Tweet suggests Ali Akbar and attorney Baron Coleman know who's behind my arrest and our foreclosure

A tweet from April 15 of this year suggests right-wing media maven Ali Akbar and his lawyer, G. Baron Coleman of Montgomery, Alabama, have inside information about who is responsible for my incarceration, the foreclosure (probably unlawful) on our home, and the dubious lawsuits that bookended both actions.

This could have serious implications for Coleman's legal career. Rule 8.3 of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct requires a lawyer to report misconduct to a tribunal or other authority with the power to investigate. Lawyers (Rob Riley and Jessica Medeiros Garrison) launched both lawsuits in question, and if Coleman knows they were bogus or filed for improper reasons, he has a duty to report that. Instead, he is making light of the subject on Twitter.

If Coleman was involved in a scheme to deprive my wife, Carol, and me of our freedom and our home--or if has been helping to cover up such activity--that could call for the involvement of criminal authorities. At the very least, the tweet reveals Akbar and Coleman to be juvenile (make that infantile) nitwits who apparently resort to online taunting because they have nothing creative or intelligent to say.

You can read the first part of the Twitter conversation at the beginning of this post, and the second part is at the end.

Akbar starts the festivities by tweeting about Matt Osborne, the editor of Breitbart Unmasked, and me--with a reference to a $3.5-million default judgment against me in the Garrison case. The default judgment, by law, is due to be overturned, and that process is ongoing, but it's anyone's guess what actually will happen.

Removing extraneous comments from a couple of other folks, here is the conversation between Akbar and Coleman:

Akbar: Matt Osborne sure helped Roger Shuler out. Hahaha. $3.5 M libel mishap. Idiots flock together.

Coleman: The last three year's of that guy's life is a fine example of what not to do.

Akbar: His whole existence.

Coleman: He's judgment-proof, has nothing. No reason to bother fighting it. $1 might as well be $10 million to him.

What help was Matt Osborne supposed to have provided related to the Garrison lawsuit? I have no idea. What have I done in the last three years that, in Coleman's mind, is a "fine example of what not to do"?

I've written a blog about legal and political corruption in Alabama and beyond, and none of my reporting ever has been found false and defamatory at trial. In other words, I've abided by the First Amendment right to a free press, only to be arrested inside my own home, with no sign or mention of a warrant--which means my five-month incarceration was the result of a kidnapping.

Baron Coleman doesn't support the First Amendment? He enjoys making light of kidnappings, false arrests, and police abuse? That's how it looks from here.

Then we learn that Coleman has knowledge about our finances, stating that we have "nothing." How does he know that? Has he, or someone he knows, gained unauthorized access to our banking information?

How's this for irony? Both Akbar and Coleman make frequent references to their supposed faith, claiming to be serious Christians. Coleman wears his Catholicism on his sleeve and speaks out against abortion rights, apparently on moral grounds. But what kind of morals and ethics do Akbar and Coleman really have?

Many theologians consider the Golden Rule, as stated in Matthew 7:12, the most profound passage in The Bible--going to the very heart of the Christian message. From The King James Version:

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do
to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

In other words, act toward others as you would like them to act toward you. Public records and reports show Akbar has been convicted of multiple felonies and has trolled online for gay sex via the Grindr app, so we know he's a phony and a scam artist. But one tends to expect more from Coleman, a lawyer who spouts his righteous rhetoric on radio, television, and online.

But Coleman, like Akbar, appears to be an empty vessel. On his Twitter account, Coleman reveals that he has five children and a wife. That brings this question to mind: "Mr. Coleman, how would it feel if your loved ones had been tormented, harassed, and abused, as mine have been? What if someone had stolen everything you had ever worked for, putting your wife and children at threat of starvation? Would that be amusing to you? Would you be pleased to go on Twitter and find that others are having a good chuckle because your loved ones have been victimized?

"In other words, Mr. Coleman, is your professed Christianity just a facade? Does the conversation that flows from Ali Akbar's tweet reveal who you really are?"

We've already shown that Baron Coleman isn't worth a crap as a lawyer. Now we know that he isn't worth a crap as a human being.

The Daily Caller, for whom Jessica Medeiros Garrison writes, "broke" the story of Garrison default judgment

Tucker Carlson

When an Alabama judge earlier this year issued a default judgment, finding that I had defamed Republican political operative and lawyer Jessica Medeiros Garrison to the tune of $3.5 million, what news organization broke the story?

Was it al.com, the largest mainstream outlet in my home area? No. Was it a progressive site that had followed the constitutional issues raised by my unlawful arrest, related to alleged defamation of another GOP operative (Rob Riley), in October 2013? Nope. Was it a Web site with special interest in digital communications or the rights of bloggers and Web publishers? No siree.

It was the The Daily Caller, a news and opinion Web site launched in 2010 by conservative commentator Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel, a one-time adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney. Is The Daily Caller an objective source of news on the Garrison case? Not exactly. One of its contributors is president of something called The Rule of Law Defense Fund. And her name is--you guessed it--Jessica Medeiros Garrison. (I'm not making this up: A Republican is president of an organization that purports to defend the "Rule of Law." Try not to guffaw.)

Does The Daily Caller ("The DC") reveal this little conflict of interest to its readers? Nah. Is the conflict reflected in the Web site's coverage? Oh yes, and we will explain in a moment.

Speaking of conflicts, they don't end there. Who spent more than $3 million to help The Daily Caller get off the ground? That was retired Wyoming investment guru and Republican mega-donor Foster Friess, according to Washington Post media writer Erik Wemple, Politico's Dylan Byers, and others.

That's the same Foster Friess who, Breitbart Unmasked (BU) reports, provided seed funding for the National Bloggers Club (NBC), a consortium of down-scale right-wing pundits, such as Robert Stacy McCain, Aaron Walker, John Hoge, and John Patrick Frey. BU reports that Friess also helped fund Karl Rove's American Crossroads. (Speaking of Aaron Walker, I have a bizarre story about him. See note at the end of this post.)

President of the NBC, of course, is Ali A. Akbar, he of the multiple felony convictions and a tendency to troll for gay sex on the Grindr geosocial app. Akbar threatened a lawsuit against me for reporting on the contents of a letter that Alabama attorney and whistleblower Jill Simpson wrote to Robert Bauer, counsel for President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign.

The Simpson letter included allegations that Rove and Akbar had engaged in a homosexual relationship. Simpson's investigation of the matter came after she received a copy of Akbar's Grindr ad, which said he was looking for sex with "men who are Republican, political, and love to discuss politics and philosophy." I don't know about the philosophy part, but Karl Rove certainly seems to qualify under the rest of that description.

Case law dating back roughly 45 years shows that Akbar had no valid defamation claim against me. But he enlisted Montgomery lawyer Baron Coleman to send me a threatening letter, dated October 26, 2013, which was three days after Alabama deputies beat me up inside my own home, doused me with pepper spray, and hauled me off to jail for a five-month stay.

