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.”
Judge allows for former coal executive David Roberson’s $75 million case against Drummond Company to move forward, orders discovery to begin
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.” That statement came the day following the guilty verdicts in the trial of David Roberson and Joel Gilbert of Balch & Bingham. During the same time, Roberson says he and his wife were promised by Drummond “they had nothing to worry about” and that Drummond would keep David Roberson on paid administrative leave until his appeal process was completed. Drummond would pay him his full salary, bonuses, and benefits until the matter had been fully adjudicated. However, on February 7, 2019, exactly six months and eighteen days after his conviction, Drummond terminated Roberson’s employment with no notice or reason. Now the very same people at Drummond who spoke to Roberson’s integrity are attempting to impugn it as part of a defense strategy in a suit Roberson has filed against them. Roberson and his wife brought suit against Drummond Company and Balch & Bingham. Balch & Bingham was dismissed from the suit, not for its merits but instead on technical grounds after Judge Tamara Harris ruled that the firm was protected by the statute of limitations laid out in the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act (ALSLA). Burt Newsome the Roberson’s attorney, is moving forward in circuit court against Drummond Company. Ironically, Drummond is now attempting to use that same statute (ALSLA) as their defense. Responding to that claim, Newsom says, “Drummond Company, Inc.’s assertion that it falls under the Alabama Legal Services Act is simply absurd. It is a coal company, and the ALSA only applies to lawyers and law firms as clearly held by the Alabama Supreme Court.” The lawsuit claims that Drummond waited exactly six months from his conviction, believing that to be the applicable statute of limitations for both them and Balch and Bingham. Roberson is suing Drummond Coal for $75,000,000 compensatory and punitive damages. He and his wife allege in their suit a series of broken promises, bad faith advice, and misconduct by Drummond executives 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. Roberson, who maintains his innocence, was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison, followed by one year of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay a $25,000 fine and complete 100 hours per year of community service during his year of supervised release. Speaking to the effects of the case and the alleged actions of Drummond and Balch & Bingham, David Roberson told Alabama Today, “Anna and I have lost everything as a result of what happened at Drummond – our home, our possessions, our friends and my career.” There is little room for disagreement that Roberson was held in the highest esteem in his personal and professional life prior to this case, as U.S. District Judge Abdul Kallon acknowledged during the sentencing hearing for Roberson. Over 149 people, including family, friends, business executives, and lawmakers, wrote letters of support for leniency, which ultimately led Judge Kallon to deviate from the sentencing guidelines for a lesser sentence. During that hearing, Al.com reports that Roberson spoke, thanking his family and friends for their support. “I may have been naïve, I may have been too trusting… [but] I am innocent of all charges brought against me,” Roberson said. He said he trusted Gilbert and the Balch team to make sure everything they were doing was ethical, and also said he never saw the contract with Robinson’s nonprofit foundation. “I never thought we were bribing Oliver Robinson,” he said. “I trusted Joel [Gilbert].” Gilbert was not just Roberson’s co-defendant. They were long-time personal friends. Gilbert included Roberson in his apologies during his sentencing hearing. In a ruling made this past Friday, November 20, 2020, Judge Harris not only denied efforts for Drummond to have more time also ruled that discovery can also begin. Newsome said, “We are confident that the evidence will show that Mr. Roberson was deceived and that criminal activity was concealed from him by both Balch and Drummond, and he first learned about this misconduct at his criminal trial. Furthermore, we believe that the evidence will also show that David Roberson, nor Joel Gilbert either for that matter, received a fair trial and that other indictments related to this North Birmingham Superfund scandal are possible when the complete truth comes to light.” He went on to say, “Corporations have a duty of fair play with their employees – especially those that are in sensitive positions such as government affairs and compliance. Executive Management and the Board of Directors and their attorneys cannot engage in misconduct and then set up lower-level managers/employees to take the blame if the misconduct is discovered by government agents.” The cases and claims against Drummond and Balch & Bingham are not expected to be easy. Both companies have the financial means and political capital to fight it. Roberson noted this challenge and his faith that he will succeed, saying, “Burt Newsome is the only lawyer in this state who would take on two of state’s most powerful entities – Balch & Bingham and Drummond Company. Burt is a lawyer that has guts and integrity, and we are going to see this thing through to the end.” “All corporations want to make money, but a corporation should have some boundaries as to what it will do to make money and what it is willing to do to others to pursue profits,” Roberson continued. The court will now be able to hear the argument that Drummond did, in fact, go too far.
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.”
