a number of issues surrounding the search warrant, including a question of exactly what was presented to Judge Conaway to establish probable cause, as the State has refused to produce any affidavit supporting the warrant, despite repeated requests for such. 2

The

State

filed

the

underlying

forfeiture

petition Through

(App. Ex. 1) the day after executing the warrant.

its petition, the State seeks ownership of the seized cash and to have other seized property declared contraband and destroyed. possessor appeared (Id., pp. 11-12, 23-24.)4 and/or as a lessee of certain the HEDA, as the rightful seized and property, disputes has the

respondent

in

case

State’s claimed right to an order forfeiting any property. C. Historical Facts Disqualification. 1. Relating to Recusal and

The Establishment of Country Crossing n/k/a Center Stage Alabama.

The Commission, as the duly constituted governing body of Houston County, Alabama, is responsible for regulating the operation of bingo games, including the issuance of permits to qualifying operators under Ala. Const. Am. 569 to the Alabama Constitution. Relying on such grant of

authority, its own governing powers within Houston County, and on opinions of then Attorney General, Troy King, on September 22, 2008, the Commission enacted Resolution 08-

4

According to the State, the currency and the seized equipment were seized based on alleged violations of Ala. Code § 13A-12-30. (App. Ex. 1, pp. 11, 23.) 3

255(the “Resolution,” Ex. 1 to App. Ex. 19), which provides for the issuance of Class C Special Permits to Qualifying Nonprofit Organizations allowing them to operate bingo (Id.)

games that are played on electronic player stations.

On December 8, 2008, following a determination that HEDA met the requirements a Class C for issuance, Permit the to Commission HEDA which

properly

issued

Special

authorized HEDA to operate charitable bingo at the Country Crossing Crossing”). development in Houston County (“Country

(Ex. 2 to App. Ex. 19.)

Since municipal bonds were to be used as a source of financing in the construction of the bingo facility and the project, on July 30, 2009, the Cooperative District of

Houston County – Country Crossing Project (the “Cooperative District”), a public corporation organized pursuant to Ala. Code § 11-99B-1 et seq. of the Alabama Code, commenced a bond validation proceeding in the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama, Case Number CV-2009-379, against the The

Taxpayers and Citizens of Houston County, Alabama.

District Attorney of Houston County appeared on behalf of
5

This Resolution was supplemented by Resolution 10-10 on February 8, 2010 (Ex. A to App. Ex. 3)

4

the

defendant

class

and

answered

the

Complaint.

The

circuit court later issued a final judgment on October 1, 2009 validating the bonds and the Pledged Revenues for

repayment of the bonds from fees imposed on the operation of “charity bingo machines.” (App. Ex. 19, pp.4-5 (emphasis added).)6 (id., No timely and the appeal order was taken from this final judgment and not

p.5)

thereby

became

subject to later challenge in any court in the State of Alabama. See Ala. Code §11-81-224 (1975). Following the Commission’s issuance of the Class C

Special Permit and the required Machine Bingo Stamps, HEDA commenced the operation of bingo games at its facility in Country Crossing on December 1, 2009. 2. Within (App. Ex. 19, p.5.)

The Prior Disqualification of Houston County Circuit Judges from Bingo Cases. days of the filing of the bond validation

lawsuit, all circuit judges in Houston County, by joint order dated August 6, 2009, recused from the suit “[t]o avoid any appearance of impropriety,” reasoning:

6

Appendix Exhibit 19 is attached and cited to provide factual context. Those facts are separately before this Court as part of an appeal from a TRO issued in Houston County Circuit Court Case Number CV-10-003. See Appeal No. 1090444 (notice of appeal filed January 7, 2010). 5

As judges, we too, are taxpayers and citizens of Houston County, Alabama. Additionally, due to extensive media coverage and public interest in this project [Country Crossing, at that time], the judges have been exposed to extra-judicial public conversations regarding the development made the basis of this lawsuit. To avoid recuse. any appearance
7

of

impropriety…

we

hereby

(Ex. A to App. Ex. 4, p. 1.) With the same Houston

County

circuit

judges

of

the

“belie[f] that litigation may occur concerning the legality of Country Crossing’s ‘charitable electronic bingo,’” then Presiding Circuit Judge Brady E. Mendheim, Jr., by letter dated November 23, 2009, sought guidance from the Judicial Inquiry Commission (“JIC”) to determine the continuing

applicability of the circuit judges’ earlier recusal order: Our inquiry is whether the recusal order entered in the bond validation lawsuit would also result in recusal pursuant to the Canons of Judicial Ethics in a new lawsuit challenging “charitable electronic bingo”? (Id.) Significantly, at the time Judge Mendheim sought

this guidance no such lawsuit or challenge to charitable electronic bingo had been brought. (Id.)

7

As a result of those recusals, this Court’s former Chief Justice, by Order dated January 6, 2010, appointed a special circuit judge, Hon. P. B. McLaughlin, from an adjoining county to preside. 6

In a December 11, 2009 response, JIC Chairman Norman E. Waldrop, Jr. initially noted that the circuit judges’

recusal “‘[t]o avoid any appearance of impropriety’” was based on two distinct concerns: (1) “member[ship in] the collective defendant, the taxpayers and citizens of Houston County” and (2) “‘expos[ure] to extra-judicial public

conversations’” resulting from “‘extensive media coverage and public interest in [Country Crossing].’” App. Ex. 4, p. 1.) Noting that (Ex. B to

“[d]isqualification

continues until the ground of disqualification ceases” (id. (citing JIC Advisory Opinions 96-617, 92-454, 94-516)), the JIC concluded that the Houston County circuit judges were subject to ongoing mandatory disqualification: Considering the present situation, it appears from the second ground of disqualification cited in the former case that the signatories are personally biased pursuant to the public discourse regarding the “Country Crossing” venture. In all likelihood, that personal bias has not dissipated, but even if it has, the circumstances present a reasonable question of the signatories’ impartiality. Thus, the circumstances compel continued disqualification pursuant to Canon 3C(1) and 3C(1)(a). (Id.) Shortly after the JIC issued its letter opinion finding ongoing disqualification, litigation regarding Country

7

Crossing and the legality of its electronic bingo operation commenced, as Presiding Judge Mendheim predicted. Based on

the JIC letter opinion, all Houston County circuit judges recused. (Ex. E to App. Ex. 4.) 3. In Country Crossing Closes. of 2010 there were attempted raids at

January

Country Crossing by then-Governor Riley’s Task Force, at least one of which was unsuccessful due to the Task Force’s inability to obtain a search warrant. These attempted

raids became the subject of extensive media coverage and public discussion throughout Houston County. raids did not result in bingo equipment Although the being seized,

Country Crossing closed for approximately one year. (App. Ex. 19,pp.7-8.) Subsequently, the focus of the ongoing

dispute over electronic bingo shifted from the courtroom to the State House with the start of the 2010 Legislative

Session in early February.

Thereafter and continuing for

the next two years, there were grand jury investigations, indictments and trials of legislators, lobbyists and others over electronic bingo legislation, much of which related to Houston County. Media coverage and public interest in

8

Houston

County

intensified.

(App.

Ex.

16,

timeline

with

accompanying articles.) 4. In the Former Governor Bob Riley’s Appointment of Judge Conaway. midst of this extensive April 28, 2010 and

media

coverage

public discussion over electronic Bingo in Houston County, then-Governor Riley appointed J. Michael Conaway to fill a vacant circuit judge position on April 28, 2010. At the

time of this appointment, the Dothan Eagle published an article noting that Judge Conaway was the only judge in Houston himself bingo. County, from Alabama that had the not yet disqualified of electronic

matters

involving

issue

(Ex. L to App. Ex. 5.).

The article immediately

followed this observation with the statement that “[Judge Conaway] has direct ties to Dothan businessman John Watson, who has said (Id.) himself he opposes electronic bingo in Houston

County.” describing

John Watson is quoted in the article, as a long-time (Id.) friend and business

partner of Judge Conaway.

Watson was further quoted

as assuring the people of Houston County that Judge Conaway would be fair and impartial should the issue of electronic bingo come before him. the only legal issue (Id.) Notably, electronic bingo is in the article. In a

discussed 9

separate made no

article

about to

Judge John

Conaway’s a

appointment reader

that

reference

Watson,

commented,

“thats all we needed was a riley & watson man as judge.” (Ex. M to App. Ex. 5 (errors in original).) The ties

between Judge Conaway and John Watson are further discussed below.8 D. Procedural History Relating Recusal/Disqualification. 1. to the Motion for

HEDA’s Initial Motion to Recuse and the Subsequent Recusal of the Three Most Senior Houston County Circuit Judges.

By random draw, the underlying forfeiture petition was initially assigned to Houston County Circuit Judge Larry K. Anderson. On August 24, 2012, in light of the recusals by

Houston County judges in prior proceedings involving the issue of electronic bingo and the JIC letter (Exs. A, B, D & E to App. Ex. 4), HEDA filed a motion requesting Judge Anderson and “all other judges currently sitting in Houston

8

Approximately two months after Judge Conaway’s appointment, former District 86 Representative, Benjamin Lewis, who had contacted the FBI regarding alleged wrongdoing related to proposed bingo legislation, was appointed District Judge in Houston County by then-Governor Riley, renewing public speculation and discourse regarding the correlation of anti-bingo opinions and the judicial selection process in Houston County. (App. Ex. 15) 10

County, Alabama” to recuse. that motion, HEDA noted

(App. Ex. 4.)9 that “[t]he

As part of media

pervasive

coverage and resultant public discourse serve to continue the previous disqualification of the judges who signed the orders in the previous lawsuits ... as well as all other judges currently sitting in Houston County, Alabama from any decisions Stage (other and than disqualification) electronic bingo related to

Center added).”

charitable

(emphasis

(App. Ex. 4, p. 5 ¶ 6.)10

Significantly, the
11

State never filed any opposition to HEDA’s Motion.

On August 27, 2012, Judge Anderson recused, stating: Based on an earlier letter from the Judicial Inquiry Commission there is a continuing disqualification. Therefore, this Court must recuse. This case shall be redirected to the presiding judge for reassignment. (App. Ex. 9, p. 1 (emphasis D. added).) the Following current that

recusal,
9

Judge

Henry

Binford,

Presiding

HEDA also moved to dismiss (App. Ex. 3) on the same day. At pages 2 and 3 of its motion, HEDA detailed the pervasive media coverage concerning bingo-related issues that occurred after the JIC sent its disqualification letter, including, inter alia, the bingo vote buying criminal trial/retrial and recent events within the past twelve months directly relating to bingo at Center Stage. (App. Ex. 4, pp. 2-3.) 11 It was only after the case was assigned to Judge Conaway following prior recusals, that the State apparently felt the need to oppose recusal.
10

11

Circuit Judge, recused holding that “[u]pon consideration of the Judicial Inquiry Commission letter of December 11, 2009, ... that the disqualification referenced therein is continuing.” (Id., p. 2 (emphasis added).)12

Invoking the reassignment procedure set forth in Ex parte Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 776 So. 2d 76 (Ala. 2000), Judge Binford ordered the case reassigned to Circuit Judge Brady E. Mendheim, the next most senior circuit judge that had not recused. Judge Mendheim, who authored the November

23, 2009 letter to the JIC as the former presiding judge, also promptly recused, “based on [his] own judgment as well as the [JIC] advisory opinion,” which he “believe[d was] self-explanatory regarding [his] recusal.” 3.) 2. The Forfeiture Case is Assigned to Judge Conaway, Who Denies HEDA’s Initial Unopposed Motion to Recuse without a Hearing. (App. Ex. 9, p.

Based on seniority, the case was reassigned to Judge Conaway. allowing a In the absence Judge of any opposition issued and an without on

hearing,

Conaway

order

September 7, 2012 (App. Ex. 9) denying the motion to recuse
12

Judge Binford further noted that a relative by marriage “is employed as an Assistant Attorney General in the Alabama Attorney General’s Office.” (App. Ex. 9, p. 2.) 12

that HEDA had filed while Judge Anderson was presiding. Noting that Judges Anderson, Binford, and Mendheim had all found they were disqualified based on the JIC letter, Judge Conaway proceeded to explain his reasons for reaching a contrary conclusion. First, Judge Conaway expressed his determination that “circumstances existing at the time of their inquiry” made “the basis [of the other circuit judges’] disqualification [] distinguishable.” (App. Ex. 10, p. 1.) “With all due

respect to the Commission the undersigned was not a sitting judge at the time this request was made and further the issues in this case are not related to the litigation cited in the letter.” (Id.)13

Second, having opined that “[t]he primary ground of the Motion to Recuse is the assertion that [] ‘pervasive media
13

Those judges, according to Judge Conaway, had received “an unsolicited ex parte communication . . . by the Houston County Commission Chairman regarding [Country Crossing]” and the JIC letter concerned an expected “lawsuit challenging the underlying activity of the business enterprise ‘Country Crossing.’” (App. Ex. 10, p. 1.) Judge Conaway stated that he “was not a sitting judge at the time [of the JIC] request” and suggested “the issues in this case are not related to the litigation cited in the [JIC] letter.” (Id.) Notably, the “unsolicited ex parte communication” was not received by the judges until after they had requested the JIC opinion and the issues in this case are virtually identical to those cited in Judge Mendheim’s letter to the JIC. 13

coverage disqualify

and any

resultant [sitting

public Houston

discourse’ County]

serves

to

judge,”

Judge

Conaway questioned whether extensive media coverage would ever warrant broad based recusal. (Id.) Having further

recited the legal standard applicable to recusal based on Canon 3(C), Judge Conaway wrote: The only factual basis asserted in the motion is a recitation of media coverage directly or indirectly related to this case. There are no facts alleged which would show that the Court has any bias, hostility or prejudice. (Id., pp. 1-2.) In consideration of this standard, the

trial court ruled, “I do not find a factual, rational or clear basis for recusal.” (Id.) HEDA was further invited (Id.)14 Recuse that is

to “petition for a writ of mandamus.” 3.

HEDA’s Second Motion to Specific to Judge Conaway.

HEDA filed a second motion to recuse or disqualify, specific to Judge Conaway, on September 11, 2012, which it supplemented on September 17. (App. Ex. 5; App. Ex. 6.)

Based on the abundant evidence submitted with the motion, HEDA sought recusal under applicable law based on an

14

Having denied HEDA’s motion to recuse, the trial court scheduled a hearing on “all remaining motions” on September 26, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. (App. Ex. 10, p. 2.) 14

“appearance

of

impropriety.”

As

HEDA

explained,

that

evidence, along with reasonable inferences drawn from it, would clearly cause a reasonable and ordinarily prudent person to call into question this Court’s impartiality on the question of electronic bingo, and mandate recusal/disqualification by this Court. (App. Ex. 5, p. 2.)15 HEDA offered multiple grounds

supporting this assertion. First, HEDA detailed a longstanding personal business relationship between Judge Conaway and John Watson, a

prominent Dothan businessman who is known to be a vocal opponent of electronic bingo and the Country Crossing

development. included

(Id., pp. 3-5.) Conaway’s

The evidence in question financial disclosures,

Judge

public

which state that he receives in excess of $78,000.00 per year from a business relationship with Mr. Watson. A, B, & C to App. Ex. 5.) Mr. HEDA Watson next and (Exs. a

established his

reasonable

belief

that

business

associate John Downs, an equally ardent bingo opponent, had
15

Judge Conaway expressly acknowledged essentially the same objective standard in his September 7 non-recusal order. (See App. Ex. 10, p. 2 (quoting Ex parte Parr, 20 So. 3d 1266 (Ala. 2009), for the proposition: “[T]the standard by which we apply Cannon 3(C) is whether a person of ordinary prudence in the judges’ position knowing all the facts known to the Judge would find that there is a reasonable basis for questioning the judges’ impartiality.”) 15

a

role

in

the

appointment

of

Judge

Conaway

by

former

Governor Riley.

(App. Ex. 5, pp. 4, 6-7.)

As previously

noted, then-Governor Riley made that appointment during one of the most contentious periods of the bingo debate and immediately following the attempted raid by his Task Force at Country Crossing, which was unsuccessful due to the

inability of the Task Force to obtain a search warrant in Houston County. followed Judge by Conaway’s the highly appointment publicized was and

immediately

contentious appointment of former Representative Benjamin Lewis as District Judge in Houston County. HEDA thus established there is a “stigma,” from a

public perception standpoint, attached to the appointment of Judge Conaway, concerning the operation of electronic bingo at Country Crossing by HEDA. Local media coverage of

the appointment, as well as his decisions in the underlying forfeiture proceeding, acutely demonstrate the extent of

that stigma, with the Dothan Eagle having actually called on Judge Conaway to recuse. (Exs. L, M, & T to App. Ex. 5; The

Exs. U, V, & W to App. Ex. 6; see also App. Ex. 17.)

wide public scrutiny of Judge Conaway is further supported by the fact that the Sonny Reagan, legal advisor to then-

16

Governor Riley and current Assistant Attorney General who is counsel of record in this case, was personally involved in the appointment process. (App. Ex. 5, p. 7.)16

In its motion, HEDA further addressed Judge Conaway’s membership in the defendant class in the bond validation proceeding, the case in which the Houston County Circuit Judges, who were also class members, first recused. pp. 7-9.) (Id.,

It similarly demonstrated that Judge Conaway,

like the judges who have recused, has faced the same extrajudicial exposure concerns based on the “extensive media coverage and public interest” locally concerning Center

Stage/Country Crossing. & Exs. D, E thereto.)

(Id., pp. 10-12; App. Ex. 4, ¶¶5-6 Finally, HEDA raised Judge Conaway’s

personal knowledge of disputed facts, based on his issuance of the underlying search warrant and the State’s continued refusal to produce any supporting affidavit, despite

repeated requests for such.
16

(Id., pp. 9-10.)17

There are strong indications that Attorney Reagan’s central legal role at the time of the appointment to the present has been opposing electronic bingo. It is thus far from coincidence that Attorney Reagan’s name is signed to the underlying petition, the State’s request for an opportunity to file an opposition to HEDA’s motion to recuse, and the State’s filed opposition to that motion. (App. Ex. 1; App. Ex. 7; App. Ex. 8.) 17 It is HEDA’s strong belief that that the warrant was 17

To further substantiate the factual issues relevant to recusal, HEDA formally requested an opportunity “to conduct discovery on the issues raised in [its recusal] motion”18 and an “opportunity to present evidence already acquired and acquired through discovery at a hearing on the issues of disqualification and/or recusal.” was never directly ruled on by (Id., p. 13.) Judge Conaway, This but

presumably denied by his September 20, 2012 order that he would not recuse. 4. After Anderson, (App. Ex. 13.) Opposes oppose Only Judge Conaway’s of Judges judges

The State Recusal. failing to and

the and

recusals “all

Mendheim

Binford,

other

currently sitting in Houston County, Alabama” as requested by HEDA in its August 24, 2012 filing, and only after the case was assigned to Judge Conaway, the State filed written notice of its intent to oppose the second motion to recuse and requested that the trial court afford it “seven (7) issued under “unusual circumstances’” with the State having “apparent[ly] target[ed] Judge Conaway” while he “was attending a judicial conference ... over 200 miles from Dothan, rather than presenting it to [Circuit] Judge Kevin Moulton who was present and available in Dothan on that date and, like Judge Conaway, had not been previously specifically disqualified.” (App. Ex. 5, p. 6.) 18 Of note, subpoenas to obtain relevant evidence have been issued by co-respondents in this case. (App. Ex. 18.) 18

days to respond.”

(App. Ex. 7.)

Judge Conaway issued an (App. Ex.

order the following day granting the request. 11.)

In its response, the State broadly attacked every

recusal ground offered by HEDA by simply suggesting they were legally defective and “[un]supported by adequate

evidence.”

(App. Ex. 8, p. 3.)

It specifically challenged

an assertion by HEDA that was made “upon information and belief” as an “unsupported assertion” that should be

disregarded.

(Id.)

The State did so, despite the fact

that it never challenged the accuracy of any of the factual assertions, and never offered any evidence to rebut HEDA’s evidence or assertions, contending that “HEDA would have to show much more than it has alleged in order to make

disqualification even a close question.” 5.

(Id., p. 4.)19 to File a the Second

Having Rejected HEDA’s Request Reply, the Trial Court Denies Motion to Recuse.

On the same day that the State filed its response, HEDA filed a motion requesting five days to file a reply,

essentially tracking the language of the State’s earlier
19

As HEDA discusses infra, the State’s assertions, through the Attorney General’s Office, are directly contrary to the position the same Attorney General’s Office took last year in a forfeiture case from Greene County, Alabama. (See generally App. Ex. 14.) The State’s 180-degree recusal swing is telling. 19

requests.

(App. Ex. 12.)

Without ruling on that request,

Judge Conaway, the next morning, issued what can only be described as a scathing order, in which he stated “I shall not enter an order of recusal” and suggested for the second time that HEDA file for mandamus relief. (App. Ex. 13.)

The order denied “that the Court has [a] bias, hostility or prejudice” towards HEDA, and noted the absence of alleged facts as to any such bias. (Id.)

Importantly, the basis of HEDA’s recusal motion, was not actual bias, but rather in the further has “appearance defense made, of of a

impropriety.” personal bias

Nevertheless, charge that

HEDA

never

Judge

Conaway stated “the truth is that no one has ever attempted to influence me on the issues outlined in this case and I have neither expressed nor harbor any bias, hostility or prejudice.” (App. Ex. 13.) Judge Conaway concluded by

stating, “I perform my judicial functions with diligence, determination and dedication. oath of office.... I am always mindful of my

My record of judicial service speaks (Id.)20

for itself and stands up to scrutiny.”

20

None of these assertions has any bearing on the recusal question at issue. 20

Despite having professed unwavering impartiality, and having ignored HEDA’s request for discovery and a hearing to present its evidence, the Court’s order derided HEDA’s motion and supporting evidence, stating: The movant “boot-straps” its argument off of a two year old media article, irrelevant public documents, and exhibits which are woven into a limited and flawed narrative. The motion appears to be framed for media dissemination as opposed to judicial consideration. It is full of innuendo, inferences, hearsay, speculation and opinion. (Id.) The exceedingly harsh tone of Judge Conaway’s order

is all the more troubling, for HEDA is now concerned that there is a real possibility of actual bias going forward. That order, moreover, has only increased the already acute media scrutiny on Judge Conaway’s steadfast decision to

remain in this case.

(App. Ex. 17.)

Upon notice to the trial court that it would be seeking mandamus relief, as was twice suggested by Judge

Conaway(App. Ex. 10, App. Ex. 13), HEDA moved for a stay of proceedings postponement hearing. on of September the 21, 2012, specifically 26, seeking, motion

scheduled

September

2012

(App. Ex. 2.)

Within hours the State filed an

opposition to the motion for stay (App. Ex. 20)21 and moved
21

In light of the planned September 26 substantive motion 21

to quash the pending subpoenas and preclude all testimony from the September 26 motion hearing. (App. Ex.21).

II. STATEMENT OF ISSUE AND RELIEF SOUGHT This petition presents the issue of whether the Circuit Court erred by denying HEDA’s motion to recuse. Petitioner

HEDA respectfully requests that this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Houston County Circuit Court J.

Michael Conaway to i) vacate the orders of September 7, 2012 and September 20, 2012 denying HEDA’s motions to

recuse and ii) issue an order of recusal as to any further involvement in the underling forfeiture petition or any

subsequent related cases.

Petitioner further requests the

appointment of an independent circuit judge to preside in this case. III. STATEMENT OF REASONS WHY WRIT SHOULD ISSUE A. Mandamus Standards.

“‘A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy,’” but nonetheless is due to be issued when the petitioner shows: 1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; 2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to

hearing, HEDA will immediately seek a stay in this Court if its motion for stay below has not been granted at the time this Petition is filed. 22

do so; 3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and 4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court. Ex parte Parr, 20 So. 3d 1266, 1269 (Ala. 2009) (quoting Ex parte Monsanto Co., 862 So. 2d 595, 604 (Ala. 2003)). It is settled that “[a] mandamus petition is a proper method by which to seek review of a trial court’s denial of a motion to recuse.” 2d 789, 791 (Ala. Id. (quoting Ex parte George, 962 So. 2006)). Applying the excess of

discretion standard of review, this Court considers “the ‘totality of the facts’ and circumstances in each case” where “[t]he necessity for recusal is evaluated.” Id.

(quoting Ex parte George, 962 So. 2d at 791). whether ‘facts are shown which make it

“The test is for

reasonable

members of the public, or a party, or counsel opposed to question the impartiality of the judge.’” parte George, 962 So. 2d at 791).22 B. Petitioner Has a Clear Right to the Relief Sought and the Trial Court Was Required to Recuse. 1. Recusal Standards under the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Due Process Clause. Id. (quoting Ex

22

It is further established that recusal motions “should be filed at the earliest opportunity” at the risk of waiver being found. Ex parte Parr, 20 So. 3d at 1269 (citation omitted). In this case, waiver is not an issue because HEDA sought recusal within days of Judge Conaway’s assignment of this case. 23

Circuit judges are bound by, and required to comply with, the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, which are “not merely guidelines for proper judicial conduct” but rather “have the force and effect of law.” 465 So. 2d 350, 355 (Ala. 1984) Matter of Sheffield, (citations omitted). federal that

Compliance

with

the

Canons,

moreover, “[i]t

implicates is

constitutional

concerns

because

axiomatic

‘[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.’” Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc.,

556 U.S. 868, 876 (2009) (quoting In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955)). Hence, the Fourteenth Amendment requires See, e.g., Concrete Pipe &

a “neutral and detached judge.”

Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 617 (1993) (quoting Ward v. Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 61-62 (1972)). Canon 2 provides: “A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the
23

Appearance

of

Impropriety

in

All

His

Activities.”23

Canon 2 further relevantly requires a judge to “conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” “maintain the ... temperance befitting his office and should avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute,” and “not allow ... political[] or other relationships to influence his judicial conduct or judgment.” CANONS OF JUD. ETHICS, Canon 2, subds. A, B, C. 24

Canon 3, which mandates that “[a] Judge should perform the duties of his Office impartially and diligently,”

implicates the concept of recusal and disqualification in subdivision C. In relevant part, Canon 3 provides:

A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which ... his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (a) He has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; CANONS OF JUD. ETHICS, Canon 3, subd. C(1)(a)(emphasis added). Because Canon 3C expressly provides that the delineated

examples are not exhaustive, recusal is required if for any reason Judge Conaway’s impartiality might reasonably be

questioned, regardless whether a specific example contained in subdivisions C(1)(a)-(d) is present. See, e.g., Ex

parte Fowler, 863 So. 2d 1136, 1140 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001). The Due Process Clause also incorporates the common-law rule that a judge must recuse himself when he has a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest in a case.

Caperton, 556 U.S. at 876.

The Supreme Court’s decision in

Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813 (1986) further recognizes additional circumstances, considered on an

25

objective decision, “further

basis, which

that

require an

recusal. from Due

The this

Lavoie Court, Clause

involved the

appeal of the

clarified

reach

Process

regarding a judge’s financial interest in a case,” with the Supreme Court “stress[ing] that it was ‘not required to decide whether in fact [the justice] was influenced.’”

Caperton, 556 U.S. at 878 (citing and quoting Lavoie, 475 U.S. at 823-825). The proper financial interest inquiry

established by Lavoie is “whether sitting on the case ... ‘would offer a possible temptation to the average ... judge to ... lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true.’” Id. (quoting Lavoie, 475 U.S. at 825). The

objective due process based recusal inquiry thus “asks not whether the judge is actually, subjectively biased, but

whether the average judge in his position is ‘likely’ to be neutral, or whether there is an unconstitutional ‘potential for bias.’” Lavoie, 475 U.S. at 880.

The potential for bias in this case could go beyond the line drawn in Lavoie and Caperton. Judge Conaway receives

at least $78,000.00 annually from his business association with John Watson in which Watson is the Managing Member. (Ex. A to App. Ex. 5.) It is well known that Watson is a

26

vocal and passionate opponent of electronic bingo.

There

is no evidence in the record showing how the earnings of Eighty Four West, L.L.C. are distributed because Judge

Conaway de facto denied HEDA the right to acquire pertinent documents. In this case, the trial court has not only

categorically refused to disqualify, it has ruled adversely on HEDA’s right to conduct any discovery or a hearing and should have allowed an independent judge to consider these questions. (Ala. 2003) See Ex parte Monsanto Co., 862 So. 2d 595, 603 Accordingly, one could conclude that Judge

Conaway is subject to an “unconstitutional ‘potential for bias.’” See Caperton, 556 U.S. at 880.

Alabama appellate decisions apply a similar standard, recognizing that “[a] fair and impartial judge is the Even

cornerstone of the integrity of the judicial system. the appearance of partiality can erode the

public's State v.

confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.” Moore, 988 So. 2d 597, 601 (Ala. Crim.

App. has

2007) been not …

(citations mandated support a

omitted; by this finding Canon 3

emphasis Court of

added). the

Recusal “evidence

where any

d[id] prejudice

actual mandated

bias the

or

[h]owever,

C(1)

judge's

recusal

27

because the total facts known to the judge were such that a reasonable person could v. reasonably Bryars 485 question So. 2d the judge's 1189-

impartiality.”

Bryars

1187,

1190(Ala. Civ. App. 1986.) This Court thus holds that under Canon 3(C)(1), [R]ecusal is required when “facts are shown which make it reasonable for members of the public or a party, or counsel opposed to question the impartiality of the judge.” Specifically, the Canon 3(C) test is: “Would a person of ordinary prudence in the judge’s position knowing all of the facts known to the judge find that there is a reasonable basis for questioning the judge's impartiality?” The question is not whether the judge was impartial in fact, but whether another person, knowing all of the circumstances, might reasonably question the judge's impartialitywhether there is an appearance of impropriety. Ex parte Duncan, 638 So. 2d 1332, 1334 (Ala. 1994)

(internal

citations

omitted).

Importantly,

mandatory

recusal “where there is an appearance of impropriety, is a duty owed to the public in order to promote confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.” 601. 2. Judge Conaway’s Failure to Inconsistent with Alabama law. Recuse is Moore, 988 So. 2d at

Petitioner’s writ of mandamus should issue based upon the totality of circumstances i) in this case. and These media

circumstances

include:

extensive 28

public

interest in the highly contentious underlying issue of the legality County; of ii) electronic Judge bingo that has divided Houston and

Conaway’s

longstanding

personal

business relationships with one of Houston County’s most vocal public based opponents concerns on the by an now of over electronic the bingo; iii) of significant Conaway of his

impartiality timing foe,

Judge nature Governor by the

controversial ardent bingo

and

appointment following attorney

former

Riley, same JIC

interview

process the

conducted iv)

the prior

representing

State;

finding of disqualification as to Houston County circuit judges; v) the recent recusal of three other Houston County circuit judge from this case, even though those judges were not appointed in a controversial manner and do not have any known personal/business connections to a prominent and

politically connected bingo opponent; vi) Judge Conaway’s membership in the bond validation defendant class; vii) the eye-brow raising manner in which the State secured a search warrant from Judge Conaway and his status as a fact witness with personal knowledge of those unusual events; viii) the State’s actions in this case, including its steadfast

refusal to release the search warrant affidavit (App. Ex.

29

3, p. 10); and ix) the trial court’s atypical reaction to the recusal motions. When properly viewed in their totality, these facts are more than sufficient to raise questions as to impartiality in even the most doubtful person. the standpoint well be from which in recusal A reasonable person -must be evaluated --

might

justified

believing

an

adverse

ruling

against HEDA was pre-ordained on April 28, 2010 with the appointment of Judge Conaway. At a minimum, however, an

objective reasonable person, aware of the “totality of the circumstances,” would most certainly perceive a potential appearance of impropriety or bias. Additionally, it defies logic for the State to fight so aggressively against the assignment of a neutral out-of-county circuit judge in

order to keep Judge Conaway, given its awareness of these circumstances. Decisional law concerning the reasonable

person standpoint of recusal strongly confirms this point. a. Judge Conaway’s orders evidence a fundamental misapprehension of the “appearance of impropriety” standard.

Through a generalized denial of “harbor[ing] any bias, hostility or prejudice”; a further denial of any

“attempt[s] to influence [him] on the issues outlined in

30

this case,” and the twice asserted absence of “[alleged] facts which or would show that Judge the Court has any bias, to

hostility

prejudice,”

Conaway

has

attempted

side-step the actual recusal question raised: whether there is an appearance of impropriety. 13.) What the trial court has (App. Ex. 10; App. Ex. not done, however, is

challenge the veracity or import of the abundant evidence HEDA offered, including the evidence of business

connections to a prominent bingo opponent who has ties to former Governor Riley. similarly has not (In opposing recusal, the State HEDA’s evidence. (See

challenged

generally App. Ex. 8.)) A trial court’s vigorous assurances that it is

impartial and will be fair in subsequent proceedings are wholly immaterial under the applicable objective standards and in the face of evidence establishing an appearance of impropriety. As this Court has recognized, Alabama law

provides that “[a]n independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in society, and this requires

avoiding all appearance of impropriety, even to the point of resolving all doubt in favor of recusal.” Matter of

Sheffield, 465 So. 2d at 357 (quoting CANONS OF JUD. ETHICS,

31

Canon 1) (emphasis added)).24

When looking through the eyes

of this reasonable person, courts must be “mindful that an observer of our judicial system is less likely to credit judges’ impartiality than the judiciary.” Jordan, 49 F.3d 152, 157 (5th Cir. 1995). United States v. The man-on-the-

street standard is critical because, “people who have not served on the bench are often all too willing to indulge suspicions and doubts concerning the integrity of judges.” In re Kensington Int’l Ltd, 368 F.3d 289, 302 (3d Cir. 2004). The reasons to question Judge Conaway’s perceived but

impartiality are not only abundant, as noted above,

indeed appear to be self-evident based on the extensive local media coverage of the trial court’s refusal to step aside. (Exs. L, M, & T to App. Ex. 5; Exs. U, V, & W to The media coverage, in

App. Ex. 6; see also App. Ex. 17.)
24

Federal decisions construing an analogous statutory recusal standard in 28 U.S.C. § 455 are similarly supportive. See, e.g., United States v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732, 745 (11th Cir. 1989) (“In the event of a close call, the judge must recuse.”); Murray v. Scott, 253 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001) (§ 455 “liberalized greatly the scope of disqualification in the federal courts”); Potashnick v. Port City Const. Co., 609 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1980) (finding § 455(a)’s “might reasonably be questioned” standard to be “clearly mandate[] that it [is] preferable for a judge to err on the side of caution and disqualify himself in a questionable case”). 32

fact,

includes

a

Dothan judge,”

Eagle that

Editorial directly

Board calls

article on Judge

entitled

“Recuse,

Conaway to step aside because of the public concerns over “the perception of conflict.” (Ex. V to App. Ex. 6.) This

perception is not driven by HEDA’s filings, as the second non-recusal order would seem to suggest (App. Ex. 13

(suggesting HEDA’s “motion appears to be framed for media dissemination as opposed to judicial consideration”); long before HEDA filed its specific recusal motion concerning Judge Conaway, the Dothan Eagle Editorial Board called on all of recusing Circuit Judge Anderson’s “colleagues on the bench [to] follow his lead.” (Ex. T to App. Ex. 4.)

