Security concerns force U.S. agency to push for sale of Grindr, the gay-sex geosocial application that has been owned by a business with ties to Chinese government

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Don Siegelman's book, "Stealing Our Democracy," promises an inside look at perhaps the most notorious political prosecution in U.S. history -- and it's set for release in June from New South Books of Montgomery

Don Siegelman's book about the political prosecution that sent him to federal prison for roughly six years is set for release in June. Siegelman, the most recent Democrat to serve as governor of Alabama (199 to 2003), wrote most of the book while incarcerated at a facility in Oakdale, Louisiana.

Titled Stealing Our Democracy: How the Political Assassination of a Governor Threatens Our Nation, the book is being published by Montgomery-based New South books. It now is available for pre-order via Amazon, New South Books, and other outlets, with a release date of June 16, 2020.

Stealing Our Democracy comes on the heels of Atticus v. the Architect, a 2017 documentary about the Siegelman case (directed by Steve Wimberly). "The Architect" is a reference to Karl Rove, Republican consultant and senior policy advisor and deputy chief of staff in the George W. Bush administration.

Here is a summary of the Siegelman book:

In a searing political memoir, former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman explodes the myth of an impartial U.S. justice system. He should know. Arguably the most successful and promising politician in modern Alabama history, his three-decade career in public service ran afoul of Republican opponents who used the federal judicial system to take him out of contention in Alabama and nationally. Siegelman ultimately was sentenced to 88 months in federal prison and served five years, with long stretches in solitary confinement during which he was a literal political prisoner, cut off from interviews and outside contact. Stealing Our Democracy reveals how Siegelman’s enemies (including politicized prosecutors and a corrupt judge) stripped him of his freedom, his career, and his law license, and deprived him of his family and friends. His is an intensely personal account of how our system can fail and be abused for political greed. And if it could happen to him, he writes, it can happen to any of us, particularly in an era when Donald Trump is abusing his power and using the Department of Justice as a political weapon to defend himself and to destroy those who oppose him. Siegelman draws on his experience as a public servant and an inmate to show why the nation’s prisons must be reformed along with our system of indictment, prosecution, and sentencing. Finally, Stealing Our Democracy offers a blueprint for voters in 2020 of what must be done to preserve democracy.

In the video below, Siegelman discusses his plans to write a book with Bill Britt, editor of Alabama Political Reporter.

Doug Jones' effort to take over the Alabama Democratic Party includes assistance from lawyer Barry Ragsdale, who tried to keep wife-beating, Siegelman-railroading judge Mark Fuller on the bench

Doug Jones

A faction of the State Democratic Executive Committee (SDLC), led by U.S. Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) has aligned itself with a Birmingham attorney who represented former U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller in proceedings that led Fuller to resign from the bench over charges that he beat his wife in an Atlanta hotel room in 2014. Until the wife-beating episode became public, Fuller perhaps was best known as the George W. Bush appointee who handled the prosecution of former Democratic governor Don Siegelman so corruptly that it resulted in a prison sentence of more than six years for what we have described as "a crime that does not exist" and obviously could not have been committed.

Despite Fuller's unsavory conduct, Barry Ragsdale (of Sirote and Permutt in Birmingham) stepped up to represent Fuller in the wife-beating case, in which judicial investigators described Fuller's conduct as "reprehensible."

The Jones-Ragsdale-Fuller connections provide more evidence that Jones is a DINO (Democrat in Name Only), according to a veteran state political activist. A prominent commentator says the Fuller case is a classic example of the corruption that is rotting America's foundations.

Jones essentially is trying to take over the Alabama Democratic Party (ADP) with the assistance of a lawyer who supported a Republican-appointed judge -- one who engaged in demonstrably corrupt actions on the bench, with a history of abusive actions toward women in his personal life. Fuller faced allegations of physical, verbal, and substance abuse from two ex wives, but Ragsdale did his best to sweep Fuller's actions under the carpet and protect a spot for the Siegelman "hanging judge" on the federal bench.

