HUBBARD TRIAL Day 5 Morning

Viewed: 1826

Posted by: Staff
Date: May 31 2016 12:09 PM

HUBBARD TRIAL DAY 5-ONLY ABOUT A DOZEN OR SO SPECTATORS ARE IN THE COURTROOM TODAY. LAWYERS FROM BOTH SIDES ARE GATHERED AT THE BENCH DISCUSSING PROCEDURAL ISSUES. BOTH SIDES HAVE HAD SEVERAL MOTIONS FILED WITH THE COURT PERTAINING TO WITNESSES THAT CAN BE CALLED FOR INSTANCE PROSECUTOR MATT HART HAS BEEN ASKED TO TESTIFY FOR THE DEFENSE. THE AG FILED A STRENUOUS OBJECTION TO THAT WHICH THE JUDGE HAS YET TO RULE ON.

9:05 THE JURY IS SEATED AND TESTIMONY BEGINS WITH JOHN SANDERSON WHO IS CURRENTLY UNEMPLOYED BUT HAS WORKED AS A FINANCIAL ADVISOR FOR MANY YEARS. SANDERSON IS SHOWN A CHECK PAYABLE TO CRAFTMASTERS INC FOR $150,000 DOLLARS THAT HE WROTE. SANDERSON WAS TOLD HE WAS TO WRITE A CHECK BY HIS BOSS MR. HOLLBROOK WHO THEN TOOK THE CHECK AND PUT IT IN HIS POCKET. SANDERSON SAID THE CHECK WAS AN INVESTMENT AND REMAINS AN ASSET ON THE BOOKS AS FAR AS HE KNOWS. SANDERSON SAID HE SAW INVOICES TO FINE GETTY WHICH HE LATER FOUND OUT WAS A LOBBYING FIRM. BAXLEY ASKS IF THE FIRM WAS IN FACT NAMED FINE GETTY AND ASSOCIATES, ANSWER YES, NO MORE QUESTIONS.

JIM SUMNER IS NEXT HE WAS THE DIRECTOR OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION FROM 1997 TO 2014. BEFORE BECOMING DIRECTOR OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION HE SERVED AS DEPUTY AG APPOINTED BY AG PRYOR.

THE JURY IS EXCUSED WHILE LAWYERS DISCUSS MR. SUMNERS QUALIFICATIONS AS AN EXPERT. BAXLEY ARGUES THAT SUMNER IS NOT AN EXPERT AND HE HAS BEEN PROVIDED NO PROOF FROM THE PROSECUTION THAT HE IS. BAXLEY SAYS HE WAS NOT NOTIFIED THAT SUMNER WAS BEING CALLED AN EXPERT. HART RESPONDS THAT HE HAS FOLLOWED THE RULES SPECIFICALLY RULE 16 OF THE PROCEDURAL CODE. JUDGE TAKES A 10 MINUTE BREAK TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT TO LET SUMNER A 20 YEAR VETERAN OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT ON THE ETHICS LAW.

9:50COURT IS BACK IN SESSION AND THE JUDGE HAS RULED TO LET SUMNER TESTIFY. HART BEGINS HIS QUESTIONS BY ASKING ABOUT DIFFERENT GROUPS COVERED BY THE ETHICS LAW. ROUTINELY THE COMMISSION WILL ISSUE OPINIONS TO ELECTED OFFICIALS CONCERNING SOME ACTIVITY THEY PLAN ON ENGAGING IN. THE TWO THINGS SUMNER SAYS HE AND THE ETHICS COMMISSION USE TO FORM OPINIONS IS THE CODE OF ALABAMA AND PREVIOUS RULINGS.  ACCORDING TO SUMNER THE ETHICS COMMISSION ONLY DETERMINES PROBABLE CAUSE IN A VIOLATION OF THE LAW, CASES ARE THEN REFERRED TO THE AG’S OFFICE TO BE PROSECUTED. SUMNER LAUNCHES INTO A LONG DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF HOW EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION AND DIFFERENT OUTCOMES DEPENDING ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED.