The publicly recognized “perception of conflict” has resulted from the abundant facts already in the public eye, notably including the recusal of three other Houston County circuit judges, not based upon personal circumstances, but based upon separate findings of disqualification tied to the enormous amount of publicity surrounding the electronic bingo issue in Houston County. Judge Conaway has not only

faced that same publicity, but there are multiple issues specific which to him only not fuel applicable the to the recusing judges, concern.

can

public’s

legitimate

33

Significantly,

immediately

after

Judge

Conaway’s

appointment, the Dothan Eagle -- more than two years ago -raised his personal business relationships with vocal bingo opponents in an article noting his status at that time as the only non-recusing Houston County circuit judge. to App. Ex. 5.) (Ex. L

Judge Conaway, more than any other circuit

judge in the county, has reason to recuse. b. Judge Prior Alabama decisions support recusal. decision is based in part upon his

Conaway’s

rejection of “pervasive media coverage and resultant public discourse” as grounds for recusal and his belief that the recusals of other circuit judges are immaterial. 10.) Alabama decisions suggest otherwise. (App. Ex.

For example,

the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals previously issued a writ of mandamus that ordered all Madison County circuit judges to recuse in a criminal theft case against a local attorney who was appointed as the general administrator for the Madison County Probate Court. So. 2d 856 (Ala. Crim. App. See Ex parte Price, 715 In granting the

1997).

petition, the court noted that the defendant had been a member further of the local bar that association other local for many years judges and had

recognized

County

34

entered earlier recusal orders.

Id. At 859.

Price relied heavily upon Ex parte Bryant, 682 So. 2d 39 (Ala. 1996), wherein this Court overruled the Court of Criminal Appeal’s denial of a criminal defendant’s mandamus petition judges. seeking Similar recusal to of all the Mobile defendant County in circuit was

Price,

Bryant

accused of stealing money from estates for which he served as conservator. Bryant made special note of the fact that

1) the allegations were the focus of intense media coverage and 2) the first assigned judge had recused. Id. at 41-42. According to the Bryant court, consideration should be

given if the allegations against a defendant are the focus of intense media coverage, which is unquestionably true in this case. 3. The State’s Motion. Recent Greene County Recusal

In a recent forfeiture case from Greene County, the Attorney General’s Office, as counsel for the State, raised Canon 2’s “objective” appearance of impropriety standard in seeking the recusal of Circuit Judge Eddie Hardaway. Ex. 14, pp. 10-11.) The primary basis of the (App. State’s

motion was that this Court had previously removed Judge Hardaway from a separate forfeiture 35 case that shared

“multiple rulings by

common Judge

legal

issues,” in

as

a

result case

of had

which the

Hardaway

the

later or

potential

to

“effectively

determine

materially

affect Based

the [earlier] pending proceedings.”

(Id., p. 11.)

on that lone fact, the State made a judicial representation that “Judge Hardaway’s impartiality might reasonably be

questioned,” thus requiring recusal. (Id.) As a secondary basis, the State pointed out that “Judge Hardaway [had] recently testified as a witness in an offdocket proceeding” involving a search warrant for

electronic bingo machines that was said to be “factuallyrelated” to the proceeding from which Judge Hardaway had been removed. (Id.) The State offered no details as to

that testimony and nowhere suggested any impropriety on the circuit judge’s part. Hardaway testified in Rather, the mere fact that Judge the a proceeding challenging an

underlying search warrant (a warrant, of note, that Judge Hardaway did not issue), standing alone, (Id.) was deemed

significant for recusal purposes.

Importantly,

Judge Conaway is a potential fact witness in this case, based on his issuance of the underlying search warrant.

36

Ultimately, in that case, the State sought recusal “to avoid any appearance of bias or impropriety, and to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” (Id.) Presumably, the State’s concern was the

possibility that some in the public might hold concerns that Judge Hardaway was inclined to rule against the State. The evidence offered by the State to establish appearance of impropriety concerns with Judge Hardaway pales in

comparison to the evidence that HEDA offered in this case. The State’s entirely inconsistent position when the

concerns go the other way is troubling, especially when coupled with the State’s sudden, vigorous opposition to

recusal only after the case had travelled through three other judges and landed on Judge Conaway’s desk, giving a reasonable person one more reason to question the propriety of Judge Conaway presiding over this case. C. Petitioner Has No Other Adequate Remedy.

As previously noted, it is settled law that mandamus is the proper method to challenge the denial of a motion

seeking recusal.

See Part IV.A, supra (citing Ex parte

Parr, 20 So. 3d 1266, 1269 (Ala. 2009)).

37

D. This

Jurisdiction Has Been Properly Invoked. Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding

pursuant to

Ala. Code § 12-2-7(2).

This petition, filed

within the “presumptively reasonable” time set forth in ALA. R. APP. P. 21, properly invokes this Court’s jurisdiction. V. CONCLUSION Petitioner Houston Economic Development Authority

respectfully requests this Honorable Court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering to Houston recuse County himself Circuit from any Judge J.

Michael

Conaway

further

involvement in the case below and further requests that an independent circuit judge, from outside the 20th Judicial Circuit,

38

/s/ William C. White, II________ WILLIAM C. WHITE, II Attorney for Petitioner Houston Economic Development Authority OF COUNSEL: PARKMAN & WHITE, LLC 1929 Third Avenue North Suite 700 Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 244-1920 wwhite@parkmanlawfirm.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing has been served electronically on all counsel of record and/or by depositing copies thereof in the United States Mail, properly addressed and postage prepaid, on September 24, 2012: Honorable J. Michael Conaway Circuit Judge Houston County Courthouse P.O. Drawer 6406 Dothan, Alabama 36302 Luther Strange Henry T. Reagan Jess R. Nix Office of the Attorney General 501 Washington Avenue Post Office Box 300152 Montgomery, Alabama 36130-0152 Center Stage Alabama, Inc. 111 E. Main Street Dothan, AL 36301

39

Lord Abbett c/o CT Corporation 2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605 Montgomery, AL 36104 Nova Gaming c/o CT Corporation 2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605 Montgomery, AL 36104 Imperium Group, LLC 2462 Promwood Loop, Apt. 11 Montgomery, AL 36106 Gateway Gaming, LLC 2229 First Ave. N. Birmingham, AL 35203 Fox Gaming, LLC 2055 Boggs Road Duluth, GA 30096 Firefox Systems, LLC 643 Sheridon Place Birmingham, AL 35214 Segway Gaming Systems of Alabama 1575 Industrial Pike Road Gastonia, NC 28052 Segway Gaming Systems of Alabama F. Lane Finch, Jr. 2001 Park Place, Suite 1200 Birmingham, AL 35203

/s/ Ernest H. Hornsby___________ Of Counsel

40

EXHIBIT 1

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 7/26/2012 10:10 PM CV-2012-900266.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA

) ) by and through Attorney General Luther Strange ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) $283,657.68 U.S. Currency ) ) & ) ) 691 Gambling Devices, ) ) Gateway 2UA646165T-HP; Gateway 2UA646161W-HP; ) Gateway 2UA64616BS-HP; Gateway 2UA7281LC8-HP; ) Gateway 2UA64211ZS-HP; Gateway 2UA6500JP7-HP; ) Gateway 2UA7281054-HP; Gateway 2UA742019P-HP; ) Gateway HP MXL6320D9G; Gateway HP MXL622078V; ) Gateway HP MXL6260LIF; Gateway HP MXL6100CMB; ) Gateway HP MXL6400ZH6; Gateway HP 2VA6309TB; ) Gateway HP 2UA62418P1; Gateway HP2UA6461664; ) Gateway HP 2UA5510YR3; Gateway HP 2UA6281D6Q; ) Gateway HP2UA5500B6R; Gateway HP 2UA622136T; ) Gateway HP 2UA6100JWG; Gateway HP 2UA6281D6V; ) Gateway HP 2UA6500JRT; Gateway HP MXL6310BSM; ) Gateway HP MXL6190DNX; Gateway HP MXL6200G83; ) Gateway MXL62501FF ELO/HP; Gateway 2UA6421121 ) ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6200GDV ELO/HP; Gateway ) MXL6260LNF ELO/HP; Gateway 2UA610K505 ELO/HP; ) Gateway MXL63302G8 ELO/HP; Gateway 26A606K4CM ) ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6030CJ1 ELO/HP; Gateway ) MXL6330P7C ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6320W07 ELO/HP;) Gateway 2UA64413NO ELO/HP; Gateway 2UA6500JFK ) ELO/HP; Gateway MXL612OV6N ELO/HP; Gateway ) MXL6320W10 ELO/HP; Gateway 2UA64211ZG ELO/HP;) Gateway 2UA642211ZJ ELO/HP; Gateway MXL63003D6 ) ELO/HP; Gateway 2UA742019X ELO/HP; Gateway ) MXL64002HX ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6180CB6 ELO/HP) Gateway MXL5380W7B ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6160HJP) ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6400ZN9 ELO/HP; Gateway ) MXL538D58D ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6120WQY ) ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6160092 ELO/HP; Gateway )

STATE OF ALABAMA

CIRCUIT COURT 20th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ALABAMA

2UA6510669 ELO HP; Gateway 2UA64001SH ELO HP; ) Gateway 2UA6490PT7 ELO HP; Gateway 2UA6120GTF ) ELO HP; Gateway 2UA630174J ELO HP; Gateway ) 2UA63015X4 ELO HP; Gateway 2UA63914C2 ELO HP; ) Gateway MXL6180CP6; Gateway 2UA63914CV ELO HP ) Gateway 2UA64615XC HP; Gateway 2UA7320Y43 HP; ) Gateway 2UA74102ZV HP; Gateway 2UA64616G9 HP; ) Gateway 2UA7200B34 HP; Gateway 2UA71511XX HP; ) Gateway 2UA7391C52 HP; Gateway 2UA7271JB3 HP; ) Gateway 2UA73915Y8 HP; Gateway 2UA75115FVHP; ) Gateway 2UA6461635HP; Gateway 2UA6470C79 HP; ) Gateway 2UA6470C71 HP; Gateway 2UA73805TZ HP; ) Gateway 2UA7391602 HP; Gateway 2UA740011X HP; ) Gateway 2UA73915SN HP; Gateway 2UA646166M HP; ) Gateway 2UA646168M HP; Gateway 2UA7400HX8 HP; ) Gateway 2UA7391CRN HP; Gateway 2UA7240RCT HP; ) Gateway 2UA7370KWK HP; Gateway 2UB5450237 HP; ) Gateway 2UA60303Q5 HP; Gateway MXL6410CCY HP; ) Gateway 2UA741022K HP; Gateway 20B5490456 HP; ) Gateway 2UA5460BKN HP; Gateway 2UA64616C9 HP; ) Gateway MXL6400BZL HP; Gateway 2UA6500JNB HP; ) Gateway 2UA6470PFO HP; Gateway 2UA64413RY HP; ) Gateway 2UA6451B5B HP; Gateway 2UA6480C2Z HP; ) Gateway 2UA61001M4 HP; Gateway 2UA6190DT4 HP; ) Gateway 2UB54304TD HP; Gateway 2UA61006Z5 HP; ) Gateway 2UA7291X40 HP; Gateway 20A64616C9 HP; ) Gateway 2UA7240RF6 HP; Gateway MXL6410CCM HP; ) Gateway 20A646169G; Gateway 2UA741020V HP; ) Gateway 2UA6470C31 HP; Gateway 2UA64211ZN HP; ) Gateway 2UA6606JYJ8 HP; Gateway 2UA634017H HP; ) Gateway 2UB54904SY HP; Gateway 2UA5470XB9 HP; ) Gateway 2UA5470XCD HP; Gateway 2UA60303PJ HP; ) Gateway 2UA6100JXG HP; Gateway 2UA6190DTV HP; ) Gateway 2UA610JW9H HP; Gateway MXL61703SD HP; ) Gateway 2UA6500JR3 HP; Gateway MXL6160HCF HP; ) Gateway 2UA64217FG HP; Gateway MXL6190088 HP; ) Gateway MXL6120TZ0 HP; Gateway MXL54407PL HP; ) Gateway MXL5440M4 HP; Gateway MXL6090BNY HP; ) Gateway 2UB549047G HP; Gateway 2UA6040MB9 HP; ) Gateway MXL6210WT2 HP; Gateway MXL6100V0M HP;) Gateway 2UA64211XM HP; Gateway 2UA604076J HP; ) Gateway MXL62706T5 HP; Gateway 2UA75115M6 HP; ) Gateway 2UA7400HXS HP; Gateway 2UA7170PHX HP; ) Gateway MXL6160G37 HP; Gateway MXL62507KV HP; ) Gateway 2UA73915WD HP; Gateway 2UA64615TC HP; ) Gateway 2UA748D450 HP; Gateway MXL7450WNP HP; ) 2

Gateway 2UA74102YF HP; Gateway 2UA6470C40 HP; ) Gateway 2UA706127K HP; Gateway 2UA741020S HP; ) Gateway MXL54407LQ HP; Gateway 2UA741020K HP; ) Gateway MXL61005W3 HP; Gateway MXL6410M05 HP; ) Gateway 2UB54901DO HP; Gateway MXL64101NY HP; ) Gateway MXL6160FX8 HP; Gateway 2UA5460BKZ HP; ) Gateway MXL6100YY5 HP; Gateway MXL6310F9W HP; ) Gateway 2UA7410222 HP; Gateway 2UA74102YV HP; ) Gateway 2UA71905YF HP; Gateway 2UA73915W7 HP; ) Gateway 2UA64616FJ HP; Gateway 2UA74102WK HP; ) Gateway 2UA6470C7F HP; Gateway 2UA7420192 HP; ) Gateway 2UA64615ZZ HP; Gateway MXL6160R21 HP; ) Gateway MXL7450WR4 HP; Gateway 2UB54904C2 HP; ) Gateway MXL54002MJ HP; Gateway MXL6190CRQ HP; ) Gateway 2UA62607SS HP; Gateway MXL6110BZD HP; ) Gateway 2UA63806M5 HP; Gateway MXL61604Z4 HP; ) Gateway MXL612OTS6 HP; Gateway MXL5407M5 HP; ) Gateway 2UA7400HZL HP; Gateway 2UB54904BR HP; ) Gateway MXL6310129 HP; Gateway MXL61600F8 HP; ) Gateway 2UA6500JSD HP; Gateway MXL6220G13 HP; ) Gateway MXL6200G70 HP; Gateway 2UA75115M4 HP; ) Gateway MXL61002TM HP; Gateway MXL6410C8G HP;) Gateway 2UA7350VQ7 HP; Gateway MXL6200GDW HP; ) Gateway 2UA609K4LX HP; Gateway 2UA6500JQX HP; ) Gateway MXL73410R8 HP; Gateway 2UA7271J7V HP; ) Gateway 2UA7391CTN HP; Gateway 2UA7430BKS HP; ) Gateway 2UA646160X HP; Gateway 2UA64616CG HP; ) Gateway 2UA71901LZ HP; Gateway 2UA646D3FM HP; ) Gateway 2UA7131F2H HP; Gateway 2UA7221CZS-HP; ) Gateway 2UA72111CG-HP; Gateway MXL748D55V-HP; ) Gateway 2UA6470C86-HP; Gateway MXL7450WQB-HP; ) Gateway 2UA64616FO-HP; Gateway 2UA7391CNG-HP; ) Gateway 2UA64615ZS-HP; Gateway 2UA-646162K-HP; ) Gateway 2UA725056L-HP; Gateway 2UA7240RD4HP; ) Gateway 2UA741022L-HP; Gateway 2UA74102VJ-HP; ) Gateway 2UA7511SJY-HP; Gateway MXL63513DK-HP; ) Gateway MXL6400ZKW-HP; Gateway MXL61604YY-HP;) Gateway MXL6350YPY-HP; Gateway 2UB55006J6-HP; ) Gateway MXL6290WL1-HP; Gateway MXL64101NJ-HP; ) Gateway 2UA6500JK8-HP; Gateway MXL6290PW1-HP; ) Gateway MXL6110BZ5-HP; Gateway MXL6500BZ4-HP; ) Gateway MXL7450WNM-HP; Gateway 2UA646163D-HP;) Gateway 2UA6470C6Y-HP; Gateway MXL5460228-HP; ) Gateway 2UA72906B7-HP; Gateway 2UA7281KS3-HP; ) Gateway MXL61604Z9-HP; Gateway MXL7070N8Q-HP; ) Gateway 2UA6500JSN-HP; Gateway 2UA6500JFT-HP; ) 3

Gateway 2UA609K4TG-HP; Gateway MXL610052K-HP; ) Gateway 2UA73915ZD-HP; Gateway 2UA5460BHG-HP; ) Gateway 2UA64616K6-HP; Gateway 2UA6500JMZ-HP; ) Gateway MXL62706NO-HP; Gateway 2UA646038G-HP; ) Gateway MXL61708PB-HP; Gateway MXL630D7V-HP; ) Gateway MXL61604Z7-HP; Gateway MXL61605OH-HP; ) Gateway MXL6210ZCC-HP;Gateway 2UA645OH44-HP; ) Gateway 2UA71712MB-HP; Gateway MXL623OROX-HP;) Gateway MXL6100CGV-HP; Gateway 2UA64615SW-HP; ) Gateway 2UA64615TJ-HP; Gateway 2UA74102ZN-HP; ) Gateway 2UA7240Q2K-HP; Gateway 2UA63015X4-HP; ) Gateway 2UA6510Q23-HP; Gateway 2UA630174G-HP; ) Gateway MXL6210LGT-HP; Gateway 2UA632090J-HP; ) Gateway 2UA6510L9N-HP; Gateway 2UA6340NYB-HP; ) Gateway 2UA64414LK-HP; Gateway 2MXL6390G4Y-HP ) Gateway 2UA606K4CM-HP; Gateway 2UA6491CBY-HP; ) Gateway 2UA6321MQL-HP; Gateway 2UA7060VCR-HP; ) Gateway 2UA640193L-HP; Gateway MXL63900JN-HP; ) Gateway 2UA63604T6-HP; Gateway 2UA6340NVQ-HP; ) Gateway 2UA64806HQ-HP; Gateway MXL6390G4Y-HP; ) Gateway 2UA6361262-HP; Gateway 2UA64001TO-HP; ) Gateway 2UA6431CJT-HP; Gateway 2UA6510Q2M-HP; ) Gateway 2UA6340NVQ-HP; Gateway 2UA630174J-HP; ) Gateway 2UA62719XQ-HP; Gateway MXL6190D1H-HP; ) Gateway 2UA6510Q2M-HP; Gateway HP2UA6170514; ) Gateway HP2UA639135T; Gateway HP2UA546135V; ) Gateway HP2UB54904BM; GatewayHPMXL6210XV9; ) Gateway HPMXL6160FKF; Gateway HP2UB5510B91; ) Gateway HPMXL617062D; Gateway HP2UA6461B57; ) Gateway HP2UA6190DTF; Gateway HP2UA5470XHR; ) Gateway HP2UA5520F30; Gateway HP2UA634017H; ) Gateway HP2UA6311DHM; Gateway HPMXL6160LFP; ) Gateway HP2UA639135L; Gateway HP2UA5470LGX; ) Gateway HP2UA6190DT6; Gateway HP2UA54639135Q; ) Gateway HP2UA6040L55; Gateway HP2UA6311DLD; ) Gateway HP2UA6190DSX; Gateway HP3CX10503W3; ) Gateway HP3CX1030H69; Gateway HP3CX1030H6T; ) Gateway HP3CX1040D36; Gateway HPMXL62207V5; ) Gateway HP2UA62003G6; Gateway HP2UA613JYWP; ) Gateway HPMXL6330P22; Gateway 2UB54904B5; ) Gateway HP2UA634211YD; Gateway HP2UA6460H2F; ) Gateway HPMXL61807PT; Gateway HP2UA6461B42; ) Gateway HP2UA6461B5C; Gateway HP2UA6100JXH; ) Gateway HP2UA6461B59; Gateway HP2UA6320XVG; ) Gateway HP2UA54205D1; Gateway HP2UA641B52; ) Gateway HP2UA61001MB; Gateway HP2UA6480C6K; ) 4

Gateway HP2UA646025K; Gateway HP2UA6030M3B; Gateway HPMXL61705YC; Gateway HPMXL63505Y7; Gateway HP2UA64616JB; Gateway HP2UA63410LS; Gateway HP2UA638075X; Gateway HPMXL54407P6; Gateway HP2UA60BK30W; Gateway HP2UA6230BCJ; Gateway HP2UA6431CJT; Gateway HPMXL6200GBP; Gateway HPMXL6240FX2; Gateway HPMXL609082R; Gateway HPMXL6120TR2; Gateway HPMXL61807P4; Gateway HPMXL61604YM; Gateway HPMXL63100PG; Gateway HPMXL6350616; Gateway HP2UA6500JQ3; Gateway HP2UB55006L3; Gateway HP2UA64616DC; Gateway HP2UA73916OJ; Gateway 2UA75115HX; Gateway HP2UA646166H; Gateway HP2UA740011P; Gateway HP2UA64616JX; Gateway HP2UA6400TNJ; Gateway HP2UA64615V2; Gateway HP2UA64414LK; Gateway HPMXL6390GJN; Gateway HP2UA6431CHW; Gateway HP2UA640193L; Gateway HP2UA636191R; Gateway HP2UA64306HQ; Gateway HP2UA6491CBW; Gateway HP2UA609KRH9; Gateway HP2UA646153V; Gateway HPMXL64101NV; Gateway HP2UA606KMLP;

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Firefox Maxtor L59YCWJG; Firefox Maxtor L59TCB5G; ) Firefox Maxtor L51BCKEG; Firefox Maxtor L50XN9EG; ) Firefox Maxtor L5A3AAAG; Firefox Maxtor L5AOEBOG ) Firefox Maxtor L59YDNDG; Firefox Maxtor L59NY4MG; ) Firefox 5RX8NG67 SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 9RXE170R ) SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 6RX7N09W SEAGATE/SED; ) Firefox RXCE93K SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 9VY37HL6 ) SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 6VY37OK4 SEAGATE/SED; ) Firefox 6RX8GYT7 SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 6RX8F553 ) SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 9RXCPLAX SEAGATE/SED; ) Firefox 9RXDYFOO SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 9RXOTY80) SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 9RXD84HR SEAGATE/SED; ) Firefox 9VY377OX SEAGATE/SED;Firefox 9RXEDXTH9) SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 5RX8B8FE SEAGATE/SED; ) Firefox 5RX10J75 SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 6RX8GRP ) SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 9RXDYGJY SEAGATE/SED; ) Firefox L512JWGG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59XNSDG ) SED MAXTOR; Firefox L5A7VSNG SED MAXTOR; ) Firefox L59NYRLG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L5A3ABYG ) SED MAXTOR; Firefox L50Y4V5G SED MAXTOR; ) Firefox L5A42G3G SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59XNVAG ) SED MAXTOR; Firefox L50XZ7EG SED MAXTOR; ) Firefox L59XYP3G SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59TCJ6G ) SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59XPTQG SED MAXTOR; ) Firefox L5A2VEA6 SED MAXTOR; Firefox L5A42E6G ) 5

SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59XPAWG SED MAXTOR; ) Firefox L512K1BF SED MAXTOR; Firefox L50T09WG ) SED MAXTOR; Firefox L5A42KKG SED MAXTOR; ) Firefox L5A5038G; SED MAXTOR; Firefox L595BHOG ) SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59YBRWG SED MAXTOR; ) Firefox L50XZAEG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L512JZ2G ) SED MAXTOR; Firefox 6RX8CCRN SED MAXTOR; ) Firefox 9RXDX8PL SED MAXTOR; Firefox 9VY379GW ) SED MAXTOR; Firefox 9RXDZ09L SED MAXTOR; ) Firefox 9RXCSMIX SED MAXTOR; Firefox 9RXDZ8M8 ) SED MAXTOR; Firefox 9VY378T2 SED MAXTOR; ) Firefox 9RXCR305 SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59XPNBF ) SED MAXTOR; Firefox L5AOEC5G SED MAXTOR; ) Firefox L5A5OPBG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L51OEJ9F ) SED MAXTOR Firefox L5A125WF SED MAXTOR; ) Firefox L59NQIEG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L50X26QG ) SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59TCK7G SED MAXTOR; ) Firefox 6VYOFF67 SED SEAGATE; Firefox ARXDZRBW) SED SEAGATE; Firefox 5RX9AULT SED SEAGATE; ) Firefox 9VY376TO SED SEAGATE; Firefox 6RX8GY6D ) SED SEAGATE; Firefox 9VY376VB SED SEAGATE; ) Firefox 9RXCR4WJ Seagate. Firefox 9RXDYGH8 Seagate;) Firefox 9VYXA5QN Seagate; Firefox 5RX82JDN Seagate; ) Firefox 6RX8BFEJ Seagate; Firefox 5R81PCY Seagate; ) Firefox 5RX9APB7 Seagate; Firefox 6RX8GY7H Seagate; ) Firefox 6RX8h0G5 Seagate; Firefox 5V1WDD2W Hitachi; ) Firefox 5V1WH1BW Hitachi; Firefox L59XNPAG Maxtor;) Firefox l5A2VFRG Maxtor; Firefox L5OV8NNG Maxtor; ) Firefox L51BTM9G Maxtor; Firefox L50XZ2HG Maxtor; ) Firefox L5A3A8MG Maxtor; Firefox L59XPTZG Maxtor; ) Firefox L5A3A9YG Maxtor; Firefox SED 9RXCSLBH; ) Firefox SED 9VY375Z4; Firefox SED 9VY379KT;Firefox ) SED L5A4ZHPG; Firefox SED L51CK7TG; Firefox ) SED L59XQ7PG; Firefox SED L5A30THG; Firefox ) SED L5A2VJNG; Firefox SED L59XNHZG; Firefox ) SED L59YEBBG; Firefox SED L510KG0G; Firefox ) SED L5A1ZGEG; Firefox SED L59TNRJG; Firefox ) SED L59TB36; Firefox SED L59XNEPG; Firefox ) Seagate 9RXDZTDW; Firefox Seagate 5RX8NBNE; ) Firefox Seagate 6RX9A54S; Firefox Hitachi 5V1VYW4W; ) Firefox Seagate 9VY376DX; Firefox Seagate 6RX7TK2C; ) Firefox SED5RX9A4NC; Firefox SED9RXEOPVQ; ) Firefox SED9RXEOSVT; Firefox SED6RX8T930; ) Firefox SED5RX9AP64; Firefox SED9RXCT2JQ; ) Firefox SED9RXDZD4A; Firefox SED9RXDLB9R; ) Firefox SED5RX8R83Q; Firefox SED9RXCQV5C; ) 6

Firefox SED6RX4VV8J; Firefox SED5RX79Y5B; ) Firefox SED9RXDZ85E; Firefox Seagate 9RXE0P12; ) Firefox Seagate 9VY3766N; Firefox Seagate 6RX4QSHY; ) Firefox Seagate 5RX81KZW; Firefox Maxtor L59TCJXG; ) Firefox Maxtor L59POTXG; Firefox Maxtor L5A0EB2G; ) Firefox Maxtor L511ZDVG; Firefox Maxtor L59WYS6G; ) Firefox Maxtor L50XM5YG; Firefox Maxtor L50VQ5RG; ) Firefox Maxtor L59NYN0G; Firefox Maxtor L59TCLLG; ) Firefox Seagate 6RX6YK7R; Firefox Maxtor L59Y05KG; ) Firefox Maxtor L51B6NRG; Firefox Seagate 9VY378YN; ) Firefox Seagate 9RXDT8BR; Firefox Seagate 9VY0B0J3; ) Firefox Seagate 9RXDT44E; Firefox Seagate 9RXCR2G3; ) Firefox Seagate 9RXCR3KP; Firefox Seagate 9RXD6ZW7 ) Firefox Seagate 6RX8H42K; Firefox Seagate 9RXCSM40; ) Firefox Seagate 9RXBYZSD; ) ) Imperium ZJ0200UAB000500 ELO SEVENTEAM; ) Imperium JB200UAB000500 ELO SEVENTEAM; ) Imperium ZJB200UAB000500 ELO SEVENTEAM; ) Imperium ZJB200UAB000500 ELO SEVENTEAM; ) Imperium RA71367111 ELO/MW; Imperium ) RA71367297 ELO/MW; Imperium CA61020322 ) ELO/MW; Imperium RA71367232 ELO/MW; ) Imperium 0210 ELO; Imperium 0211 ELO; Imperium ) 0212 ELO; Imperium SN:0213 ELO; Imperium 0213 ) ELO; Imperium 0206 ELO; Imperium 0207 ELO; ) Imperium 0208 ELO; Imperium 0209 ELO; Imperium ) RA75030994 ELO MW; Imperium RA713 67107 ) ELO MW; Imperium RA71367109 ELO MW; ) Imperium RA82121315 ELO MW; Imperium ) CA61020323 ELOMW; Imperium RA75030992 ) ELO MW; Imperium RA82121420 ELOMW; Imperium ) RA71367105 ELO MW; Imperium E10 214; Imperium ) E10 215; Imperium E10 216; Imperium E10 217; ) Imperium E10 218; Imperium E10 219; Imperium ) E10 220; Imperium E10 221; Imperium E10 245; ) Imperium E10 246; Imperium E10 247; Imperium ) E10 248; Imperium E10 223; Imperium E10 224; ) Imperium E10 225; Imperium E10 227; Imperium ) E10 241; Imperium E10 242; Imperium E10 243; ) Imperium E10 244; Imperium MWAJUSRA71367108; ) ) Megabucks 3CX10300P8 HP; Megabucks 3CX1040402Y ) HP; Megabucks 3CX1030H29 HP; Megabucks ) 3CX10400VJ HP; Megabucks 3CX10406DG HP: ) Megabucks 3CX10508Z2 HP; Megabucks 3CX1050516 ) 7

HP; Megabucks HP 3CX1030H15; Megabucks HP 3CX10300YK; Megabucks HP 3CX104069G; Megabucks HP 3CX103042F; Megabucks HP 3CX10508ZD; Megabucks HP 3CX1040CMC; Megabucks HP 3CX1030GZ2; Megabucks HP 3CX104042F; Megabucks HP 3CX1050830; Megabucks HP 3CX1050807; Megabucks HP 3CX10503SK; Megabucks HP 3CX10504P4; Megabucks HP 3CX10504GB; Megabucks HP 3CX104007F; Megabucks HP 3CX105003D; Megabucks HP3CX10400RQ; Megabucks HP3CX1040C8L; Megabucks; HP3CX104045V; Megabucks HP3CX10507TL; Megabucks HP3CX10502DG; Megabucks HP3CX103015H; Megabucks HP3CX10301J3; Megabucks HP3CX10304QQ; Megabucks HP3CX1050936; Megabucks HP3CX105043V; Megabucks HP3CX10504MD; Megabucks HP3CX10509JM; Megabucks HP3CX10400RW; Megabucks HP3CX10503KW; Megabucks HP3CX1050717; Megabucks HP3CX1050162; Megabucks HP3CX10504J5; Megabucks HP3CX105087V; Megabucks HP3CX10504W5; Megabucks HP3CX10508PN; Megabucks HP3CX10400R7; Megabucks HP3CX10508J2; Megabucks HP3C10508CF; Megabucks HP3CX10507WF; Megabucks HP3CX10400CY; Megabucks 3CX104066G; Megabucks HP3CX1050756; Megabucks HP3CX10500LC; Megabucks HP3CX105007H; Megabucks HP3CX10300B2; Megabucks HP3CX10507M7; Megabucks HP3CX10304WK; Megabucks HP3CX105095H; Megabucks HP3CX10507NL; Megabucks HP3CX105085K; Megabucks HP3CX1030455; Megabucks HP3CX104010L; Megabucks HP3CX10504VT; Megabucks HP3CX10505B4; Megabucks HP3CX103019W; Megabucks 3CX1030GWF; Megabucks HP3CX10502F7; Megabucks HP3CX105019X; Megabucks HP3CX105057M; Megabucks HP3CX10502DW; Megabucks HP3CX10400GH; Megabucks HP3CX10503NO; Megabucks HP3CX10408SB; Megabucks HP3CX1040CR9; Megabucks HP3CX105089J; Megabucks HP3CX1050861; Megabucks HP3CX10509Y2; Megabucks HP3CX1050926; Megabucks HP3CX1040D35; 8