For good measure, The Daily Caller also lists Ali Akbar as a contributor--and that brings us back to Tucker Carlson's little toy and the "journalism" it practices.

How do we know The DC broke the story about Jessica Garrison's default judgment? You can check out the site's story here, which is dated April 13, 2015. That's before I knew about the judgment, and it was one day before al.com reported on it. (If you see a note revealing to readers that Jessica Garrison writes for the site, please let me know; I haven't found one.)

Bloggers under the Ali Akbar umbrella took note of the story. You can read a couple of their takes here at Hogewash and here at The Other McCain.

This provides a classic example of how the right-wing noise machine works. You have The Daily Caller breaking the story about the default judgment in the Garrison case, while members of Ali Akbar's National Bloggers Club quickly weigh in. (Gee, I wonder how The DC found out about the Garrison default judgment. Oh, that's right, Garrison works for them--and the site didn't tell us. That's objectivity you can trust.)

So we have  two entities in the right-wing media orbit--The DC and the NBC-- taking a special interest in the Garrison story. And what, or who, ties both of them together? It's Foster Friess, who provided start-up funding for both.

Foster Friess
(From fosterfriess.com)

What kind of journalism does Foster Friess support? If The Daily Caller story is any indication, the journalism would have to improve to reach the level of shoddy. In fact, I'm not sure you can call it journalism at all, based on the following:

* The story does not mention that the $3.5 million was awarded in a DEFAULT judgment. That means it was not based on the merits of Garrison's claim; it was based on the fact I did not appear at key junctures in the case because I did not receive notice of depositions, hearings, etc.

* The story does not mention that I didn't receive notice because my wife and I were forced to move due to a legally questionable foreclosure on our home, right on the heels of my unconstitutional jail stay in the Riley case.

* The story mentions neither the foreclosure nor the wildly unlawful nature of my arrest, in violation of more than 200 years of First Amendment law. Is that because right-wing interests connected to The Daily Caller were involved in, or at least had advance knowledge of, both the foreclosure and the arrest?

* The story states that Garrison and Attorney General Luther Strange vehemently denied my reports of an extramarital affair. The story does not say that their denials came at a hearing where no opposition was present. It does not say that their denials came without any cross examination, with no depositions, production of documents, or any other form of discovery. It also does not say that Jessica Garrison's divorce file remains sealed in Tuscaloosa County, for no apparent lawful reason.

* The story refers to my reporting on Garrison and Strange as "flimsy accusations." Oh, but wait, Jessica Garrison works for the outfit that produced the story. Did Tucker Carlson's team reveal that to its readers? Nope. Can't get much more "fair and balanced" than that.

* Has The DC followed up with reports about my efforts to have the default judgment overturned? Has it reported on my Motion to Vacate, which cites numerous cases that show the judgment is due to be set aside? Has it reported that my motion drew no written response from Garrison attorney Bill Baxley? Has it reported that much of the Garrison default judgment is based on allegations regarding her son that I did not even report? Hah, are you kidding? The DC has ignored all of that. (After all, Jessica Garrison works for them.)

Do Foster Friess and Ali Akbar have a vested interest in such sloppy and shallow reporting on the Garrison judgment? Does The Daily Caller have other conflicts of interests that might explain its reporting?

We will examine those questions in an upcoming post.

Note: Aaron Walker is one of the more interesting members of the National Bloggers Club. A Yale-educated attorney who lives in Virginia, Walker's blog is called Allergic to Bull. He used to blog under the name Aaron Worthing, until his real identity was revealed in the course of the many legal proceedings that have accompanied the right-wing feud with Brett Kimberlin. Walker first came to my attention when he was a leading force behind "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day," an effort apparently to fire back at, or provoke, Islamic religious sensibilities.

Walker claims that he and his wife lost their jobs because of his outing during the course of the Kimberlin battle. I certainly can empathize with that kind of thing, although I'm not sure Kimberlin caused the job loss.

Walker wrote five posts about my incarceration, and they proved to be a mixed bag. He correctly acknowledged that the temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction leading to my arrest were unlawful. But in another post, he pointed to me as the mysterious "RogerS" behind Kimberlin's RICO lawsuit and more or less accused me of committing a crime--the unauthorized practice of law. Walker also apparently tried to gather intelligence about various legal cases to which I've been a party and came up mostly with information that is wildly inaccurate. He claims to have found an anonymous source to reveal the "inside baseball" version of my problems with our criminally inclined neighbor, Mike McGarity.

(Not surprisingly, Walker made no effort to report on McGarity's criminal history, which we've revealed here, here, here, here, here, and here, Walker also chose to ignore the ugly history of McGarity's lawyer, William E. Swatek, which includes a suspension of his license and a criminal trial for perjury. We've covered that subject here, here, here, here, and here.)

On the McGarity post, almost everything the source told Walker is false--so Walker either was duped or he didn't try very hard to find someone who actually knows what he is talking about. Heck, Walker could have contacted me; I've been out of jail since March 26, 2014. Or he could have checked public records that are on file in the Alabama court system.

At one point, Kimberlin brought second-degree assault charges against Walker, and Walker was arrested in court for "incitement" while arguing the case. (Maryland has some strange laws, including provisions for "peace orders," which are new to me but have played a prominent role in the various Kimberlin cases.)

Walker has called me a hypocrite for allegedly supporting Kimberlin's efforts to silence him via "peace orders," while decrying Rob Riley's efforts to silence me via a TRO/preliminary injunction. Walker seems to miss several points: (1) Analysts on the left and right have stated that Riley's actions against me represent prior restraints under the First Amendment. No one seriously doubts that I was the victim of unlawful court actions, which Rob Riley requested; (2) I don't know if Kimberlin's efforts regarding peace orders against Walker are lawful and supported by facts--and I've made no claim about them one way or another. Peace orders, it seems, are a strange provision of Maryland law, and I have not researched them or analyzed their propriety in the Kimberlin cases; (4) Walker and others in his blogging group claim I am a supporter and advocate of Brett Kimberlin. The truth? Of the 2,903 posts I've written at Legal Schnauzer, exactly one has been about Brett Kimberlin--and that was the result of a trusted source asking me to report on the subject. I've had one brief phone conversation with Kimberlin, and that is the extent of my personal communication with him.

Here is the theme of my one post about Brett Kimberlin: I admire his spunk and tenancity, his willingness to fight back against a conservative onslaught. Too few liberals, in my view, are willing to take on such battles--in fact, many of them are wusses. Brett Kimberlin might have shortcomings, as we all do, but being a wuss is not one of them.

That was pretty much it. Did I claim to know anything about peace orders, and Kimberlin's apparent use of them? Did I claim that Kimberlin's legal arguments were solid, while Walker's were not? The answer to both questions is no. I tried to paint a general picture of an ideological online feud and show that at least one liberal has the cojones to fight back.