AL CODE 36-25-5A SAYS YOU CANNOT USE YOUR OFFICE TO BENEFIT YOURSELF OR YOUR FAMILY OR A BUSINESS WHICH YOU ARE ASSOCIATED WITH. SUMNER SAYS THAT THE DEFINITION OF A BUSINESS ASSOCIATION IS ANY OFFICER, BOARD MEMBER EMPLOYEE OR IN ANY WAY AFFILIATED WITH. HART TRIES TO ASK A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION WHICH BAXLEY OBJECTS TO, JUDGE WALKER TELLS HART TO MOVE ON WITHOUT SUCH LENGTHY HYPOTHETICALS. HART ASKS IF IT MATTERS IF AN OFFICIAL  DIRECTS PRIVATE, NON-GOVERNMENT MONEY TO A BUSINESS. SUMNER SAYS THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. HART THEN MOVES INTO THE NEXT SECTION 5B WHICH PROHIBITS A LAWMAKER FROM VOTING ON OR ASKING ANYONE ELSE TO VOTE ON ANY ITEM AFFECTING A BUSINESS THEY ARE AFFILIATED WITH. SUMNER SAYS THEY CAN IN NO WAY TRY TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF A MATTER THEY ARE ASSOCIATED WITH. HART ASKS WHEN IS IT ALLOWED FOR A LEGISLATOR TO VOTE ON AN ITEM THAT AFFECTS THEM. SUMNER SAYS IF A LAWMAKER IS A BANKER, AND A BANKING BILL COMES UP, AS LONG AS IT AFFECTS ALL BANKS HE CAN VOTE ON IT. IF IT AFFECTS ONLY CERTAIN BANKS AND THE LEGISLATOR WORKS FOR ONE OF THOSE HE CANNOT VOTE.

5C-TALKS ABOUT USING EQUIPMENT OR PERSONNEL FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL BUSINESS. SUMNER SAYS THAT SECTION IS EXPLICITE. BAXLEY OBJECTS TO THE LINE OF QUESTIONS AND TO HART ASKING ABOUT SUMNERS EXPERIENCE AND OTHER JOBS HE HAS HAD. THE JUDGE SAYS HE IS APT TO AGREE THAT SUMNER IS DISCUSSING WHAT LEGISLATORS WERE THINKING WHEN THEY PASSED NEW RULES IN 2010.

ALA CODE 36-5-1.1 COVERS ELECTED OFFICIALS GOING TO THE GOVERNOR OR EXECUTIVE BRANCH AS A PAID LOBBYIST. SUMNER IS ASKED IF AN OFFICIAL TRIES TO INFLUENCE A DECISION AND IS BEING PAID TO DO SO THE LAW FORBIDS IT.

THE NEW ETHICS LAW TOOK TO $0 DOLLARS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT LAWMAKERS CAN TAKE FROM ANYONE SEEKING TO INDUCE THEM TO VOTE A CERTAIN WAY. HART ASKS WHAT KIND OF FAVORS ARE FORBIDDEN BY THE LAW? SUMNER STRUGGLES TO FIND AN EXAMPLE BUT SAYS IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT FAVOR OR A CONTINUNG TO BE OF VALUE MEANING ANYTHING OVER $25 DOLLARS UNDER THE LAW IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE VALUE. BAXLEY CONTINUES TO OBJECT OVER EVERY QUESTION, SOMETIMES AS HE BEGINS TO STAND BEFOE EVEN SAYING A WORD THE JUDGE SUSTAINS THE OBJECTION. HART CONTINUES TO ASK AS HE DID NOT HEAR AN OBJECTION. AT ONE POINT HART TELLS BAXLEY TELL ME WHAT YOUR OBJECTION IS, BAXLEY RESPONDS I OBJECT TO EVERYTHING YOU HAVE ASKED. THE ENTIRE COUTROOM EXPLODES WITH LAUGHTER EVEN THE JURY. THE JUDGE HALTS TESTIMONY AND ADMONISHES THE ENTIRE COURT AND THE LAWYERS NOT OT TALK BACK AND FORTH.