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Megabucks HP3CX1050593; Megabucks HP3CX10509LP; Megabucks HP3CX1040CZD; Megabucks HP3CX1040C5Z; Megabucks HP3CX103011X; Megabucks HP3CX10304MG; Megabucks HP3CX10509WH; Megabucks HP3CX10504RX; Megabucks HP3CX104001T; Megabucks HP3CX10507R8; Megabucks HP3CX103049P; Megabucks HP3CX10304JF; Megabucks HP3CX105082M; Megabucks HP3CX1050988; Megabucks HP3CX104005F; Megabucks HP3CX1040C2M; Megabucks HP3CX103040D; Megabucks HP3CX1040CNY; Megabucks HP3CX105095T; Megabucks HP3CX10504YM; Megabucks HP3CX1050417;

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Dell Poweredge R610; Dell Latitude E5400 G9Q5VK1; ) Dell Optiplex 760 JNMRDK1;Sandick Cruzer Glide 8g ) Thumb drive; Dell Poweredge 2850 DCBLT71; ) Dell Power R710 GCCVXR1; Hitachi 500GB 5VIWXRZW) Hard Drive; HP Touch Smart PC 3CXI0304I7; Dell ) Poweredge R510 HL12WL1; HP Proliant 06380G6 ) USE943NIGN; Dell Optiplex 760 JNMYDK1; Dell ) Poweredge 1860 5W11TB1; Dell Micro LC185300014; ) Dell Poweredge T300 J2QF6KI; Dell Optiplex 760 529 ) 3761; Dell Opitplex 360 3IJP5J1; Dell Dimension 3000 ) 9K07F6I; Dell Dimension 3000 F7M4T61; HP Compaq ) dc7600 MXL 55102M2; Dell Latitude C400 64Q 722I ) laptop; Dell Optiplex 760 JNMTOK1; WDEXT. HD ) WCAU 52115601; Dell Poweredge R610; Dell Latitude ) E5400 G9Q5VK1; Dell Optiplex 760 JNMRDK1; ) Sandisk Cruzer Glide 8GB thumb drive; HP Touchsmart PC) 3CX1030GVQ; Phantom Drives SA0291898; Dell ) Optiplex 360 481VFK1; Dell Optiplex 760 JNMNDKI. ) ) RouBingo Table #1 set; RouBingo Table #2 set; ) RouBingo Table #3 set; RouBingo Table # 4 set. ) ) & ) ) Gambling Records. ) ) In Possession Of: ) ) Center Stage Alabama ) 300 Country Crossing Parkway ) Cottonwood, Alabama 36320 ) 9

AND Ownership Interests in Which Are Believed to Be Claimed By: Center Stage Alabama, Inc. 111 E. Main Street Dothan, AL 36301 Houston Economic Development Association 206 North Lena St. Dothan, AL 36302 Gateway Gaming, LLC 2229 First Ave. N. Birmingham AL 35203 Firefox Systems, LLC 643 Sheridon PL Birmingham, AL 35214 Imperium Group, LLC 2462 Promwood Loop, Apt. 11 Montgomery, AL 36106 Lord Abbett c/o CT Corporation 2 North Jackson Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Fox Gaming, LLC 2055 Boggs Road Duluth, GA 30096 Segway Gaming Systems of Alabama F. Lane Finch, Jr. 2001 Park Place Suite 1200 Birmingham, AL 35203 Nova Gaming c/o CT Corporation 2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605 Montgomery, AL 36104

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

STATE’S PETITION FOR FORFEITURE AND CONDEMNATION
10

TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ALABAMA, IN EQUITY SITTING: COMES NOW the State of Alabama, by Luther Strange, Attorney General of the State of Alabama, via undersigned counsel and shows to this Honorable Court the following state of facts, to-wit: CURRENCY PETITION 1. That on to-wit: July 25, 2012 at to-wit: Center Stage Alabama, a facility located at 300 Country Crossing Parkway, Cottonwood, Houston County, Alabama 36320, Officers from the Houston County Sheriff’s Office, the Alabama Department of Public Safety, and the Office of the Alabama Attorney General, in discharge of their duties as such officer(s), did execute a search warrant and then and there seize certain property, to-wit: $283,657.68 in U.S. Currency, which said property is now in the custody of the State of Alabama, and being secured at the Office of the Attorney General at 501 Washington Avenue in Montgomery, Alabama 36130, who holds said property subject to the orders and decrees of this Court. 2. Petitioner further avers that at the time of said seizure by the said officer(s), the above described $283,657.68 in U.S. Currency was in the possession of said Respondent Center Stage Alabama and was located as follows: U.S. Currency was inside Respondent Center Stage’s business located at or near 300 Country Crossing Parkway, Cottonwood, Houston County, Alabama 36320, and that said U.S. Currency was in violation of the law of the State of Alabama, and was used as bets or stakes in gambling activity in violation of a law of the State of Alabama concerning gambling, in violation of and contrary to Section 13A-12-20, et seq., including Section 13A-12-30, Code of Alabama, (1975).

11

3. That by reason of such facts, and by reason of Section 13A-12-20, et seq. , Code of Alabama, (1975), as aforesaid, the said U.S. Currency is contraband and forfeited to the claimant, and specifically to the State of Alabama General Fund. 4. Petitioner further avers that he knows of no other person making claim to said currency or any interest therein other than Center Stage Alabama, Inc., Houston Economic Development Association, Gateway Gaming, LLC, Firefox Systems, LLC, Imperium Group, LLC, Megabucks Games, Fox Gaming, LLC, Segway Gaming Systems of Alabama, Nova Gaming, and Lord Abbett whose true name and address are not known (together with any other party claiming an interest in any seized property, “Respondents.” WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays that this Court take jurisdiction of this cause and cause all necessary process and notice to issue out of this Court to all known and unknown persons claiming any title or interest in and to said property; that upon a final hearing of this cause, this Court will determine and adjudicate the same; and that this Court adjudicate and decree that said currency is contraband and forfeited to the State pursuant to the provisions of Section 13A-12-30(c), Code of Alabama, (1975). And, if Petitioner has not asked for the proper relief, it now asks for such other, further, general and special relief as the nature of the case requires.

PETITION RE: GAMBLING DEVICES
1. That on to-wit: July 25, 2012 at to-wit: Center Stage Alabama, a facility located

at 300 Country Crossing Parkway, Cottonwood, Houston County, Alabama 36320, Officers from the Houston County Sheriff’s Office, the Alabama Department of Public Safety, and the Office of the Alabama Attorney General, in discharge of their duties as such officer(s), did execute a

12

search warrant and then and there seize certain property consisting of servers, terminals and related equipment and records, to-wit: Gateway 2UA646165T-HP; Gateway 2UA646161W-HP; Gateway 2UA64616BS-HP; Gateway 2UA7281LC8-HP; Gateway 2UA64211ZS-HP; Gateway 2UA6500JP7-HP; Gateway 2UA7281054-HP; Gateway 2UA742019P-HP; Gateway HP MXL6320D9G; Gateway HP MXL622078V; Gateway HP MXL6260LIF; Gateway HP MXL6100CMB; Gateway HP MXL6400ZH6; Gateway HP 2VA6309TB; Gateway HP 2UA62418P1; Gateway HP2UA6461664; Gateway HP 2UA5510YR3; Gateway HP 2UA6281D6Q; Gateway HP2UA5500B6R; Gateway HP 2UA622136T; Gateway HP 2UA6100JWG; Gateway HP 2UA6281D6V; Gateway HP 2UA6500JRT; Gateway HP MXL6310BSM; Gateway HP MXL6190DNX; Gateway HP MXL6200G83; Gateway MXL62501FF ELO/HP; Gateway 2UA6421121 ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6200GDV ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6260LNF ELO/HP; Gateway 2UA610K505 ELO/HP; Gateway MXL63302G8 ELO/HP; Gateway 26A606K4CM ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6030CJ1 ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6330P7C ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6320W07 ELO/HP; Gateway 2UA64413NO ELO/HP; Gateway 2UA6500JFK ELO/HP; Gateway MXL612OV6N ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6320W10 ELO/HP; Gateway 2UA64211ZG ELO/HP; Gateway 2UA642211ZJ ELO/HP; Gateway MXL63003D6 ELO/HP; Gateway 2UA742019X ELO/HP; Gateway MXL64002HX ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6180CB6 ELO/HP; Gateway MXL5380W7B ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6160HJP ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6400ZN9 ELO/HP; Gateway MXL538D58D ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6120WQY ELO/HP; Gateway MXL6160092 ELO/HP; Gateway 2UA6510669 ELO HP; Gateway 2UA64001SH ELO HP; Gateway 2UA6490PT7 ELO HP; Gateway 2UA6120GTF ELO HP; Gateway 2UA630174J ELO HP; Gateway 2UA63015X4 ELO HP; Gateway 2UA63914C2 ELO HP; Gateway

13

MXL6180CP6; Gateway 2UA63914CV ELO HP; Gateway 2UA64615XC HP; Gateway 2UA7320Y43 HP; Gateway 2UA74102ZV HP; Gateway 2UA64616G9 HP; Gateway 2UA7200B34 HP; Gateway 2UA71511XX HP; Gateway 2UA7391C52 HP; Gateway 2UA7271JB3 HP; Gateway 2UA73915Y8 HP; Gateway 2UA75115FVHP; Gateway 2UA6461635HP; Gateway 2UA6470C79 HP; Gateway 2UA6470C71 HP; Gateway 2UA73805TZ HP; Gateway 2UA7391602 HP; Gateway 2UA740011X HP; Gateway 2UA73915SN HP; Gateway 2UA646166M HP; Gateway 2UA646168M HP; Gateway 2UA7400HX8 HP; Gateway 2UA7391CRN HP; Gateway 2UA7240RCT HP; Gateway 2UA7370KWK HP; Gateway 2UB5450237 HP; Gateway 2UA60303Q5 HP; Gateway MXL6410CCY HP; Gateway 2UA741022K HP; Gateway 20B5490456 HP; Gateway 2UA5460BKN HP; Gateway 2UA64616C9 HP; Gateway MXL6400BZL HP; Gateway 2UA6500JNB HP; Gateway 2UA6470PFO HP; Gateway 2UA64413RY HP; Gateway 2UA6451B5B HP; Gateway 2UA6480C2Z HP; Gateway 2UA61001M4 HP; Gateway 2UA6190DT4 HP; Gateway 2UB54304TD HP; Gateway 2UA61006Z5 HP; Gateway 2UA7291X40 HP; Gateway 20A64616C9 HP; Gateway 2UA7240RF6 HP; Gateway MXL6410CCM HP; Gateway 20A646169G; Gateway 2UA741020V HP; Gateway 2UA6470C31 HP; Gateway 2UA64211ZN HP; Gateway 2UA6606JYJ8 HP; Gateway 2UA634017H HP; Gateway 2UB54904SY HP; Gateway 2UA5470XB9 HP; Gateway 2UA5470XCD HP; Gateway 2UA60303PJ HP; Gateway 2UA6100JXG HP; Gateway 2UA6190DTV HP; Gateway 2UA610JW9H HP; Gateway MXL61703SD HP; Gateway 2UA6500JR3 HP; Gateway MXL6160HCF HP; Gateway 2UA64217FG HP; Gateway MXL6190088 HP; Gateway MXL6120TZ0 HP; Gateway MXL54407PL HP; Gateway MXL5440M4 HP; Gateway MXL6090BNY HP; Gateway 2UB549047G HP; Gateway

14

2UA6040MB9 HP; Gateway MXL6210WT2 HP; Gateway MXL6100V0M HP; Gateway 2UA64211XM HP; Gateway 2UA604076J HP; Gateway MXL62706T5 HP; Gateway 2UA75115M6 HP; Gateway 2UA7400HXS HP; Gateway 2UA7170PHX HP; Gateway MXL6160G37 HP; Gateway MXL62507KV HP; Gateway 2UA73915WD HP; Gateway 2UA64615TC HP; Gateway 2UA748D450 HP; Gateway MXL7450WNP HP; Gateway 2UA74102YF HP; Gateway 2UA6470C40 HP; Gateway 2UA706127K HP; Gateway 2UA741020S HP; Gateway MXL54407LQ HP; Gateway 2UA741020K HP; Gateway MXL61005W3 HP; Gateway MXL6410M05 HP; Gateway 2UB54901DO HP; Gateway MXL64101NY HP; Gateway MXL6160FX8 HP; Gateway 2UA5460BKZ HP; Gateway MXL6100YY5 HP; Gateway MXL6310F9W HP; Gateway 2UA7410222 HP; Gateway 2UA74102YV HP; Gateway 2UA71905YF HP; Gateway 2UA73915W7 HP; Gateway 2UA64616FJ HP; Gateway 2UA74102WK HP; Gateway 2UA6470C7F HP; Gateway 2UA7420192 HP; Gateway 2UA64615ZZ HP; Gateway MXL6160R21 HP; Gateway MXL7450WR4 HP; Gateway 2UB54904C2 HP; Gateway MXL54002MJ HP; Gateway MXL6190CRQ HP; Gateway 2UA62607SS HP; Gateway MXL6110BZD HP; Gateway 2UA63806M5 HP; Gateway MXL61604Z4 HP; Gateway MXL612OTS6 HP; Gateway MXL5407M5 HP; Gateway 2UA7400HZL HP; Gateway 2UB54904BR HP; Gateway MXL6310129 HP; Gateway MXL61600F8 HP; Gateway 2UA6500JSD HP; Gateway MXL6220G13 HP; Gateway MXL6200G70 HP; Gateway 2UA75115M4 HP; Gateway MXL61002TM HP; Gateway MXL6410C8G HP; Gateway 2UA7350VQ7 HP; Gateway MXL6200GDW HP; Gateway 2UA609K4LX HP; Gateway 2UA6500JQX HP; Gateway MXL73410R8 HP; Gateway 2UA7271J7V HP; Gateway 2UA7391CTN HP; Gateway 2UA7430BKS HP; Gateway 2UA646160X HP; Gateway 2UA64616CG HP; Gateway

15

2UA71901LZ HP; Gateway 2UA646D3FM HP; Gateway 2UA7131F2H HP; Gateway 2UA7221CZS-HP; Gateway 2UA72111CG-HP; Gateway MXL748D55V-HP; Gateway 2UA6470C86-HP; Gateway MXL7450WQB-HP; Gateway 2UA64616FO-HP; Gateway 2UA7391CNG-HP; Gateway 2UA64615ZS-HP; Gateway 2UA-646162K-HP; Gateway 2UA725056L-HP; Gateway 2UA7240RD4HP; Gateway 2UA741022L-HP; Gateway 2UA74102VJ-HP; Gateway 2UA7511SJY-HP; Gateway MXL63513DK-HP; Gateway MXL6400ZKW-HP; Gateway MXL61604YY-HP; Gateway MXL6350YPY-HP; Gateway 2UB55006J6-HP; Gateway MXL6290WL1-HP; Gateway MXL64101NJ-HP; Gateway 2UA6500JK8-HP; Gateway MXL6290PW1-HP; Gateway MXL6110BZ5-HP; Gateway MXL6500BZ4-HP; Gateway MXL7450WNM-HP; Gateway 2UA646163D-HP; Gateway 2UA6470C6Y-HP; Gateway MXL5460228-HP; Gateway 2UA72906B7-HP; Gateway 2UA7281KS3-HP; Gateway MXL61604Z9-HP; Gateway MXL7070N8Q-HP; Gateway 2UA6500JSN-HP; Gateway 2UA6500JFT-HP; Gateway 2UA609K4TG-HP; Gateway MXL610052K-HP; Gateway 2UA73915ZD-HP; Gateway 2UA5460BHG-HP; Gateway 2UA64616K6-HP; Gateway 2UA6500JMZ-HP; Gateway MXL62706NO-HP; Gateway 2UA646038G-HP; Gateway MXL61708PB-HP; Gateway MXL630D7V-HP;Gateway MXL61604Z7-HP; Gateway MXL61605OH-HP; Gateway MXL6210ZCC-HP;Gateway 2UA645OH44; Gateway 2UA71712MB-HP; Gateway MXL623OROX-HP; Gateway MXL6100CGV-HP; Gateway 2UA64615SW-HP; Gateway 2UA64615TJ-HP; Gateway 2UA74102ZN-HP; Gateway 2UA7240Q2K-HP; Gateway 2UA63015X4-HP; Gateway 2UA6510Q23-HP; Gateway 2UA630174G-HP; Gateway MXL6210LGT-HP; Gateway 2UA632090J-HP; Gateway 2UA6510L9N-HP; Gateway 2UA6340NYB-HP; Gateway 2UA64414LK-HP; Gateway 2MXL6390G4Y-HP; Gateway 2UA606K4CM-HP; Gateway

16

2UA6491CBY-HP; Gateway 2UA6321MQL-HP; Gateway 2UA7060VCR-HP; Gateway 2UA640193L-HP; Gateway MXL63900JN-HP; Gateway 2UA63604T6-HP; Gateway 2UA6340NVQ-HP; Gateway 2UA64806HQ-HP; Gateway MXL6390G4Y-HP; Gateway 2UA6361262-HP; Gateway 2UA64001TO-HP; Gateway 2UA6431CJT-HP; Gateway 2UA6510Q2M-HP; Gateway 2UA6340NVQ-HP; Gateway 2UA630174J-HP; Gateway 2UA62719XQ-HP; Gateway MXL6190D1H-HP; Gateway 2UA6510Q2M-HP; Gateway HP2UA6170514; Gateway HP2UA639135T; Gateway HP2UA546135V; Gateway HP2UB54904BM; GatewayHPMXL6210XV9; Gateway HPMXL6160FKF; Gateway HP2UB5510B91; Gateway HPMXL617062D; Gateway HP2UA6461B57; Gateway HP2UA6190DTF; Gateway HP2UA5470XHR; Gateway HP2UA5520F30; Gateway HP2UA634017H; Gateway HP2UA6311DHM; Gateway HPMXL6160LFP; Gateway HP2UA639135L; Gateway HP2UA5470LGX; Gateway HP2UA6190DT6; Gateway HP2UA54639135Q; Gateway HP2UA6040L55; Gateway HP2UA6311DLD; Gateway HP2UA6190DSX; Gateway HP3CX10503W3; Gateway HP3CX1030H69; Gateway HP3CX1030H6T; Gateway HP3CX1040D36; Gateway HPMXL62207V5; Gateway HP2UA62003G6; Gateway HP2UA613JYWP; Gateway HPMXL6330P22; Gateway 2UB54904B5; Gateway HP2UA634211YD; Gateway HP2UA6460H2F; Gateway HPMXL61807PT; Gateway HP2UA6461B42; Gateway HP2UA6461B5C; Gateway HP2UA6100JXH; Gateway HP2UA6461B59; Gateway HP2UA6320XVG; Gateway HP2UA54205D1; Gateway HP2UA641B52; Gateway HP2UA61001MB; Gateway HP2UA6480C6K; Gateway HP2UA646025K; Gateway HP2UA6030M3B; Gateway HPMXL61705YC; Gateway HPMXL63505Y7; Gateway HP2UA64616JB; Gateway HP2UA63410LS; Gateway HP2UA638075X; Gateway HPMXL54407P6; Gateway

17

HP2UA60BK30W; Gateway HP2UA6230BCJ; Gateway HP2UA6431CJT; Gateway HPMXL6200GBP; Gateway HPMXL6240FX2; Gateway HPMXL609082R; Gateway HPMXL6120TR2; Gateway HPMXL61807P4; Gateway HPMXL61604YM; Gateway HPMXL63100PG; Gateway HPMXL6350616; Gateway HP2UA6500JQ3; Gateway HP2UB55006L3; Gateway HP2UA64616DC; Gateway HP2UA73916OJ; Gateway 2UA75115HX; Gateway HP2UA646166H; Gateway HP2UA740011P; Gateway HP2UA64616JX; Gateway HP2UA6400TNJ; Gateway HP2UA64615V2; Gateway HP2UA64414LK; Gateway HPMXL6390GJN; Gateway HP2UA6431CHW; Gateway HP2UA640193L; Gateway HP2UA636191R; Gateway HP2UA64306HQ; Gateway HP2UA6491CBW; Gateway HP2UA609KRH9; Gateway HP2UA646153V; Gateway HPMXL64101NV; Gateway HP2UA606KMLP; Firefox Maxtor L59YCWJG; Firefox Maxtor L59TCB5G; Firefox Maxtor L51BCKEG; Firefox Maxtor L50XN9EG; Firefox Maxtor L5A3AAAG; Firefox Maxtor L5AOEBOG; Firefox Maxtor L59YDNDG; Firefox Maxtor L59NY4MG; Firefox 5RX8NG67 SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 9RXE170R SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 6RX7N09W SEAGATE/SED; Firefox RXCE93K SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 9VY37HL6 SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 6VY37OK4 SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 6RX8GYT7 SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 6RX8F553 SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 9RXCPLAX SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 9RXDYFOO SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 9RXOTY80 SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 9RXD84HR SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 9VY377OX SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 9RXEDXTH9 SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 5RX8B8FE SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 5RX10J75 SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 6RX8GRP SEAGATE/SED; Firefox 9RXDYGJY EAGATE/SED; Firefox L512JWGG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59XNSDG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L5A7VSNG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59NYRLG SED MAXTOR; Firefox

18

L5A3ABYG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L50Y4V5G SED MAXTOR; Firefox L5A42G3G SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59XNVAG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L50XZ7EG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59XYP3G SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59TCJ6G SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59XPTQG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L5A2VEA6 SED MAXTOR; Firefox L5A42E6G SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59XPAWG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L512K1BF SED MAXTOR; Firefox L50T09WG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L5A42KKG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L5A5038G; SED MAXTOR; Firefox L595BHOG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59YBRWG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L50XZAEG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L512JZ2G SED MAXTOR; Firefox 6RX8CCRN SED MAXTOR; Firefox 9RXDX8PL SED MAXTOR; Firefox 9VY379GW SED MAXTOR; Firefox 9RXDZ09L SED MAXTOR; Firefox 9RXCSMIX SED MAXTOR; Firefox 9RXDZ8M8 SED MAXTOR; Firefox 9VY378T2 SED MAXTOR; Firefox 9RXCR305 SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59XPNBF SED MAXTOR; Firefox L5AOEC5G SED MAXTOR; Firefox L5A5OPBG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L51OEJ9F SED MAXTOR Firefox L5A125WF SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59NQIEG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L50X26QG SED MAXTOR; Firefox L59TCK7G SED MAXTOR; Firefox 6VYOFF67 SED SEAGATE; Firefox ARXDZRBW SED SEAGATE; Firefox 5RX9AULT SED SEAGATE; Firefox 9VY376TO SED SEAGATE; Firefox 6RX8GY6D SED SEAGATE; Firefox 9VY376VB SED SEAGATE; Firefox 9RXCR4WJ Seagate. Firefox 9RXDYGH8 Seagate; Firefox 9VYXA5QN Seagate; Firefox 5RX82JDN Seagate; Firefox 6RX8BFEJ Seagate; Firefox 5R81PCY Seagate; Firefox 5RX9APB7 Seagate; Firefox 6RX8GY7H Seagate; Firefox 6RX8h0G5 Seagate; Firefox 5V1WDD2W Hitachi; Firefox 5V1WH1BW Hitachi; Firefox L59XNPAG Maxtor; Firefox l5A2VFRG Maxtor; Firefox L5OV8NNG Maxtor; Firefox L51BTM9G Maxtor; Firefox L50XZ2HG Maxtor; Firefox L5A3A8MG Maxtor; Firefox L59XPTZG Maxtor; Firefox L5A3A9YG Maxtor; Firefox SED 9RXCSLBH; Firefox SED

19

9VY375Z4; Firefox SED 9VY379KT; Firefox SED L5A4ZHPG; Firefox SED L51CK7TG; Firefox SED L59XQ7PG; Firefox SED L5A30THG; Firefox SED L5A2VJNG; Firefox SED L59XNHZG; Firefox SED L59YEBBG; Firefox SED L510KG0G; Firefox SED L5A1ZGEG; Firefox SED L59TNRJG; Firefox SED L59TB36; Firefox SED L59XNEPG; Firefox Seagate 9RXDZTDW; Firefox Seagate 5RX8NBNE; Firefox Seagate 6RX9A54S; Firefox Hitachi 5V1VYW4W; Firefox Seagate 9VY376DX; Firefox Seagate 6RX7TK2C; Firefox SED5RX9A4NC; Firefox SED9RXEOPVQ; Firefox SED9RXEOSVT; Firefox SED6RX8T930; Firefox SED5RX9AP64; Firefox SED9RXCT2JQ; Firefox SED9RXDZD4A; Firefox SED9RXDLB9R; Firefox SED5RX8R83Q; Firefox SED9RXCQV5C; Firefox SED6RX4VV8J; Firefox SED5RX79Y5B; Firefox SED9RXDZ85E; Firefox Seagate 9RXE0P12; Firefox Seagate 9VY3766N; Firefox Seagate 6RX4QSHY; Firefox Seagate 5RX81KZW; Firefox Maxtor L59TCJXG; Firefox Maxtor L59POTXG; Firefox Maxtor L5A0EB2G; Firefox Maxtor L511ZDVG; Firefox Maxtor L59WYS6G; Firefox Maxtor L50XM5YG; Firefox Maxtor L50VQ5RG; Firefox Maxtor L59NYN0G; Firefox Maxtor L59TCLLG; Firefox Seagate 6RX6YK7R; Firefox Maxtor L59Y05KG; Firefox Maxtor L51B6NRG; Firefox Seagate 9VY378YN; Firefox Seagate 9RXDT8BR; Firefox Seagate 9VY0B0J3; Firefox Seagate 9RXDT44E; Firefox Seagate 9RXCR2G3; Firefox Seagate 9RXCR3KP; Firefox Seagate 9RXD6ZW7; Firefox Seagate 6RX8H42K; Firefox Seagate 9RXCSM40; Firefox Seagate 9RXBYZSD Imperium ZJ0200UAB000500 ELO SEVENTEAM; Imperium JB200UAB000500 ELO SEVENTEAM; Imperium ZJB200UAB000500 ELO SEVENTEAM; Imperium ZJB200UAB000500 ELO SEVENTEAM; Imperium RA71367111 ELO/MW; Imperium RA71367297 ELO/MW; Imperium CA61020322 ELO/MW; Imperium RA71367232 ELO/MW; 20

Imperium 0210 ELO; Imperium 0211 ELO; Imperium 0212 ELO; Imperium 0213 ELO; Imperium 0213 ELO; Imperium 0206 ELO; Imperium 0207 ELO; Imperium 0208 ELO; Imperium 0209 ELO; Imperium RA75030994 ELO MW; Imperium RA713 67107 ELO MW; Imperium RA71367109 ELO MW; Imperium RA82121315 ELO MW; Imperium CA61020323 ELOMW; Imperium RA75030992 ELO MW; Imperium RA82121420 ELOMW; Imperium RA71367105 ELO MW; Imperium E10 214; Imperium E10 215; Imperium E10 216; Imperium E10 217; Imperium E10 218; Imperium E10 219; Imperium E10 220; Imperium E10 221; Imperium E10 245; Imperium E10 246; Imperium E10 247; Imperium E10 248; Imperium E10 223; Imperium E10 224; Imperium E10 225; Imperium E10 227; Imperium E10 241; Imperium E10 242; Imperium E10 243; Imperium E10 244; Imperium MWAJUSRA71367108; Megabucks 3CX10300P8 HP; Megabucks 3CX1040402Y HP; Megabucks 3CX1030H29 HP; Megabucks 3CX10400VJ HP; Megabucks 3CX10406DG HP: Megabucks 3CX10508Z2 HP; Megabucks 3CX1050516 HP; Megabucks HP 3CX1030H15; Megabucks HP 3CX10300YK; Megabucks HP 3CX104069G; Megabucks HP 3CX103042F; Megabucks HP 3CX10508ZD; Megabucks HP 3CX1040CMC; Megabucks HP 3CX1030GZ2; Megabucks HP 3CX104042F; Megabucks HP 3CX1050830; Megabucks HP 3CX1050807; Megabucks HP 3CX10503SK; Megabucks HP 3CX10504P4; Megabucks HP 3CX10504GB; Megabucks HP 3CX104007F; Megabucks HP 3CX105003D; Megabucks HP3CX10400RQ; Megabucks HP3CX1040C8L; Megabucks; HP3CX104045V; Megabucks HP3CX10507TL; Megabucks HP3CX10502DG; Megabucks HP3CX103015H; Megabucks HP3CX10301J3; Megabucks HP3CX10304QQ; Megabucks HP3CX1050936; Megabucks HP3CX105043V; Megabucks HP3CX10504MD; Megabucks HP3CX10509JM; Megabucks HP3CX10400RW; Megabucks HP3CX10503KW; Megabucks HP3CX1050717; Megabucks HP3CX1050162; Megabucks HP3CX10504J5; 21

Megabucks HP3CX105087V; Megabucks HP3CX10504W5; Megabucks HP3CX10508PN; Megabucks HP3CX10400R7; Megabucks HP3CX10508J2; Megabucks HP3C10508CF; Megabucks HP3CX10507WF; Megabucks HP3CX10400CY; Megabucks 3CX104066G; Megabucks HP3CX1050756; Megabucks HP3CX10500LC; Megabucks HP3CX105007H; Megabucks HP3CX10300B2; Megabucks HP3CX10507M7; Megabucks HP3CX10304WK; Megabucks HP3CX105095H; Megabucks HP3CX10507NL; Megabucks HP3CX105085K; Megabucks HP3CX1030455; Megabucks HP3CX104010L; Megabucks HP3CX10504VT; Megabucks HP3CX10505B4; Megabucks HP3CX103019W; Megabucks 3CX1030GWF; Megabucks HP3CX10502F7; Megabucks HP3CX105019X; Megabucks HP3CX105057M; Megabucks HP3CX10502DW; Megabucks HP3CX10400GH; Megabucks HP3CX10503NO; Megabucks HP3CX10408SB; Megabucks HP3CX1040CR9; Megabucks HP3CX105089J; Megabucks HP3CX1050861; Megabucks HP3CX10509Y2; Megabucks HP3CX1050926; Megabucks HP3CX1040D35; Megabucks HP3CX1050593; Megabucks HP3CX10509LP; Megabucks HP3CX1040CZD; Megabucks HP3CX1040C5Z; Megabucks HP3CX103011X; Megabucks HP3CX10304MG; Megabucks HP3CX10509WH; Megabucks HP3CX10504RX; Megabucks HP3CX104001T; Megabucks HP3CX10507R8; Megabucks HP3CX103049P; Megabucks HP3CX10304JF; Megabucks HP3CX105082M; Megabucks HP3CX1050988; Megabucks HP3CX104005F; Megabucks HP3CX1040C2M; Megabucks HP3CX103040D; Megabucks HP3CX1040CNY; Megabucks HP3CX105095T; Megabucks HP3CX10504YM; Megabucks HP3CX1050417; Dell Poweredge R610; Dell Latitude E5400 G9Q5VK1; Dell Optiplex 760 JNMRDK1;Sandick Cruzer Glide 8g Thumb drive; Dell Poweredge 2850 DCBLT71; Dell Power R710 GCCVXR1; Hitachi 500GB 5VIWXRZW Hard Drive; HP Touch Smart PC 3CXI0304I7; Dell Poweredge R510 HL12WL1; HP Proliant 06380G6 USE943NIGN;

22

Dell Optiplex 760 JNMYDK1; Dell Poweredge 1860 5W11TB1; Dell Micro LC185300014;Dell Poweredge T300 J2QF6KI; Dell Optiplex 760 5293761; Dell Opitplex 360 3IJP5J1; Dell Dimension 30009K07F6I; Dell Dimension 3000 F7M4T61; HP Compaq dc7600 MXL 55102M2; Dell Latitude C400 64Q 722I laptop; Dell Optiplex 760 JNMTOK1; WDEXT. HD WCAU 52115601; Dell Poweredge R610; Dell Latitude E5400 G9Q5VK1; Dell Optiplex 760 JNMRDK1; Sandisk Cruzer Glide 8gb thumb drive; HP Touchsmart PC3CX1030GVQ; Phantom Drives SA0291898; Dell Optiplex 360 481VFK1; Dell Optiplex 760 JNMNDKI. RouBingo Table #1 set; RouBingo Table #2 set; RouBingo Table #3 set; RouBingo Table # 4 set; all of which are now in the custody of the State of Alabama, who holds said property at a secure location, subject to the orders and decrees of this Court. 2. Petitioner further avers that at the time of said seizure by the said officers(s), the above described property was in the possession of said Respondent Center Stage Alabama, and was located as follows: inside the business of Respondent Center Stage Alabama and that said property constituted gambling devices and slot machines in violation of the law of the State of Alabama, and contrary to Section 13A-12-20, et.seq., including Section 13A-12-30, Code of Alabama, (1975). 3. That by reason of such facts, as aforesaid, and by reason of Section 13A-12-30(a), Code of Alabama, (1975), as aforesaid, the said gambling devices, equipment, and records are contraband and forfeited to the State of Alabama. 4. Petitioner further avers that at this time the State knows of no other person making claim to said property or any interest therein other than those parties listed as having an ownership interest in the seized property.