The whole contretemps apparently started when an overzealous blogger named Seth Allen ("Socrates" was his screen name) started stalking and harassing Kimberlin. That led Kimberlin to file a lawsuit, and Walker offered to provide Allen with legal help. Activists from both the left and right started piling on, and before long, a full-scale ideological gang war was in session.

I was very much an outsider in all of this, not even paying much attention, until someone decided (inaccurately) that I must be the "RogerS" who was encouraging Kimberlin to file a RICO lawsuit. Next thing you know, Alabama deputies are dragging me off to jail, and I'm a regular topic of discussion for Aaron Walker and other right-wing bloggers.

In following this long-and-winding story, it's hard not to notice that Aaron Walker seems to be the "Gladys Kravitz of the blogging world." The Seth Allen-Brett Kimberlin dispute did not involve him, but Walker stuck his nose in it anyway. "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day," to any semi adult, was a pointless, stupid idea--the digital equivalent of soaping someone's windows--but Walker got involved in it anyway. Walker had every right to report on Brett Kimberlin's background, and to take issue with Kimberlin's politics, but court documents indicate Walker and others took their distaste for Kimberlin and turned it into a jihad that included stalking and harassment. Walker also had every right to report on my case and criticize me in any number of ways, but he jumped on the bogus "RogerS" train and essentially accused me of a crime I didn't commit. He then cited multiple anonymous sources, which is fine, but they provided an avalanche of false information--much of which could have been proven false with a check of public records, or by contacting me.

The notion of Aaron Walker as a "Gladys Kravitz" kind of character brings me to a point that hits close to home. On October 28, 2013, Walker wrote a post titled "Down Deep Into Roger Shuler's Paranoid Mind." If you scroll to the comments section, you see that the second item reads as follows:

SPQROctober 28, 2013 at 12:37 PM

David Schuler (sic)?

Why would the commenter ask this? Apparently, it's because Walker's original headline was "Deep Down In David Shuler's Paranoid Mind." It's possible that Walker originally referred to me as "David Shuler" throughout the post, but it's hard to tell about that.

As for the headline, you can check the URL, which still appears as:

http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2013/10/down-deep-into-david-shulers-paranoid.html

I know from experience that you can change the headline on a blog post, but the URL will reflect the original headline--at least in the Blogger format that Walker and I both use. That means Walker's original headline referred to me as "David Shuler."

Why is that interesting? Well, I have a brother named David Shuler, who is a lawyer in a state other than Alabama. In fact, I've referred to him (not by name) in at least one post, probably more. Here is the one reference I know of for sure:

We certainly do not think all lawyers are awful people. We actually know some who are honorable. In fact, such lawyers--Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, Wes Teel--have been central characters in many of our posts, as victims of bad apples in their own profession. Some noble lawyers--Jill Simpson, Scott Horton, Andrew Kreig--have been consistent sources of insight and inspiration for this blog.

I was not predisposed to dislike lawyers. Heck, my youngest brother is a lawyer--in a state other than Alabama--and I've always thought of him as an upstanding guy.

Why did Aaron Walker refer to me as "David Shuler"? Was it just a "slip of the keyboard," signifying nothing? Or maybe it means something else. Maybe Aaron Walker and David Shuler, as fellow members of the legal tribe, have communicated with each other for some reason. What would they have to talk or e-mail or text about? Maybe Aaron "Gladys Kravitz" Walker just could not keep his nose out of my personal business. Maybe Aaron Walker's history of stepping in doo-doo that could easily have been avoided is repeating itself.

Walker already refers to me as "paranoid," so I might as well play the part. Doesn't it seem strange that, of all the incorrect names he could have chosen for me, the one that came out just happened to be David--and I have a lawyer brother by that name? Isn't it also curious that my brother's name has several variants--Dave, Davy--but Walker spit out "David," which is the version my brother always has gone by.

Could I be way off base on my Aaron Walker/David Shuler angle? Sure. But I do know that lawyers tend to stick together--and I know that their professional loyalties can sometimes outweigh other loyalties, such as to a blood relative, a brother. I also know that, through bar directories and such, lawyers have many avenues for looking each other up. Again, whether they are based in Vermont or California, they all are members of the same club.

I know this for sure: Aaron Walker's slip-up on a headline has given me quite a bit to think about.

"Conservative" mega-donor Foster Friess helps fund Ali Akbar, whose sketchy background includes trolling for gay sex online, plus multiple criminal convictions

Ali Akbar's ad at the Grindr gay-sex trolling app

We've presented evidence that members of a right-wing bloggers club might have been involved in, or at least had knowledge of, my unlawful incarceration. Would it be a surprise if members of the group, called the National Bloggers Club (NBC), engaged in such underhanded activity? Given that the club president has a history of engaging in underhanded activity--including some that might be described as downright sleazy--the answer probably is no.

NBC president Ali A. Akbar threatened to sue me for reporting accurately and fairly about a letter Alabama lawyer Jill Simpson wrote to Obama re-election counsel Robert Bauer in 2012. In the letter, Simpson wrote that her investigation turned up evidence that Akbar and Republican electoral guru Karl Rove had engaged in a homosexual relationship. Under the "neutral reportage doctrine," Akbar had no case for defamation against me--and his lawyer Baron Coleman, of Montgomery, Alabama, should have known that.

Threatening baseless lawsuits is pretty underhanded in itself. But that is a mere blip on the radar compared to the other shady stuff in Akbar's background, which includes trolling for gay sex online--plus multiple criminal convictions, including felonies.

Let's start with the online trolling because that's what prompted Simpson to take a closer look at Akbar. She obtained a copy of an ad Akbar placed at Grindr, a geosocial networking application "geared toward gay, bisexual, and bi-curious men." According to Simpson's letter, Akbar's ad stated that he "was looking for bisexual sex with men who were Republican, political, and loved to discuss politics and philosophy and just wanted to hang out and chill with them."

How is this for irony? The NBC reportedly received seed funding from Foster Friess, a wealthy Wyoming businessman. How wealthy is Foster Friess? Reports vary, but assets in his investment-management firm total $15.7 billion, while The Wall Street Journal reported his personal net worth at $530 million. Friess is touted as an "active patron of religious and conservative causes," and he perhaps is best known for backing the 2012 presidential run of the virulently anti-gay and anti-choice Rick Santorum. Friess appears to be setting the table for a 2016 Santorum run at the White House.

How forward-thinking is Foster Friess? Not very. In an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, Friess was asked about contraception. "This contraceptive thing, my gosh, it’s so . . .  inexpensive," Friess said. "Back in my day, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly."

The National Bloggers Club is not Friess' only foray into the right-wing media. He invested more than $3 million to get Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller Web site off the ground. On his blog, Friess touts a study that shows crime goes down as the sale of guns increases. Santorum is not the only anti-gay candidate to draw Friess' support. The investment guru also has thrown money at Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who has consistently opposed same-sex marriage. For good measure, NBC blogger Robert Stacy McCain seems to consider "lesbian feminists" to be a major threat to American culture.