Joel Gilbert, David Roberson convicted in bribery case
A prominent Alabama attorney and a coal company executive were convicted Friday on federal charges involving bribery of a state lawmaker. The verdict against Joel Gilbert, a partner with Balch & Bingham law firm, and Drummond Co. Vice President David Roberson was announced after a four-week trial. Jurors found them guilty of conspiracy, bribery, three counts of honest services wire fraud and money laundering. Prosecutors said the two men bribed former state Rep. Oliver Robinson to oppose the Environmental Protection Agency’s expansion of a Superfund site and prioritizing the site’s expensive cleanup. Robinson pleaded guilty last year to bribery and tax evasion. He has not yet been sentenced. U.S. Attorney Jay Town said after the verdict that the case was not about the EPA or about pollution. “This was a case about greed at the expense of too many,” he stated in a prepared release. “The findings of guilt for these three individuals, by trial or plea, should forewarn anyone who would be corruptly motivated to act in similar unlawful interest. Voters deserve public officials who seek to represent them honestly and fairly. When elected officials, corporate executives or their lawyers violate our federal laws, they should expect to suffer the fate of these three guilty defendants. We appreciate the dedication of the federal agencies that worked tirelessly on this case.” A third defendant, Balch attorney Steven McKinney, was dismissed from the case one day before closing arguments began. U.S. District Judge Abdul Kallon didn’t elaborate on the dismissal and his attorneys were not immediately available for comment. Drummond Co. issued a statement after the verdict. “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,” it said. “When an environmentalist group raised allegations regarding our operations in the Birmingham area, Drummond responded by hiring one of Alabama’s most well-respected environmental law firms. As testimony in the trial showed, we were assured the firm’s community outreach efforts on our behalf were legal and proper.” According to prosecutors, the men formed a contract through Balch with Robinson’s nonprofit organization to pressure state officials to oppose the EPA, to meet with EPA representatives, and vote on a joint resolution in the legislature to denounce the expansion and Superfund site being named on the EPA’s National Priorities List. Defense teams for both men said Robinson acted alone, and the contract with his foundation was for legitimate community outreach work. They said Robinson’s allegations about Gilbert and Roberson shouldn’t be trusted. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Attorney at center of Oliver Robinson trial declares innocence
A partner at one of Alabama’s leading law firms declared his innocence ahead of being indicted on charges of bribing a state legislator to oppose an environmental cleanup plan. Federal court documents revealed Thursday Joel Gilbert, partner with Balch & Bingham whose practice is primarily focused on handling environmental litigation, is accused of bribing former state Rep. Oliver Robinson, along with fellow Balch & Bingham attorney Steven McKinney and Drummond Co. Vice President David Roberson. Ahead of Thursday’s indictment, Jack Sharman, the leader of Lightfoot, Franklin & White law firm’s white-collar defense and corporate investigations practice and Gilbert’s attorney, said Wednesday night his client is innocent. He claims Gilbert did not bribe anyone and that evidence will prove he was simply conducting lawful, routine and ethical work for his client, the Drummond Company. “This is a case that never should have been brought. Joel represented a client in a legal dispute with the EPA, a powerful and, in this case, over-reaching federal agency,” Sharman said. “Everything he did while representing that client was lawful and ethical.” Sharman continued, “He is a longtime partner at a leading law firm. A lawyer with a reputation for honesty and integrity, he did what is routine for good counselors to do for corporate and individual clients every day – he engaged a consultant through a written contract to perform real and lawful services.” “The Government has the burden of proof at trial, not Joel, but the evidence – including emails, text messages, contracts, billing records, environmental testing and witness testimony – will prove that Joel is innocent.” Read the full statement below: Joel Gilbert is innocent of these charges. He did not bribe anyone. This is a case that never should have been brought. Joel represented a client in a legal dispute with the EPA, a powerful and, in this case, over-reaching federal agency. Everything he did while representing that client was lawful and ethical. He is a longtime partner at a leading law firm. A lawyer with a reputation for honesty and integrity, he did what is routine for good counselors to do for corporate and individual clients every day – he engaged a consultant through a written contract to perform real and lawful services. The Government has the burden of proof at trial, not Joel, but the evidence – including emails, text messages, contracts, billing records, environmental testing and witness testimony – will prove that Joel is innocent. We will tell the whole story at trial. Because of the recent adverse publicity about these events, however, a few basic facts should be noted. The consulting contract at issue is both lawful and common. Balch & Bingham, Joel’s law firm, entered into a contract with the Oliver Robinson Foundation, on behalf of the firm’s client, Drummond Company, to help with a grassroots effort to understand what EPA was doing in North Birmingham and Tarrant and, where appropriate, to address factual inaccuracies and faulty science. Such contracts and efforts are legal under both federal and state law, including the Alabama Ethics Code. The Alabama Ethics Code is complex, but it explicitly permits public officials, including state legislators and their affiliates, to do consulting work for a fee – the type of arrangement that the Government is now trying to say is criminal. The records will show that the payments under the contract to the Foundation were for community outreach work performed by the Foundation, not to bribe Mr. Robinson. If Oliver Robinson did something he was not supposed to with the fees paid to the Foundation for the Foundation’s work, Joel did not know about it or approve of it. Further, when Oliver Robinson attended a meeting of the Alabama Environmental Management Commission, he did two things. He asked questions and he suggested that, if Drummond was liable for pollution, the company should be held accountable – hardly the actions of a legislator who was improperly influenced. The written transcript of the Commission meeting is clear about these statements. Joel has more than 15 years of legal experience and is widely respected. The facts will show that he is innocent and that he acted in good faith. He is going to trial. At trial, we will present all of the evidence, not just the fragments of information and innuendo provided we expect will be found in the indictment.