23

WHEREFORE,

PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays that this Court take

jurisdiction of this matter and cause all necessary process and notice to issue out of this Court to all known and unknown persons claiming any title or interest in and to said property; that upon a final hearing of this cause, this Court will determine and adjudicate the same; and that this Court adjudicate and decree that said property is contraband and forfeited to the State of Alabama, and that the same be condemned and ordered destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13A12-30(a) and (c) of the Code of Alabama, 1975. And, that the costs of said proceeding are taxed against the said Respondent. And, if Petitioner has not asked for the proper relief, it now asks for such other, further, general and special relief as the nature of the case requires. Respectfully submitted, LUTHER STRANGE (STR003) ATTORNEY GENERAL By: /s/ Henry T. Reagan _ HENRY T. REAGAN (REA021) Deputy Attorney General Counsel for the State of Alabama

OF COUNSEL: Henry T. “Sonny” Reagan (REA021) Jess R. Nix (NIX014) Office of the Attorney General 501 Washington Avenue Post Office Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36130-0152 (334) 242-7300 (334) 242-4890 – FAX sreagan@ago.state.al.us 24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this date served the above and foregoing on: Center Stage Alabama, Inc. 111 E. Main Street Dothan, AL 36301 Houston Economic Development Association 206 North Lena St. Dothan, AL 36302 Gateway Gaming, LLC 2229 First Ave. N. Birmingham AL 35203 Firefox Systems, LLC 643 Sheridon PL Birmingham, AL 35214 Imperium Group, LLC 2462 Promwood Loop, Apt. 11 Montgomery, AL 36106 Lord Abbett c/o CT Corporation 2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605 Montgomery, AL 36104 Nova Gaming c/o CT Corporation 2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605 Montgomery, AL 36104 Fox Gaming, LLC 2055 Boggs Road Duluth, GA 30096 Segway Gaming Systems of Alabama 1575 Industrial Pike Road Gastonia, NC 28052 Segway Gaming Systems of Alabama F. Lane Finch, Jr. 2001 Park Place Suite 1200 Birmingham, AL 35203

as a courtesy, by placing a copy of same in the United States Mail, certified and addressed to their regular mailing addresses, on this 26th day of July 2012.

/s/ Henry T. Reagan _ HENRY T. REAGAN OF COUNSEL

25

EXHIBIT 2

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 9/21/2012 11:06 AM CV-2012-900266.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA STATE OF ALABAMA )

by and through Attorney General Luther Strange, ) Plaintiff, v. $283,657.68 U.S. Currency, et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) Case Number: CV-2012-900266

NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS Houston Economic Development Association (hereinafter “HEDA”), hereby notifies this Honorable Court of its intention to file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Alabama Supreme Court regarding this Court’s Order denying HEDA’s Motion to Recuse/Disqualify. HEDA respectfully requests that this Honorable Court stay all

proceedings in this case pending resolution of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus. In support of this motion HEDA states that: 1. Supreme HEDA intends to file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Alabama Court regarding this Court’s Order denying HEDA’s Motion to

Recuse/Disqualify, prior to the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss set for September 26, 2012. 2. No further action should be taken by this Honorable Court until the issue of

recusal or disqualification is resolved, as any order or action could be subject to being

vacated if the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is granted. (See Ex parte Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 776 So.2d 76 (Ala. 2000)). WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, HEDA requests that this Honorable Court stay all proceedings in this case pending resolution of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and respectfully asks that this Honorable Court issue a ruling on this motion no later than 12:00 noon on September 24, 2012. Respectfully submitted this 21th day of September, 2012. FARMER, PRICE, HORNSBY & WEATHERFORD, L.L.P. By: /s/ Ernest H. Hornsby___________ ERNEST H. HORNSBY (HOR010) Attorney for HEDA

By:

/s/ Ashton Ott__________ ASHTON OTT (HOL080) Attorney for HEDA

OF COUNSEL: FARMER, PRICE, HORNSBY & WEATHERFORD, L.L.P. P. O. Drawer 2228 Dothan, AL 36302 (334) 793-2424 ehornsby@fphw-law.com aott@fphw-law.com By: /s/ William C. White , II________ WILLIAM C. WHITE, II Attorney for HEDA

OF COUNSEL:

William C. White, II PARKMAN & WHITE, LLC 1929 Third Avenue North Suite 700 Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 244-1920 wwhite@parkmanlawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 21st day of September, 2012, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served electronically on the following: Luther Strange Henry T. Reagan Jess R. Nix Office of the Attorney General 501 Washington Avenue P. O. Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36130-0152 Center Stage Alabama, Inc. 111 E. Main Street Dothan, AL 36301 Lord Abbett c/o CT Corporation 2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605 Montgomery, AL 36104 Nova Gaming c/o CT Corporation 2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605 Montgomery, AL 36104 Imperium Group, LLC 2462 Promwood Loop, Apt. 11 Montgomery, AL 36106 Gateway Gaming, LLC 2229 First Ave. N.

Birmingham, AL 35203 Fox Gaming, LLC 2055 Boggs Road Duluth, GA 30096 Firefox Systems, LLC 643 Sheridon Place Birmingham, AL 35214

Segway Gaming Systems of Alabama 1575 Industrial Pike Road Gastonia, NC 28052 Segway Gaming Systems of Alabama F. Lane Finch, Jr. 2001 Park Place, Suite 1200 Birmingham, AL 35203

_/s/ Ashton Ott_______________ OF COUNSEL

EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 4

EXHIBIT 5

EXHIBIT 6

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 9/18/2012 11:14 AM CV-2012-900266.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

EXHIBIT W

Court Filing Questions Judge's Relationship With Dothan Businessmen

Page 1 of 2

Court Filing Questions Judge's Relationship With Dothan Businessmen
Updated: September 11, 2012

An attorney for a group that oversees bingo games at Center Stage Alabama has filed a second motion asking Houston County Circuit Judge Mike Conaway to remove himself as presiding judge over a court case involving the entertainment center. Ernie Hornsby, a partner in the law firm Farmer, Price, Hornsby, and Weatherford brings into question business relationships and other potential issues involving Conaway. Among those is the process which led to Conaway's appointment to the bench. Attorney Ashton Ott is also named as attorney for the Houston Economic Authority (HEDA), an appointed panel that administers bingo games at the gaming facility formerly known as County Crossing. The case stems from the July raid at Center Stage during which over 600 electronic bingo machines and $283,000 cash were confiscated. The raid was instigated by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange. Separately, Strange is presenting evidence to a grand jury though specifics of that investigation are not known at this time. "Judge Conaway was recommended to former Governor Bob Riley for appointment as a Circuit Judge by local businessmen John Watson and John Downs, close associates of former Governor Riley and major contributors to anti-bingo causes and candidates," the filing states. It further says, "Judge Conaway is also a business partner of Mr. Watson from which the judge generates over $78,000 annually in personal income." The property in question is real estate development known as Eight-Four West. The filing additionally states that "Judge Conaway was recommended to Governor Riley for appointment by (the two businessmen). It is believed that Judge Conaway had not previously expressed interest in the position and had not submitted a resume prior to being approached by Mr. Watson and/or Mr. Downs. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Sonny Reagan, who now represents the State on behalf (of the attorney general's office), participated in the interview and selection process as legal advisor to Governor Riley when Judge Conaway was appointed to his position." The filing alleges that Conaway was selected in the midst of a charged atmosphere surrounding bingo in Houston County and shortly after Country Crossing was the target of a raid by the task force created by Riley. It also alleges that representatives of the attorney general's office traveled over 200 miles to seek out Conaway at an out-of-town conference to sign a search warrant clearing the way for the July raid at Center Stage.

http://dothanfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=231692&nxd_25492_start=4150

9/17/2012

Court Filing Questions Judge's Relationship With Dothan Businessmen

Page 2 of 2

Upon an order from the Alabama Judicial Commission, Houston County judges in office when Country Crossing was raided January 29, 2010 have recused themselves from hearing evidence regarding HEDA. Conaway, in response to a previous request from Hornsby, ruled September 7 there is no legal basis to recuse from the case. Motions regarding the Center Stage raid and seizure of machines and cash are scheduled for late September. It's not immediately clear if Conaway will rule on the second motion for him to recuse before that date.

You can read the lawsuit in its entirety by opening the PDF file below.
Attachment

Center Stage Motion

http://dothanfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=231692&nxd_25492_start=4150

9/17/2012

EXHIBIT 7

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 9/12/2012 11:22 AM CV-2012-900266.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA STATE OF ALABAMA by and through Attorney General Luther Strange Petitioner, vs. $283,657.68 U.S. Currency, et al Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case Number CV-2012-900266

STATE’S NOTICE OF INTENT TO RESPOND AND REQUEST FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE COMES NOW the State of Alabama, by Luther Strange, Attorney General of the State of Alabama, via undersigned counsel and respectfully requests this Honorable Court to allow the State seven (7) days to respond to Intervenor Houston Economic Development Authority’s (HEDA) Motion to Recuse/Disqualify based on the following: 1. days. 2. The time requested is reasonable and will not prejudice any party. The State intends to respond to the motion and is prepared to do so in seven (7)

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays that this Honorable Court will take consideration of the above and grant the State seven (7) days to respond to HEDA’s Motion to Recuse/Disqualify. Respectfully submitted, LUTHER STRANGE (STR003) ATTORNEY GENERAL By: /s/ Henry T. Reagan HENRY T. REAGAN (REA021) Deputy Attorney General Counsel for the State of Alabama

OF COUNSEL: Henry T. “Sonny” Reagan (REA021) Jess R. Nix (NIX014) Office of the Attorney General 501 Washington Avenue Post Office Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36130-0152 (334) 242-7300 Office (334) 242-4890 FAX sreagan@ago.state.al.us

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served all counsel of record by electronic notice via AlaFile system on this 12th day of September 2012. /s/ Henry T. Reagan HENRY T. REAGAN OF COUNSEL

EXHIBIT 8

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 9/19/2012 9:27 AM CV-2012-900266.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA

STATE OF ALABAMA, Plaintiff, v. $283,657.68 U.S. currency, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: ) CV-2012-900266 ) ) ) )

THE STATE OF ALABAMA’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO HEDA AND SED GAMING, INC.’S MOTIONS TO RECUSE/DISQUALIFY The State opposes the Motion to Recuse (the “Motion”) filed by Intervenor Houston Economic Development Authority (“HEDA”) and joined by Intervenor SED Gaming, Inc. The Motion is without merit and this Court should deny the Motion and continue with the litigation of this civil forfeiture.

I.

CONTROLLING LEGAL STANDARD Recusal is the exception, not the rule. It has long been true in Alabama that “the law will

not suppose a possibility of bias or favor in a judge who is already sworn to administer impartial justice and whose authority greatly depends upon that presumption and idea.” Ex parte Balogun, 516 So. 2d 606, 609 (Ala.1 987) (quoting Fulton v. Longshore, 46 So. 989, 990 (Ala. 1908)). HEDA, as the party seeking recusal, bears the burden of proof. Ex parte Bank of America, N.A., 39 So. 3d 113, 117 (Ala. 2009) (citing Ex parte City of Dothan Personnel Bd., 831 So. 2d 1, 9 (Ala. 2002)). To carry this burden, HEDA must produce more than mere allegations and suppositions because “a mere accusation of bias that is unsupported by substantial fact does not require the disqualification of a judge.” Ex parte Melof, 553 So. 2d 554,

557 (Ala. 1989)). “‘Statements in motions are not evidence and are therefore not entitled to evidentiary weight.’” Fountain Finance, Inc. v. Hines, 788 So. 2d 155, 159 (Ala. 2000) (quoting Singh v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 213 F.3d 1050, 1054 n. 8 (9th Cir. 2000)).

II.

FACTS A. This Case This is a civil forfeiture case arising out the State’s seizure of illegal gambling devices

from a Houston County casino called Center Stage. On July 25, 2012, the State executed a search warrant, issued by this Court, for the seizure of the machines at Center Stage. (See Exhibit A). The State then initiated this civil forfeiture action against the seized property on July 26, 2012. On August 24, 2012, HEDA filed a motion to recuse Judge Anderson, who had initially been assigned to this case. He recused, as did Judges Binford and Mendheim. The case was then assigned to this Court. HEDA again sought recusal, filing a renewed motion on September 26, 2012. B. Previous Cases And Events Unrelated To This Case Before Center Stage opened, there was another casino in Houston County called Country Crossing. Country Crossing voluntarily closed in the face of a law enforcement operation which could have resulted in the seizure and civil forfeiture of the machines offered for play at Country Crossing. See Lord Abbett Mun. Income Fund, Inc. v. Tyson, 671 F.3d 1203, 1205 (11th Cir. 2012). Country Crossing eventually declared bankruptcy, See In Re: Resorts Development

Group II, LLC, Case No.12-30054, Bankr. M.D. Ala., and a casino operation named Center Stage eventually opened in the same facility with its own machines. On or about April 28, 2010, Your Honor was appointed to the bench by then-sitting Governor Bob Riley. In November 2

2010, Governor Bentley was elected. In his first executive order, Governor Bentley disbanded the Gambling Task Force that Governor Riley had established. (See Exhibit B)

III.

ARGUMENT None of HEDA’s five grounds for recusal have merit. None are supported by adequate

evidence. None are well-grounded in Alabama’s law of judicial disqualification. A. The Policy Positions of the Court’s Acquaintances Do Not Require Recusal. HEDA’s assertion that the alleged connection between the Court and two Houston County residents creates an objective basis for recusal is wrong. The Alabama Supreme Court has held that “[b]ias and prejudice must be shown by the conduct of the trial judge and may not be presumed or inferred by his subjective views.” Hartman v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama, 436 So. 2d 837, 841 (Ala. 1983). Here, HEDA constructs a flawed argument that is based not on the Court’s own statements, but rather on the stale public statements of one of the Court’s alleged business partners expressing his own opposition to gambling. Because even the Court’s own subjective statements to this effect would be too little to justify recusal, the subjective statements of a third-party are, as a matter of law, insufficient to disqualify the Court. HEDA’s argument breaks down in multiple ways: First, even if properly before the Court, HEDA’s assertions are merely: (1) that the Court and a Mr. John Watson are involved in a business venture together; and (2) that Watson and a Mr. John Downs are reported, based on various hearsay statements, to have opposed the Country Crossing casino.1 No evidence links the Court to Downs in any fashion, and no evidence

HEDA also alleges “[u]pon information and belief” that the Court “was recommended to former Governor Bob Riley for appointment as a Circuit Judge” by Watson and Brown. This unsupported assertion is “not evidence and [is] therefore not entitled to evidentiary weight.” Fountain Finance, Inc., 788 So. 2d at 159 (quoting Singh v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 213 F.3d 1050, 1054 n. 8 (9th Cir. 2000)). Nor would it be a basis for recusal

1

3

converts the public policy positions of Downs and Watson into any subjective bias or appearance of bias on the part of the Court. Surely every judge in the state has supporters who oppose gambling and supporters who favor it. Neither fact is a basis for recusal. Under analogous circumstances, the Alabama Supreme Court has consistently found that disqualification is not warranted. In Gary v. Crouch, 867 So. 2d 310 (Ala. 2003), the court affirmed a trial judge’s decision not to recuse from a case involving a police officer’s suit against a police chief when the judge’s brother was friends with the defendant police chief. Id. at 320. Even though there was testimony that the judge’s brother, a city councilman, had spoken with the police chief about the plaintiff, the Alabama Supreme Court stated that “[t]he trial judge… is not accountable for his brother’s actions before the city council, and [the plaintiff] has not presented any reason to believe that the trial judge is under the sway of his brother.” Id. The same conclusion holds here: there is no reason to believe the Court is “under the sway” of Mr. Watson or Mr. Downs, much less evidence sufficient to overcome the “presume[ption] that a judge is qualified and unbiased.” Id. HEDA would have to show much more than it has alleged in order to make disqualification even a close question. The Court of Civil Appeals, for example, held that a trial judge was not required to recuse when he presided over a divorce case involving a state legislator in which a member of the legislator’s campaign staff also worked on the trial judge’s campaign. Ford v. Ford, 412 So. 2d 789, 791 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982). Moreover, the legislator admitted to having seen the judge socially and even discussed the case with the judge on one occasion, requesting that the judge set a hearing. Id. Nevertheless, the Court of Civil Appeals found that the judge was not disqualified and found no substantial evidence of bias. Id. at 791–92. In
even if the proposition were supported by evidence. Again, virtually every judge in this state would have supporters who favor and supporters who oppose gambling. Such facts have never been sufficient to mandate recusal.

4

comparison, HEDA does not allege any improper personal contact or relationship between the Court and any party to the case. Instead, all HEDA alleges is that the Court may have unrelated contacts with two individuals who have nothing to do with this case but are politically active and have themselves opposed gambling. Even if HEDA did have evidence to create a link between the Court and Watson and Downs, and even if there was evidence to show that Downs and Watson held certain views about public policy, those circumstances still would not justify recusal. Courts around the country recognize that even a judge’s own overt statements regarding his own views of a particular type of crime do not disqualify that judge from presiding in cases involving that crime. See RICHARD E. FLAMM, JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION: RECUSAL AND DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES, at § 10.8 (2nd Ed. 2007) (“[T]he fact that a judge may have an opinion about a particular type of crime, or about crime in general—or that he may personally believe that a particular type of crime is more heinous than others—does not constitute an accepted ground for disqualifying that judge from a case involving a defendant who is accused of having committed that crime.”). See also United States v. Alabama, 828 F.2d 1532, 1543–44 (11th Cir. 1987) (“A judge is not required to recuse himself merely because he holds and has expressed certain views on a general subject and “[t]he fact that prior to joining the bench a judge has stated strong beliefs does not indicate that he has prejudged the legal question before him”); United States v. Bauer, 84 F.3d 1549, 1560 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming the trial court’s refusal to recuse in a marijuana case where the trial court had made public statements indicating “a view that marijuana distribution is a serious and pervasive social problem.”); North Carolina v. Kennedy, 429 S.E.2d 449, 452 (N.C. App. 1993).

5

In a previous case involving illegal gambling, the gambling defendants sought the recusal of Alabama Supreme Court Justices Bolin, Brown, and Stewart. Justice Bolin, who had

previously made statements to the effect that the he was opposed to gambling, responded in part in this manner: “My position on that issue is consistent with the law of Alabama; gambling is illegal in this State. I also oppose other acts that violate the laws of the State of Alabama, such as murder, rape, and robbery, but my personal opposition to the above acts does not prevent me from fairly and unbiasedly participating in cases involving such acts.” Barber v. Jefferson County Racing Ass’n, 960 So. 2d 599, 620 (Ala. 2006) (Bolin, J., statement of nonrecusal). See also Ex parte Ted’s Game Enters., 893 So. 2d 376, 391–92 (Ala. 2004) (See also, Brown, and Stuart, JJs, statements of nonrecusal). In all of these cases, particular judges were found to have no duty to recuse even though those very judges had made previous statements about the type of case they were deciding. This case is even more removed – the Court here is not alleged to have said anything. Instead, HEDA asserts that the statements of third-party acquaintances of the Court should be imputed as the Court’s own views. HEDA cites no authority supporting imputation under those circumstances, and the State has located none. In any event, statements of public policy, even had they come from the Court’s own mouth, are insufficient to require recusal. B. The Court’s Appointment in 2010 by Governor Riley Does Not Require Recusal. HEDA presents no substantial evidence that the Court’s appointment by then-sitting Governor Riley amounts to a grounds for recusal. In Ex parte Melof, the Alabama Supreme Court held that a trial judge was not disqualified from presiding over a class action against the governor, even though the judge had served as the legal advisor to that very governor before his

6

appointment to the bench. Id. 553 So. 2d 554, 556 (Ala. 1989) (abrogated on other grounds by Ex parte Crawford, 686 So. 2d 196 (Ala. 1996)). The facts of this case are even less suggestive of bias than the facts of Ex parte Melof. The governor that appointed the Court is no longer the governor. The Gambling Task Force which features so prominently in HEDA’s narrative no longer exists. This forfeiture action is being prosecuted by the Attorney General of Alabama. In light of these facts, the fact of this Court’s appointment by former Governor Riley raises no substantial issue warranting recusal – even if HEDA had presented actual evidence in support of its theory, which it has not. C. The Court Does Not Have A Disqualifying Interest in the Concluded Bond Validation Action. HEDA’s next vain attempt to remove the Court from this case is to assert that the Court’s status as a taxpayer in Houston County disqualifies it because of the long-final judgment in The Cooperative District of Houston County – Country Crossing Project v. The Taxpayers and Citizens of Houston County, Alabama, Civil Action No. 2009-379 (the “Validation Action”). The Court has no disqualifying interest in the long-concluded Validation Action, and the Court’s status as a nominal defendant does not require recusal here. Under Canon 3.C(1)(d), a judge should disqualify himself from presiding over a case in which he or a family member has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the case. According to the Judicial Inquiry Commission, the question of whether an interest is substantial enough to require recusal is one of degree—it is not enough just to show that a particular judge is a member of a particular class. See, e.g., Ex parte Bank of America, 39 So. 3d at 118–19 (stating “[i]n determining whether a judge has an interest that could be ‘substantially affected’ by the outcome of the civil action, he should consider any benefit he will receive if the 7

plaintiffs are successful, whether that benefit is such that a reasonable person may question his impartiality, and the remoteness of the interest and its extent or degree” and “a judge was not required to recuse himself in a case that could result in the judge’s being refunded a small fee assessed by a governmental entity.”) (quoting JIC Advisory Opinion Nos. 98-697 and 91-434). The Alabama Supreme Court, in connection with a putative class action regarding possible refunds of sewer rates, recently held that “the fact that a judge may have an interest in a proceeding as a resident ‘in common with other residents is not an interest contemplated by the disqualification provisions in Canon 3C.’” Id. at 119 (quoting JIC Advisory Opinion No. 95585). The Court’s interest, if any, in the Validation Action is purely nominal and not the type of substantial interest that requires disqualification. The Court’s interest is shared in common with every resident in Houston County. Being named as a nominal defendant in the Validation Action confers no pecuniary benefit or detriment to the Court or any other defendant. Indeed, the Judicial Inquiry Commission did not suggest that the Validation Proceeding presented a basis for disqualification. (Exhibit R to Motion at 1). Moreover, the Validation Action is over. The judgment is final. (Exhibit P to Motion at p. 10). Whatever happens in this case cannot, as a matter of law, have any effect on the Court’s alleged interests at stake in the Validation Action. One last point as to the effect of the Validation Action: HEDA vaguely asserts that “[i]t is anticipated that this judgment [i.e., the judgment in the Validation Action] will be a significant part of the issues to be litigated herein and that the State of Alabama may challenge the conclusiveness of this judgment.” (Motion at 9). HEDA does not explain how a judgment validating bonds can have any effect on the legality of machines that were not identified or

8

placed in evidence in the Validation Action and which were not even brought into the state until years after the Validation Action was final. Because HEDA has failed to demonstrate that Your Honor had any meaningful personal stake in the validation proceeding, failed to demonstrate that the specific machines that are the subject of this forfeiture action were even at issue in the validation proceedings, and utterly failed to articulate the role that the Validation Action could supposedly have on this forfeiture action, they have failed to carry their burden. D. The Court’s Issuance Of A Valid Search Warrant Does Not Require Recusal. HEDA demands that the Court recuse because the Court issued a search warrant. It is well-settled in Alabama that a court is not disqualified from hearing subsequent matters arising from the search. See, e.g., Ex parte Brooks, 855 So. 2d 593, 596 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (“Alabama courts have never held that a judge should disqualify himself or herself because of a prior involvement in a case in a judicial capacity”); Heard v. State, 574 So. 2d 873, 874–75 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990) (holding that a judge who issued a search warrant has no duty to recuse from the subsequent criminal trial); Barron v. State, 682 So. 2d 505, 506 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) (finding that the trial court had no duty to recuse where “he was the same judge who had issued the search warrant in the appellant’s case.”). See also 46 AM. JUR.2d Judges § 181 (1969) (“A trial judge’s participation in a previous proceeding in a case does not ipso facto render him disqualified to preside at trial.”).2 Both the Alabama Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have routinely approved of courts serving in cases where the court has had previous dealings with either the

Both Barron and Heard cite this entry in American Jurisprudence 2d as authority on this subject. See Barron, 682 So. 2d at 506; Heard, 574 So. 2d at 875.

2

9

defendant or the occurrence that is the subject of the subsequent case (or both). See, e.g., Winthrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 56 (1975) (“Judges repeatedly issue arrest warrants on the basis that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person named in the warrant has committed it. Judges also preside at preliminary hearings where they must decide whether the evidence is sufficient to hold a defendant for trial. Neither of these pretrial involvements has been thought to raise any constitutional barrier against the judge's presiding over the criminal trial and, if the trial is without a jury, against making the necessary determination of guilt or innocence.”); FTC v. Cement Inst., 333 U.S. 683, 703 (1948) (“In fact, judges frequently try the same case more than once and decide identical issues each time, although these issues involve questions both of law and fact.”); Walker v. State, 84 So. 2d 383, 384 (Ala. 1955) (holding that a trial court had no duty to recuse where the court had previously tried the same case and committed error by allowing evidence that was ruled on appeal to have been inadmissible). The rule is that “[t]he mere fact of previous participation in a trial by a judge, without more, furnishes no ground for disqualification.” Walker, 84 So. 2d at 384. Other states agree. See, e.g., Wallace v. State, 741 So. 2d 938, 941–42 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (collecting cases). HEDA generally asserts that “unusual circumstances” attended the issuance of the search warrant that led to the seizure of the machines in this case, but this self-serving reference is without merit. HEDA’s statements in the Motion are not evidence and are thus not a basis for recusal. See Fountain Finance, Inc., 788 So. 2d at 159. HEDA insinuates that the State had ex parte communications with the Court, but every search warrant application is necessarily ex parte. See e.g., Armstrong v. State, 312 So. 2d 620, 624–25 (Ala. 1975); United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 174 (1974) (“Search warrants are repeatedly issued on ex parte affidavits

10

containing out-of-court statements of identified and unidentified persons.”).

The Court’s

issuance of the search warrant was not in any way irregular and HEDA has shown no evidence suggesting any reason to depart from the normal rule that the Court may preside over proceedings that result from the issuance of the search warrant.3 E. As the Court Already Held, Alleged Conversations” Do Not Require Recusal. “Extra-Judicial Public

Finally, as the Court held in its order of September 7, 2012, the general discussion of bingo in Houston County does not disqualify the Court. As the Court stated there, HEDA alleged “no facts…which would show that the Court has any bias, hostility, or prejudice” towards HEDA. (Exhibit C at 2). In its renewed Motion, HEDA does not add any such facts.4 Instead, HEDA merely repeats the assertion that the Court would have been exposed to public discourse in Houston County regarding Country Crossing. (Motion at 11). As the Court has already determined, this public discussion does not create even an appearance of disqualifying bias. (Exhibit C at 2).

IV.

CONCLUSION The Court should not recuse. HEDA has produced no substantial evidence that the Court

is biased or otherwise disqualified, and HEDA cites no controlling authority to support its novel

In a footnote, HEDA cites to an order from the Greene County Circuit Court. (See Motion at 9 n.4). The order HEDA references is on appeal. Moreover, the Alabama Supreme Court signaled that the Greene County order should not be relied upon as precedent in the meantime by staying that order pending appeal. (See Exhibit D, Order Granting Stay) HEDA continues to rely on a letter from the Judicial Inquiry Commission as authority that the Court should recuse but that letter is not the law. The Alabama Supreme Court has held that Judicial Inquiry Commission advisory opinions are not the law: “advisory opinions are not binding and do not affect a party’s rights or remedies.” City of Dothan, 831 So. 2d at 6. Moreover, the Judicial Inquiry Commission opinion which HEDA relies upon is squarely based upon an admission of subjective bias by the judges involved. Here, the Court has disclaimed any such subjective bias, and that should end the matter.
4

3

11

and – frankly – radical view of judicial disqualification. The Court should deny HEDA’s motion and expedite its consideration of this forfeiture proceeding in order to render a decision on the merits. WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court will take consideration of the above and DENY the Intervenors’ Motions to Recuse and Disqualify.

Respectfully submitted, LUTHER STRANGE (STR003) ATTORNEY GENERAL By: /s/ Henry T. Reagan__________ HENRY T. REAGAN (REA021) Deputy Attorney General Counsel for the State of Alabama

OF COUNSEL: Henry T. “Sonny” Reagan (REA021) Jess R. Nix (NIX014) Office of the Attorney General 501 Washington Avenue Post Office Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36130-0152 (334) 242-7300 Office (334) 242-4890 FAX sreagan@ago.state.al.us

12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served all counsel of record by electronic notice via AlaFile system on this 19th day of September 2012.

/s/ Henry T. Reagan__ HENRY T. REAGAN OF COUNSEL

13

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 9/19/2012 9:27 AM CV-2012-900266.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 9/19/2012 9:27 AM CV-2012-900266.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 9/19/2012 9:27 AM CV-2012-900266.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 9/19/2012 9:27 AM CV-2012-900266.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

EXHIBIT 9

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 8/27/2012 10:55 AM CV-2012-900266.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA

THE STATE OF ALABAMA, Plaintiff, V. CENTER STAGE ALABAMA, INC., Defendant.

) ) ) ) Case No.: ) ) )

CV-2012-900266.00

ORDER

MOTION TO RECUSE filed by HOUSTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY is noted. Based on an earlier letter from the Judicial Inquiry Commission there is a continuing disqualification. Therefore, this Court must recuse. This case shall be redirected to the presiding judge for reassignment. DONE this 27th day of August, 2012. /s/ LARRY K ANDERSON CIRCUIT JUDGE

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 8/29/2012 3:44 PM CV-2012-900266.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA

THE STATE OF ALABAMA, Plaintiff, V. CENTER STAGE ALABAMA, INC., Defendant.

) ) ) ) Case No.: ) ) )

CV-2012-900266.00

ORDER Upon consideration of the Judicial Inquiry Commission letter of December 11, 2009, I find that the disqualification referenced therein is continuing. Additionally, my brother-in-law is employed as an Assistant Attorney General in the Alabama Attorney General’s Office. Therefore, I find that I am disqualified from hearing further matters in this case. In cases such as this, where the presiding circuit judge of a multi-county circuit enters an order of disqualification, the proper procedure to follow is set out in Ex parte Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 776 So.2d 76 (Ala. 2000). This case provides that, in order to properly initiate a reassignment of the case, the presiding circuit judge shall enter an order notifying the next senior circuit judge within the circuit of the presiding judge’s disqualification. A circuit judge who is so notified but who is also disqualified shall enter an order notifying the next senior circuit judge of that judge’s disqualification. Within this circuit, the order of seniority among the five circuit judges, from the most seniority to the least seniority, is Judge Anderson, Judge Binford, Judge Mendheim, Judge Conaway, and Judge Moulton. As Judge Anderson has entered an order of disqualification in this case, this case shall be transferred to Judge Mendheim, the circuit judge who is the next most senior circuit judge following Judge Anderson and myself, for reassignment. DONE this 29th day of August, 2012. /s/ HENRY D "BUTCH" BINFORD PRESIDING CIRCUIT JUDGE

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 8/31/2012 10:58 AM CV-2012-900266.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA

THE STATE OF ALABAMA, Plaintiff, V. CENTER STAGE ALABAMA, INC., Defendant.

) ) ) ) Case No.: ) ) )

CV-2012-900266.00

ORDER

The clerk has forwarded the above case to me pursuant to the procedure authorized by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 776 So.2d 76 (Ala. 2000)(copy attached). Attached to this Order is the correspondence that I believe is self-explanatory regarding my recusal in the above case. Therefore, based on my own judgment as well as the advisory opinion of the Judicial Inquiry Commission I RECUSE. Pursuant to Ex parte Jim Walter Homes, Inc. the clerk shall forward the case to Judge Conaway, the longest serving circuit judge who has not entered a recusal order. DONE this 31st day of August, 2012. /s/ BRADY E. MENDHEIM CIRCUIT JUDGE

EXHIBIT 10

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 9/7/2012 9:23 AM CV-2012-900266.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

EXHIBIT 11

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 9/13/2012 3:02 PM CV-2012-900266.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA

THE STATE OF ALABAMA, Plaintiff, V. CENTER STAGE ALABAMA, INC., Defendant.

) ) ) ) Case No.: ) ) )

CV-2012-900266.00

ORDER

The State is given until September 19, 2012 to respond to HEDA’s Motion to Recuse/Disqualify. DONE this 13th day of September, 2012. /s/ J. MICHAEL CONAWAY CIRCUIT JUDGE

EXHIBIT 12

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 9/19/2012 4:44 PM CV-2012-900266.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA STATE OF ALABAMA )

by and through Attorney General Luther Strange, ) Plaintiff, v. $283,657.68 U.S. Currency, et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) Case Number: CV-2012-900266

NOTICE OF INTENT TO REPLY Houston Economic Development Association (hereinafter “ HEDA” respectfully ), requests this Honorable Court to allow it five (5) days to reply to the State’ Response to s HEDA’ Motion to Recuse/Disqualify and Brief In Support Thereof. In support of this s motion HEDA states as follows: 1. HEDA intends to reply to the State’ response and is prepared to do so s

within five (5) days. 2. The time requested is reasonable and will not prejudice any party.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, HEDA requests that this Honorable Court take consideration of the above and grant HEDA five (5) days to reply to the State’ Response to HEDA’ Motion to Recuse/Disqualify. s s

Respectfully submitted this 19th day of September, 2012, FARMER, PRICE, HORNSBY & WEATHERFORD, L.L.P.