One of Ali Akbar's various mugshots

So Foster Friess supports anti-gay candidates and bloggers, and seems to be a "tough on crime" conservative, but he financially supports a bloggers club with a president who has trolled for gay sex at Grindr and has an extensive criminal record? Hard to figure.

How did Ali Akbar rise to a prominent role in the Republican media galaxy, despite his criminal record? That also is hard to figure, given the GOP's stance as the supposed "law and order" party.

According to a report at the progressive Web site Breitbart Unmasked, (BU) Akbar was convicted in 2007 of theft of property and in 2008 of credit-card abuse. Both charges, in Texas, were felonies.

Borrowing from public records, BU describes the theft case as follows:

Five MP3 Players, Twenty CD’s, Three Camcorders, Two DVD Players, One Back Massager (How ghetto is this thief?) One Clock, Four Shirts, Two Belts (WTF?) and a Piece of Luggage, which had the value of over 1500.00 USD but less than 20,000.00 USD. This theft was obtained pursuant to one scheme or a continuing course of criminal conduct which began on or about November 1st 2006, and continued until on or about November 29th 2006. In other words, he was stealing from this person more than once, and over a course of time that lasted almost a full month before it came to an end.

That's quite a crime spree--and the ugliness doesn't end there. BU reports that Akbar also was charged with burglary of a vehicle, but that charge was dropped in a plea bargain that resolved his theft and credit-card cases.

How many other unattractive qualities does Ali Akbar possess? Well, let's consider that he likes to brag about his ties to the Alabama political/legal communities and issue thinly veiled threats based on his access to powerful friends. That's exactly what he did to Jill Simpson, in apparent retaliation for her letter to Robert Bauer. (By the way, how did Akbar develop such contacts in Alabama? Perhaps from Karl Rove, who is known to make his Alabama home base at the Montgomery law firm of Capell Howard?)

In a post dated October 24, 2013 (one day after my arrest), right-wing blogger Stacy McCain referenced the Simpson/Bauer letter and its allegations regarding a homosexual relationship between Ali Akbar and Karl Rove. Akbar piped up in the comments section and stated the following:

There's no alleged affair. It's made up an (sic) irresponsible to print. I'm a human fucking being and Jill Simpson should lawyer up buddy. Tell her not to worry about coming to Texas. I can come to Alabama. I'll dine with the Governor and then spend the afternoon cashing in favors with Alabama lawyers.

Since current Governor Robert Bentley almost certainly would want nothing to do with Ali Akbar, the reference must be to former Governor Bob Riley, who owes his two terms in office largely to the Karl Rove and Jack Abramoff political machines. (By the way, that hints that Akbar is chummy with Riley's son, Rob Riley, who just happened to file the dubious defamation lawsuit that led to my incarceration.)

Foster Friess (center), with Ali Akbar
and Robert Stacy McCain

What kind of favors would Akbar be "cashing in" with Alabama lawyers? What did he do for certain lawyers in order to earn favors? If Akbar had a valid claim against Jill Simpson, why didn't he file it and why would he need favors to move forward with it? Does it mean Akbar had some form of "extra legal" remedies in mind for Simpson?

And who are these lawyers who owe favors to Ali Akbar? Could they be from Capell Howard, Karl Rove's favorite Alabama law firm?

Public records show that Ali Akbar has a history as a thief, a burglar, and a credit-card abuser. His comment regarding Jill Simpson strongly suggests that he's not above abusing the Alabama legal system.


(To be continued)

Ali Akbar, funded by GOP donor Foster Friess, never had a legal claim against me--and this law proves it

Ali Akbar

Ali A. Akbar, president of the right-wing National Bloggers Club, has threatened a defamation lawsuit against me and the Legal Schnauzer blog, but he has no case. Anyone who has studied communications law should know that--including Montgomery, Alabama, attorney Baron Coleman, who sent me a threatening letter on Akbar's behalf.

Coleman claims in his missive, which you can read at the end of this post, that I defamed Akbar by reporting on a letter that Alabama lawyer Jill Simpson wrote to Robert Bauer, counsel for President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign. Simpson wrote the letter in response to a bizarre rant from GOP election guru Karl Rove on a Fox News program.

Rove took an unrelated question and turned it into an attack on Simpson, Bauer, and former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. So Simpson stated in her letter to Bauer that she thought Rove became unhinged because he feared she was about to reveal damaging information about his personal life. In fact, Simpson wrote, she did have damaging information because her research had turned up evidence that Rove and Akbar had a sexual relationship at some point.

Are Simpson's statements true? She doesn't provide extensive details in the letter, but she does note that Akbar had placed an ad at the Grindr gay-sex Web site, stating that he "was looking for bisexual sex with men who were Republican, political, and loved to discuss politics and philosophy and just wanted to hang out and chill with them." (We will have more about the Akbar ad, and his rather extensive criminal history, in an upcoming post.)

Simpson is an attorney who has testified under oath before Congress about the Siegelman prosecution. She has come under regular attack from political figures on the right, but I'm not aware of anyone who has been able to prove that her sworn statements about the Siegelman matter were false.

I took her statements in the Bauer letter seriously and reported on them accurately, in a straightforward fashion, That means my work was protected by the "neutral reportage privilege," which has grown from a long line of First Amendment cases that date at least to the early 1970s.

The Alabama Supreme Court adopted the neutral reportage privilege in a case styled Wilson v. Birmingham Post Co., 482 So. 2d 1209 (1986). In Wilson, the state high court cited Edwards v. National Audubon Society, 556 F. 2d 113 (2nd Cir., 1977). (Ironically, Wilson involved two people I worked with at the now-defunct Birmingham Post-Herald--Editor Angus McEachran and reporter Kathy Biele.)

Edwards, perhaps the best-known case on the neutral reportage privilege, grew from a New York Times article on statements from an Audubon Society editor about scientists who supported the continued use of the insecticide DDT. Such scientists, the Audubon editor wrote, often make false statements about the society's bird-count totals, leading to the editor's conclusion that they are "paid to lie."

Times journalist John Devlin wrote an accurate, straightforward article about the editor's statements, and the scientists wound up suing the newspaper. A trial court found for the scientists, but the appellate court reversed, finding that Devlin's reporting was protected by the neutral reportage privilege. From the Edwards ruling:

At stake in this case is a fundamental principle. Succinctly stated, when a responsible, prominent organization like the National Audubon Society makes serious charges against a public figure, the First Amendment protects the accurate and disinterested reporting of those charges, regardless of the reporter's private views regarding their validity. See Time, Inc. v. Pape, 401 U.S. 279, 91 S.Ct. 633, 28 L.Ed.2d 45 (1971); Medina v. Time, Inc., 439 F.2d 1129 (1st Cir. 1971). What is newsworthy about such accusations is that they were made. We do not believe that the press may be required under the First Amendment to suppress newsworthy statements merely because it has serious doubts regarding their truth. Nor must the press take up cudgels against dubious charges in order to publish them without fear of liability for defamation. Cf. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 94 S.Ct. 2831, 41 L.Ed.2d 730 (1974). The public interest in being fully informed about controversies that often rage around sensitive issues demands that the press be afforded the freedom to report such charges without assuming responsibility for them.

