David Roberson’s case against Drummond moves forward with “first round” of subpoenas targeting executives
Just weeks after the court ruled that David Roberson’s (and his wife Anna Roberson) $75,000,000 case against Drummond Company may move forward, including discovery, his legal team filed a slew of motions laying out their intent to subpoena witnesses for their case. According to Roberson’s attorney, Burt Newsome, “This is just the first round of subpoenas. There will be more.” Speaking to the Roberson’s feelings on this important step, Newsome says, “David and Anna are glad to see the case moving forward. They have been through a horrific ordeal, and people who they thought were their friends have really knifed them in the back.” The case seeks compensatory and punitive damages for what he alleges were a series of broken promises, bad faith advice, and misconduct by Drummond executives and Balch & Bingham that left him without a proper defense in his criminal case and without income, which ultimately left him and his family in dire financial straits and ruined his reputation. Over 147 people, including lawmakers, executives, philanthropists, friends, and family members spoke to Roberson’s reputation at his sentencing hearing, each one independently verifying that he is a selfless, honorable, respectable man in his personal and professional dealings. Immediately following the statement made by Drummond Company was unequivocal, “We are disappointed by the jury’s decision to convict our employee, David Roberson. While we respect the judicial process, we consider David to be a man of integrity who would not knowingly engage in wrongdoing.” The current list of those with filed intent to subpoenas include: Patrick Runge Michael Talmadge Simpson Steven G. McKinney Mike Tracy Michael A. Drummond Richard Mullen John Drummond Alabama Power and its CEO Newsome says that among those included in this first round of subpoenas are individuals who made the alleged promises that both David and Anna Roberson relied on that Drummond Company would provide continued financial support to their family through his appeals process. Promises which their lawsuit contends were broken shortly after Drummond Company and Balch & Bingham believed that they were in the clear from the liability of their actions. In spite of the financial resources that several of these executives have at their disposal Roberson and his team believe they will get answers that prove their case with Newsome saying, “I think some of these deponents will tell the truth about everything they know.”
Circuit Court Judge Tamara Harris Johnson under fire for unreasonable delays
“Justice delayed is justice denied,” British prime minister William E. Gladstone stated in an 1868 speech. Our American justice system is predicated on the idea that a key component of fairness for the accused and the state alike is the timely consideration of facts, motions, and even the timeliness of a trial itself. Early last week, David Roberson and his wife Anna Roberson filed an order asking the state supreme court to compel Circuit Court Judge Tamara Harris Johnson to rule on the pending motions related to their case against Drummond Coal and Balch & Bingham law firm. The filing (Petition for Mandamus V1) lays out their case for action from the supreme court saying, “Under Alabama law, a delay of more than six months in deciding a matter is presumptively unreasonable. Indeed, every judge must file a report, twice yearly, listing all “matters which have been under submission or advisement for a period of six months or longer.” Ala. Canons Jud. Ethics 3(A)(5). For any “matter or case” listed, “the report shall give … the reasons for the failure of the judge to decide such matters or cases.” 3 Adding insult to injury for her overdue delays, Judge Johnson filed a fraudulent affidavit stating that she didn’t have any cases that had been held over longer than six months. The motion states, “Under the Alabama Constitution, “justice shall be administered without … delay.” Ala. Const. § 13. The Rules of Civil Procedure secure the right to a “speedy … determination,” Ala. R. Civ. P. 1(c), and the Canons of Judicial Ethics require a judge to act “promptly.” Ala. Canon Jud. Ethics 3(A)(5). Judge Johnson has not acted promptly; she has not acted at all. Aside from denying the Robersons’ motion to recuse her, she has not ruled on any motion since May 17, 2019 – when she stayed discovery [Exhibit 29]. This delay is abhorrent to the Alabama Constitution and the administration of justice. The Robersons have a “clear legal right” to a decision in their case, and Judge Johnson has “an imperative duty” to render one.” Summarizing the situation concisely, the motion by the Robersons puts it all in perspective, “In summary, almost fourteen months have elapsed since the “first motions” were filed, and Judge Johnson has not ruled on any of those motions. Almost eight months have elapsed since the “second motions” were filed, and again, Judge Johnson has not ruled on any of those motions. The Robersons have a “clear legal right” to a decision from Judge Johnson.”