By:

/s/ Ernest H. Hornsby___________ ERNEST H. HORNSBY (HOR010) Attorney for HEDA

By:

/s/ Ashton Ott__________ ASHTON OTT (HOL080) Attorney for HEDA

OF COUNSEL: FARMER, PRICE, HORNSBY & WEATHERFORD, L.L.P. P. O. Drawer 2228 Dothan, AL 36302 (334) 793-2424 ehornsby@fphw-law.com aott@fphw-law.com

By:

/s/ William C. White , II________ WILLIAM C. WHITE, II Attorney for HEDA

OF COUNSEL: William C. White, II PARKMAN & WHITE, LLC 1929 Third Avenue North Suite 700 Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 244-1920 wwhite@parkmanlawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 19th day of September, 2012, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served electronically on the following: Luther Strange Henry T. Reagan Jess R. Nix Office of the Attorney General 501 Washington Avenue P. O. Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36130-0152 Center Stage Alabama, Inc. 111 E. Main Street Dothan, AL 36301 Lord Abbett c/o CT Corporation 2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605 Montgomery, AL 36104 Nova Gaming c/o CT Corporation 2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605 Montgomery, AL 36104 Imperium Group, LLC 2462 Promwood Loop, Apt. 11 Montgomery, AL 36106 Gateway Gaming, LLC 2229 First Ave. N. Birmingham, AL 35203 Fox Gaming, LLC 2055 Boggs Road Duluth, GA 30096 Firefox Systems, LLC 643 Sheridon Place Birmingham, AL 35214

Segway Gaming Systems of Alabama 1575 Industrial Pike Road Gastonia, NC 28052 Segway Gaming Systems of Alabama F. Lane Finch, Jr. 2001 Park Place, Suite 1200 Birmingham, AL 35203

/s/ Ashton Ott_______ OF COUNSEL

EXHIBIT 13

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 9/20/2012 8:41 AM CV-2012-900266.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA

THE STATE OF ALABAMA, Plaintiff, V. CENTER STAGE ALABAMA, INC., Defendant.

) ) ) ) Case No.: ) ) )

CV-2012-900266.00

ORDER

The matter before the Court is the second Motion to Recuse/Disqualify. The movant “boot-straps” its argument off of a two year old media article, irrelevant public documents, and exhibits which are woven into a limited and flawed narrative. The motion appears to be framed for media dissemination as opposed to judicial consideration. It is full of innuendo, inferences, hearsay, speculation and opinion. Again there are no facts alleged which would show that the Court has any bias, hostility or prejudice. I shall not enter an order of recusal. If I err….I err on the side of truth, and the truth is that no one has ever attempted to influence me on the issues outlined in this case and I have neither expressed nor harbor any bias, hostility or prejudice. As stated in my previous Order the movant has an appropriate remedy for challenging my Order. Finally, let me put one thing to rest, while I serve the good people of this State by appointment. I perform my judicial functions with diligence, determination and dedication. I am always mindful of my oath of office and the responsibility I have to the law and the citizens of the state. My record of judicial service speaks for itself and stands up to scrutiny. All pending motions to be heard on September 26, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. DONE this 20th day of September, 2012. /s/ J. MICHAEL CONAWAY CIRCUIT JUDGE

EXHIBIT 14

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 8/24/2011 3:28 PM CV-2011-900030.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY, ALABAMA ETTA B. EDWARDS, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY, ALABAMA

STATE OF ALABAMA by and through Attorney General Luther Strange Petitioner, vs. 267 Gambling Devices, listed as follows, Serial # 00343 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00306 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00582 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00159 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00724 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00832 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01272 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00365 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00258 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00930 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00202 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00231 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00572 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00537 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00888 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00051 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00321 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00941 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # SMTS 00259 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # SMTS 00040 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00338 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00402 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00645 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00634 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01127 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # SMTS 00011 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01289 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01439 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00160 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00439 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01213 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01189 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial #00234 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00612 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00852 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # SMTS 00114 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00213 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00707 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00312 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # SD17R00211 JLM Games, Inc; Serial # 00161 JLM Games, Inc; Serial # 00165 JLM Games, Inc; Serial # 00115 1

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO. CV-11-900030

Man. – JLM Games, Inc; Serial # SMTS 00074 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00845 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01221 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # SMTS 00016 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01221 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # SMTS 00016 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01130 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00337 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00800 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00978 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00764 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # STMS 00255 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01239 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01146 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00503 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00483 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00562 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00466 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00279 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00407 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00870 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01288 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01390 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01332 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00449 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00504 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01069 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00417 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # SMTS 00254 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # SSD – 0023 Man. – Nova; Serial # SMTS 0019 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00381 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00507 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00681 Man. – Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00873 Nova Gaming, Inc ; SMTS 00179 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 0077 Nova Gaming, Inc; 01092 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00187 Nova Gaming, Inc; 01397 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00120 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00253 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00418 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00871 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00264 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 0093 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00668 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00263 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00260 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00182 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00054 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00655 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00486 Nova Gaming, Inc; 01235 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00245 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00010 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00958 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00358 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00579 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00380 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00344 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00489 Nova Gaming, Inc; SSD - 00226 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00383 2

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Nova Gaming, Inc; 00214 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00113 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00826 Nova Gaming, Inc; 01116 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00320 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00544 Nova Gaming, Inc; 01282 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00388 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00261 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00236 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00531 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00052 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00307 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00134 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00803 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00485 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00006 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00236 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00230 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00461 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00384 Nova Gaming, Inc; 01399 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00234 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00172 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00253 Nova Gaming, Inc; CSV - 01559 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00454 Nova Gaming, Inc; 500592 Nova Gaming, Inc; 01037 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00872 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00106 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00738 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00137 Nova Gaming, Inc; 0047 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00876 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00394 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00176 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00456 Nova Gaming, Inc; 01447 Nova Gaming, Inc; 01264 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00070 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00528 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00706 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00263 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00573 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00586 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00198 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00031 Nova Gaming, Inc; 01113 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00385 Nova Gaming, Inc; 500654 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00228 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00268 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00566 Nova Gaming, Inc; 01062 Nova Gaming, Inc; 01030 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00097 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00335 Nova Gaming, Inc; 01467 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00215 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00631 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00046 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00062 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00251 Nova Gaming, Inc; 01419 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00319 Nova Gaming, Inc; 01299 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00170 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00005 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00109 Nova Gaming, Inc; 01238 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00067 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00234 Nova Gaming, Inc; SSD – 00289 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00880 Nova Gaming, Inc; 0081 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00053 Nova Gaming, Inc 3

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SMTS 00033 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00004 Nova ) Gaming, Inc; 01293 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00267 ) Nova Gaming, Inc; 01148 Nova Gaming, Inc; ) SMTS 00189 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00233 ) Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00194 Nova Gaming, ) Inc; SMTS 00045 Nova Gaming, Inc; 00215 Nova ) Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00168 Nova Gaming, Inc; ) 00271 Nova Gaming, Inc; SMTS 00130 Nova ) Gaming, Inc; 00558 Nova Gaming, Inc; 01307 ) Nova Gaming, Inc; 01257 Nova Gaming, Inc; ) SSD - 00256 Nova Gaming, Inc; ) SMTS 00260 Nova Gaming, Inc; # 00158 JLM ) Games; # 0041 JLM Games; # 00002 JLM Games; ) # 00156 JLM Games; # 00715 Nova Gaming, Inc; ) # 0745 Nova Gaming, Inc; # 00752 Nova Gaming, ) Inc; # 00595 Nova Gaming, Inc; # 00550 Nova ) Gaming, Inc; # 00433 Nova Gaming, Inc; # 0185 ) Nova Gaming, Inc; # SD17R00213 JLM Games; ) # 00029 JLM Games; # 00166 JLM Games; ) # 00153 JLM Games; # SD17R00206 JLM Games; ) # 00002 JLM Games; # 00081 JLM Games; ) # 00028 JLM Games; #00108 JLM Games; ) # 00101 JLM Games; # 00025 JLM Games; ) # 00079 JLM Games; Serial # 00343 Nova Gaming, ) Inc; Serial # 00306 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial ) # 00582 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00159 Nova ) Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00724 Nova Gaming, Inc; ) Serial # 00832 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01272 ) Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00365 Nova Gaming, ) Inc; Serial # SMTS 00258 Nova Gaming, Inc; ) Serial # 00930 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00202 ) Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00231Nova Gaming, ) Inc; Serial # 00572 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # ) 00537 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00888 Man. ) Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00051 Man. - Nova ) Gaming, Inc: Serial # 00321 Man. - Nova Gaming, ) Inc; Serial # 00941 Man. - Nova Gaming, Inc; ) Serial # 00259 Man. - Nova Gaming, Inc; ) Serial # SMTS 00040 Man. - Nova Gaming, Inc; ) Serial # 00338 Man. - Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial ) # 00402 Man. - Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00645 ) Man. - Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00634 Man. - ) Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01127 Man. - Nova ) Gaming, Inc; Serial # SMTS 00011 Man. – Nova ) Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01289 Man. - Nova Gaming, ) Inc; Serial # 01439 Man.- Nova Gaming, Inc; ) 4

Serial # 00160 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00439 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01213 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 01189 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00234 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00612 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00852 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # SMTS 00114 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00213 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 0070 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # 00312 Nova Gaming, Inc; Serial # SD17R00211 JLM Games Inc; Serial # 00161 JLM Games, Inc; Serial # 00165 JLM Games, Inc.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

______________________________________________________________________________

STATE OF ALABAMA by and through Attorney General Luther Strange Petitioner, vs. $ 93, 917.50 U.S. Currency, & 376 Gambling Devices, listed as follows: G00520 Gateway; G00603 Gateway; G00598 Gateway; G00601 Gateway; G00599 Gateway; G00500 Gateway; G00497 Gateway; G00655 Gateway; G00649 Gateway; G00653 Gateway; G00650 Gateway; G00531 Gateway; G00652 Gateway; G00542 Gateway; G00605 Gateway; G00527 Gateway; G00529 Gateway; G00654 Gateway; G00656 Gateway; G00502 Gateway; G00646 Gateway; G00495 Gateway; G00648 Gateway; G00651 Gateway; G00644 Gateway; G00493 Gateway; G0068 Gateway; G00515 Gateway; G00641 Gateway; G00647 Gateway; G00579 Gateway; G00642 Gateway; G00643 Gateway; G00600 Gateway; G00645 Gateway; G00602 Gateway; G00606 Gateway; G00607 Gateway; G00604 Gateway; G00583 Gateway; G00387 Gateway; G00395 Gateway; G00469 Gateway; G00398 Gateway; G00433 Gateway; G00062 Gateway; G00393 Gateway; G00391 Gateway; G00471 Gateway; G00384 Gateway; G00478 Gateway; 5

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO. CV-11-900029

G00382 Gateway; G00581 Gateway; G00480 Gateway; ) G00582 Gateway; G00585 Gateway; G00580 Gateway; ) G00516 Gateway; G00586 Gateway; G00589 Gateway; ) G00578 Gateway; G00389 Gateway; G00364 Gateway; ) G00474 Gateway; G00525 Gateway; G00521 Gateway; ) G00513 Gateway; G00501 Gateway; G00489 Gateway; ) G00518 Gateway; G00491 Gateway; G00526 Gateway; ) G00498 Gateway; G00532 Gateway; G00530 Gateway; ) G00528 Gateway; J&M Gaming #2006; J&M Gaming ) #2007; J&M Gaming #2003; J&M Gaming #2002; J&M ) Gaming #2005; J&M Gaming #2010; J&M Gaming #2008; ) J&M Gaming #2012; J&M Gaming #2001; J&M Gaming ) #2000; Model # SLM 2000 Serial # 2011 J&M; Model ) # SLM 2000 Serial # 2009 J&M; Model # STD 1000 ) Serial # 1043 J&M; Model # STD 1000 Serial # 1039 ) J&M; Model # STD 1000 Serial # 1037 J&M; Model ) # STD 1000 Serial # 1035 J&M; Model # STD 1000 ) Serial # 1029 J&M; Model # STD 1000 Serial # 1031 ) J&M; Model # STD 1000 Serial # 1032 J&M; Model ) # STD 1000 Serial # 1042 J&M; Model # STD 1000 ) Serial # 1040 J&M; Model # STD 1000 Serial # 1041 ) J&M; Model # STD 1000 Serial # 1046; J&M Model ) # STD 1000 Serial # 1038 J&M; J&M Gaming LLC ) #1004; J&M Gaming LLC # 1020; J&M Gaming LLC ) # 1003; J&M Gaming LLC # 1027; J&M Gaming LLC ) # 1026; J&M Gaming LLC # 1025; J&M Gaming LLC ) # 1022; J&M Gaming LLC # 1023; J&M Gaming LLC ) # 1000; J&M Gaming LLC # 1001; J&M Gaming LLC ) # 1002; J&M Gaming LLC # 1021; J&M Gaming LLC ) # 1008; J&M Gaming LLC # 1014; #1015 J&M Gaming; ) #1009 J&M Gaming; #1006 J&M Gaming; #1016 J&M ) Gaming; #1024 J&M Gaming; #1028 J&M Gaming; #1005 ) J&M Gaming; #1019 J&M Gaming; #1017 J&M Gaming; ) #1018 J&M Gaming; #1007 J&M Gaming; #1010 J&M ) Gaming; A11C014228 Monitor ELO; A11C014239 ) Monitor ELO; A11C014223 ELO Monitor; A11C014213 ) ELO Monitor; A11C014211 ELO; A11C014216 ELO; ) A11C014205 ELO; LKLZCOV IBM Tower; ) LKVGH5H IBM Tower; LKZF2GL IBM Tower; ) LKYX4FW IBM Tower; LKZF1TG IBM Tower; ) LKHYA4A IBM Tower; LKZF1YG IBM Tower; ) A11C014209 ELO Monitor; A11C014225 ELO Monitor; ) A11C014219 ELO Monitor; A11C014204 ELO Monitor; ) A11C014207 ELO Monitor; A11C014206 ELO Monitor ) A11C014210 ELO Monitor; LPGKRY7 IBM Tower; ) LKXRM6F IBM Tower; LKLTH4A IBM Tower; ) 6

LKZFOMK IBM Tower; LKZAA4L IBM Tower; LKXRM6G IBM Tower; LKZF2HT IBM Tower; A11C014208 ELO Monitor; A11C014212 ELO Monitor; A11C014221 ELO Monitor; A11C014229 ELO Monitor; A11C014214 ELO Monitor; A11C014227 ELO Monitor; A11C014220 ELO Monitor; LKZF2KG IBM Tower; LKKHU6L IBM Tower; LKLZB6H IBM Tower; LKLZ06W IBM Tower; LKVNPUA IBM Tower; A11C014246 ELO Monitor; A11C014241 ELO Monitor; A11C014230 ELO Monitor; A11C014235 ELO Monitor; A11C014224 ELO Monitor; A11C014222 ELO Monitor; A11C014233 ELO Monitor; A11C014237 ELO Monitor; A11C014255 ELO Monitor; A11C014226 ELO; A11C014232 ELO; A11C014217 ELO; A11C014248 ELO; A11C014236 ELO; LKMGW7C IMB Tower; MXL62804CG HP Tower; LPGKRV2 IBM Tower; LKYCC7P IBM Tower; Kl0L039615 ELO; Kl0l039748 ELO; Kl0l039640 ELO; Kl0L039619 ELO; L10L105167 ELO; 10L043510 ELO; K10L039621 ELO; 10L043489 ELO; K10L039775 ELO; 10L079700 EL0; K10L039775 ELO 10L079700; ELO LKLVR9P IBM Tower; LKLRT9Y IBM Tower; LK2FOKY IBM Tower; LKXRL7H IBM Tower; LKXRM4P IBM Tower; LKLNK9P IBM Tower; Frontier Reload Kiosk A11C000441; Frontier Reload Kiosk A11C000437; Frontier Reload Kiosk A11C000459; Frontier Reload Kiosk A11C000447; Frontier Reload Kiosk A11C000453; Gateway 5# G-00369; Gateway 5# G-00355; Gateway 5# G-0053; Gateway # G-00367; Gateway 5# G-00379; Gateway # G-00078; Gateway # G-00360; Gateway # G-00484; Gateway # G-00363; Gateway # G-00357; Gateway # G-00082; Gateway # G-00479; Gateway # G-00064; Gateway # G-00063; Gateway # G-00059; Gateway # G-00065; Gateway # G-00373; Gateway # G- 00375; Gateway # G-00371; Gateway # G-00370; Gateway # G-00477; Gateway # G-003851; Gateway # G-00060; Gateway # G-00066; Gateway # G-00070; Gateway # G-000650; Gateway # G-00514; Gateway # G-00512; Gateway # G-00507; Gateway # G-00504; Gateway # G-00509; Gateway # G-00505; Gateway # G-00508; Gateway # G-00511; Gateway # G-00058; Gateway# G-00079; Gateway # G-00473; Gateway # G-00397; Gateway # G-00372; Gateway # G -00374; Gateway # G- 00392; Gateway # G -00390; Gateway # G-00356; Gateway # G00425; Gateway # G00425; Gateway # G00394; Gateway # G00470; Gateway 7

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

#G00317; Gateway # G00368; Gateway # G00475; ) Gateway # G00376; Gateway # G00396; Gateway ) # G00383; Gateway # G00468; Gateway # G00431; ) Gateway # G00386; Gateway # G000476; Gateway ) # G000383; Gateway # G000380; Gateway # G000381; ) Gateway # G000361; G-00522 Gateway; G-00483 ) Gateway; G-00523 Gateway; G-00698 Gateway; G-00485 ) Gateway; G-00537 Gateway; G-00494 Gateway; G- 00540 ) Gateway; G- 00481 Gateway; G-00492 Gateway; G-00496 ) Gateway; G-00503 Gateway; G-00096 Gateway; G- 00539 ) Gateway; G-00538 Gateway; G-00399 Gateway; G-00378 ) Gateway; G-00541 Gateway; G-00472 Gateway; G-00487 ) Gateway; G-00519 Gateway; G-00587 Gateway; G-00536 ) Gateway; G-00593 Gateway; G-00584 Gateway; G-00534 ) Gateway; G-00591 Gateway; G-00535 Gateway; G-00595 ) Gateway; G-00499 Gateway; G-00517 Gateway; G-00597 ) Gateway; G-00588 Gateway; G-00594 Gateway; G-00657 ) Gateway; G-00533 Gateway; G-00592 Gateway; G-00590 ) Gateway; G-00596 Gateway; G-00524 Gateway; G00488 ) Gateway; G00366 Gateway; G00490 Gateway; G00068 ) Gateway; G00067 Gateway; G00085 Gateway; G00081 ) Gateway; G00361 Gateway; G00083 Gateway; G00482 ) Gateway; G00359 Gateway; G00365 Gateway; G00362 ) Gateway; G00486 Gateway; G00074 Gateway; G00073 ) Gateway; G00069 Gateway; G00071 Gateway; G00084 ) Gateway; G00076 Gateway; G00072 Gateway; G00071 ) Gateway; G00075 Gateway; G00080 Gateway; Bally ) Model VTSL200 Serial V061285415; Bally Model ) VTSL200 Serial V061285553; Bally Model VTSL200 ) Serial V061285478; Bally Model VTSL200 Serial ) V061285514; Bally Model VTSL200 Serial V0612855585; ) Bally Model VTSL200 Serial V061285466; Bally Model ) VTSL200 Serial V01285444; Bally Model VTSL200 Serial ) V061285552; Bally Model VTSL200 Serial V061285479; ) Bally Model VTSL200 Serial V061285559; Bally Model ) VTSL200 Serial V061285467; Bally Model VTSL200 ) Serial V061285541; Bally Model VTSL200 Serial ) V061285508; Bally Model VTSL200 Serial V061285592; ) Bally Model VTSL200 Serial V061285504; Bally Model ) VTSL200 Serial V061285518; Bally Model VTSL200 ) Serial V061285442; Bally Model VTSL200 Serial ) V061285540; Bally Model VTSL200 Serial V061285509; ) Bally Model VTSL200 Serial V061285593; Bally Model ) VTSL200 Serial V061285505; Bally Model VTSL200 ) Serial V061285519; Bally Model VTSL200 Serial ) V061285443; OGV Model SDGTP1041 Serial 10139; ) 8

OGV Model SDGTP1093 Serial 10191; OGV Model SDGTP1049 Serial 10147; OGV Model SDGTP 1050 Serial 10148; Model#:SDGTP1052 Serial#10150 OGV; Model#:SDGTP1045 Serial#10143 OGV; Model#:SDGTP1039 Serial#10137 OGV; Model#:SDGTP1098 Serial#:10196 OGV; Model#:SDGTP1031 Serial#:10129 OGV; Model#:SDGTP1092 Serial#:10190 OGV; Model#: SDGTP1046 Serial#: 10144 OGV; Model#:SDGTP1091 Serial#:10189 OGV; Model#:SDGTP1037 Serial#: 10135 OGV; Model#: SDGTP1035 Serial#:10133 OGV; Model#: SDGTP1048 Serial#:10146 OGV; Model#:SDGTP1036 Serial#:10134 OGV; Model3:SDGTP1034 Serial#:10132 OGV; Model#: SDGTP 1097 Serial#:10195 OGV; OGV Model –SDGTP1096 Serial-10194; OGV Model-SDGTP 1094 Serial-10192; OGV Model-SDGTP1040 Serial-10138;

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CORRECTED MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OR RECUSAL OF JUDGE HARDAWAY The State of Alabama respectfully requests that Judge Hardaway recuse himself from the above-captioned proceedings. As grounds therefore, the State would show unto the Court as follows:

1.

In relevant part, the Canons of Judicial Ethics provide as follows:

CANON 2: A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL HIS ACTIVITIES. A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. B. A judge should at all times maintain the decorum and temperance befitting his office and should avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute. C. A judge should not allow his family, social, political, or other relationships to influence his judicial conduct or judgment. He should not lend the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of others; nor should he convey or 9

permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence him. He should not testify voluntarily as a character witness at any hearing before any court, or judicial or governmental commission.

CANON 3C. DISQUALIFICATION: (1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his disqualification is required by law or his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (a) He has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;…

2.

In Ex parte Duncan, 638 So. 2d 1332 (Ala. 1994), the Alabama Supreme Court

stated the following concerning Canon 3.C(1): “Under Canon 3(C)(1), Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, recusal is required when ‘facts are shown which make it reasonable for members of the public or a party, or counsel opposed to question the impartiality of the judge.’” 638 So. 2d at 1334 (quoting Acromag-Viking v. Blalock, 420 So. 2d 60, 61 (Ala. 1982)). 3. The standard for recusal is objective: “whether a reasonable person knowing

everything that the judge knows would have a reasonable basis for questioning the judge's impartiality.” Ex parte Bank of America, N.A., 39 So. 3d 113, 117 (Ala. 2009) (citations and quotations omitted). “The focus of inquiry, therefore, is not whether a particular judge is or is not biased toward the petitioner; the focus is instead on whether a reasonable person would perceive potential bias or a lack of impartiality on the part of the judge in question.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted.) 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is an Order heretofore entered by the Alabama

Supreme Court in a prior pending case involving a seizure of gambling devices similar to those at issue here from the very same facility at issue in the instant case — Greenetrack. Greenetrack was a party to the proceedings in which the Order was entered, and it is a party in the above10

captioned CV-11-900029. The State is also a party to the proceedings at issue in Exhibit A, affirmatively sought the removal of Judge Hardaway that is reflected in Exhibit A, and is a party to both of the above-captioned actions. 5. There are multiple common legal issues in the above-captioned actions and in the

actions reflected in Exhibit A, and a ruling on those legal issues in the above-captioned actions could effectively determine or materially affect the pending proceedings at issue in Exhibit A. 6. As a result of the forgoing, Judge Hardaway’s impartiality might reasonably be

questioned in the above-captioned matters, as one of the opposing parties in CV-11-900029 has effectively admitted. See Nova’s Motion to Consolidate in CV-11-900029. 7. Moreover, Judge Hardaway recently testified as a witness in an off-docket

proceeding, In re Search Warrant, which is factually-related to CV-11-900029. 8. In light of the forgoing, to avoid any appearance of bias or impropriety, and to

promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, the State respectfully requests Judge Hardaway to recuse himself from the above-captioned actions. For these reasons, the State of Alabama respectfully requests that Judge Hardaway recuse himself from the above-captioned proceedings.

/s/ Matt Bledsoe J. Matt Bledsoe Office of the Alabama Attorney General 501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36130

11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this the 24th day of August, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the AlaFile system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. I also served a true and correct copy of same via United States Mail, proper postage affixed thereto, as follows: Anthony A. Joseph Donald F. Winningham, III Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza 1901 North Sixth Avenue Birmingham, AL 35203-2618 William Somerville Andrew P. Walsh Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz 420 North 20th Street, Suite 1600 Birmingham, AL 35203 John M. Bolton, III Charlanna W. Spencer Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, P.C. P.O. Box 116 Montgomery, AL 36101 J. Mason Davis Gaile P. Gratton Sirote & Permutt, P.C. P.O. Box 55725 Birmingham, AL 36205-5725 JLM Games, Inc. P.O. Box 6039 North Augusta, SC 29861 Maxwell H. Pulliam Jonathon Macklem Christian & Small, LLP 1800 Financial Center 505 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203 Joseph J. Basgier, III Brett M. Bloomston Bloomston & Basgier 1330 21st Way South Suite 120 Birmingham, AL 35205 J&M Gaming, LLC c/o Jeffrey A. Budd 8020 Moffett Road, Suite D Semmes, AL 36575 Frontier Bingo 1601 Old Patton Road Knoxville, AL 35469 Nova Gaming c/o CT Corporation 2 North Jackson, Suite 605 Montgomery, AL 36104

/s/ Matt Bledsoe OF COUNSEL

12

EXHIBIT 15

Riley appoints new Houston County district judge | Dothan Eagle

Page 1 of 5

Place an ad

|

Subscribe

|

Advertise With Us

Welcome Guest

|

Login

|

Register

|

Contact Us

|

Newsroom

|

Circulation

""
News Sports Entertainment Lifestyles Weather Video
SEARCH

Services

Classifieds

Real Estate

Grocery Coupons

Jobs

Newspaper Ads

Autos

NEW!

Search Stories, Photos, Video & Keywords

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 | Columbia, Alabama 81° Feels Like: 84° Partly Cloudy Click Here!

NEWS
HOME / NEWS / LOCAL / Share This

Print

Text Size

ADVERTISEMENT

By: staff reports | Dothan Eagle Published: June 21, 2010 » 0 Comments | Post a Comment

Alabama Gov. Bob Riley said his third and final Houston County judge appointment is about qualifications and not politics, but not everyone agrees. Riley announced Monday that State Rep. Benjamin Lewis will fill the lone vacancy in Houston County as a district judge. Lewis will replace former District Judge John Steensland, who retired April 23. Lewis said he plans to take the bench as soon as possible and has resigned as a state representative and also as a state prosecutor in Florida. “This is a great honor for me and my family and a great opportunity to work back at home every day,” said Lewis, who was elected as a state representative for House District 86 in 2006, unseating long-time incumbent Joe Carothers. Riley said Lewis was selected for his background and experience. “Ben is the most qualified candidate for this important position and I am proud to appoint him,” Riley said in a written statement. Lewis was at the center of an epic debate on electronic bingo in the Alabama Legislature. A bill that would have brought the issue to a statewide referendum passed the Alabama Senate during the past legislative session. Days later, it was revealed a federal and state corruption investigation was ongoing in the Legislature. The bill, however, continued on to the Alabama House. It was backed heavily by officials with Country Crossing, a multi-purpose establishment that includes an electronic bingo pavilion. Country Crossing is in Lewis’ district. The bill never came to a vote in the Legislature, but Lewis said repeatedly that he did not like the bill. A Country Crossing lobbyist said Lewis was the reason for the bill’s downfall in the House, because his lack of support for the bill gave other representatives cover to vote against it. Lewis later testified before a grand jury investigating alleged corruption in Montgomery. The man who would have been Lewis’ opponent in the upcoming November election said he believes the appointment was not about qualifications, but politics, claiming the appointment was payback for Lewis siding with Riley in opposition to electronic bingo.
ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular
1.

Gov. Bob Riley has appointed State Representative Benjamin Lewis to replace John Steensland as a Houston County District Judge.

Deputies charge area high school student with rape(7) Dothan teen charged with attempted rape, sex abuse(0) Dothan police advise proper way to turn at medians(3) Suspect in kidnapping case identified(1) McNeal sparkles in AU secondary when given start(0)

2.

3.

4. 5.

Spot Crime
View our map to find out what crimes are happening in your neighborhood.

Affordable Wedding Chapel
We Offer Several Packages To Fit Your Needs. Contact Us Today!
www.wilsonsweddingchapel.com

Business Lookup
Search 65MM companies, 85MM people by industry, location, and more.
www.hoovers.com/company_directory

Prostate Cancer Treatment
Groundbreaking Protocol in Atlanta Survival Data on Over 14,000 Men
www.ProstRcision.com

Macy's® Bridal Registry
Official Site. Create a Registry or Buy a Wedding Gift at Macy's!
Macys.com/Registry/Wedding

Things to Do
“This is a prime example of cronyism,” said Merritt Carothers, the Democrat nominee for the House District 86 race. “I feel it is disrespectful to all of the qualified attorneys in town who have applied for the job and been overlooked in place of someone who is, with all respect, wet behind the ears.” Phillip Bryan, spokesperson for the Alabama Republican Party, said the state party steering committee would work closely with the Houston County Republican Party Executive Committee to appoint a new nominee in place of Lewis. There is no deadline for naming a nominee. Bryan said the process could stretch into August.
Week Month Map

Browse by Category

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2010/jun/21/riley_appoints_new_houston_county_dist... 9/20/2012

Riley appoints new Houston County district judge | Dothan Eagle

Page 2 of 5

Giselle in 3DWhen:9/18/2012 Tue 7:00 pm Where:Carmike 12 Fellowship SupperWhen:9/19/2012 Wed 5:30 pm Where:Green Hill Presbyterian Church Celebrate Recovery, Covenant UnitedJ When:9/20/2012 Thu 6:00 pm Where:Covenant United Methodist Church

» Complete list

Add a Listing

Lewis received a B.S. degree and graduated magna cum laude from Troy University, a J.D. from Faulkner University’s Jones School of Law and also did graduate-level agricultural law studies at the University of Arkansas School of Law.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2010/jun/21/riley_appoints_new_houston_county_dist... 9/20/2012

Riley appoints new Houston County district judge | Dothan Eagle

Page 3 of 5

He was appointed by Riley to serve on the Alabama Law Institute, a legislative agency whose stated purpose is to help clarify and simplify the laws of Alabama, revise laws that are out of date and to fill in gaps in the law where there exists legal confusion. He is a member of the Alabama Republican Party State Executive Committee, the Alabama State Bar Association, the Houston County Bar Association and the Florida Bar Association. He recently served as a state prosecutor with the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in Marianna, Fla. He also has some private practice experience. Lewis said his appointment was not payback for siding with Riley in opposition to electronic bingo. “The governor and I have never had a conversation related to this judgeship at all,” Lewis said. “When this vacancy came up, I submitted my resume just like others did and went through the interview process. “I’ve always had a desire to become a judge, and when this thing came up — well these things just don’t come up every day,” Lewis said. State Rep. Marcel Black, the House sponsor of the electronic bingo bill, pulled the bill from House consideration April 21 when it was apparent there was not enough votes to pass it. Steensland announced his retirement April 23. Lewis said his time in the Legislature was a learning experience. “It was a great honor and privilege to serve as a legislator. I hope that it will be able to be said at some point that I was an influence to some improvement in Montgomery,” Lewis said. “I am excited to be able to kind of distance myself from (bingo). Some of what I experienced was disheartening. You expect your leaders to serve with honesty and integrity.” Recently, Riley appointed Michael Conaway and Kevin Moulton to serve as circuit judges, replacing the retired Lawson Little and Ed Jackson.

Share This:
Email Facebook Google Twitter Favorites More

ADVERTISEMENT

View More: Alabama, Alabama House, Alabama Law Institute, Alabama
Legislature, Alabama Republican Party, Alabama Republican Party State Executive Committee, Alabama Senate, Alabama State Bar Association, Benjamin Lewis, Bob Riley, Country Crossing, District Judge, Ed Jackson, Executive, Faulkner University, Florida, Florida Bar Association, Former District Judge, Governor, Graduate-Level Agricultural Law Studies, Houston County, Houston County Bar Association, Houston County Republican Party, Joe Carothers, John Steensland, Jones School Of Law, Judge, Kevin Moulton, Law_Crime, Lawson Little, Legislator, Lobbyist, Marcel Black, Marianna, Member, Merritt Carothers, Michael Conaway, Phillip Bryan, Riley, Spokesperson, State Party Steering Committee, State Prosecutor, State Representative, Troy University, University Of Arkansas School, University Of Arkansas School Of Law Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
GO

More from this channel:
Ozark man pleads guilty to dozens of burglaries, thefts Police shoot burglary suspect in Kinsey Former Dale County bus driver pleads guilty to reckless endangerment FBI agents join search for abducted teenage girl Suspect in kidnapping case identified Statewide referendum today Headland man faces stolen property charges Elba man convicted of murder Dothan police make five felony arrests DCS approves 2012-2013 budget

ADVERTISEMENT

Reader Comments
*Facebook Account Required to Comment. If you are not already logged into Facebook, please click the comment button to do so.

Click Here!

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2010/jun/21/riley_appoints_new_houston_county_dist... 9/20/2012

Riley appoints new Houston County district judge | Dothan Eagle

Page 4 of 5

ADVERTISEMENT

Dothan Eagle

© 2012 World Media Enterprises Inc Terms and Conditions | Work With Us

Dothan Eagle: Contact Us | Advertising | Email Alerts | Mobile Alerts | Site Search | Web Master | Mobile Apps | Find Dothan Jobs Partners: Wiregrass Top Homes Regional Partner Links: Dothan Progress | Enterprise Ledger | Jackson County Floridan | Eufaula Tribune | Opelika-Auburn News

Click Here!