The contours of the press's right of neutral reportage are, of course, defined by the principle that gives life to it. Literal accuracy is not a prerequisite: if we are to enjoy the blessings of a robust and unintimidated press, we must provide immunity from defamation suits where the journalist believes, reasonably and in good faith, that his report accurately conveys the charges made. Time, Inc. v. Pape, supra. . . .

It is clear here, that Devlin reported Audubon's charges fairly and accurately. He did not in any way espouse the Society's accusations: indeed, Devlin published the maligned scientists' outraged reactions in the same article that contained the Society's attack. The Times article, in short, was the exemplar of fair and dispassionate reporting of an unfortunate but newsworthy contretemps. Accordingly, we hold that it was privileged under the First Amendment.

A 1996 article from Fordham Law Review, borrowing from the Edwards ruling, sums up the elements of the neutral reportage privilege as follows:

First, the media must report the charges neutrally and accurately. Second, the charges must have been made by a responsible and prominent speaker. Third, the subjects of the accusations must be public figures. Finally, the charges must be newsworthy.

Let's briefly review these four elements in the context of my report on Simpson's letter:

(1) My report on the Simpson letter can be read here. I quote directly from the letter, and a full copy of the letter is embedded in the post. My reporting clearly was an accurate portrayal of her charges, and there is nothing in the post to suggest that my work was anything but neutral.

(2) Simpson is a prominent and knowledgeable speaker, who once served as a Republican operative under Rove. Her willingness to testify under oath before Congress goes to her history of responsible conduct.

(3) Rove, Akbar, and Bauer--by virtue of their deep involvement in political activities--unquestionably are public figures.

(4) At the core of Simpson's letter is this question: Why did Karl Rove use an appearance on Fox News to attack her and a key member of President Obama's re-election campaign? What were Rove's motivations? Rove helped George W. Bush get elected president twice (2000 and 2004), and he raised record numbers of campaign dollars for the 2012 Mitt Romney campaign against Obama. Anything involving Karl Rove's motivations clearly is newsworthy--it's hard to imagine that Rove himself would deny that.

In summary, my post meets all four elements of the neutral reportage privilege. That means it is protected from a defamation lawsuit, and Ali Akbar had no case. Perhaps he knows that because he never followed up Baron Coleman's threatening letter with a lawsuit.

Foster Friess (center), with Ali Akbar
and right-wing blogger Robert Stacy McCain

Our research indicates Akbar never threatened a lawsuit against Jill Simpson, with whom the alleged defamatory statements originated. That indicates Akbar has no interest in a court tussle with Simpson. Is that because the burden of proof to show the statements are false would rest with him--and he knows he can't meet that burden?

Maybe Akbar and his allies decided it would be best to go after Simpson in some sort of deceptive fashion--rather than going the straightforward (but likely baseless) lawsuit route?

Does Foster Friess, the devout Christian conservative businessman who helped bankroll Akbar's bloggers club, endorse this sort of shady, underhanded thuggery? Does Friess, who claims on his Web site that the private sector is the answer to most of America's challenges, endorse abusive use of the justice system?

This much is clear: If Ali Akbar is engaging in underhanded tactics now, it would not be his first experience with such activities.


(To be continued)

Ali Akbar Lawsuit Threat by Roger Shuler

Readers Play A Major Role In Shaping The Stories That Comprise The Best Of Legal Schnauzer In 2012

Murphy Abigail Shuler:
A Watchdog at Work

As I've noted in a number of posts, Murphy Abigail Shuler (1993-2004) is the real-life schnauzer who inspired this blog. You can see her in action, as watchdog over our home, in the photo at right. And in a higher-power sense, her presence will always be with us.

But in many earthly ways, Legal Schnauzer has come to be driven by our readers. In fact, it was a reader who suggested a few days ago that we should do an end-of-the year "best of" list. And we turned that into a reality, with yesterday's post about Numbers 10-6 on our countdown.

As we follow up today with the top five stories on our list, I realize just how appropriate it is that this idea came from a reader. This blog, after all, largely has become a community project.

Four of the five stories in our 10-6 post yesterday were reported with major input from readers. Only our No. 7 story, about the resignation of UAB president Carol Garrison, did not involve a tip, a document, or some other helpful hint from a reader. Since the mystery of Garrison's departure remains unsolved, we still might get reader input that breaks that story.

Of our top five stories, which we announce today, all of them were driven in one way or another by information from readers.  If you are keeping score, nine of our top 10 posts for 2012 had major input from readers.

Does the public matter in an effort to help restore the rule of law to America's courts? It sure as heck does. Our top five posts from 2012 serve as prime examples.

On with the countdown . . .

5. Karl Rove's Bisexual Affair Might Have Sparked His Bizarre Rant on Fox News (June 27)

Summary: A letter from Alabama lawyer Jill Simpson to former White House counsel Robert Bauer reveals that Republican strategist Karl Rove is having a gay affair with Ali Akbar, president of a right-leaning bloggers' association. Simpson's letter comes to light after Rove attacks her and Bauer during an off-the-wall interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News.

Why it Matters: Rove helped George W. Bush get "elected" president twice, and powerful evidence suggests both elections were stolen. Rove clearly was behind the politicization of the U.S. Justice Department under Bush and almost certainly orchestrated a bogus prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Evidence still is building that Rove tried to buy or rig the 2012 presidential election. Karl Rove has made himself a hugely influential figure in national affairs, so how does he conduct his personal affairs? The mainstream press has ignored this story, but it might be our most important national piece of the year. It apparently led to Rove's quickie, "arranged" marriage to Texas political operative Karen Johnson. And it still might help shrink Rove's power base within the GOP.

Number of Comments: 21

A Comment to Remember: "KKKarl Rove is queer too? It figures, we know about Hitler and his inner circle of SS being queer and the rumors about Stalin, Marx, Pol Pot and Obama have been out there for all to see, but KKKarl? It makes all the sense in the world and explains sooo much.

"How fabulous is that!"

4. CEO Ted Rollins' Ex Wife Is Living in Fear Over Reports About Child Sexual Abuse (September 14)

Summary: Birmingham resident Sherry Carroll Rollins fears for her safety in the wake of reports that her ex husband, Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins, was investigated in North Carolina for the sexual abuse of her son.

