UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA JOSEPH SIEGELMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.:______________ ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ) OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF ) PROFESSIONAL ) RESPONSIBILITY, ) ) Defendant. )
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for injunctive and other appropriate relief, seeking the disclosure and release of agency records that have been improperly withheld from Plaintiff Joseph Siegelman by Defendant the United States Department of Justice and its Office of Professional Responsibility.
Jurisdiction and Venue
1.
This Court has jurisdiction over this action under both 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper in the district under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
2.
Joseph Siegelman is an individual who resides in Birmingham, Alabama.
FILED
2016 Jan-19 AM 09:47U.S. DISTRICT COURTN.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:16-cv-00083-MHH Document 1 Filed 01/18/16 Page 1 of 9
2
3.
The Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”), part of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ” or “the Department”), is responsible for investigating attorneys accused of misconduct while acting within the line and scope of their duties as DOJ employees.
4.
The DOJ is responsible for criminal prosecutions and civil suits in which the United States has an interest.
5.
The DOJ, and the OPR within it, fall within the meaning of “agency” contained in 5 U.S.C. § 552(f).
Statement of Facts
I.
Underlying Undisputed Facts
6.
The prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is widely held as one of the most controversial cases brought by the Department of Justice in recent history.
7.
Don Siegelman was Governor of Alabama 1999-2003. He narrowly lost reelection in 2002, partly due to press reports based on information leaked from a grand jury investigation of Mr. Siegelman.
1
Although Siegelman officially lost re-election in 2002, evidence indicates he may have won the most votes. On election night, Siegelman was declared the winner by the Associated Press and gave an acceptance speech. By the next morning, a different result was announced. All of the deciding votes for Siegelman’s opponent were counted in Baldwin County, where an after-hours retabulation was conducted after Democratic Party poll watchers had gone home for the evening. The Republican Attorney General, who had initiated the criminal investigation against Mr. Siegelman, certified the “retabulation” of 6,000 votes from this precinct after rejecting calls for a supervised recount. An independent Auburn University statistical analysis of the election results concluded that the Baldwin County returns were almost certainly tampered with.
Case 2:16-cv-00083-MHH Document 1 Filed 01/18/16 Page 2 of 9
3
8.
On May 27, 2004, nearly two years after the initial leaks from the grand jury, Mr. Siegelman was indicted in the Northern District of Alabama. Judge U.W. Clemon dismissed part of that indictment with prejudice, after finding that the government was unable to make a
prima facie
showing that would allow their claim to be presented to a jury. The remaining charges were dismissed by the government.
9.
Judge Clemon later recalled the matter as “the most unfounded criminal case over which I presided in my entire judicial career [of nearly 30 years].”
10.
Shortly after Mr. Siegelman announced he would seek re-election in the 2006 Alabama gubernatorial race, federal prosecutors in the Middle District of Alabama brought a new indictment against Mr. Siegelman. At that time, the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama was married to a key campaign consultant for Mr. Siegelman’s opponent.
11.
The Middle District U.S. Attorney had claimed she would recuse herself from the prosecution after an attorney for Mr. Siegelman uncovered and complained of her conflict, but evidence shows that the U.S. Attorney remained involved in the case.
12.
The case against Mr. Siegelman in the Middle District of Alabama resulted in his conviction, which has been upheld by appellate courts.
Case 2:16-cv-00083-MHH Document 1 Filed 01/18/16 Page 3 of 9