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2010/jun/21/riley_appoints_new_houston_county_dist... 9/20/2012

Riley appoints new Houston County district judge | Dothan Eagle

Page 5 of 5

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2010/jun/21/riley_appoints_new_houston_county_dist... 9/20/2012

EXHIBIT 16

TIMELINE
 October Country 4, 2010: VictoryLand developer owner Milton Gilley; McGregor; lobbyists

Crossing

Ronnie

Robert Geddie, Thomas Coker and Jarrod Massey; state senators Harri Anne Smith (the local Houston County senator), Larry Means, James Preuitt and Quinton Ross; Country Crossing employee Jarrell “Jay” Walker; and

Legislative Reference Service staffer Joseph Crosby are arrested pursuant to indictments that had been issued on October 1, 2010. was announced that In this same press conference, it Montgomery lobbyist Jennifer

Pouncey, a partner of Country Crossing lobbyist Jarrod Massey, pleaded 1 to guilty App. to Ex. one 16: count Dothan of conspiracy. article

(Attachment

Eagle

dated October 4, 2010.)  December 21, 2010: Country Crossing lobbyist Jarrod

Massey pleads guilty to 1 count of conspiracy and 5 counts of bribery. (Attachment 2 to App. Ex. 16:

Dothan Eagle article dated December 20, 2010.)

 April 22, 2011: Ronnie Gilley pleads guilty to 1 count of conspiracy, 4 counts of money laundering, and 6

counts of bribery. begins in federal

June 6, 2011: The first bingo trial court in Montgomery, with U.S.

District Judge Myron Thompson presiding.

(Attachment 3

to App. Ex. 16: Dothan Eagle article dated April 22, 2011.)  June 9, 2011: A jury is selected the 16: after four days, day. article

opening

statements 4 to App.

begin Ex.

following Eagle

(Attachment

Dothan

dated June 9, 2011.)  June 13, 2011: The prosecution calls its first witness, State Senator Scott Beason. (Attachment 5 to App. Ex.

16: Dothan Eagle article dated June 10, 2011.)  June 21, 2011: Houston County District Judge Benjamin Lewis beings 6 testimony to App. Ex. as 16: prosecution Dothan Eagle witness. article

(Attachment

dated June 21, 2011)

Media reports indicate that Judge

Lewis testified on June 23 that neither John Watson nor John Downs would ever support anyone that supports

bingo.

(Ex. F to App. Ex. 5, p.3.)

 July 29, 2011: The defense rests.

(Attachment 7 to

App. Ex. 16: Dothan Eagle article dated July 29, 2011.)  August 4, 2011: Closing arguments end; jurors begin deliberations the following day. (Attachment 8 to App.

Ex. 16: Dothan Eagle article dated August 5, 2011.)  August 11, 2011: After more than two months, the first bingo trial ends with the jury reaching not guilty

verdicts some counts and deadlocked on other counts, requiring a retrial. Defendants Sen. Quinton Ross and (Attachment

Robert Geddie are acquitted on all counts.

9 to App. Ex. 16: Dothan Eagle article dated August 11, 2011.)  October 21, 2011: Judge Myron Thompson issues “a blistering 44-page opinion” that accuses two key prosecution witnesses, Sen. Scott Beason and former Rep. Benjamin Lewis, of “demonstrat[ing] ‘a deepseated racial animus’ and a desire to suppress black voter turnout when they helped the FBI investigate claims of Statehouse vote buying.” Judge Thompson

ruled that Beason and Lewis, in attempting to stop the bingo bill, were seeking to suppress black voter turnout and help Republicans gain control of the

Legislature.

(Attachment 10 to App. Ex. 16: Dothan

Eagle article dated August 11, 2011.)1  Dec. 9, 2011: Judge Thompson denies prosecution motion seeking to have defendants tried separately in retrial. (Attachment 11 to App. Ex. 16: Dothan First article dated December 9, 2011.)  Jan 29, 2012: Defendant Ray Crosby found dead on the eve of retrial, resulting in a delay. (Attachment 12

to App. Ex. 16: Dothan Eagle article dated January 30, 2012.)  February 6, 2012: The bingo corruption retrial begins; jury selection and opening statements are complete

after four days. (Id.)  February 10, 2012: The prosecution calls its first witness. (Attachment 13 to App. Ex. 16: Dothan Eagle

article dated January 30, 2012.)  February 29, 2012: Closing arguments are completed and the jury begins deliberations. (Attachment 14 to App.

Ex. 16: Dothan Eagle article dated February 28, 2012.)

1

Judge Thompson’s actual opinion is published. See U.S. v. McGregor, 824 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (M.D. Ala. 2011).

 March

7,

2012:

The

jury

acquits

defendants

on

all

charges.

(Attachment 15 to App. Ex. 16: Dothan Eagle

article dated February 28, 2012.)

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 1 of 2

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2010/oct/04/assistant-attorney-general-issues-corruption-state-ar916599/

Published: October 04, 2010 Home / news / local /

Assistant Attorney General issues corruption statement
By Dothan Eagle Staff
Remarks of U.S. Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer in relation to state corruption investigation: Good morning. My name is Lanny Breuer. I am the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice. I am pleased to have my friend and partner, FBI Assistant Director Kevin Perkins, here with me today, as well as Special Agent in Charge Timothy Fuhrman. This morning, federal agents began arresting 11 individuals on charges that they conspired over an approximately 19-month period to corrupt the legislative process in Alabama. Also this morning, we unsealed a 39-count indictment against these individuals, which a grand jury sitting in Montgomery, Alabama, returned last week. The 11 defendants named in the indictment are charged with forming a corrupt network of legislators, businessmen and lobbyists, whose aim was to manipulate the democratic process for personal gain. We allege that from February 2009 through August 2010, two owners of gaming and entertainment establishments and one of their employees; three registered lobbyists working on their behalf; four Alabama state Senators; and one State-employed legislative analyst, all participated in a wide-ranging conspiracy to buy and sell votes on legislation in Alabama that would directly benefit the business interests of two of the defendants, Milton McGregor and Ronald Gilley. The alleged criminal scheme was astonishing in scope. Indeed, as alleged in the indictment, the defendants’ corrupt conduct infiltrated every layer of the legislative process in the state of Alabama. Specifically, as charged in the indictment, Mr. McGregor and Mr. Gilley employed lobbyists, including defendants Thomas Coker, Robert Geddie and Jarrod Massey, in a full-scale campaign to bribe and coerce state legislators and others into supporting pro-gambling legislation that they favored. Put simply, they are charged with having offered huge sums of money and other benefits in exchange for the legislators’ votes. Defendants Larry Means, James Preuitt, Quinton Ross and Harri Anne Smith, who are all current Alabama state Senators, are charged with accepting or agreeing to accept – and, in some cases, demanding – these bribes, in the form of campaign contributions, campaign appearances by

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar916599

9/23/2012

Page 2 of 2

country music stars, fundraising assistance and other things of value. Additionally, one of the defendants, a legislative analyst named Joseph Crosby, is charged with having accepted monthly payments of $3,000 from McGregor in exchange for taking official action to amend the pro-gambling legislation in a way that would benefit McGregor. Also today, a plea agreement with former lobbyist Jennifer Pouncy was unsealed. Pouncy has pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy for her role in the vote-buying scheme.

Dothan Eagle © Copyright 2012 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar916599

9/23/2012

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 1 of 3

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2010/dec/20/lobbyist-massey-changing-plea-state-corruption-casar-1246341/

Published: December 20, 2010 Home / news / local /

Lobbyist Massey changing plea in state corruption case
By Kendall Clinton

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar1246341

9/23/2012

Page 2 of 3

Lobbyist Jarrod Massey, who had represented Country Crossing and who was indicted as part of a federal investigation into alleged vote buying in the Alabama Legislature, pleaded guilty Monday to some of the charges against him and admitted to bribing members of the Alabama Legislature. According to information from the U.S. Department of Justice, 39-year-old Massey pleaded guilty to six charges -- one count of conspiracy to commit federal program bribery and five counts of federal program bribery. “Jarrod Massey has admitted that he bribed members of the Alabama state legislature in exchange for their votes in favor of electronic bingo gambling legislation,” Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer said in an issued statement. As part of the plea agreement, 10 other charges against Massey were dropped. Massey served as the president of Mantra Governmental, a lobbying firm with several clients, including Country Crossing. Massey, Country Crossing developer Ronnie Gilley, Alabama Sen. Harri Anne Smith, and eight others were named in a 39-count indictment related to alleged vote buying, with varying charges against each defendant. The remaining 10 defendants all face trial in federal court in Montgomery this spring. According to information from the Department of Justice, Gilley was Massey’s largest client. As the developer of Country Crossing, Gilley and Milton McGregor, who had a stake in Country Crossing and also operated Victoryland in Shorter, are alleged to have promoted legislation favorable to electronic bingo. As part of his plea, the Department of Justice said Massey has admitted: -- Offering former State Senator James E. Preuitt $1 million and telling former employee and lobbyist Jennifer Pouncy they could offer up to $2 million of Gilley’s money to secure Preuitt’s vote on the electronic bingo legislation. Pouncy pleaded guilty in September to charges she faced related to the case. -- Discussing buying a large number of vehicles from Preuitt’s automobile dealership in exchange for his vote. -- Conspiring to offer hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign support to a member of the Alabama House of Representatives during the 2009 legislative session for the legislator’s favorable vote on electronic bingo legislation. -- He and a co-conspirator tried to bride a senator with $1 million a year, to be used at the legislator’s discretion, with the money being disguised as payment for work on a public relations job. -- Making bribe payments to former State Senator Larry P. Means. Means abstained from an earlier vote on pro-gambling legislation in 2010, but allegedly solicited bribes, then voted in favor of the legislation. -- Giving $5,000 to State Senator Quinton T. Ross Jr. for his vote in favor of electronic bingo legislation. Ross allegedly solicited another $25,000 from Massey for his reelection campaign prior to the vote. -- Giving State Senator Harri Anne Smith more than $13,000 between December 2009 and March 2010, allegedly in return for her vote in favor of electronic bingo legislation.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar1246341

9/23/2012

Page 3 of 3

When Massey is sentenced on Sept. 26, 2011, he could face up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine on the conspiracy charge. The five counts of federal program bribery each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Dothan Eagle © Copyright 2012 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar1246341

9/23/2012

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 1 of 3

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2011/apr/22/12/ronnie-gilley-pleads-guilty-ar-1750568/

Published: April 22, 2011 Updated: April 22, 2011 - 9:58 AM Home / news / local /

Ronnie Gilley pleads guilty to conspiracy, bribery
By Lance Griffin

The developer of Country Crossing said Friday he became engulfed in the flames of government corruption and participated in what he hated most. Ronnie Gilley pleaded guilty Friday to one count of conspiracy, five counts of bribery, one count of aiding and abetting and four counts of money laundering, admitting to his involvement in an alleged scheme concocted to buy votes for pro gambling legislation that would have benefitted Country Crossing. Gilley, still dressed in prison orange, apologized to the court before making his plea Friday. “I am sorry. I am wrong and I plead guilty,” Gilley said. Gilley also told the court his initial involvement in politics awakened him to “nasty corruption

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar1750568

9/23/2012

Page 2 of 3

associated with politics.” “Everyone was out for personal gain,” he said. Gilley said he initially sought to change the process. “The closer I got to the flames, I became engulfed by that fire instead of putting it out,” he said. Four of the counts carry a maximum of 20 years in prison for each count. Six carry a maximum of 10 years. The conspiracy count carries a maximum of five years. Gilley also faces fines, penalties and the forfeiture of property. He agreed to forfeit $200,000 as part of the money laundering plea. It is believed the 11 counts of honest services fraud Gilley was charged with in the indictment will be dropped as part of the agreement. A sentencing date has not been set. According to the plea agreement, the government recommends a sentence of between 21.8 and 27.25 years for Gilley, but said the sentence could be subject to reduction based on his cooperation with the government. “Ronald Gilley thought votes could be bought and sold in Alabama,” Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer said in a written statement. “He participated in a wide-ranging scheme to bribe state legislators into supporting a law that would fatten his wallet. But he, like his co-conspirators, was stopped in his tracks. Now, Mr. Gilley must face the consequences of his corruption.” When asked if Gilley would testify for the government at the June corruption trial of the nine remaining bingo defendants, Gilley attorney David Harrison of Geneva said “Mr. Gilley intends to speak the truth.” Admissions made by Gilley as part of the plea agreement include: » That he gave, offered, or agreed to offer things of value worth millions of dollars to members of the Alabama Legislature for their support of pro gambling legislation. » That he gave, offered or agreed to offer money, campaign contributions, appearances at events by country music stars, political polls and fundraising assistance to legislators for their support of the legislation, SB380. » That he sought to hide the contributions through political action committees, conduit contributors or other means. When the hearing ended, Gilley, seated, exhaled and bowed his head. A hearing is set for Monday at 10 a.m. concerning the conditions of his release from the Montgomery Municipal Jail. Gilley was given a 24-hour release Friday to attend a medical procedure involving a family member. Harrison negotiated the terms of Gilley’s plea. Gilley’s other criminal defense attorneys, Doug Jones, Tom Butler and Amil Mumjadar of the firm Haskell and Slaughter will still be retained “for now”, according to Harrison. The hearing was delayed more than 90 minutes due to a potential conflict of interest because Haskell and Slaughter represents co-defendant Milton McGregor in a civil suit involving McGregor’s gambling

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar1750568

9/23/2012

Page 3 of 3

development in Macon County. U.S. Magistrate Judge Wallace Capel said that represents a potential conflict of interest and asked Gilley to understand the potential risks associated with retaining a lawyer whose firm represents other defendants in a conspiracy case. Gilley said he was aware of the conflict and is still retaining the firm. Gilley is the second of the original 11 defendants indicted in October on conspiracy and bribery charges to plead guilty. Gilley’s former lobbyist, Jarrod Massey, pleaded guilty in December and is currently serving time in federal prison. Massey’s former employee, Jennifer Pouncy, pleaded guilty in September of last year and will be sentenced in August. U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, the presiding judge in the case, can either accept or reject the recommendation of Capel to accept the plea agreement.

Dothan Eagle © Copyright 2012 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar1750568

9/23/2012

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 1 of 2

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/blogs/around-circle/2011/jun/09/13/attorneys-hopeful-jury-can-be-struckday-4-bingo-c-ar-1949359/

Published: June 09, 2011 Updated: June 09, 2011 - 5:11 PM Home / news / local /

Jury of 12 selected in bingo corruption trial
By Lance Griffin
5:10 p.m. – Attorneys could spend a lot of time behind closed doors this evening arguing several motions dealing with objections to evidence and exhibits both sides plan to use as well as other issues. While the composition of the jury has not been released to the public by the court, attorneys indicate a large number of women, at least 10 of the 12 and possibly 15 of the 17, counting alternates. The jury is also believed to be racially mixed. 4:20 p.m. – The judge is hearing arguments on several motions, some of which deal with material under seal. Therefore, the arguments are closed to the public. Only attorneys and defendants are present in the courtroom of Judge Myron Thompson. It is not known how long the motion hearings will last. Opening arguments will begin Friday at 9 a.m. 3:25 – It took less than 10 minutes the court and attorneys to reduce the number of qualified jurors to 12. Attorneys are now selecting the five alternates. As soon as that happens, the court will confirm the names behind closed doors. Once the judge and attorneys finished questioning potential jurors from the third panel, the process moved very quickly. Everyone returned the courtroom and the clerk began calling out juror numbers. The government and defense attorneys took alternating turns calling out the numbers of jurors they wanted to strike. Once everyone returned to open court, the process took less than 10 minutes. 1:55 p.m. – Attorneys returned from lunch at 1:30 and began interviewing remaining jury panelists. Smith attorney William White said four or five panelists had yet to be interviewed. He did say Judge Myron Thompson does want a jury struck by the end of the day, regardless of how long it takes to strike on. 11:17 – Attorneys continue to question individual jury panelists. Once a jury is struck, the court will hear arguments on several motions. Some may be held in open court and some may have to be held behind closed doors.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar1949359

9/23/2012

Page 2 of 2

Here is another picture this morning of Sen. Larry Means coming to the courthouse. 9:30 – McGregor attorney Joe Espy said he expects individual questioning of the third jury panel to finish between 11 a.m. and noon. He said the court should have enough qualified panelists to begin striking a final jury. He added, however, that nothing is guaranteed. 9:02 – Sen. Harri Anne Smith has been excused from jury panel questioning this morning due to the death of her uncle, Gene Hughes of Daleville. Smith remained in the courthouse Thursday, but did not have to be present for questioning. “He always said I was his favorite niece, but I think he told all of the nieces that,” Smith said. “He had a way of always making us feel real good.” Smith and Sen. Quinton Ross will be unable to cast votes on several important pieces of legislation today on the final day of the Alabama Legislature session. She said she is concerned about a bill that would allow United Way employees to participate in state health insurance coverage. A report from the Legislative Fiscal Office stated the bill would not directly affect state or local funding. 8:19 – Attorneys began Day 4 in the bingo corruption trial finishing the individual questions to the third and hopefully final jury panel. Jim Parkman, attorney for Harri Anne Smith, said he believed a jury would be struck today and that opening statements would probably start Friday morning. Once a jury is struck, attorneys will argue several pre-trial motions that will probably take up the rest of the day. It is not clear right now whether those arguments will take place in open court or in the judge’s chambers. Some of the motions could involve issues that are still under seal. Television crews spend the morning outside the Frank M. Johnson Federal Building filming defendants as they approach. In this picture, a crew tries to get a comment from Jay Walker.

Dothan Eagle © Copyright 2012 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar1949359

9/23/2012

ATTACHMENT 5

Page 1 of 3

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2011/jun/10/prosecution-defense-dig-bingo-corruption-trial-beg-ar1957326/

Published: June 10, 2011 Home / news / local /

Prosecution, defense dig in as bingo corruption trial begins
By Lance Griffin

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar1957326

9/23/2012

Page 2 of 3

MONTGOMERY – The battle lines were clearly drawn Friday at the end of opening statements here at the federal bingo corruption trial. Government prosecutor Justin Shur said although the case involves nine defendants and 39 counts, the case is pretty simple. Shur said the financial future of casino owners Milton McGregor and Ronnie Gilley rode on the passage of a crucial electronic bingo bill in the Alabama Legislature last year and they decided to do whatever it took. That meant, he said, bribing legislators. Some legislators accepted offers, others made offers themselves and a trio of lobbyists carried out the offers. Then, as the time for the bingo vote drew near, there were not enough votes to pass it. That’s when McGregor and Gilley upped the offers to a few willing legislators. “This is not politics as usual, not about legitimate lobbying, not about raising campaign funds. This is about greed and corruption. These defendants broke the law again and again and again,” Shur said during opening arguments. The defense, however, took the battle to three cooperating legislator witnesses — tabbed by McGregor attorney Joe Espy as the three amigos — two former defendants who pleaded guilty and would say anything for a reduced sentence, and overzealous investigators who took words in recorded conversations out of context and conjured up bribes and solicitations that never existed. “Milton McGregor did not cross the line, did not bribe anybody, did not commit a conspiracy,” Espy said. McGregor, current and former senators Harri Anne Smith, Quinton Ross, Larry Means and Jim Preuitt, along with lobbyists Bob Geddie and Tom Coker, consultant Jay Walker and legislative analyst Ray Crosby, are accused of working together to corruptly secure the passage of the bingo bill. Smith’s attorney, William White, attempted to establish a timeline to show Smith intended to support the bingo bill and did not change her vote for money or solicit illegal contributions. “The government has said this case is about greed and corruption. We don’t agree with that at all,” White said. “This case is about the right of the people to vote.” Shur, however, said the government would use the defendants’ own words to prove its case. Shur told the jury it would hear recorded conversations where bribes and solicitations were recorded. He added that the jury would need to connect the dots. “These people are not going to come out and say ‘OK, now I am offering you a bribe,’” Shur said. “That’s not how you talk when you are doing something illegally.” Espy said he expects the government to introduce less than 80 recorded conversations out of 12,000 recorded. Some information began to trickle out about the staggering amounts invested in Country Crossing. Susan James, attorney for Jay Walker, said Walker worked for two investors from Columbus, Ga., who had invested about $15 million into Country Crossing. James said Walker’s only involvement with Country Crossing was to make sure the investors did not lose their investment. Walker is charged in the

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar1957326

9/23/2012

Page 3 of 3

indictment of passing along a bribe offer from Gilley to Sen. Jim Preuitt. Opening statements took the entire day. Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, is expected to be the first witness Monday when testimony begins. Beason’s testimony could take two or three days. Beason is a cooperating witness referred to in the indictment as Legislator 2. Beason is expected to testify that McGregor and Gilley offered money and millions of dollars in public relations business for his support of electronic bingo legislation.

Dothan Eagle © Copyright 2012 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar1957326

9/23/2012

ATTACHMENT 6

Page 1 of 4

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/blogs/around-circle/2011/jun/21/15/mask-wraps-bingo-trial-attentionturns-benjamin-le-ar-2005910/

Published: June 21, 2011 Updated: June 21, 2011 - 9:58 PM Home / news / local /

Lewis wraps first day of testimony at bingo corruption trial
By Lance Griffin

U.S. vs. McGregor et al Summarizing the day of testimony at the bimgo corruption trial for Tuesday, June 21. The Big Thing: Houston County District Judge Benjamin Lewis made it to the stand late Tuesday afternoon. Lewis said he and Smith were both opposed to the Country Crossing project when it was announced for Houston County and that Smith verbally opposed the project in early meetings with Governor Bob Riley and Attorney General Troy King. Smith has said she changed her mind due to constituent response. Quote of the Day: “If we keep going like this we are going to be here until Christmas,” Prosecutor

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar2005910

9/23/2012

Page 2 of 4

Steve Feaga, responding to numerous objections from defense attorneys during testimony Tuesday morning. A Look Ahead: Lewis will spend more time on direct examination Wednesday, when he is expected to get into the heart of his cooperation with the FBI vote-buying investigation. His testimony will likely continue into Thursday. 6:37 p.m. -- Houston County District Judge Benjamin Lewis began what is expected to be 2-3 days of testimony in the federal bingo corruption trial here by claiming Sen. Harri Anne Smith initially opposed Country Crossing’s electronic bingo and sought to have it killed. Lewis took the stand late Tuesday afternoon and said he and Smith first learned of the Country Crossing development in February of 2008. Lewis said the two had several discussions about the development. “In one meeting I heard her saying she could not allow this to happen on her watch. She said she had been fighting gambling for 10 years and would not allow a casino to be built in her district on her watch,” Lewis said. Lewis said he, Smith and Dothan businessmen John Watson and John Downs had a meeting with Gov. Bob Riley soon after the development was announced for Houston County. He said the purpose of the meeting was to seek guidance from Riley about how to stop the electronic bingo portion of the project. “At any point did she say ‘Governor, all we want is the right of people to vote on this issue?’” Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Kang asked Lewis “No sir,” Lewis said. Smith attorney Jim Parkman said Lewis told “part of the story.” Parkman said evidence will show Smith changed her stance on electronic bingo at Country Crossing after conducting a poll in her district that showed strong support for the project. “After that poll, she said ‘I’ve got to do what the majority wants, regardless of my personal views,’” Parkman said following the trial session Tuesday. Following Tuesday’s testimony, the two sides debated a government motion to bar the defense from being able to cross examine Lewis about his judgeship appointment. Smith attorney Jim Parkman said the defense should be allowed to question Lewis about the judgeship because he plans to introduce evidence that Lewis told someone he would get the judgeship before the selection process ended. The defense claims the judgeship appointment was a political reward given to Lewis from Gov. Riley. U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson said he would rule Wednesday morning before testimony begins, but appeared inclined to deny the government’s motion and allow Lewis to be questioned about the judgeship. 4 p.m. -- Houston County District Judge Benjamin Lewis has taken the stand. His testimony will be summarized here on the blog. For running updates follow DothanEagle on Twitter.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar2005910

9/23/2012

Page 3 of 4

2:24 p.m. – The office manager for the Fine-Geddie lobbying firm testified Tuesday about ledger entries that initially identifed Milton McGregor as the source of funds for two campaign checks written to the Rep. Barry Mask campaign in February of 2010. Cheryl Farrow serves as the office manager for the lobbying firm Fine-Geddie and Associates. In earlier testimony, Rep. Barry Mask testified he had a conversation with Milton McGregor on Feb. 15 that led to a visit from lobbyist Robert Geddie the same evening at a Mask fundraiser. Mask testified Geddie delivered two checks of $2,500 each to Mask. In a recorded conversation between Mask and McGregor the day after the fundraiser, McGregor indicates he followed up on his commitment to support Mask. Contribution and debit ledgers kept by Farrow at Fine-Geddie for client Milton McGregor first indicated a $5,000 debit to the Barry Mask campaign from McGregor through two Geddie-controlled political action committees. That entry was later crossed out and corresponding $2,500 debits were noted on the ledgers of two other Geddie clients, Great Southern Wood and Protective Life Insurance. Farrow testified she doesn’t remember a specific conversation with Geddie about crossing out the McGregor ledger entry, but said she did not make ledger entries or corrections without direction from Geddie. “Why did you record the Mask contributions as coming from McGregor?” Assistant U.S. Attorney Emily Woods asked Farrow. “I suppose I was instructed to do it. I’m not sure. I don’t remember back that far,” Farrow said. The prosecution asserts Geddie directed Farrow to change the ledger for illegal purposes. 11:22 – The woman who hosted a fundraiser for Rep. Barry Mask February of 2010 testified this morning that two men showed up at the fundraiser without tickets and gave her an envelope with two $2,500 checks inside. Debbie Moore hosted the fundraiser at her brother’s barbecue restaurant in Tallassee. Moore testified that two or three days before the fundraiser, she said she received a call from a man named Will Benefield. She said her caller ID indicated the person as calling from VictoryLand in Macon County. Moore said the man wanted to buy all of her fundraiser tickets. Moore said she called Mask, then returned the call to Benefield and told him all of the tickets had been sold. Moore then testified Benefield said “We’re coming anyway.” Moore testified that during the fundraiser, two men showed up, asked for tickets, and handed Moore an envelope. Moore said she opened the envelope, saw two $2,500 checks, closed the envelope and placed it in a cash register with the other money from the fundraiser. The checks totaled $5,000. Moore said the fundraiser goal was $5,000, or 100 $50 tickets. 9:58 a.m. – Lewis Gillis, defense attorney for Sen. Quinton Ross, questioned Rep. Barry Mask extensively Tuesday morning about the campaign contribution process. Ross is accused of asking for money in exchange for his bingo legislation vote. According to the indictment, Ross contacted people connected with the gambling legislation and said he was not “feeling the love”, and wanted campaign donations. The indictment also pointed out that Ross was unopposed in the 2010 election year.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar2005910

9/23/2012

Page 4 of 4

During questioning from Gillis, Mask agreed with the Gillis line of questioning that it was not improper to ask for campaign contributions during a year in which the candidate is unopposed. Mask said it is proper because (1) a candidate could pop up at the last minute and (2) a war chest needs to be built up for the next election. “The smart candidate will not assume someone will not run against them, but be prepared to have an opponent. Would you say that is right?,” Gillis asked. “Yes sir. We say that all the time,” Mask responded. 8:30 a.m. -- Both sides in the bingo corruption trial will conclude questioning of Rep. Barry Mask today. After two or three relatively brief witnesses, the government is expected to put former Representative and current Houston County District Judge Benjamin Lewis on the stand. In case you missed it last night, the government has filed a motion with the court to keep the defense from cross examining Lewis about his appointment as a Houston County District Judge by Gov. Bob Riley. Additionally, the government does not want the defense to cross examine Lewis using an FBI analyst report that stated although Lewis was a "suitable" source to be used by the FBI, he could have a political motivation for cooperating with the government. Read the government motion here. Lewis Gillis, defense attorney for Sen. Quinton Ross, is now questioning Rep. Barry Mask.

Dothan Eagle © Copyright 2012 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar2005910

9/23/2012

ATTACHMENT 7

Page 1 of 2

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2011/jul/29/5/bingo-corruption-trial-tom-coker-defense-continuesar-2204257/

Published: July 29, 2011 Updated: July 29, 2011 - 11:42 AM Home / news / local /

Bingo corruption trial: Entire defense rests
By Lance Griffin

MONTGOMERY – Friday began as a morning just like any other morning here at the bingo corruption

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar2204257

9/23/2012

Page 2 of 2

trial. Then, suddenly, all nine defendants rested their case. Moments after the jury entered the courtroom, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson made a statement. “Mr. McGregor, I believe you have something to announce to the jury?” With that, Victoryland owner Milton McGregor and lead attorney Joe Espy walked to the lectern in the courtroom on the second floor of the Frank M. Johnson Federal Building. “Your honor, the McGregor defense rests,” Espy said. The remaining eight defendants followed suit, ending the defense portion of the case after one day and one witness. Closing arguments will begin Wednesday and are expected to last about two days. Thompson and the attorneys will spend Monday and Tuesday hammering out matters dealing with the length of the arguments and the proposed jury instructions. It is expected the jury will begin deliberations under full sequestration Friday. Thompson said he will also rule on renewed motions for acquittal Monday at 9 a.m. The defendants’ decisions to rest came as a surprise to many, and were made following a Thursday night meeting between attorneys in the case. Jim Parkman, attorney for Sen. Harri Anne Smith, said a perceived weary jury played into the decision. Jury selection in the case began June 6. “Our impression was that the jury got it, one way or another.”Parkman said. Only one defendant, lobbyist Tom Coker, had begun his defense case. Coker attorney Bill Baxley questioned Richard “Dickie” Whitaker, director of governmental affairs for the Medical Association of Alabama, about a $10,000 contribution Coker gave to defendant Sen. Quinton Ross on behalf of the association after the Senate passed pro gambling legislation. The government contended the Coker gave the money on behalf of McGregor through the medical association in response to Ross’ repeated requests for campaign donations in exchange for his vote on electronic bingo legislation. Government prosecutor Edward Kang aggressively cross-examined Whitaker for most of the day Thursday.

Dothan Eagle © Copyright 2012 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar2204257

9/23/2012

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 1 of 2

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2011/aug/05/jury-gets-bingo-corruption-case-ar-2236308/

Published: August 05, 2011 Home / news / local /

Jury gets bingo corruption case
By Lance Griffin
MONTGOMERY – Jurors began deliberating the 37 counts in the bingo corruption trial on Friday, 61 days after jury selection began. Jurors retired to begin deliberations after U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson instructed the jury on the law related the counts, providing legal definitions of terms related to the case and explaining the elements of each offense and the burden the government must meet in order for jurors to return a conviction. The jury will deliberate 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. on Saturday, 1-5 p.m. on Sunday, and 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. each day after that until they reach a verdict. The jury is sequestered through deliberations. The jury is sequestered through deliberations. VictoryLand owner Milton McGregor, lobbyists Robert Geddie and Tom Coker, former Sens. Larry Means and Jim Preuitt, current Sens. Quinton Ross and Harri Anne Smith, former Country Crossing spokesperson Jay Walker and legislative analyst Ray Crosby are charged on several different counts, including conspiracy, federal programs bribery, extortion and honest services fraud. Preuitt is also charged with making false statements to the FBI and Smith is also charged with money laundering. The defendants face significant time in federal prison if convicted on some or all of the counts. Prior to instructions, the jury heard final rebuttal closing arguments from government prosecutor Steve Feaga, who quoted the Greek philosopher Euripides to summarize the government’s case. “They say the gods themselves are moved by gifts, and gold does more with men than words,” Feaga said. “Here, you saw money being offered to get people to do things.” Feaga spent extensive time on Smith’s alleged involvement in the conspiracy, due in part to the number of counts against her in the indictment. “She would have you believe and her lawyers would have you believe that she is not in a conspiracy with Ronnie Gilley, yet she can pick up the phone and ask him for $400,000 in campaign contributions like it’s nothing?” Feaga asked.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar2236308

9/23/2012

Page 2 of 2

Susan James, attorney for Walker, offered the final closing argument for the defendants. “The phone calls don’t make a conspiracy. The numbers of calls don’t make a conspiracy,” Walker said. -----------Bingo corruption verdicts will be published immediately on Twitter. Follow @Dothaneagle on Twitter. Verdicts will then be posted on Dothaneagle.com and the Dothan Eagle Facebook page as soon as possible.