10:47 THE COURT TAKES A 10 MIN. BREAK…

11:02- COURT BACK IN SESSION. THE ETHICS LAW HAS AN EXCEPTION THAT ALLOWS LAWMAKERS TO GET PAID FROM THEIR JOB WHILE SERVING AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. HART ASKS ABOUT THE TERM “MANTLE OF YOUR OFFICE”, BAXLEY OBJECTS TO THE TERM, AND ANY AND ALL REFERENCE TO IT. THE JUDGE INSTRUCTS HART TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR THE QUESTION, HART PROCEDES, HE ASKS SUMNER ABOUT WHERE THE TERM COMES FROM. AS SUMNER BEGINS TO ANSWER BAXLEY JUMPS TO HIS FEET AND OBJECTS. HART WITH DRAWS THE QUESTION.

HART ASKS IF THE “MANTLE OF OFFICE” STOPS AT THE STATE LINE, SUMNER ANSWERS NO DURING BAXLEY’S OBJECTION. HART IS TOLD TO REPHRASE THE QUESTION, HE DECIDES TO JUST MOVE ON.

HART SHOWS SUMNER A LETTER THAT SAYS HUBBARD MAY NOT USE HIS MANTLE OF OFFICE WHILE WORKING AND CONSULTING.

SUMNER SAYS THE LETTER CAME ABOUT FROM A MEETING WITH HUBBARD WHERE HE WAS TOLD NOT TO USE HIS POSITION FOR ANY TYPE OF PERSONAL GAIN. HART IS NOT ALLOWED TO QUESTION SUMNER ABOUT ACTIVITY REPORTS THAT HUBBARD TURNED INTO THE GAS DISTRICT DETAILING HIS ACTIVITY ON THEIR BEHALF AFTER BAXLEY OBJECTS. HART MOVES ON…

HART SHOWS SUMNER A LETTER WHERE HUBBARD ASKS FOR WRITTEN ADVICE ON WHAT THINGS HE COULD AND COULD NOT DO FOR HIS CLIENTS. SUMNER READS A PORTION OF THE LETTER HE WROTE TELLING HUBBARD TO PROCEDE WITH EXTREME CAUTION SO AS NOT TO EVEN GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF ANYTHING INAPPROPTIATE. SUMNER FURTHER ADMONISHES HUBBARD TO REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING IN DISCUSSIONS WITH OR ASKING FOR ANYTHING FROM THE PEOPLE HE IS DEALING WITH.

BAXLEY OBJECTS TO THE ADMISSION OF A FORM THAT CONFIRMS THAT FORMER GOVERNOR BOB RILEY IS A REGISTERED LOBBYIST. HART TELLS THE JUDGE HUBBARD IS ACCUSED OF TAKING SOMETHING OF VALUE FROM A PRINCIPLE BEING BOB RILEY, AND THE FORM IS PROOF OF THAT. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. HART SHOWS SIMILAR DOCUMENTS THAT SHOW JIMMY RANE AND HIS COMPANY GREAT SOUTHERN WOOD HAV ALSO REGISTERED AS A PRINCPLE.

THERE ARE ALSO DOCUMENTS SHOWING THAT JAMES HOLLBROOK REGISTERED AS A PRINCIPLE. A FORM LISTING FERREL PATRICK AS A LOBBYIST IS PRESENTED. MENDA RILEY CAMBELL IS ALSO IDENTIFIED AS A LOBBYIST AND THE DAUGHTER OF GOVERNOR BOB RILEY. BILL CANARY IS ALSO IDENTIFIED AS A LOBBYIST. THERE IS A DOCUMENT SHOWING THE BCA WAS REGISTERED AS A PRINCIPLE. THERE ARE DOZENS OF THESE FORMS ENTERED FOR OTHER PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES.

 

<- back