Barry Ragsdale

Those actions failed, but now Doug Jones has sought Ragsdale's help to fight off legal challenges to his attempted takeover of the ADP. Bringing Ragsdale on board -- with his history of protecting a corrupt, wife-beating, right-wing judge -- is supposed to represent progress in Alabama? Do integrity, decency, and the rule of law have any place in Doug Jones' vision for the Democratic Party in Alabama? Is the alliance with Ragsdale another sign that Jones is beholden to his Republican boosters more than the mostly black, female voters who put him in office? From a report at al.com about this past weekend's SDLC meeting in Montgomery, where the Jones faction approved new bylaws in a major step toward replacing current party leaders Nancy Worley and Joe Reed:

The Alabama Democratic party has been deeply split over leadership for more than a year. The SDEC reelected Worley as chair in August 2018. Some Democrats challenged the results. The DNC decided there were irregularities and in February ordered the SDEC to adopt new bylaws followed by new elections for chair and vice chair.

After deadlines were missed, the DNC invalidated the national party credentials of Worley and First Vice Chair Randy Kelley. The DNC has withheld money from the state party and has not yet approved the state’s delegate selection plan for next year’s Democratic National Convention.

Worley has said those who wanted a different result in the August 2018 election for party chair are to blame for the dispute, including Sen. Doug Jones, who backed her challenger last year. . . .

Worley said the turnout at today’s meeting shows a lack of broad support for what was approved.

“While 78 attendees show ‘loyal opposition,’ that number does not show a groundswell of support for the DNC’s agenda,” Worley said in a text message. “I look forward to the October 12 meeting, at which time the SDEC members will discuss the negative effects of the Doug Jones/DNC Bylaws.”

Where does Ragsdale enter the picture? Here is more from al.com about this past Saturday's meeting:

Attorney Barry Ragsdale attended today’s meeting and said he would represent the position of the SDEC members who attended in any legal challenge to the legitimacy of the new bylaws.

Ragsdale said members at today’s meeting should attend the Oct. 12 meeting called by Worley if they wanted to.

“But it’s important to note that meeting will be guided by the bylaws that we adopted at this meeting,” Ragsdale said. “Their failure, if there is a failure to follow those bylaws, that meeting will be subject to legal challenge.”

Is the Jones-Ragsdale alliance a ruse that could trip up progressives in Alabama? We have addressed that question in several posts, including this one, showing that Jones has a history of stabbing fellow Democrats in the back:

Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and U.S. Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) engaged in a heated political discussion shortly before Siegelman was forced to go to the doctor and wound up having heart surgery, sources tell Legal Schnauzer.

Siegelman had heart-bypass surgery on Feb. 9, the same day that his son, Joseph, qualified to run as a Democrat in the 2018 race for Alabama attorney general. Joseph Siegelman's political plans were at the heart of a tense conversation between Jones and Don Siegelman, sources say.

Don Siegelman, apparently under the mistaken impression that Jones would be supportive of the younger Siegelman's plans, asked the senator for an endorsement. Jones declined, which should not have been a surprise considering the evidence of his support for the other Democrat in the race, Bradley Arant lawyer Chris Christie.

Jones' negative reaction to the idea of a Joseph Siegelman endorsement should not have been a surprise for several other reasons:

(1) Jones clearly has been aligned with the so-called "Alabama Gang" of Republicans -- including Rob Riley, Bill Canary, Jeff Sessions, and Karl Rove -- dating at least to the work Jones and Riley did together in the early 2000s on a lawsuit against HealthSouth and related entities, a case that generated more than $50 million in attorney fees.