Why it Matters: We repeatedly have called the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case, which was decided in a Shelby County court that did not have jurisdiction to hear it, the worst courtroom cheat job we've encountered in the civil arena. With the apparent help of the powerful Birmingham law firm Bradley Arant, Ted Rollins managed to abuse the justice system and cheat his ex wife and two daughters. But Rollins' abusive actions actually started long before that. Public records show that he was convicted for assault in the 1995 beating of his stepson. And the investigation for child sexual abuse of the same stepson came two years before that. What kind of person runs a company that has received more than $400 million in support from investors on Wall Street?

Number of Comments: 46

A Comment to Remember: "The wealthy long have held a tendency to abuse children. Max Keiser, the other day, did a fascinating interview with author Leah McGrath Goodman about horrific child abuse on the island of Jersey (between England and France), which is the world's largest tax haven."

3. Siegelman Resentencing Serves as a Grim Reminder That His Prosecution Was Bogus from the Outset (August 3)

Summary: Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is resentenced to more than six years in federal prison after the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear his appeal on the most notorious political prosecution in American history.

Why it Matters: Appellate courts have a duty, under the law, to ensure that the law is applied consistently. That's largely why we have appellate courts, and it's a major reason we have the constitutionally guaranteed right to due process and equal protection. But the U.S. Eleventh Circuit of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court, failed Don Siegelman. In the process, they failed all of us. This is a case that could not even be heard at trial because the primary charge of bribery was brought well past the statute of limitations. But Siegelman unlawfully sits in prison, and codefendant Richard Scrushy already has served his sentence. If you live in America, and this story does not bother you . . . well, you aren't much of an American.

Number of Comments: 36

A Comment to Remember: "Judge Fuller claims the appeal by Siegelman misrepresented what was a simple case of bribery. Yet, Fuller raked in millions from Doss Aviation's contract with the Bush Administration while he presided over the facts of a case that had already been thrown out by another Federal Judge, U.W. Clemon, in the Northern District of Alabama."


2. Wall Street Analyst Paula Poskon Switches Gears To Claim A CEO's Ties To Child Abuse Are No Big Deal (December 4)

Summary: A prominent Wall Street analysts tries to back track on her earlier comments, voicing concern about how investors might react to news about Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins' connections to child abuse. Now, Paula Poskon changes her tune, saying in so many words that child abuse is no big deal to the investment community. And we caught her on tape, in a telephone interview.

Why it Matters? From JPMorgan Chase's "really bad bet" to LIBOR to HSBC's money-laundering scandal, 2012 was the year for terrible behavior in the world of high finance. What kind of ethics reign on Wall Street? Paula Poskon shows us that, when big money is at stake, Wall Street pretty much has no ethics at all--going so far as to provide cover for a chief executive with a documented history as a child abuser.

Number of Comments: 69

A Comment to Remember: "Wonder if Ms. Poskon has children? Wonder if she has ever been raped or abused? Wonder if she knows anyone who has?"

1. Bonnie Wyatt Is Released This Afternoon From Jail (December 18)

Summary: Clanton resident Bonnie Wyatt is released from the Chilton County Jail after being unlawfully incarcerated for almost five months because of a property-related debt connected to her divorce.

Why it Matters: Does the Web press make a difference? Does our reporting at Legal Schnauzer have an impact? This event strongly suggests that the answer is yes. We do not know for sure, yet, why Circuit Judge Sibley Reynolds decided to free Ms. Wyatt. But there is little doubt that our reporting, plus the work of Brad Patterson at examiner.com, played a part. The mainstream press ignored the story, but the Schnauzer and friends grabbed it by the pants leg and wouldn't let go. It seems someone decided the fire was getting a little too close for comfort, so maybe it was a good idea to let Bonnie Wyatt go.

Number of Comments: 53

A Comment to Remember: "Great news LS! If she's stood 5 months in jail (because) of that prick, then she should tell him to shove his gag order! She should stick it to Reynolds the same way he did her. It can be done! Maybe Bonnie will let you be a part of it LS since you no doubt played a big role in her release. Kudos to you, man, and thank you for what you do!!!!"


It's nice, of course, to receive comments like that last one. But readers deserve much of the credit. I would not have known about Bonnie Wyatt's situation, for example, without a tip from a reader. I would not have been able to report it fully without information from readers.

I'm already working on several posts for 2013 that originated with fascinating tips from readers. We encourage you to stay tuned.

Karl Rove and Karen Johnson: The Political Marriage That Ali Akbar Built?

Karl Rove and Karen Johnson

Karl Rove and Karen Johnson don't seem like the kind of couple that would have a quickie wedding. Published reports indicate they have known each other for roughly 15 years. A source tells Legal Schnauzer that they were carrying on an affair while Rove's second wife, the former Darby Hickson of Alabama, was battling cancer.

So why did they reportedly get married in a rush, under circumstances that remain hush hush? Well, leave it to Karl Rove to turn the "sanctity of marriage" into a political calculation. And that's exactly what the Rove-Johnson marriage appears to be.

Why did Rove need political cover at the moment? Well, for one, it's a presidential election year, and Rove is courting casino moguls Steve Wynn and Sheldon Adelson in an effort to buy the White House for Mitt Romney. But the No. 1 reason might have originated here at Legal Schnauzer.

We reported on June 27 that Rove had been conducting a gay affair with Ali A. Akbar, the president of the right-wing National Bloggers Club. Our information came from a letter that Alabama attorney and former GOP operative Jill Simpson wrote to Bob Bauer, counsel for the Obama re-election campaign.

Rove had appeared on Greta Van Susteren's Fox News program to level a series of bizarre charges at Simpson, Bauer, and others. Simpson responded with a letter to Bauer, informing him that she thought Rove's rant was driven by fears that he was about to be outed for his affair with Ali Akbar.

What's a political guru to do when pesky reports about his gay affair with a party operative won't go away--especially when the guru has built his career to a certain extent on anti-gay rhetoric? Well, he gets married for the third time--and he does it in a big hurry.

Rove and Johnson got married in such a hurry that we've seen no hard proof a wedding even took place. What date was the wedding? Where was it held? Who officiated? We've seen no answers to any of those questions. We've scoured the Austin American-Statesman Web site--that could be considered the happy couple's hometown newspaper--and found no mention of a Rove-Johnson wedding. Wouldn't that be big news in Austin?

Rove and Johnson clearly have quite a history, dating to George W. Bush's term as governor of Texas. The New York Daily News reported on Johnson's apparent affair with the married Rove in 2005:

Karl Rove has earned himself some gossip payback. President Bush's deputy chief of staff and foremost fishwife is fending off whispers about his friendship with lobbyist Karen Johnson. Rove, who stands accused of using leaks and slurs against Sen. John McCain, terrorism adviser Richard Clarke and CIA agent Valerie Plame, was mum yesterday when we called about Johnson, a never-married, fortysomething GOP loyalist from Austin, Tex. The two are said to have gotten acquainted when Johnson sat on the board of then-Gov. George W. Bush's Business Council. "Their friendship reportedly deepened after Bush appointed Johnson--a little-known spokesperson for the Texas Good Roads Association-- to a seat on his Transportation Department transition team in 2000," Radaronline.com reports. "The plum appointment enabled Johnson's lobbying firm, Infrastructure Solutions, to snare such high-paying clients as Aetna and the City of Laredo.