Dothan Eagle © Copyright 2012 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar2236308

9/23/2012

ATTACHMENT 9

Page 1 of 6

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/blogs/around-circle/2011/aug/11/bingo-verdicts-count-ar-2262735/

Published: August 11, 2011 Home / news / local /

Bingo verdicts by count
By Lance Griffin
Count-by-count summary of the charges against the defendants in the gambling corruption trial, and the corresponding verdicts rendered by the jury (not including honest services fraud charges):

Count 1, Conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery The indictment contends the following people entered into a conspiracy to corruptly influence or solicit corrupt offers to ensure the passage of pro-gambling legislation in the Alabama Legislature. Ronnie Gilley, Jarrod Massey and Jennifer Pouncy have pleaded guilty to this count: Milton McGregor: Hung Tom Coker: Hung Robert Geddie: Not Guilty Larry Means: Hung Jim Preuitt: Hung Quinton Ross: Not Guilty Harri Anne Smith: Hung Jay Walker: Hung

Count 2: Federal Programs Bribery Sen. Harri Anne Smith offered more than $200,000 in campaign contributions to then-Rep. Benjamin

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar2262735

9/23/2012

Page 2 of 6

Lewis on March 4, 2009, during a dinner meeting at Garrett’s Restaurant. Ronnie Gilley and Jarrod Massey have pleaded guilty to this count: Harri Anne Smith: Not Guilty

Count 3: Dismissed

Count 4, Federal Programs Bribery Milton McGregor offered money or things of value to Sen. Scott Beason between Feb. 18 and Feb. 23, 2010, in exchange for his vote on pro-gambling legislation. Gilley and Massey have pleaded guilty to this count: Milton McGregor: Hung

Count 5, Federal Programs Bribery Milton McGregor promised to give campaign contributions of about $100,000 to Larry Means in exchange for Means’ vote on pro-gambling legislation. Gilley and Massey have pleaded guilty to this count: Milton McGregor: Hung

Count 6, Federal Programs Bribery Larry Means agreed to accept $100,000 in campaign contributions from Gilley, Massey and Pouncy in exchange for his vote on pro-gambling legislation. Gilley and Massey have pleaded guilty to this count: Larry Means: Hung

Count 7, Federal Programs Bribery Larry Means agreed to accept an unspecified amount of campaign contributions from Milton McGregor in exchange for his vote on pro-gambling legislation. Larry Means: Not Guilty

Count 8: Federal Programs Bribery

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar2262735

9/23/2012

Page 3 of 6

Milton McGregor, Jay Walker, and Tom Coker offered up to $2 million in campaign money as well as the use of country music stars and other things of value to Jim Preuitt in exchange for his vote on progambling legislation. Gilley and Massey have pleaded guilty to this count: Milton McGregor: Hung Jay Walker: Hung Tom Coker: Hung

Count 9, Federal Programs Bribery Jim Preuitt is charged with agreeing to accept up to $2 million in campaign money as well as the use of country music stars and other things of value from Ronnie Gilley, Jarrod Massey, Milton McGregor, Tom Coker and Jay Walker Jim Preuitt: Hung

Count 10, Federal Programs Bribery Milton McGregor, Tom Coker and others offered things of value, including promises of $25,000 and other unspecified amounts, to Quinton Ross. Gilley and Massey pleaded guilty to this count: Milton McGregor: Not Guilty Tom Coker: Not Guilty

Count 11, Federal Programs Bribery Quinton Ross accepted things of value, including promises of $25,000 campaign contributions and other unspecified amounts, from Milton McGregor, Tom Coker, Jarrod Massey and Ronnie Gilley, in exchange for his support of pro-gambling legislation. Quinton Ross: Not Guilty

Count 12, Federal Programs Bribery Quinton Ross agreed to accept an unspecified amount of campaign contributions from Milton McGregor and Tom Coker in exchange for his support of pro-gambling legislation. Quinton Ross: Not Guilty

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar2262735

9/23/2012

Page 4 of 6

Count 13: Gilley pleaded guilty to this count

Count 14, Federal Programs Bribery Harri Anne Smith solicited and agreed to accept at least $400,000 for her campaign from Ronnie Gilley, intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with an upcoming vote on pro-gambling legislation: Harri Anne Smith: Hung

Count 15, Federal Programs Bribery Milton McGregor gave $42,000, in monthly payments of $3,000, to Ray Crosby, a legislative analyst with the Alabama Legislative Reference Service, to influence and reward Crosby in connection with his official acts as they pertained to drafting gambling legislation, including SB380: Milton McGregor: Hung

Count 16, Federal Programs Bribery Ray Crosby accepted $42,000, in monthly payments of $3,000, from Milton McGregor, to influence and reward Crosby in connection with his official acts as they pertained to drafting gambling legislation, including SB380: Ray Crosby: Hung

Count 17, Extortion Quinton Ross solicited and pressured Milton McGregor and Tom Coker, under the color of official right, to consent to provide an unspecified amount of campaign contributions for the benefit of Ross: Quinton Ross: Not Guilty

Count 18, Extortion Quinton Ross pressured Ronnie Gilley and Jarrod Massey to consent to provide approximately $25,000 in campaign contributions for the benefit of Ross:

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar2262735

9/23/2012

Page 5 of 6

Quinton Ross: Not Guilty

Count 19, Extortion Larry Means solicited and, directly and through others, pressured Milton McGregor, under the color of official right, to consent to provide an unspecified amount of campaign contributions for the benefit of Means: Larry Means: Not Guilty

Count 20, Extortion Larry Means solicited and, directly and through others, pressured Ronnie Gilley, Jarrod Massey, and Jennifer Pouncy, under the color of official right, to consent to provide approximately $100,000 in campaign contributions for the benefit of Means: Larry Means: Not Guilty

Count 21, Extortion Harri Anne Smith solicited and, directly and through others, pressured Ronnie Gilley, under the color of official right, to consent to provide at least $400,000 in campaign contributions for the benefit of Smith: Harri Anne Smith: Not Guilty

Count 22, Extortion: Jim Preuitt agreed to accept at least $2 million in campaign support and the services of prominent country music stars for campaign purposes, among other things of value, from Ronnie Gilley, Jarrod Massey, Milton McGregor, Tom Coker, Jay Walker, and Jennifer Pouncy, which things of value were not due to Preuitt: Jim Preuitt: Not Guilty

Counts 34-37, Money Laundering Ronnie Gilley and Harri Anne Smith knowingly conducted and attempted to conduct financial transactions, which transactions involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity. Gilley pleaded

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar2262735

9/23/2012

Page 6 of 6

guilty to this count: Harri Anne Smith: Hung Harri Anne Smith: Hung Harri Anne Smith: Hung Harri Anne Smith: Hung

Count 38, False Statements Jim Preuitt knowingly made false statements to FBI investigators, specifically that he was never offered anything of value in exchange for his vote to pass pro-gambling legislation, and that he was unaware of private individuals, lobbyists, or legislators being involved in the offer or acceptance of things of value in exchange for votes to pass pro-gambling legislation: Jim Preuitt: Hung

Count 39, Obstruction of Justice Robert Geddie sought to change a ledger entry that indicated Milton McGregor was the source of two $2,500 contributions to Rep. Barry Mask, and Geddie caused to be produced to law enforcement officials, in response to multiple grand jury subpoenas, originals as well as copies of the altered contribution ledgers. Robert Geddie: Not Guilty

Dothan Eagle © Copyright 2012 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar2262735

9/23/2012

ATTACHMENT 10

Page 1 of 2

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2011/oct/21/3/judge-witnesses-aimed-suppress-voter-turnout-ar2586836/

Published: October 21, 2011 Updated: October 21, 2011 - 10:33 AM Home / news / local /

Judge: Bingo witnesses aimed to suppress voter turnout
By Associated Press
MONTGOMERY — The judge who presided over Alabama's gambling corruption trial said two of the prosecution's key witnesses, including a former Houston County state representative, demonstrated “a deep-seated racial animus” and a desire to suppress black voter turnout when they helped the FBI investigate claims of Statehouse vote buying. U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson released a blistering 44-page opinion Thursday evening that said state Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, and former Rep. Benjamin Lewis, R-Dothan, portrayed themselves as lawmakers trying to root out corruption when they recorded meetings and phone calls with gambling proponents. But the judge said they were trying to keep a pro-gambling referendum off Alabama's 2010 general election ballot to suppress black voter turnout and help Republicans gain control of the Legislature. “The court finds that Beason and Lewis lack credibility for two reasons. First, their motive for cooperating with F.B.I. investigators was not to clean up corruption but to increase Republican political fortunes by reducing African-American voter turnout. Second, they lack credibility because the record establishes their purposeful, racist intent.” The judge based his views, in part, on a recording Beason made of himself and other Republican legislators at the Statehouse, where they discussed how having the gambling issue on the general election ballot would bring out more black voters and hurt the GOP's chances of ending Democrats’ 136 years of legislative dominance. In that conversation, Beason referred to customers of a dog track in predominantly black Greene County as “aborigines.” Thompson, who was appointed by Democratic President Jimmy Carter to be the first black federal judge in Alabama's Middle District, said evidence presented in the gambling corruption trial showed the two Republican lawmakers schemed “to maintain and strengthen white control of the political system. It is intolerable in our society for lawmakers to use public office as a tool for racial exclusion and polarization.”

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar2586836

9/23/2012

Page 2 of 2

Beason said Friday he was still studying Thompson's opinion and would make a statement later. Lewis was appointed by Alabama's anti-gambling governor to a judgeship in Houston County after helping the FBI. “It’s been suggested to me by the government not to comment. Being a judge I think it’s not appropriate for me to comment,” Lewis told a reporter at the Dothan Eagle. “I hope at some point I can talk about it.” During the trial, Beason and Lewis said they contacted the FBI with concerns about bribery in the 2009 session of the Legislature. At that time, gambling advocates were trying to get the Legislature to approve a statewide referendum to legalize electronic bingo machines. At that time, the bill placed the referendum on the primary election ballot in June 2010. The bill's Democratic sponsors later changed the proposed referendum to the 2010 general election that the judge cited in his opinion. Even though the judge was critical of the two witnesses’ motives, he ruled Thursday that their testimony can be used again when the conspiracy case is retried because “the government has proven the existence of an illegal vote-buying conspiracy by a preponderance of evidence.” He said that preponderance of evidence included showing that indicted VictoryLand casino owner Milton McGregor “served as the conspiracy's director in terms of financing, strategy and core objectives.” But he said that a preponderance of evidence is less evidence than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is needed to convict someone. He said his remarks should not be viewed as any indication of how he thinks a retrial will turn out. The first trial ended in August with two defendants, Democratic Sen. Quinton Ross and lobbyist Bob Geddie, cleared and the jury unable to decide all charges against seven other defendants. No one was convicted. The remaining seven defendants, including McGregor, Republican Sen. Harri Anne Smith, former Democratic Sen. Larry Means, and former Republican Sen. Jim Preuitt, are scheduled for retrial in January. Before the case went to trial, Country Crossing casino developer Ronnie Gilley and two of his lobbyists pleaded guilty to conspiring to offer bribes to legislators if they would vote for the legislation. That legislation died in the Alabama House after the FBI announced its Statehouse investigation, and it was not on the general election ballot. In the general election, Republicans won control of the Legislature.

Dothan Eagle © Copyright 2012 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar2586836

9/23/2012

ATTACHMENT 11

Judge Denies Government's Request To Retry Bingo Defendants Individually

Page 1 of 1

Judge Denies Government's Request To Retry Bingo Defendants Individually
Updated: December 9, 2011

A federal judge has denied the government's request to break the remaining seven defendants in the bingo vote buying case into three separate retrials. Prosecutors wanted VictoryLand owner Milton McGregor and legislative analyst Ray Crosby to be retried first. Senator Harri Anne Smith of Slocumb would go second. The last retrial would consist of lobbyist Thomas Coker, VictoryLand spokesman Jay Walker, and former Senators Jim Preuitt of Talladega and Larry Means of Attalla. But the judge believed a duplication of testimony and evidence in the three retrials would be a waste of time and resources. "The real motive behind the severance request appears to be that the government believes convictions are more likely in three separate retrials. Rather than confront a seven-defendant retrial, the government wants to cherry-pick the defendants," wrote U.S. Judge Myron Thompson. The retrial will begin January 30.

http://dothanfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=195187

9/23/2012

ATTACHMENT 12

Page 1 of 2

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2012/jan/30/6/bingo-corruption-retrial-to-start-next-monday-ar3136707/

Published: January 30, 2012 Updated: January 30, 2012 - 2:55 PM Home / news / local /

Bingo corruption retrial to start next Monday
By Lance Griffin

MONTGOMERY – The start of the bingo corruption retrial has been delayed one week in the wake of the death of one of the defendants. Defense attorney David McKnight said U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson set Feb. 6 at 9 a.m. as the beginning of jury selection. The retrial was set to begin Monday, Jan. 30, but defendant and former legislative analyst Ray Crosby was found dead in his home Sunday. The Montgomery Police Department confirmed the death and said a death investigation is under way. No other details were released. Prosecutors and defense attorneys met with U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson behind closed doors for 45 minutes Monday afternoon. No other details of the meeting were made public. Attorneys declined further comment.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar3136707

9/23/2012

Page 2 of 2

Crosby was charged with one count of bribery in connection with the federal vote buying investigation made public in October of 2010, when 11 people were arrested. Prosecutors contend Crosby accepted $3,000 per month for a period of 14 months from casino owner Milton McGregor in exchange for favorable language in pro-gambling legislation. Crosby crafted bills in his position at the Legislative Reference Service in Montgomery. Crosby was cleared of some charges in the first bingo corruption trial last summer, but the jury could not reach a consensus on the bribery count. When the trial begins, six defendants will stand trial on charges ranging from conspiracy to bribery to money laundering. The six remaining defendants are McGregor, former Sens. Larry Means and Jim Preuitt, former Country Crossing spokesperson Jay Walker, Sen. Harri Anne Smith, I-Slocomb, and lobbyist Tom Coker. A total of 30 counts remain undecided.

Dothan Eagle © Copyright 2012 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar3136707

9/23/2012

ATTACHMENT 13

Page 1 of 3

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2012/feb/06/spicer-abramoff-among-potential-bingo-retrial-witn-ar3183105/

Published: February 06, 2012 Home / news / local /

Spicer, Abramoff among potential bingo retrial witnesses
By Lance Griffin

MONTGOMERY – Prosecutors and attorneys held to the same recipe Monday at the beginning of jury selection in the bingo corruption trial, but added a few new ingredients. There was a new chief prosecutor in U.S. Attorney Kendall Day, at least one new government witness in former State Rep. Terry Spicer, a championship boxer as a potential witness and at least the specter of former Gov. Bob Riley and former Washington super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff on the witness stand before the end of the second version of this trial. Opening arguments won’t begin until a jury has been selected, but Day indicated Monday that despite the new ingredients, the case will come down to the same determination prosecutors sought during the first trial.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar3183105

9/23/2012

Page 2 of 3

“What you and I are talking about is using your common sense to draw some conclusions,” Day said. “This is not Hollywood. We don’t have a machine to tell you what (the defendants) were actually thinking.” During the initial trial in the summer of 2011, jurors acquitted nine defendants on 91 counts associated with the case. Two defendants were acquitted on all counts. The jury, however, deadlocked on more than 30 counts. After the sudden death of defendant Ray Crosby Jan. 29, six defendants remain to stand trial on the undecided counts. VictoryLand owner Milton McGregor, lobbyist Tom Coker, former Sens. Jim Preuitt and Larry Means, Sen. Harri Anne Smith and former Country Crossing spokesperson Jay Walker are charged with conspiracy and bribery. Smith faces additional money laundering counts and Preuitt faces an additional charge of making false statements to investigators. The charges come in connection with what prosecutors allege was a scheme to ensure the passage of pro-gambling legislation in the Alabama Legislature in 2009 and 2010. During jury questioning, Day compared the case to a man who walked into the courtroom with wet clothes and an umbrella. Day indicated that although the panel could not see outside, it could be assumed that it had been raining. Day said that although the word “bribe” was not uttered by any of the defendants on the thousands of recorded phone calls, their actions indicated bribes were taking place. Defense attorneys, however, painted a different picture during questioning. Bobby Segall, attorney for McGregor, asked potential jurors a myriad of questions about their views on government, police, investigators, religion, taxes and even Alabama’s immigration law. Segall stressed that McGregor and the other attorneys entered the case “cloaked in innocence” and remained cloaked until the government proved every element of the charge or charges. While the government has indicated in pre-trial documentation that it does not plan to call two of its primary witnesses from the first trial, Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, and Houston County District Judge Benjamin Lewis, were listed on the potential witness list by the prosecution. One new name on the prosecution witness list was former State Rep. Terry Spicer, who pleaded guilty last year to one count of bribery in connection with illegal payments he received from former defendants Jarrod Massey and Ronnie Gilley. New names listed on McGregor’s potential witness list were Riley and Abramoff. Attorneys for Riley were able to quash his subpoena to testify during the first trial, but U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled Riley could be forced to testify during the retrial. Abramoff was convicted of conspiracy and mail fraud in 2006 in connection with a wide-ranging public corruption investigation in Washington. Almost 70 names are on the potential witness list for Smith, including many of the same people who were on the list during the first trial. Houston County Commission Chairman Mark Culver, Dothan Mayor Mike Schmitz, Dothan Area Chamber of Commerce President Matt Parker, Dothan Area Convention and Visitors Bureau director Bob Hendrix, Dothan Police Chief Greg Benton, former Dothan police chief John White, State Rep. Steve Clouse, R-Ozark, and Circuit Judge Larry Anderson are all potential witnesses listed by Smith. Dothan businessmen John Watson and John Downs were both listed as witnesses that could be called by McGregor and/or Smith. Other notable potential witnesses include country music singers George Jones, Lorrie Morgan and Randy Owen, who were all believed to have been investors and spokespersons for Country Crossing.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar3183105

9/23/2012

Page 3 of 3

Boxer Floyd Mayweather, Jr., who was believed to have been an investor in Country Crossing as well, is listed as a potential witness by Smith. People named on the witness list may or may not be called to testify. Thompson did mention the death of Crosby while addressing the first jury panel. He said Crosby’s died of natural causes and his death should have no affect on the panelists’ ability to render a verdict on any of the charges. Jury selection will continue until 12 jurors and four alternates are seated.

Dothan Eagle © Copyright 2012 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar3183105

9/23/2012

ATTACHMENT 14

Page 1 of 3

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2012/feb/28/gilley-center-closing-arguments-gambling-corruptioar-3318719/

Published: February 28, 2012 Home / news / local /

Gilley at center of closing arguments in gambling corruption retrial
By Lance Griffin

MONTGOMERY – It is rare when prosecutors and attorneys claim the same motivation bring defendants into a courtroom on felony charges, but it happened Tuesday in the gambling corruption retrial.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar3318719

9/23/2012

Page 2 of 3

During closing arguments, prosecutors said desperation led casino owners Milton McGregor and Ronnie Gilley to resort to bribery in a last-ditch attempt to protect their casinos from task force raids through the passage of pro-gambling legislation. Defense attorneys, however, said it was the desperation of Gilley — jailed in early 2011 after violating the terms of his pre-trial release — that led him to concoct stories against the defendants in an attempt to curry favor with the government in hopes getting out of jail and earning a reduced prison sentence. Closing arguments will conclude Wednesday. Tuesday began with Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Kang outlining what the government contends was an organized conspiracy to buy and sell votes, even if all the alleged conspirators weren’t on the same page at every point in the conspiracy. Kang said the bribes Gilley said he offered, along with the bribes alleged to have been offered by McGregor, were small in comparison to the potential profits both would have realized if their casinos could be reopened. Kang said McGregor’s VictoryLand went from a $40 million profit to a $4 million loss after the threat of raids closed the casino. “The perfect storm for corrupting the Alabama Legislature all came together in March of 2010,” Kang said Tuesday. Kang said Gilley and McGregor were the desperate casino owners who put up the cash, Coker and Walker were the go-betweens motivated by money and Smith, Preutt and Means were the “powerhungry senators” who provided key votes. Kang said the three senators charged “all understood that promises of contributions and other campaign support were conditional on voting yes.” “This is not how our elected officials are supposed to act,” Kang said. “They are supposed to be protecting the interests of the people, not Ronnie Gilley’s and Milton McGregor’s pocketbook.” Kang spent several minutes outlining what he believes was a corrupt relationship between Gilley and Smith spanning more than two years in which Gilley committed several hundred thousand dollars to Smith’s campaign in exchange for Smith’s vote and her influence on other legislators. Kang outlined four $50,000 checks Gilley wrote to four different political action committees in March of 2010 after Smith called Gilley and told him she needed $400,000 to finish out her Senate campaign. Kang said evidence showed that Gilley’s money went from those four political action committees to five other political action committees. Kang played a portion of a recorded phone call between her and Gilley in which Smith indicated that Gilley’s donations were intended to go through more than one PAC. “At the same time, Smith said Country Crossing would be great for Houston County and that a significant amount of her constituents supported Country Crossing. If Country Crossing was so great for Houston County, shouldn’t she be proud to be receiving that money from Ronnie Gilley, the man that was building that facility? The only explanation that makes common sense is that she knew that money was for bribery and she intended to hide it,” Kang said. However, attorneys for every defendant attacked Gilley’s credibility. Susan James, attorney for former Country Crossing spokesperson Jay Walker, said Gilley’s stay in the Montgomery Municipal Jail in early 2011 was such a negative experience that he decided to cooperate with the government and felt his

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar3318719

9/23/2012

Page 3 of 3

only chance at a reduced sentence was to “bring the other defendants down.” Jim Parkman, attorney for Sen. Harri Anne Smith, suggested that Gilley’s support of Harri Anne Smith was not intended to be a bribe for Smith’s vote, but rather as a counteroffensive against Smith’s senate opponent George Flowers, who he believed would opposed Country Crossing. Parkman also suggested Gilley supported Smith to thwart the chances of 2008 Congressional opponent Jay Love, who financed attack ads against Smith and Gilley. Parkman indicated that Gilley’s financial support of Smith’s campaign came after Smith had already changed her position on Country Crossing in 2008, adding that the two had not even met until Smith pulled her controversial 2008 bill that would have defined bingo in Houston County as a game played on paper if passed by a vote of the people. Parkman said it would have been impossible for Smith to sell her vote because her position had already changed before receiving any Gilley money. He referred to a press conference Smith gave in April of 2008 after withdrawing her bingo bill in which she said her decision was made based on an overwhelming response from her constituents. “How do you sell your vote when you are doing what the people want?” Parkman asked. Closing arguments conclude Wednesday morning. Parkman used visual props and played off the famous “Top Ten List” from David Letterman’s late night talk show to highlight ten pieces of evidence against Smith. Parkman discussed each piece and said the accusations were not supported by evidence. “Things don’t start falling in line,” Parkman said. Closing arguments conclude Wednesday morning with statements from the McGregor defense and final statements from the prosecution. The jury is not expected to begin deliberations until Thursday because a juror has a doctor’s appointment later Wednesday.

Dothan Eagle © Copyright 2012 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar3318719

9/23/2012

ATTACHMENT 15

Page 1 of 3

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2012/mar/07/5/mcgregor-attorney-clear-and-convincingvindication-ar-3369008/

Published: March 07, 2012 Updated: March 07, 2012 - 12:00 PM Home / news / local /

McGregor attorney: Clear and convincing vindication
By Lance Griffin

MONTGOMERY – It was a retrial that had everything. There were suggestions of code language used to hide bribe offers, of a grand conspiracy designed to buy the passage of legislation, of drop phones and clandestine meetings from Troy to Montgomery. There were allegations of a politically-motivated prosecution, of government manipulation of witnesses and of race-driven testimony. What the gambling corruption retrial did not have, however, were convictions. A jury comprised of residents from the River region of central Alabama acquitted all six remaining

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar3369008

9/23/2012

Page 2 of 3

defendants of all 27 charges Wednesday morning. VictoryLand owner Milton McGregor, lobbyist Tom Coker, former Sens. Larry Means and Jim Preuitt, Sen. Harri Anne Smith and former Country Crossing spokesperson Jay Walker all walked out of the Frank Johnson Federal Building cleared of all charges. Defendants and even some jurors wept as the verdicts were read in open court. When the court clerk announced acquittals on all charges from the first defendant, McGregor, other defendants began to cry. By the time all 27 counts were announced, defendants, attorneys and family members embraced. McGregor attorney Joe Espy called the verdicts “clear and convincing vindication of Milton McGregor and all of the defendants.” McGregor’s confidence in the verdicts Wednesday was indicated when he said he wrote a statement in anticipation of the verdicts at 4 a.m., more than five hours before the verdicts were announced. “I’m not going to say a lot about the case, but I will say this: I love my country. But, I despise what the government has done to me and the other defendants. The government lawyers and investigators say they represent the United States, but they trampled on the Constitution they’re sworn to defend,” McGregor said. Espy said McGregor is considering taking “appropriate legal action against people who may have wrongfully caused this action.” Espy did not elaborate. Smith, I-Slocomb, said her primary emotion was relief following the verdicts. “I knew I was innocent,” she said. “My faith carried me through this.” Smith attorney Jim Parkman said he did not intend to consider any additional legal action. “They can do what they want to do. This issue is over for us,” Parkman said. The verdicts were a second stinging defeat for the U.S. Department of Justice Public Integrity Unit and signaled a rejection from two juries of the government’s assertion that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to ensure the passage of pro-gambling legislation through bribes. Prosecutors entered the second trial with a new team and a new strategy. Lead prosecutor Justin Shur was replaced by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kendall Day. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Steve Faega and Louis Franklin, both from Alabama, did not participate in the second case. Prosecutors called only nine witnesses and played only 43 recorded conversations over 10 days of testimony. During the first trial, 17 witnesses testified and more than 125 recorded conversations were played over seven weeks of testimony. Prosecutors relied heavily on the testimony of former Country Crossing developer Ronnie Gilley, one of the 11 original defendants arrested in October of 2010. Gilley pleaded guilty in April of 2011 and agreed to provide testimony in both trials. Gilley’s time on the stand during the retrial comprised almost half of all testimony in the case. Attorneys for each defendant hammered away at Gilley’s credibility. The defendants were granted access to recordings of phone calls Gilley made while in custody at the Montgomery Municipal Jail and

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar3369008

9/23/2012

Page 3 of 3

used them in their cross examination of Gilley. The McGregor defense suggested the prosecution of the case was politically motivated. During closing arguments, Espy questioned the timing of the public notice of the investigation. Members of the Alabama Statehouse were made aware of the investigation the day after the pro-gambling bill at the center of the case passed the Senate. The bill eventually died in the House. Espy also questioned the political motivation of the cooperating witnesses as well as the motivation of three legislators who used recording devices to assist the investigation. Three of the original 11 defendants have pleaded guilty. Walker, who was sent to the Country Crossing development as a spokesperson by two large investors from Georgia, said he has no current plans to become involved in Alabama politics again. “I came from a place where politics were not like this,” Walker said. “This was politically motivated. Everyone knows it was.”

Dothan Eagle © Copyright 2012 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar3369008

9/23/2012

EXHIBIT 17

Page 1 of 2

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2012/sep/20/judge-will-not-recuse-himself-bingo-case-ar-4588556/

Published: September 20, 2012 Home / news / local /

Judge will not recuse himself from bingo case
By Lance Griffin

The local judge assigned to the bingo forfeiture case in Houston County refused to step away from the case for a second time, stating that the most recent motion asking him to step aside appeared to be crafted for “media dissemination.” Circuit Judge Michael Conaway’s strongly-worded order takes aim at the Houston Economic Development Association’s motion asking him to recuse himself from the case because of an apparent business tie to a vocal opponent of electronic bingo at Country Crossing/Center Stage. “The movant (HEDA) ‘boot-straps’ its argument off a two-year old media article, irrelevant public

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar4588556

9/23/2012

Page 2 of 2

documents, and exhibits which are woven into a limited or flawed narrative,” Conaway states in his order filed Thursday. “The motion appears to be framed for media dissemination as opposed to judicial consideration. It is full of innuendo, inferences, hearsay, speculation and opinion. Again, there are no facts alleged which would show the Court has any bias, hostility or prejudice.” Conaway is presiding over a forfeiture case involving the seizure of more than 600 electronic bingo machines and $283,000 from the bingo pavilion at Center Stage Alabama on July 25. The Attorney General claims the machines are illegal under state law and that the cash seized was revenue from illegal gambling activities. HEDA, which operates bingo at Center Stage, claims the seizure was unlawful and that the state must return the cash and machines. Hearings in the case are set for Sept. 26. HEDA also questioned Conaway’s appointment to the bench by then-Gov. Bob Riley, who created a task force while in office that attempted to conduct raids on Country Crossing. HEDA further questioned an alleged recommendation for Conaway’s appointment by bingo opponents. Conaway addressed the matter in his Thursday order. “Finally, let me put one thing to rest. While I serve the good people of this State by appointment, I perform my judicial functions with diligence, determination and dedication. I am always mindful of my oath of office and the responsibility I have to the law and the citizens of the state. My record of judicial service speaks for itself and stands up to scrutiny.” HEDA had asked for additional time to gather evidence to support its motion, and had also asked for time to respond to the State’s motion filed earlier this week. Conaway’s Thursday filing appears to indicate no other orders are expected prior to the Sept. 26 hearing. HEDA attorney Ernie Hornsby said HEDA plans to take the recusal issue to a higher court, most likely the Alabama Supreme Court. “Based on the apparent decision not to allow additional time for discovery, to hold a hearing or to respond to the state’s response, we feel that we have no other choice than to petition for a writ of Mandamus,” Hornsby said.

Dothan Eagle © Copyright 2012 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/member-center/share-this/print/?content=ar4588556

9/23/2012

EXHIBIT 18

EXHIBIT 19

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 6/25/2010 3:18 PM CV-2010-000108.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA HOUSTON COUNTY COMMISSION Plaintiff, v. HOUSTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO: CV-2010-108

ANSWER AND VERIFIED COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANT HOUSTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION COMES NOW Defendant Houston Economic Development Association (“HEDA”), by and through undersigned counsel, and in answer and counterclaim to the Declaratory Judgment Complaint in the Nature of an Interpleader (the “Complaint”) of Plaintiff Houston County Commission (the “Commission”), hereby states as follows:

RESPONSES TO ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT 1. To the extent not inconsistent with any factual averment in HEDA’s Counterclaim

set forth below, HEDA admits all factual averments of paragraphs 1 through 9 of the Complaint, with the following exceptions: A. With regard to the allegations of the second sentence of paragraph 5,

which refers to the contents of a written correspondence dated December 4, 2009, and the allegations of the first, second, and third sentences of paragraph 9, which refer to the contents of a written correspondence dated February 22, 2010, HEDA states that, to the extent the Complaint does not refer to such writings accurately and/or in their entirety, HEDA states that the terms of such writings, which speak for themselves, should control.

B.

With regard to the allegations of the fourth sentence of paragraph 5,

HEDA states that additional facts further discussed below, which were unknown to either HEDA or the Commission, bear on the understanding and expectation of the parties as to the intentions of the Governor’s Task Force. 2. With regard to Count I of the Complaint, HEDA agrees that a justiciable

controversy exists as to its entitlement to a return of a pro rata portion of the December 31, 2009 payment in the amount of $1,693,000 for machine bingo stamps and agrees that it is appropriate for the Commission to depositing $1,001,916 with the Clerk of the Court. However, as further set forth in HEDA’s Counterclaim, HEDA denies that $1,001,916 represents all of the money to which HEDA is legally entitled, denies that the Commission’s deposit of $1,001,916 with the Clerk of the Court will discharge all of the Commission’s potential liability to HEDA, denies that any encumbrance upon money in the possession of the Commission or Houston County can reduce the amount of money to which HEDA is legally entitled, and denies that any obligation of the Commission, Houston County, or any other person or entity has any affect on the amount of money to which HEDA is legally entitled.

VERIFIED COUNTERCLAIM COMES NOW HEDA, as Defendant/Plaintiff in Counterclaim, and as its counterclaim against Plaintiff/Defendant in Counterclaim the Commission, states the following: 1. 2. Alabama. HEDA is an Alabama non-profit corporation organized as a private club. The Commission is the duly constituted governing body of Houston County, Pursuant to Ala. Const. Amend. No. 569, the Commission is responsible for

promulgating rules and regulations regarding the issuance of permits to qualifying nonprofit organizations and private clubs for the operation of bingo games in Houston County, Alabama. 2

3.

On September 22, 2008, the Commission enacted Resolution 08-25 (the

“Resolution”), entitled “Promulgating Updated Rules and Regulations for the Operation of Charitable Bingo in Houston County,” which provided, inter alia, for the issuance of a Class C Bingo Permit to a Qualifying Nonprofit Organization. Subject to certain terms and conditions set forth in the Resolution, the holder of a Class C Bingo Permit can operate bingo games that are played on electronic player stations. A true and correct copy of the Resolution is attached as Exhibit 1. 4. Section 8(a) of the Resolution provides that “No Qualifying Nonprofit

Organization shall be allowed to operate Bingo Games on an electronic player station (“EPS Device”) unless there is a current calendar year Machine Bingo Stamp affixed on each EPS Device on which Bingo Games are played . . . .” Machine Bingo Stamps Section 8(a) further provides: The Machine Bingo Stamp fees are assessed against the permit holder for each EPS Device. Machine Bingo Stamps are renewable January 1 of each year. Fees for Machine Bingo Stamps acquired during a calendar year will be prorated on the calendar month in which the stamp is issued. The full acquisition month will be included in the calculation. 5. On December 8, 2008, following a determination that HEDA met the definition of

“Qualifying Nonprofit Organization” under the Resolution and all other requirements for issuance of a bingo permit, the Chairman of the Commission properly issued a Class C Bingo Permit to HEDA “pursuant to [his] authority and obligations as the Chairman,” which authorized HEDA to operate charitable bingo at the Country Crossing development in Houston County (“Country Crossing”) upon the happening of certain designated conditions set forth in the permit. A true and correct copy of the Class C Bingo Permit is attached as Exhibit 2.

3

6.