(2) Jones was Don Siegelman's defense attorney for a time in the federal bribery case that wound up unlawfully sending the former governor to federal prison for roughly six years. Jones inexplicably extended the statute of limitations for the government to build a case it obviously didn't have at the time. Jones also charged Siegelman $300,000 while doing relatively little legal work -- and then bailed out of the case before trial because of a conflict on Jones' end. We've seen no sign that Jones returned any of the money, and he has refused to answer our questions on the subject. To add insult to insult, Jones went before a Congressional committee in 2007 and talked glowingly about Bill Pryor, the current federal judge who, as Alabama AG in the late 1990s, launched the Siegelman investigation before the new governor's fanny barely had hit the office chair.

Mark Fuller mugshot

 (3) Jones apparently favors Chris Christie, even though a prominent spokesperson for the Christie campaign is Sirote Permutt lawyer Barry Ragsdale. That's the same Barry Ragsdale who helped former U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller fight charges that he beat his wife in an Atlanta hotel room -- events that led to Fuller's forced resignation from the bench. Fuller, of course, is the judge who oversaw the Siegelman trial, repeatedly making unlawful and one-sided rulings that helped ensure a conviction. Jones essentially supports a candidate whose campaign has ties to wife beating and the kind of judicial corruption that sends innocent people to prison.

Alabama progressives should be leery of the Jones-Ragsdale tag team, veteran political activist Jill Simpson said on her Facebook page yesterday. Simpson noted that three individuals who helped unmask Fuller -- herself, attorney-blogger Donald Watkins, and yours truly -- came under attack from right-wing forces aligned with Jones and Ragsdale:

What a hoot, corrupt former Republican Judge Mark Fuller's lawyer, Barry Ragsdale, is going to represent the renegade Dixiecrats' new Democratic party for Doug Jones's bunch against Joe Reed and Nancy Worley's real Alabama Democratic Party. That should be a wake up call to Alabama progressive Democrats that Doug's new party has hired the lawyer of the wife-beating judge that threw Don Siegelman in prison. 

Barry Ragsdale is who the Alabama Progressive Resistance fought tooth and toenail to remove wife beater Mark Fuller from the bench. Roger Shuler, Donald Watkins , and I worked hard day in and day out to get that crooked Republican wife-beating Judge Fuller off the bench. It was Barry Ragsdale who was trying to keep him on the bench and was our foe. 

That said, you all in the new party of Doug have a lawyer that helps a wife-beating judge, who crookedly threw your last Democratic governor in jail -- what the hell are you nitwits thinking? Now you all are getting a dose of what Doug is about -- and his Alabama Gang is about playing all sides and y'all are their blind sheep. 

Yep, I still remember Barry Ragsdale representing the wife-beating judge that mistreated Gov. Don Siegelman; it was hard for us progressive Democrats to beat him, but we beat him on Fuller and got the judge bounced off the bench, and we spent a lot of time due to Ragsdale protecting Fuller, but we got Fuller's ass thrown off the bench under the leadership of Nancy (Worley) and Joe (Reed), with Obama. All the time, Doug was behind the scenes helping Ragsdale against us. As many of you know I wrote Obama the first open letter about Fuller, the wife beater, and the need for zero tolerance for such behavior. The letter was published in a lot of places, including OpEdNews, and it asked to have that terrible wife-beating judge removed -- and I heard in D.C. that Doug and Ragsdale were trying to keep Fuller from being removed. Shortly after that is when the Alabama Bar forced me on to disability status. . . .

Now maybe you folks will start to see why we did not want Doug Jones in that Senate seat; he was playing both sides, and burning candles on both ends eventually is going to burn him in the meddle.

Eleventh Circuit's Gerald Bard Tjoflat, longest serving federal judge in U.S., hears matters where he has a financial conflict and should, by law, be disqualified

Gerald Bard Tjoflat

A fundamental of the American "justice system" is that no judge should hear a case in which he -- or a member of  his immediate family -- has a financial interest. That is particularly spelled out in the federal court system, but a Legal Schnauzer investigation shows a U.S. appellate-court judge in the Deep South has been violating that principle for years, maybe decades.