Notice that Johnson apparently received major financial benefits from her, ahem, relationship with Rove. If a quid pro quo agreement was present--and we all have learned that term from the Don Siegelman prosecution, which Rove reportedly helped orchestrate--both Johnson and Rove could have violated federal bribery statutes. For that matter, Dubya's appointment of Johnson to a state board sounds an awful lot like the appointment that the Bush Justice Department determined was criminal in the Siegelman case.

Ali A. Akbar

Was there a quid pro quo in Bush's appointment of the "little known" Johnson to a state board--and was Karl Rove involved in the equation? If so, why aren't all three of them facing federal prison terms?

The Radar Online piece--titled "A Fork in the Rove?"--referenced Rove's tendency to out certain folks for their sexual leanings:

Last Sunday, in a blistering column in the New York Times, Frank Rich charged that around the time the White House was leaking Plame's undercover CIA status to friendly reporters, Rove’s office was publicly “outing” Jeffrey Kofman after the gay ABC correspondent reported on the flagging morale of American troops in Iraq. Rich angrily charged the Republican rumor-monger with fostering a “pervasive culture of revenge” in Washington. Now, in the same spirit, Rove’s critics are forcing the married pol to fend off a politically motivated campaign that focuses on his own personal life.

Radar proceeded to break the story about the apparent Rove-Johnson affair. In a followup piece, titled "Rove and a Hard Place," Radar reported that Johnson had grown tired of her dalliance with Rove. In fact, she wound up falling for a guy named Rhett Hard--that name is for real, folks; we aren't making it up--who served as a foreman on her Texas ranch. We can only guess that all the goodies she received via Rove--in the form of government contracts and such--helped pay for the ranch.

How did our gal Karen come to fall into the ready arms of Rhett Hard? Here is how Radar reported it:

In July we reported on the very close relationship Johnson, a single, Austin-based lobbyist, has enjoyed with Rove since they met over a decade ago in Texas. But now that Rove's White House tenure is looking increasingly shaky, friends are whispering that the forty-something lobbyist--who pulls in well over $1 million a year thanks to her administration connections--may be cooling toward the married presidential advisor.

"Everyone knows how close Karen is to Karl, but she's sick of it," says a person familiar with the situation. Johnson's disapproving family has long urged her to settle down with the improbably named Rhett Hard, a handsome ranch foreman whom Johnson has dated sporadically over the last few years. "Karen's dream has always been to own a cattle ranch, and two years ago she bought Cinco de Mayo [the name of her Austin property] and hired Rhett to manage the place. They even joined the Cattleman's Texas Longhorn Registry together."

But while the movie-star handsome Hard shares Johnson's affection for the president (he contributed $2,000 to Bush's reelection campaign in 2004), one Austin social observer doubts that their relationship is going anywhere. "If Rhett hasn't married her by now, he never will," says the source. "Karen has never been married. She's what I call a serial dater."

Hard could not be reached for comment and Johnson did not return repeated calls.

Johnson and Hard wound up getting married in May 2006, but alas, the marriage did not last. That's how Johnson came to be available when King Karl needed someone to fill a breach that his relationship with Ali Akbar helped create.

Will a quickie marriage prove to be the solution to the Ali Akbar problem that threatens the reign of "Bush's brain"? How will the "pro family," "pro American," and "pro white" GOP factions react when they learn about Rove's extracurricular activities with a young black man who has a Muslim-sounding name?

We will have to wait for the answers to those questions. But our guess is that the Ali Akbar story will not go away so easily. The source of the story has a history of being right on target about ugliness connected to the postmodern Republican Party. The source is right on target again--and Karl Rove clearly knows it. That's why he turned, in a desperate moment, to Karen Johnson.

Is Karl Rove's Quickie Marriage Designed to Counteract Reports About His Bisexuality?

Karl Rove and Karen Johnson

How should a prominent political figure react when he is being hounded by reports of a bisexual affair with a junior party operative? What if that political figure has built his career, to a considerable extent, on anti-gay rhetoric.

If you are Republican Party guru Karl Rove, you get married for the third time--and you do it in a hurry.

Rove got married recently in Austin, Texas, according to a report last week in Politico. The date of the blessed event is not clear, but it coincides with reports that Rove and National Bloggers Club president Ali A. Akbar share more than a love of conservative political theory.

A source tells Legal Schnauzer that the wedding probably took place shortly before the bisexuality story hit the press. But the source also says Rove knew the Akbar story was coming several days before it broke. According to a report today in The Washington Post's Lifestyle section, Rove refused to disclose any details about the wedding.

Who is Rove's new bride? She is a GOP lobbyist named Karen Johnson, and she played a prominent role in a New Yorker profile of Rove in March 2011.

Ms. Johnson, however, does not seem to be the apple of Rove's eye at the moment. That role, according to press reports, is reserved for casino mogul Steve Wynn. Reports Politico:

Wynn, the flamboyant Las Vegas billionaire who claims to have voted for President Barack Obama in 2008, was the perfect get for Rove. Wynn was loaded, had soured on Obama and was just the kind of wealthy businessman who could help underwrite a plan hatched by Rove and other influential conservatives to spend close to $1 billion total to win the White House, Senate and House in 2012. Wynn, a registered Democrat until recently, was reluctant to attach his name to any high-dollar gambles on the GOP, worried that Obama’s allies would make him a bogeyman. So Rove — who helped develop Crossroads GPS in 2010, one of a growing roster of non-profit groups that can now accept unlimited contributions for hard-hitting political ads — was a perfect get for Wynn, too. Rove knows all the players — and the groups he works with are skilled at minimizing media attention to their financial whales. 

The courting, which took place in direct conversations and through friends and allies of both men, produced big results. Wynn has kicked in millions to Crossroads GPS, according to multiple sources.

The Rove-Wynn relationship even had a side benefit for the new Mrs. Karl Rove:

And Rove, who attended Wynn’s gala wedding last year in Vegas, recently got something of a personal bonus out of the relationship. After Wynn attended the veteran operative’s wedding last month in Austin — an intimate and until-now unreported affair also attended by former President George W. Bush — Rove and his new wife Karen Johnson flew to Naples, Italy, aboard Wynn’s Boeing 737 — a nearly 11-hour, 6,000-mile trip that could cost tens of thousands of dollars from a charter jet carrier. Wynn joined Rove in Italy.

Wynn joined Rove in Italy? On Rove's honeymoon? That Karl, what a romantic fool.

As for Ali Akbar, he appears to be on the outside looking in at the moment. But our sources say the story of Akbar's liaison with Karl Rove is not likely to go away.

