State's top prosecutor wants Harman Mining v. Massey energy appeal opposed
United Mine Workers President Cecil Roberts released a statement Friday criticizing Alabama's attorney general for asking other attorneys general around the country to join him in opposing the appeal that Hugh Caperton and Harman Mining have pending before the U.S. Supreme Court against Massey Energy.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- United Mine Workers President Cecil Roberts released a statement Friday criticizing Alabama's attorney general for asking other attorneys general around the country to join him in opposing the appeal that Hugh Caperton and Harman Mining have pending before the U.S. Supreme Court against Massey Energy.
"The intervention of Alabama Attorney General Troy King into the appeal of the Harman Mining v. Massey Energy case before the U.S. Supreme Court is an outrageous intrusion into the case and makes one wonder just what Mr. King is trying to do," Roberts stated.
King, a Republican, wants other attorneys general to join him in filing an "amicus brief" opposing questions Caperton and Harman raised about the role West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin played in two 3-2 decisions that overturned a Boone County verdict of $50 million against Massey Energy. With interest, that verdict is now worth $82 million.
A Boone County jury awarded Caperton and Harman the $50 million verdict after it decided that Massey had hijacked a long-term coal supply contract that Harman had with LTV Corp. for its steel mills in the Pittsburgh area.
"Prior to his election to the West Virginia Supreme Court, Brent Benjamin was an unknown lawyer," Roberts wrote. "He received virtually all of his campaign funding from the head of a powerful corporation, Massey Energy."
Don Blankenship is president and CEO of Massey.
"Once on the court," Roberts continued, "Benjamin was in a position to vote on matters that directly affected the financial well-being of his campaign benefactor and the corporation he runs. And vote he did, on more than one occasion, including the Harman decision."
Dan Schweitzer, Supreme Court Counsel for the National Association of Attorneys General, sent King's request to those attorneys general in an e-mail dated Jan. 16.
Schweitzer was not available for comment, and NAAG public information officials did not return telephone calls Friday.
"What is it about that sequence of events that Mr. King wants to protect?" Roberts asked.
"No state justice or judge, sitting on any court in any state, should be able to rule on a case that impacts a major contributor to that judge's election campaign. That should be the law of the land, whether it be West Virginia, Alabama or anywhere else.
"In arguing to allow such a seamy practice to continue, Mr. King is in essence arguing to allow the appearance of impropriety to seep into the judicial system of every state in the country where judges are elected."
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- United Mine Workers President Cecil Roberts released a statement Friday criticizing Alabama's attorney general for asking other attorneys general around the country to join him in opposing the appeal that Hugh Caperton and Harman Mining have pending before the U.S. Supreme Court against Massey Energy.
"The intervention of Alabama Attorney General Troy King into the appeal of the Harman Mining v. Massey Energy case before the U.S. Supreme Court is an outrageous intrusion into the case and makes one wonder just what Mr. King is trying to do," Roberts stated.
King, a Republican, wants other attorneys general to join him in filing an "amicus brief" opposing questions Caperton and Harman raised about the role West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin played in two 3-2 decisions that overturned a Boone County verdict of $50 million against Massey Energy. With interest, that verdict is now worth $82 million.
A Boone County jury awarded Caperton and Harman the $50 million verdict after it decided that Massey had hijacked a long-term coal supply contract that Harman had with LTV Corp. for its steel mills in the Pittsburgh area.
"Prior to his election to the West Virginia Supreme Court, Brent Benjamin was an unknown lawyer," Roberts wrote. "He received virtually all of his campaign funding from the head of a powerful corporation, Massey Energy."
Don Blankenship is president and CEO of Massey.
"Once on the court," Roberts continued, "Benjamin was in a position to vote on matters that directly affected the financial well-being of his campaign benefactor and the corporation he runs. And vote he did, on more than one occasion, including the Harman decision."
Dan Schweitzer, Supreme Court Counsel for the National Association of Attorneys General, sent King's request to those attorneys general in an e-mail dated Jan. 16.
Schweitzer was not available for comment, and NAAG public information officials did not return telephone calls Friday.
"What is it about that sequence of events that Mr. King wants to protect?" Roberts asked.
"No state justice or judge, sitting on any court in any state, should be able to rule on a case that impacts a major contributor to that judge's election campaign. That should be the law of the land, whether it be West Virginia, Alabama or anywhere else.
"In arguing to allow such a seamy practice to continue, Mr. King is in essence arguing to allow the appearance of impropriety to seep into the judicial system of every state in the country where judges are elected."
King believes the Supreme Court should not set federal standards regulating state courts.
"Federalizing the issue is unnecessary because the states are currently handling the issue with their own rules and regulations," King stated in a memo attached to Schweitzer's e-mail.
Benjamin will not comment on the pending appeal. However, in a concurring opinion he filed on July 28, Benjamin stated that he was not biased by Blankenship's $3 million campaign expenditures on his behalf.
Federal judicial canons, Benjamin wrote, dispel "any contention that appearance-based judging should supercede judging based on actualities.
"Simply stated, a decision which is firmly rooted in legal substance should not yield to a collateral partisan attack which manipulates appearances. Rather, it should rise or fall on its own substantive merits."
Roberts wrote, "Mr. King may believe it's OK for judges to be bought and paid for, but no one other than the ones doing the buying would agree with him."
Neither Joy Patterson nor Suzanne Webb from Attorney General King's media office in Montgomery, Ala., returned telephone calls Friday.
Schweitzer's e-mail states that King will circulate a final draft of his amicus brief on Wednesday. The deadline for other attorneys general to join him is Feb. 3, the day before his brief is due.
Massey Energy's own brief to the Supreme Court also is due Wednesday.
Caperton, Harman Mining and briefs from independent groups supporting their appeal were filed with the Supreme Court earlier this month.
Both sides in the lawsuit must submit their "reply briefs" by Feb. 24. Oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., are scheduled for March 3.
Reach Paul J. Nyden at pjny...@wvgazette.com or 304-348-5164.
Post a comment