The judge in question is Gerald Bard Tjoflat, who serves on the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta (covering Alabama Georgia, and Florida), from his base in Jacksonville, Florida.
Tjoflat is the longest serving federal judge, still in active service, in the country. Richard Nixon nominated Tjoflat to a federal judgeship in 1970, and Gerald Ford elevated him to the appellate bench in 1975. Think about that; this guy has been hearing federal court cases pretty much since the Beatles broke up.

We've seen signs for several years that Tjoflat might be one of the most crooked judges in the country. He was on a three-judge panel that upheld abominably unlawful convictions in the political prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman. He was on a panel that upheld summary judgment for the University of Alabama Board of Trustees in my employment-discrimination/First Amendment case against UAB. How outrageous was that ruling? Black-letter law, including Eleventh-Circuit precedent, holds that summary judgment cannot be considered (much less granted) in a lawsuit until sufficient discovery has been conducted. In the UAB case, no discovery was conducted at all -- meaning there was no factual record in the case -- but the late (and monstrously corrupt) district judge William Acker granted summary judgment anyway. A Tjoflat-led panel upheld  the ruling, even though a case styled Snook v. Trust Company of Georgia, 859 F. 2d 865 (11th Cir., 1988) holds there can be no summary judgment without discovery; the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in slightly different language, says the same thing -- so the principle is firmly established across the country.

That Tjoflat would intentionally botch such a long-held and simple concept suggests he is a deeply compromised judge. Now, we know why, at least in part: He makes a habit of hearing cases where he has a financial conflict. And he has an astonishing record of siding with the party where his financial interests lie.

We are aware of at least two Alabama cases (both since December 2017) where Tjoflat did not let clear financial conflicts keep him from ruling. One of those was "The House Case," where our home of 25 years in Birmingham essentially was stolen from underneath us via a wrongful foreclosure. The other, also a wrongful-foreclosure case, involved a Daphne, AL, couple named Karun and Ursula Jackson. In both cases, a Tjoflat panel ruled against the plaintiffs/appellants -- siding with large banks -- and the record suggests he had a financial incentive to do so.

Let's first examine Jackson v. Bank of America, NA, 898 F. 3d 1348 (11th Cir., 2018), which was the subject of a Schnauzer post in May of this year. Tjoflat authored the panel ruling that denied the Jacksons' appeal, ranting that their attorney -- Kenneth Lay of Birmingham -- had engaged in an abuse of the judicial process by producing "incomprehensible shotgun pleadings." From our May post:

Tjoflat used his opinion in Jackson v. Bank of America, NA, 898 F. 3d 1348 (11th Cir., 2018) to label the pleadings of Birmingham attorney Kenneth James Lay as frivolous "garbage." Tjoflat further claimed Lay and his clients -- Karun and Ursula Jackson, of Daphne, AL -- "obstructed the due administration of justice."

In short, Tjoflat was so incensed about the Jacksons' pleadings that the merits of their appeal hardly got considered. Is that because the Jacksons (and Lay) really conducted their appeal so poorly? Or was Tjoflat protecting his financial stake in Bank of America (BOA)?

The public record is clear that Tjoflat holds stock (or perhaps other forms of securities) in BOA. And yet, he heard the Jackson case and issued a one-sided ruling in favor of the bank, largely ignoring issues the Jacksons raised on appeal.

Was this a rare oversight on Tjoflat's part? Nope. Our research indicates he has made a habit of hearing cases where the law holds he should be disqualified. One of those cases hits close to home.


(To be continued)

U.S. 11th Circuit, led by Nixon-era geezer Gerald Bard Tjoflat, brazenly cheats us on appeal of "The House Case," citing law that has been overridden for 25 years

Gerald Bard Tjoflat

"The House Case," a federal lawsuit over the theft of our home of almost 25 years in Birmingham, AL, via a wrongful foreclosure, shows corruption runs strong and deep in federal courts -- at both the trial and appellate levels. The good news: Crookedness in "The House Case" is so brazen that it might mean a ruling can be attacked as void, and we have unlimited time to do that. The same concept might be used to breathe life back into other cases that were dismissed on unlawful grounds.