Liberal Activist Brett Kimberlin Engages Right Wingers In a Battle of High-Stakes Hard Ball

Brett Kimberlin

One of my ongoing concerns with Democrats is that too many of them are timid, distracted, disorganized, and generally wussy.

Liberal activist Brett Kimberlin is none of those things, and that apparently is why the radical right has launched an extraordinary online jihad against him. In a delicious example of "turnabout is fair play," Kimberlin has used right wingers' tactics against them--causing the recent arrest of one thug, the outing of another as a criminal, and the transmission of a notice to others that they face possible legal action.

According to press reports, Kimberlin has some troubling incidents in his past. But by all accounts that I can find, he has served his punishment for any misdeed. And as a target of right-wing thugs myself, I can't help but admire Kimberlin's spunk--and his effectiveness.

Kimberlin actually has right wingers whining that he is using the court process against them. As a resident of Alabama who has held a front-row seat for the Bush-era political prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, I can only marvel at the hypocrisy of conservatives claiming that the justice system is not working in their favor.

Right-wing bloggers have become so exorcised about Kimberlin that about 150 of them recently launched an "Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day." They even got Fox News and ABC News to cover the story and enlisted the help of such conservative luminaries as U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), author Michelle Malkin, and attorney Jay Sekulow in battling Kimberlin.

Anybody who can cause that many conservative panties to get into a bunch must be doing something right. So we decided to take a closer look at Brett Kimberlin and how he managed to rile the far right into a state of mass hysteria.

Who is Brett Kimberlin? He is the driving force behind the nonprofit Justice Through Music Project (JTMP) and the political activist organization Velvet Revolution (VR). Conservatives claim Kimberlin is funded by billionaire financier George Soros and singer/actress Barbra Streisand. (See video at the end of this post.) JTMP and VR have helped shine light on election fraud  and possible misconduct involving such conservative heavyweights as Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers.

Those efforts apparently struck nerves because right-wing forces have launched a frenzied assault against Kimberlin, focusing mostly on his checkered past. Published reports indicate Kimberlin was convicted on charges related to drug trafficking and a series of bombings in the Midwest, dating to the 1970s.

Did Kimberlin actually commit the crimes? It's hard to say, but the appellate-court record shows that the testimony of hypnotized witnesses was allowed at one trial, so the convictions did not rest on the sturdiest ground. Records show that Kimberlin served 17 years in federal prison, so he appears to have paid any debt he owed to society.

Conservative bloggers, writing mostly in a network founded by Andrew Breitbart, have every right to report on Kimberlin's criminal history. But court documents indicate they have gone beyond that, to stalking, harassing, and even inciting death threats against him.

Key bloggers have written anonymously, but Kimberlin was able to determine their identities and bring legal action against them. That led to the eventual arrest of a blogger/lawyer who posts as Aaron Worthing (real name: Aaron Walker). And that sparked the right-wing blogapalooza against Kimberlin.

What's at the heart of the controversy? A FireDogLake blogger called DonkeyTale has been writing about it for some time and says the complex saga is "as densely peopled and subplotted as a 19th century Russian novel." That description is on target, but DonkeyTale still has managed to provide the best summary I've seen so far, at a post titled "Troll Wars 6.66."

The cast of characters on the right includes bloggers Socrates (Seth Allen), Goatsred (Mike Stack), and Patterico (Patrick Frey). Joining Kimberlin on the left are Brad Friedman (of BradBlog); Ron Brynaert (former editor of Raw Story); and, in a roundabout way, former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, who was the target of a Breitbart-led attack. From DonkeyTale:

The story has its origins in Socrates’s blogging from 2008-2009, investigating connections between Kimberlin, Brad Friedman, election integrity, the death of alleged election rigger Michael Connell and the seemingly very intensive focus on gathering donations at the websites sponsored by Friedman and Kimberlin. Socrates’s court case, which occurred during and after the Weinergate saga was picked up and publicised and politicised by the Andrew Breitbart Empire as a way to fight back against their adversaries. Indeed, Kimberlin announced the lawsuit against Socrates on Patterico’s blog. 

In reaction to Weinergate, the hoaxing of ACORN and Shirley Sherrod by dirty tricksters affiliated with Breitbart, Kimberlin and/or his associates began a site called indictbreitbart.org which linked a donation button to Velvet Revolution, another site affiliated with Kimberlin and Brad Friedman. This move, along with the co-optation of the Socrates v Kimberlin court case by both sides, formed the battle lines of the Troll Wars, with the combatants colloquially named by Socrates “Team Numbnuts” and “Team Breitbart." 

As an interesting and tragic side note, Breitbart dropped dead of an apparent heart attack a few months ago just after his burgeoning rightwing media empire had received a reported $10 million private equity investment, from a pair of unidentified investors. This money no doubt invested to grow the media maven’s profit-making activities, which included funding ever more creative hoaxings and media manipulations targeting progressives. 

In the latest chapter, conservative blogger/lawyer Aaron Worthing (Aaron Walker), representing himself, was arrested in court last week for “incitement,” while arguing against a second degree assault charge pressed by Kimberlin from an earlier court incident when Walker was brought into the Socrates case by Kimberlin.

What's the very latest? Well, that's complicated.

First, we have charges from the right that Kimberlin and his associates are behind a couple of alleged "SWATting" incidents. Kimberlin has denied involvement, but Saxby Chambliss is calling for a Justice Department investigation.

Second, a left-leaning Web site called breitbartunmasked.com (BU) is unearthing unflattering information about the National Bloggers Club (NBC), an umbrella organization that is headed by a fellow named Ali A. Akbar. While conservatives have tried to portray Kimberlin as a mad man with a criminal history, they apparently neglected to check into the past of their own Mr. Akbar. BU revealed that Akbar has a criminal record of his own, with felony convictions for credit-card fraud and theft.

BU also revealed that Akbar runs his operation from a nondescript house in Fort Worth, Texas, and receives funding from a Wyoming billionaire named Foster Friess. Velvet Revolution has posted a document that notifies Akbar and Friess that they are to preserve boatloads of data for an upcoming lawsuit.

The Liberal Grouch, one of the few left-leaning Web sites that is covering the story, hints that Akbar's network might face trouble with the IRS.

Finally, we have today's National Day of Blogger Silence, which conservatives say is an effort to draw attention to Kimberlin's attacks on their freedom of expression.

Where is all of this headed? I have no idea, but Brett Kimberlin, whatever his past failings might be, knows how to fight--and how to throw conservatives into a tizzy. That's apparent from the video below.

Perhaps Kimberlin has Republicans so unnerved because they are used to Democrats who won't fight back, at least not effectively. The general maxim in politics long has been: "You can push around a Democrat; if you punch him, he won't punch back." That clearly is not how Brett Kimberlin operates. If you connect with one or two jabs, he will respond by landing three or four haymakers.

Maybe it's time Democrats took a few lessons from Mr. Kimberlin.