On information and belief, on December 29, 2008, Governor Bob Riley

established the Governor’s Task Force on Illegal Gambling (“Task Force”) through issuance of Executive Order Number 44, to be composed of, inter alia, the Administrator of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and “a supernumerary district attorney, who shall be appointed by the Governor as a Special Prosecutor and who shall serve as the Task Force Commander.” On information and belief, on the same day, Governor Riley appointed David Barber (“Barber”), a supernumerary district attorney, as the first Task Force Commander. 7. By express terms of Executive Order Number 44, the Task Force was directed to

“serve as a resource for local prosecutors and law enforcement officials who request assistance in the investigation and prosecution of gambling-related crimes.” 8. On July 30, 2009, the Cooperative District of Houston County – Country Crossing

Project (the “Cooperative District”), a public corporation organized pursuant to section 11-99B-1 et seq. of the Alabama Code, commenced a bond validation proceeding in the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama, Case Number CV-2009-379 (the “Bond Validation Proceeding”), against the Taxpayers and Citizens of Houston County, Alabama. 9. The District Attorney of Houston County, Alabama appeared on behalf of the

Taxpayers and Citizens of Houston County, Alabama in the Bond Validation Proceeding and answered the Complaint filed by the Cooperative District on their behalf. 10. Upon proper notice, the Circuit Court of Houston County issued a Final Judgment

on October 1, 2009 in Bond Validation Proceeding following a trial on the merits. The Final Judgment validated the Cooperative District’s issuance of “Series 2009 Bonds” totaling $20,040,000 that were to be repaid in part through revenues obtained by the Cooperative District from HEDA through license fees on electronic bingo machines operated at Country Crossing. 4

11.

No timely appeal was taken from the October 1, 2009 Final Judgment in Bond

Validation Proceeding. 12. On November 13, 2009, the Alabama Supreme Court issued its decision in David

Barber, et al. v. Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., et al. As part of its decision, the Alabama Supreme Court set forth a definition of the word “bingo” under a constitutional bingo amendment with similar language to Amendment 569. 13. By letter dated November 25, 2009, the Commission’s attorney requested that

GLI, an internationally recognized gaming laboratory, certify that electronic bingo equipment that HEDA intended to use as part of the operation of bingo games at Country Crossing complied with the definitional requirements of the term bingo as set forth in the Cornerstone Community Outreach decision. 14. On the morning of December 1, 2009, GLI issued letters to the Commission

certifying HEDA’s equipment to be used at Country Crossing as compliant with the definitional requirements of the term bingo. True and correct copies of the GLI Certification Letters are attached as Exhibit 3. HEDA’s equipment is thus lawful under Amendment 569. 15. Following certification by GLI of HEDA’s equipment, the Commission issued

1,704 Machine Bingo Stamps to HEDA on December 1, 2009 in accordance with the Resolution following HEDA’s payment of $142,000 to the Commission, the pro rata amount owed for one month of operations in 2009. 16. At 3:00 p.m. on December 1, 2009, HEDA commenced the operation of bingo

games at its facility in Country Crossing, with all preconditions for operation having been met. 17. By letter dated December 4, 2009, the Chairman of the Commission sent a letter

to Barber as Task Force Commander, informing him, inter alia, of GLI’s certification of 5

HEDA’s equipment. Having further informed Barber that he was aware of rumors of plans by the Task Force to conduct raids of electronic bingo facilities in Alabama, the Chairman of the Commission indicated that he “assume[d] that, because of the efforts that [the Commission] has made to assure HEDA’s compliance, no raid will occur at Country Crossing.” Both the Sheriff of Houston County and the District Attorney of Houston County were copied on this correspondence to Barber. A true and correct copy of the Chairman's December 4, 2009 Letter is attached as Exhibit 4. 18. On information and belief, agents assigned to the Task Force, including

Lieutenant Mike Reese (“Reese”) of the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, conducted an undercover investigation at HEDA’s electronic bingo operation at Country Crossing on December 5, 2009, one day after the Commission’s Chairman sent his correspondence to Barber, and conducted further undercover operations at Country Crossing on December 15, 2009 and December 23, 2009. 19. On information and belief, the undercover operations of the Task Force at

Country Crossing occurred after the District Attorney of Houston County sought the assistance of the Task Force in determining the legality of electronic bingo operations at Country Crossing. 20. HEDA continued to operate bingo games at Country Crossing, without

interruption for the entire month of December 2009. 21. On information and belief, at or before 1:40 p.m. on the afternoon of December

31, 2009, the District Attorney of Houston County personally escorted Barber and Reese to a Houston County district judge for the purpose of applying for a search warrant that would allow for a search of Country Crossing and the seizure of all electronic bingo machines used by HEDA

6

in operating bingo games, at which time Reese and the district judge began a meeting that would last for over two hours. 22. With both HEDA and the Commission completely unaware that (A) in or before

December 2009, the District Attorney of Houston County had requested the Task Force's assistance in determining the legality of electronic bingo at Country Crossing, (B) following the request for assistance, Task Force had commenced undercover operations at Country Crossing during the month of December 2009, (C) earlier in the afternoon, the District Attorney of Houston County had personally escorted Barber and Reese to a district judge to apply for a search warranty, and (D) at that very moment, a district judge was hearing Reese's application for a search warrant of Country Crossing, HEDA delivered a negotiable check in the amount of $1,693,000 to the Commission at 2:00 p.m. on December 31, 2009 in order to renew 1,693 machine bingo stamps for the year 2010, in accordance with Section 8 of the Resolution. 23. Following Reese’s two-plus hour meeting with the district judge, a search warrant

was issued to Reese at 3:40 p.m. on December 31, 2009. A true and correct copy of the search warranty is attached as Exhibit 5. 24. On January 5, 2010, although still unaware that a search warrant had been issued,

HEDA learned that the Task Force was planning to raid the electronic bingo operation at Country Crossing early the next morning and seize HEDA’s electronic bingo equipment. In an effort to obtain a judicial determination of the legality of HEDA’s electronic bingo operation and equipment in advance of the planned raid, HEDA and the Commission filed a Complaint against Barber as Task Force Commander for declaratory and injunctive relief on January 5th in the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama, Case Number CV-2010-003, along with a motion for temporary restraining order to stop the planned Task Force raid. 7

25.

HEDA and the Commission based their motion for a TRO in Case Number CV-

2010-003, in part, upon the mistaken understanding that Barber and the Task Force planned to raid Country Crossing on January 6, 2010 “without the request or consent of local authorities in Houston County, including the Houston County District Attorney” and without “support[] by local authorities in Houston County.” 26. Having been unable to obtain a TRO blocking a raid by approximately midnight

on January 5th, HEDA closed its bingo operation in the interests of safety. 27. Approximately two hours after HEDA closed its operation, a restraining order

was obtained in a separate proceeding that barred the Task Force from raiding Country Crossing prior to a judicial hearing on the legality of HEDA’s equipment and operation. As a result of the TRO, HEDA was able to reopen its operation in the afternoon of January 6, 2010. 28. Through an emergency appeal, Barber succeeded in obtaining a judicial ruling on

January 15, 2010 that effectively prevented HEDA from obtaining further injunctive relief against the unlawful seizure of its equipment in an Alabama state court. 29. By January 15, 2010 letter to Governor Riley, the District Attorney of Houston

County rescinded his invitation to and request for assistance from the Task Force. 30. On January 25, 2010, Governor Riley amended Executive Order Number 44 to,

inter alia, provide for the appointment of a district attorney as Task Force Commander and indicate that no language in the original executive order was to be construed as a limitation on the authority of the Task Force. On the same day, Riley appointed Mobile Count District Attorney John Tyson (“Tyson”) as Task Force Commander, in place of Barber, who had previously resigned.

8

31.

On January 28, 2010, HEDA learned that hundreds of law enforcement officers

assigned to the Task Force, under the direction of Tyson, were planning a warrantless raid of its bingo operation at Country Crossing in the early morning hours the following day. 32. To avert the unlawful seizure of its equipment, HEDA closed its operation in the

early morning hours of January 29, 2010, prior to the 4:00 a.m. arrival of 200-plus armed law enforcement officers at Country Crossing under Tyson’s direction. Although the armed

contingent of law enforcement officers under Tyson’s direction left Country Crossing later on January 29th without having seized any equipment, Tyson has repeatedly threatened to raid Country Crossing and seize HEDA’s bingo equipment, without a warrant, should HEDA reopen. 33. Since the failed January 29th raid, HEDA has continued to pursue injunctive

relief to stop a Task Force raid, in both state and federal courts, but has been unsuccessful. 34. Based on Tyson’s threats and its inability to secure a TRO, HEDA has not

reopened its bingo operation at Country Crossing. 35. By letter dated February 22, 2010, HEDA, through legal counsel, sent a letter to

the Commission requesting a return of a prorated portion of the December 31 payment. A true and correct copy of this February 22, 2010 is attached as Exhibit 6. 36. On February 26, 2010, on the advice of legal counsel, the Commission formally

denied HEDA’s request for a return of a prorated portion of its payment, voting instead to commence the underlying declaratory judgment action

COUNT I 37. HEDA adopts and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs

of its Counterclaim as fully set forth herein.

9

38.

HEDA’s claim for a refund against the Commission is timely and proper under

Ala. Code §6-5-20 because: A. HEDA fully complied with the requirements of Ala. Code §11-12-5 and

Ala. Code §11-12-8 by presenting an itemized claim to the Commission on February 2, 2010 for a pro rata refund of its December 31, 2009 payment for machine bingo stamps, within twelve months of the claim accruing; and B. 39. the Commission formally denied HEDA’s claim on February 26, 2010.

Under the Resolution, HEDA was compelled to pay the full amount of $1,693,000

on or before January 1, 2010 in order to secure the renewal of its machine bingo stamps for 2010. Had HEDA not paid $1,693,000 to the Commission in its entirety, it would have been prohibited from operating its electronic bingo equipment pursuant to the express terms of the Resolution. 40. At the time HEDA provided the Commission with the $1,693,000 machine bingo

stamps renewal payment, HEDA and the Commission were under numerous mutual material factual misunderstandings, including but not limited to the following mistakes of fact: A. That the District Attorney of Houston County had accepted the

Commission’s findings with respect to HEDA’s electronic bingo operation at Country Crossing following certification by GLI; B. That the District Attorney of Houston County had not requested the

assistance of the Task Force to determine the legality of electronic bingo at Country Crossing; C. That the District Attorney of Houston County had not invited the Task

Force to investigate HEDA’s electronic bingo operation at Country Crossing;

10

C.

That the Task Force had not commenced any investigation of HEDA’s

electronic bingo operation at Country Crossing D. County; and E. That a member of the Task Force was not meeting at that time with a That the Task Force had not commenced any other operations in Houston

district judge of Houston County as part of an application for a search warrant for HEDA’s electronic bingo operation at Country Crossing. 41. Had HEDA been aware of the true facts, it would not have made the $1,693,000

payment to the Commission. 42. 43. HEDA comes to Court in good faith, with clean hands, and offers to do equity. Based on equity and good conscience, the Commission is obligated to refund to

HEDA $1,551,916.67, representing a prorated portion of the December 31 payment for the months of February through December 2010, in which HEDA has not operated and will likely not be able to operate bingo games at Country Crossing. If the Commission is permitted to retain HEDA’s entire $1,693,000 payment, it will be unjustly enriched. COUNT II 44. HEDA adopts and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs

of its Counterclaim as fully set forth herein. 45. Although the Resolution conditions the renewal of machine bingo stamps on a

permit holder’s up front payment of all money due for the entire calendar year, the Resolution further provides that “Fees for Machine Bingo Stamps acquired during a calendar year will be prorated on the calendar month in which the stamp is issued.” Accordingly, the Resolution unambiguously obligates a permit holder to pay for a machine bingo stamp on an electronic 11

player station for any month in which such electronic player station is operated. Alternatively, the Resolution includes an ambiguity that should be construed as a creating only a pro rata payment obligation for months in which a permit holder operates an electronic player station. 46. The Commission has no legal entitlement to retain the any portion of HEDA’s up

front payment other than $141,083.33, the pro rata amount due for HEDA’s operation of equipment at Country Crossing during the month of January 2010. 47. The Commission’s failure to return $1,551,916.67 to HEDA, representing the

entire December 31, 2009 payment less the pro rata amount of $141,083.33 to which the Commission is entitled, following demand constitutes a breach of contract. 48. Alternatively, the Commission is obligated to return $1,551,916.67 to HEDA

under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 49. Alternatively, HEDA is entitled to restitution from the Commission in the amount

of $1,551,916.67.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, HEDA requests the Court to enter a judgment in its favor against the Commission in the amount of $1,551,916.67, or such other amount as the Court deems just, to award it interest as provided by law, including pre-judgment interest and/or any interest generated on monies deposited with the Clerk of the Court, to award it costs, and to award it such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

12

/s/ William G. Somerville WILLIAM G. SOMERVILLE ANDREW P. WALSH Attorneys for Defendant/Plaintiff in Counterclaim Houston Economic Development Association OF COUNSEL: BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 420 20th Street North 1600 Wachovia Tower Birmingham, Alabama 35203 (205) 328-0480 William B. Matthews, Jr. THE MATTHEWS LAW FIRM P.O. Box 1145 Ozark, Alabama 36361 (334) 774-8804 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The following have been served by the Alabama Electronic Filing Notification System on this the 18th day of June, 2010: Gary C. Sherrer SHERRER, JONES & TERRY, P.C. 335 W. Main St. Dothan, Alabama 36301-1613 (334) 678-0100

s/ William G. Somerville OF COUNSEL

14

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 6/25/2010 3:18 PM CV-2010-000108.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

EXHIBIT 1

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 6/25/2010 3:18 PM CV-2010-000108.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 20

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 9/21/2012 3:52 PM CV-2012-900266.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA

STATE OF ALABAMA by and through Attorney General Luther Strange Petitioner, vs. $283,657.68 U.S. Currency, et al Defendants

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case Number CV-2012-900266

STATE OF ALABAMA’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY COMES NOW the State of Alabama and states the following in opposition to HEDA’s motion to stay: The gambling promoters in Houston County have always maintained, in the media and in court, that they believe Center Stage is legal, and they can prove it. This is the lawsuit that these gambling promoters have been asking for; it will determine is whether the gambling devices at the “Center Stage” casino are illegal contraband or lawful “bingo.” HEDA’s motion to stay this action for an indefinite period of time can only mean one thing. Despite what they have said in the press and in court, the gambling promoters in Houston County already know their operations are illegal. They are just buying time until a court tells them so. HEDA’s motion to stay this case should be denied for two reasons. First, HEDA’s motion is untimely; it is both too late and too soon. HEDA’s motion is too late because it could have, and should have, been filed immediately after Judge Conaway ruled on HEDA’s first motion to recuse on September 7, 2012. Instead, HEDA has waited until just five days before the first hearing in this case to ask for an indefinite stay—prejudicing the parties and the court. HEDA’s motion is too early because HEDA is asking this court to stay this
1

case because of a mandamus petition that HEDA has not even filed. After HEDA files its mandamus petition (if it does) and after the Supreme Court orders briefing on that petition (if it does), then this Court can evaluate whether it should stay these proceedings. As of now—with no mandamus petition pending and no order from the Supreme Court—this Court cannot make an educated decision as to whether to stay the case. Second, HEDA cannot meet the standard for a stay pending appeal and has not even tried. Four factors govern the Court’s disposition of a motion to stay pending appeal: (1) Whether the movant can show a “likelihood of success on the merits”; (2) Whether the movant will “suffer irreparable injury if the stay is not granted”; (3) Whether the stay will “harm the other parties”; and (4) Whether “the granting of the stay would serve the public interest.” Ruiz v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555, 565 (5th Cir. Unit A. 1981) (applying FED. R. APP. P. 8(b)). None of those factors support a stay in this case. HEDA has not even attempted to show that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its as-yet-unwritten mandamus petition. Nor will HEDA suffer “irreparable injury if the stay is not granted.” And a stay would most assuredly be against the public interest. “It is the policy of the constitution and laws of Alabama [to prohibit] the vicious system of lottery schemes and the evil practice of gaming, in all their protean shapes.” Barber v. Jefferson County Racing Ass'n, Inc., 960 So. 2d 599, 614 (Ala. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted and second alteration in original). This lawsuit will determine whether the gambling devices at the “Center Stage” casino are illegal contraband or lawful “bingo.” It is in the best interest of the parties and the people of Houston County that this lawsuit expeditiously proceed to a final and conclusive judgment.

2

Respectfully submitted, LUTHER STRANGE (STR003) ATTORNEY GENERAL By: /s/ Jess R. Nix Jess R. Nix (NIX014) Deputy Attorney General Counsel for the State of Alabama

OF COUNSEL: Henry T. “Sonny” Reagan (REA021) Jess R. Nix (NIX014) Office of the Attorney General 501 Washington Avenue Post Office Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36130-0152 (334) 242-7300 Office (334) 242-4890 FAX sreagan@ago.state.al.us jnix@ago.state.al.us

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have served all counsel of record by electronic notice via AlaFile system and placed a copy of the same via U.S. Mail to all other listed parties not registered with AlaFile on this 21st day of September 2012.

/s/ Jess R. Nix OF COUNSEL

4

EXHIBIT 21

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 9/21/2012 3:49 PM CV-2012-900266.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA CARLA H. WOODALL, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA STATE OF ALABAMA by and through Attorney General Luther Strange Petitioner, vs. $283,657.68 U.S. Currency, et al Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case Number CV-2012-900266

STATE OF ALABAMA’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE AND TO QUASH SUBPOENAS COMES NOW the State of Alabama and respectfully moves both (1) to preclude the introduction of any testimony or other evidence at the September 26 hearing and (2) to quash the subpoenas issued to John Watson, Josh Blades, Ken Wallis, Henry “Sonny” Reagan, and Judge Conaway. In support of these motions, the State says as follows:

BACKGROUND In July, the State executed a warrant at the “Center Stage” casino, seized gambling devices and gambling proceeds, and filed this in rem action to forfeit the seized items. The main questions in this lawsuit are (1) whether the gambling devices and proceeds seized by the State from the “Center Stage” casino are illegal contraband and (2) whether the Houston County Commission may exempt slot machines from the operation of generally-applicable state law. The Houston Economic Development Association (HEDA) has appeared in this case, claimed some interest in the seized devices and proceeds, and has filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the State’s forfeiture complaint. This Court, Judge Conaway presiding, has set a hearing

1

on all pending motions for September 26, 2012 at which HEDA will have the opportunity to argue its motion to dismiss. HEDA has also previously filed, and lost, two motions for recusal and for discovery in support of those motions. HEDA’s first motion was directed at the entire Houston County Circuit Court. Judge Conaway denied that motion, as it applied to him, on September 7, 2012. HEDA then filed a second motion for recusal expressly targeting Judge Conaway. This second motions expressly sought discovery and an evidentiary hearing. It asked the court to “allow HEDA to conduct discovery on the issues raised in this motion; and give HEDA the opportunity to present evidence already acquired and acquired through discovery at a hearing on the issues of disqualification and/or recusal.” Judge Conaway denied the second motion on September 20, 2012. In all of Judge Conaway’s orders, he reminded HEDA that it had “an appropriate remedy for challenging [his] Order.” Now HEDA1 has filed subpoenas to compel the testimony and production of documents by John Watson, Josh Blades (former Deputy Chief of Staff to Governor Riley), Ken Wallis (former Legal Advisor to Governor Riley), Henry “Sonny” Reagan, and Judge Conaway. The subpoenas purport to compel these persons to present themselves at the motion hearing set for September 26, 2012. The subpoenas are targeted at individuals who might have information concerning Judge Conaway’s appointment and require these individuals to bring documents and other things to the hearing which concern Judge Conaway’s appointment. For example, the subpoena to Mr. Blades purports to command him to “[p]roduce all records in your possession

The subpoenas do not specifically identify the party who filed them. The State refers to HEDA in its response because HEDA has led the effort to have this Court recuse itself. If a party besides HEDA has issued the subpoenas, its arguments are equally applicable to that party.
2

1

relating to the application/interview/selection process for the Circuit Court vacancy in Houston/Henry Counties filled by J. Michael Conaway.”

ARGUMENT HEDA cannot transform the hearing on its motion to dismiss into an evidentiary hearing on its defunct motions to recuse. This Court should preclude HEDA from introducing evidence by testimony or otherwise at the motion hearing set for September 26. And the recently-filed subpoenas should be quashed for several independent reasons. I. The Court Should Preclude Any and All Testimony or Other Evidence From Being Introduced at the September 26 Hearing Because This Court Has Already Ruled on the Motion to Recuse. This Court should preclude all parties from introducing any evidence, by testimony or any other means, at the previously scheduled hearing set for September 26. The hearing on September 26 is a motion hearing, not an evidentiary hearing. It was set as a hearing on all “pending motions.” And the only pending motions at the time of this writing (and when the September 26 hearing was initially set) were HEDA’s motion to dismiss the State’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and Center Stage’s motion to dismiss. Evidence and testimony is simply irrelevant to the court’s consideration of such motions. It is axiomatic that Rule 12(b)(6) does not even allow the parties to raise matters outside the pleadings. See, e.g,. Brindley v. Cullman Reg'l Med. Ctr., 709 So. 2d 1261, 1263-64 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998), citing Hales v. First Nat'l Bank of Mobile, 380 So. 2d 797 (Ala. 1980). There is no reason for any party to present evidence at the September 26 hearing. HEDA cannot use the September 26 hearing to litigate its previous motions to recuse. First, HEDA’s previous motions to recuse or disqualify have already been denied and are not

3

properly the subject of the September 26 hearing. The hearing is on “pending” motions, not motions that have already been decided. Second, when the Court ruled on HEDA’s most recent motion for recusal, the Court denied that motion’s request for an “opportunity to present evidence already acquired and acquired through discovery at a hearing on the issues of disqualification and/or recusal.” HEDA has not renewed its request for an evidentiary hearing on disqualification, nor has it given this Court any reason to change its mind. This Court told HEDA that it had “an appropriate remedy for challenging [the] Order” through a petition for mandamus, and HEDA still has that remedy. The motion hearing is not the proper forum to challenge this Court’s disposition of HEDA’s motions to recuse. In short, HEDA cannot present evidence at the September 26 hearing. There is no pending motion to which any evidence or testimony might relate. And this Court has already denied HEDA’s specific request for an evidentiary hearing on its most recent motion to recuse. Although HEDA would have the September 26 hearing become a mini-trial “framed for media dissemination as opposed to judicial consideration,” the parties should direct their energies where they belong—on the legal issues presented by HEDA’s erroneous motion to dismiss. This Court should preclude all parties from introducing evidence, in whatever means or whatever form, at the September 26 hearing.

II.

All the Subpoenas Should Be Quashed Because This Court Has Already Denied HEDA’S Request for Discovery on the Circumstances of Judge Conaway’s Appointment to the Bench. All of the subpoenas that HEDA has filed to compel witness attendance at the September

26 hearing should be quashed. A defendant, even one in a criminal case, does not have an unbridled right to compel testimony. See United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867

4

(1982). Instead, HEDA “must at least make some plausible showing of how [these witnesses’] testimony would [be] both material and favorable to [its] defense.” Id. “[A] subpoena ad testificandum survives scrutiny [only] if the party serving it can show that the testimony sought is both relevant and material.” See Stern v. United States Dist. Court for Dist. of Mass., 214 F.3d 4, 17 (1st Cir. 2000). These subpoenas do not meet this standard and should be quashed. All of the trial subpoenas here should be quashed for two reasons. First, as explained above, these witnesses cannot provide testimony about any motions or issues set for this Court’s consideration on September 26. The only motions for this Court’s consideration are the motions to dismiss, and witness testimony is improper with respect to any such motion. Second, these subpoenas are improper attempts by HEDA to conduct discovery in support of HEDA’s motions to recuse. In denying HEDA’s most recent motion to recuse, this Court also denied HEDA’s request “to conduct discovery on the issues raised in this motion.” Despite this Court’s order, HEDA’s subpoenas purport to compel witnesses to produce documents relating to its previous motions to recuse. For example, the subpoena to Mr. Blades purports to compel him to produce documents “relating to the application/interview/selection process for the Circuit Court vacancy in Houston/Henry Counties filled by J. Michael Conaway.” This is exactly the kind of discovery to which this Court has already held HEDA is not entitled. All of the subpoenas should be quashed for these two reasons. III. The Subpoena to Henry “Sonny” Reagan Should Be Quashed for the Additional Reason that He Is Counsel for the State of Alabama in This Matter. In addition to the reasons for quashing all the subpoenas given above, the subpoena to Henry “Sonny” Reagan should also be quashed because he is counsel for the State in this matter. Subpoenas to prosecutors are rarely allowed. “‘Although a prosecuting attorney is competent to testify, his testifying is not approved by the courts except where it is made necessary by the
5

circumstances of the case.” Maund v. State, 48 So. 2d 553, 561 (1950); see also Waldrop v. State, 424 So. 2d 1345, 1346-1349 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982) (finding it reversible error for

prosecuting attorney to testify). The federal courts have similarly condemned the practice of a government prosecutor's testifying at a trial in which he is participating absent a compelling need for the prosecutor to testify about something that is uniquely within his knowledge and crucial to the defendant’s case. See United States v. Roberson, 897 F. 2d 1092, 1098 (11th Cir. 1990). Accord United States v. Dupuy, 760 F.2d 1492, 1498 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Tamura, 694 F.2d 591, 601 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Schwartzbaum, 527 F.2d 249, 253 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 942 (1976). See United States v. Birdman, 602 F.2d 547, 553 (3d Cir.1979) (collecting cases), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 906, 100 S.Ct. 1084, 63 L.Ed.2d 322 (1980); United States v. Wallach, 788 F. Supp. 739, 743-44 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); United States v. Manners, 2006 WL 3026110 at *2-3. (N.D. Tex. 2006). The Eleventh Circuit has described the rule as follows: “[C]ourts have properly refused to permit a prosecutor to be called as a defense witness “unless there is a ‘compelling need.” Roberson, 897 F. 2d at 1098. The subpoena to Mr. Reagan cannot meet these standards. There is obviously no compelling need for Mr. Reagan to testify at the September 26 hearing. As explained above, his testimony would not be proper as to the only motion set for hearing—HEDA’s motion to dismiss. But, even if HEDA’s defunct motions to recuse were at issue—and they are not—HEDA has not made any showing that Mr. Reagan has knowledge that would go to such motion. HEDA also cannot show that whatever evidence Mr. Reagan might provide about whether Judge Conaway should recuse could not be introduced through another source. The subpoena as to Mr. Reagan should be quashed for this additional reason. IV. The Subpoena to Judge Conaway Should Be Quashed for Additional Reasons.
6

In addition to the reasons for quashing all the subpoenas given above, the subpoena to Judge Conaway should also be quashed because (1) a judge cannot be compelled to testify at his own hearing and (2) Judge Conaway’s reasons for not recusing are protected by the mental process privilege. A. Judge Conaway cannot be compelled to testify subject to examination at his own hearing. As if to underscore that its tactics are about the media and not the law, HEDA has subpoenaed Judge Conaway to testify at his own hearing. The tactic of subpoenaing a judge to testify before himself appears to be unprecedented. But the Texas courts addressed a similar situation in which a disgruntled litigant attempted to subpoena a judge to testify in another judge’s court about that initial judge’s failure to recuse. In Thomas v. Walker, 860 S.W.2d 579, 581 (Tex. App.–Waco 1993), the Texas Court of Appeals held that the second judge properly quashed the subpoena issued to compel the first judge’s testimony. The appellate court explained that “[c]ourts have refused to issue subpoenas for the testimony of judges in all but the “‘most extreme and extraordinary circumstances.’” Id. (quoting Gary v. State of Louisiana, Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 861 F.2d 1366, 1368 (5th Cir. 1988)). Because the disgruntled litigant’s recusal allegations “could have been substantiated” (if at all) in “ways other than the direct examination of Judge Black,” the appellate court held that the subpoena was properly quashed. Id. This reasoning applies a fortiori to this case. B. Judge Conaway’s decisionmaking is protected by the “mental process rule.” Moreover, HEDA cannot compel Judge Conaway to testify about his decisions— including his decision not to recuse—because such decisions are afforded strong protection by the “mental processes rule.” United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 421, 61 S.Ct. 999, 85 L.Ed. 1429 (1940). “[A]n inquiry into [a judge’s] mental processes in arriving at his decision would be
7

improper and would threaten the foundation of an honorable and independent judiciary.” See Tate v. State, 834 S.W.2d 566, 569 (Tex. App.—Houston 1992). Judge Conaway has already explained his reasons for denying HEDA’s motions to recuse—twice. He cannot be compelled to further explain those reasons from the witness stand.

V.

The Subpoenas to Mr. Blades, Mr. Wallis, and Mr. Reagan Should Be Quashed for Additional Reasons. In addition to the reasons for quashing all the subpoenas given above, the subpoenas to

Mr. Blades, Mr. Wallis, and Mr. Reagan should be quashed because any testimony they might offer about the appointment of Judge Conaway would be privileged.2 These persons all worked as senior advisors to former Governor Bob Riley. Testimony about why or how they or Governor Riley conducted official actions in their capacity as Executive officials is protected by (1) executive privilege and (2) deliberative process privilege. Testimony about law enforcement action or investigations regarding the now-defunct “Country Crossing” casino is protected by (3) law enforcement privilege. A. Executive Privilege Mr. Blades’, Mr. Wallis’, and Mr. Reagan’s testimony about the performance of their official duties is protected from disclosure by executive privilege. “[T]here is the undeniable interest of the executive branch of government in maintaining confidentiality over certain types of information necessary for the performance of its constitutional duties.” Assured Investors Life Ins. Co. v. National Union Associates, Inc., 362 So. 2d 228, 233 (Ala. 1978). See also United The State notes that it does not represent all of these persons and that they may assert additional privileges and protections in support of quashal or in response to specific questions if called to testify. For example, Mr. Reagan and Mr. Wallis were legal advisors to Governor Riley, and their testimony might implicate the attorney-client privilege. Only they would know if it did.
8
2

States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 708-713 (1974) (apart from policy considerations, “history and legal precedent teach that documents from a former or an incumbent President are presumptively privileged.”). Alabama law imposes on the Office of the Governor the duty to faithfully execute the laws of the State and fill vacate appointments in the judiciary, and it was in that role that Mr. Blades, Mr. Wallis, and Mr. Reagan participated, if at all, in the appointment of Judge Conaway or law enforcement actions against Country Crossing. They cannot be called to testify about their performance of those duties, even if such testimony were not irrelevant. B. Deliberative Process/Consultative Privilege Mr. Blades’, Mr. Wallis’, and Mr. Reagan’s testimony about information gathered and used in the Office of the Governor’s decision-making process is also protected from disclosure by deliberative process privilege. “The deliberative process privilege is a sub-category of the executive privilege.” Sierra Club v. Alabama Environmental Management Com’n, 627 So.2d 923, 926 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992). “The deliberative process privilege protects the internal decisionmaking processes of the executive branch in order to safeguard the quality of agency decisions.” Nadler v. United States Dept. of Justice, 955 F.2d 1479 (11th Cir.1992). “The deliberative process privilege rests on the obvious realization that officials will not communicate candidly among themselves if each remark is a potential item of discovery and front page news, and its object is to enhance the quality of agency decisions ... by protecting open and frank discussion among those who make them within the Government....” Dep't of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n, 532 U.S. 1, 8-9 (2001) (internal quotes omitted). Mr. Blades, Mr. Wallis, and Mr. Reagan cannot be called to testify about pre-decisional considerations that were “a direct part of [their] deliberative process” on gambling, appointments, or other legal or policy matters. Nadler v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 955 F.2d 1479, 1490-91 (11th Cir. 1992) abrogated on
9

unrelated grounds, U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165, 170 (1993). See also Alabama v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 2009 WL 692189, *2 (M.D. Ala. 2009) (discussing deliberative process privilege). Procuring this privileged testimony appears to be the object of the subpoenas, and they should be quashed. C. The Law Enforcement Investigation Privilege Finally, any information that Mr. Blades, Mr. Wallis, and Mr. Reagan may have about law enforcement operations or investigations or as a result of law enforcement operations or investigations is protected from disclosure by the law enforcement investigation privilege. “[T]he government is entitled to protection when the probative value of [investigatory] evidence is outweighed by the risks of exposing incomplete investigations.” Abston v. State, 548 So.2d 624, 628 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989) (quoting Young v. State, 469 So. 2d 683, 688 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985)). See also United States v. Winner, 641 F. 2d 825, 831 (10th Cir. 1981) (“The law enforcement investigative privilege is based primarily on the harm to law enforcement efforts which might arise from public disclosure of [investigations].”). “An investigation, however, need not be ongoing for the law enforcement privilege to apply as the ability of a law enforcement agency to conduct future investigations may be seriously impaired if certain information is revealed to the public.” In re The City of New York, 607 F. 3d 923, 944 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Information protected from disclosure includes “law enforcement techniques and procedures,” information that would undermine “the confidentiality of sources,” information that would endanger “witness and law enforcement personnel [or] the privacy of individuals involved in an investigation,” and information that would “otherwise . . . interfere[ ] with an investigation.” Id. Mr. Blades, Mr. Wallis, and Mr. Reagan cannot be compelled to testify about the actions, techniques and procedures they and others employed as
10

part of their effort to enforce Alabama’s prohibition on slot machine gambling, nor can they be compelled to testify about the information that those investigations uncovered. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State prays that this Honorable Court will both (1) to preclude the introduction of any testimony or other evidence at the September 26 hearing and (2) to quash the subpoenas issued to John Watson, Josh Blades, Ken Wallis, Henry “Sonny” Reagan, and Judge Conaway.

Respectfully submitted, LUTHER STRANGE (STR003) ATTORNEY GENERAL By: /s/ Jess R. Nix Jess R. Nix (NIX014) Deputy Attorney General Counsel for the State of Alabama

OF COUNSEL: Henry T. “Sonny” Reagan (REA021) Jess R. Nix (NIX014) Office of the Attorney General 501 Washington Avenue Post Office Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36130-0152 (334) 242-7300 Office (334) 242-4890 FAX sreagan@ago.state.al.us jnix@ago.state.al.us
11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have served all counsel of record by electronic notice via AlaFile system and placed a copy of the same via U.S. Mail to all other listed parties not registered with AlaFile on this 21st day of September 2012.

/s/ Jess R. Nix OF COUNSEL

12