We still are researching this issue and will address it in future posts. But of all the cases of court corruption we've reported on this blog over 12 years -- some involving my wife Carol and me, some where I was not involved, other than as a journalist -- "The House Case" might be among the two or three most grotesque cases we've encountered.

We've already shown that U.S. Judge R. David Proctor butchered "The House Case" at the trial level in the Northern District of Alabama. (See here, here, and here.) The case might have been butchered even more grossly in the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, thanks to Gerald Bard Tjoflat, a Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford nominee who happens to be the longest-serving federal appeals-court judge in active service. Tjoflat has a long and disturbing history of serving on three-judge panels that issued shockingly unlawful rulings, which includes upholding the convictions of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

Tjoflat seems to be at his worst when the defendant/appellees include financial institutions, and our research reveals a likely reason Tjoflat almost always sides with banks, mortgage companies, brokerages, and the like -- as he did with Chase Mortgage in "The House Case." (Details about Tjoflat's conflicts re: financial institutions will be in upcoming posts.)

Our problems on "The House Case" appeal started with a mistake I made. For reasons I'll never fully understand, I stated in our Notice of Appeal that we were appealing denial of our Rule 59 Motion to Reconsider in the district court. I did not specify that we actually intended to appeal the entire case, especially the Order of Dismissal and all of the orders leading up to it. It was frustrating to learn that I had somehow screwed up our Notice of Appeal, but there is good news: Such a mistake essentially is a "no harm, no foul" matter, one that does not preclude an appellate hearing on our entire case, especially when the appellate brief makes it clear (as ours did) that our goal was to seek a full appeal.

We filed a Motion for Panel Rehearing (see here and here), seeking to overturn the three-judge panel's (Tjoflat, Stanley Marcus, Robin Rosenbaum) wildly erroneous ruling. How badly did Tjoflat and Co. botch our appeal? Well, they admit that our appellate brief shows out intent to appeal the entire case, including multiple unlawful rulings by both Proctor and Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins, who took over after Proctor finally acknowledge he had a conflict that required recusal -- and essentially meant he was disqualified from hearing the case at the outset.

Here is the gist of the Tjoflat panel's ruling:

In their appellate brief, however, the Shulers challenge three rulings outside the scope of their notice of appeal: Judge Proctor’s order dismissing their complaint, Judge Hopkins’ February 27 order insofar as it denied their Rule 15 motion, and Judge Hopkins’ order denying their Rule 60 motion. Defendants-Appellees (Jessica Medeiros Garrison, Luther Strange, Rob Riley, etc.) contend that under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) and related case law, we have jurisdiction over only the District Court’s denial of the Shulers’ Rule 59(e) motion. We agree.

“The notice of appeal must . . . designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed.” F. R. App. P. 3(c); Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Indus., Inc., 825 F.2d 1521, 1528 (11th Cir. 1987). “Where the appellant notices the appeal of a specified judgment only or a part thereof,” moreover, “this court has no jurisdiction to review other judgments or issues which are not expressly referred to and which are not impliedly intended for appeal.” C. A. May Marine Supply Co. v. Brunswick Corp., 649 F.2d 1049, 1056 (5th Cir. 1981). Otherwise, because the intent to appeal is not clear, prejudice would likely fall upon the adverse party. Id. But we also recognize that “the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure ‘were not adopted to set traps and pitfalls by way of technicalities for unwary litigants.”’ Finch v. City of Vernon, 845 F.2d 256, 259 (11th Cir. 1988) (quoting Des Isles v. Evans, 225 F.2d 235, 236 (5th Cir. 1955)). We may thus show some leniency when an appellant’s exhibited intent is contrary to a technical mistake that would otherwise impede his appeal. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1365, 1374–75 (11th Cir. 1983); C. A. May Marine, 649 F.2d at 1056. This is especially so for pro se litigants. See Finch, 845 F.2d at 259–60.

How do Tjoflat and Co. start sliding off the road? They cite two cases, highlighted in yellow above, from 1987 and 1981. Those cases are more than 30 years old, and no longer are good law -- as we pointed out repeatedly in our Motion for Panel Rehearing.

On top of that, the Tjoflat panel admits that, even by 1980s law, "We may thus show some leniency when an appellant’s exhibited intent is contrary to a technical mistake that would otherwise impede his appeal" -- as ours was. The panel further admits, "This is especially so for pro se litigants" -- which we were.

In essence, the panel swallowed the Garrison/Strange/Riley argument completely, while admitting the argument is full of holes.

Unbelievably, the panel punished us for being too specific in our flawed Notice of Appeal. Get a load of this:

The Shulers’ notice of appeal specifies with precision what they are appealing, down to the relevant dates and docket numbers. This specificity indicates that appealing only the denial of their Rule 59(e) motion was not a technical mistake; their notice of appeal does not illustrate intent to bring a broader appeal. See Pitney Bowes, 701 F.2d at 1374–75. Further, allowing the Shulers’ brief to dictate the scope of this appeal would be unfair to the DefendantsAppellees, who from the notice of appeal could derive only that the Rule 59(e) motion was at issue. This appeal is therefore limited to the District Court’s denial of the Shulers’ Rule 59(e) motion.

Did the panel cite any law from this century -- any law that hasn't been overridden since the 1980s -- to support its finding? Nope. Did the Tjoflat Gang even respond to our Motion for Panel Rehearing? Nope, they just issued a document declaring heir bogus ruling was the "mandate" of the court. I can only assume that means they had no legitimate grounds to counter our rehearing motion, that they already had blown all the smoke they could up our fannies.

How thick was that smoke? We will answer that question in an upcoming post.


(To be continued)

Jill Simpson, who stood up for Don Siegelman and against the influence of Russian oligarchs and mobsters, is fighting breast cancer and a financial crunch; she and her husband need our help

Jill Simpson, the retired Alabama lawyer who testified before Congress regarding the political prosecution of former Democratic governor Don Siegelman, is fighting breast cancer -- and that, plus business downturns for her husband, Jim March, have put them in a tight financial spot. They need help from Legal Schnauzer readers, as Jim explains in the video above.

Both Jill and Jim have been powerful and effective voices for honesty and integrity in government -- with Jill providing regular commentary here at the blog on matters of law and politics. Her Facebook page provides some of the most insightful analysis on public affairs you are likely to find at any social-media outlet.

What are some of Jill's contributions to public awareness on matters of national and international impotance? She has unmasked Karl Rove as a political thug and criminal in a way that perhaps no other American has. She was among the first political observers to note the influence of Russian oligarchs and mobsters with our government -- especially in Alabama, over a $40-billion Air Force tanker-refueling project that stood to be partially constructed in Mobile. Many Americans probably first heard the name Oleg Deripaska due to Jill's research about the Putin crony's alliance with Jeff Sessions on the tanker deal -- which ultimately went to U.S.-based Boeing over the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS).

Jill Simpson and Jim March

Jim, a former political operative and election-integrity expert, now works as a truck driver -- and he has seen  certain sectors of the industry struggle recently. Jim already has taken steps to move to a more profitable trucking sector -- car hauling -- but he and Jill still face a serious financial crunch in the near term.

I've known Jill almost from the day Legal Schnauzer started in June 2007. I know Jill and Jim to be a smart, courageous couple, who care deeply about their country and the democratic process. In fact, they were part of a nationwide effort that likely ensured Republicans would not steal the 2008 presidential election. Those who are glad Barack Obama spent eight years in the White House probably should thank Jill and Jim because they played a significant role in making that happen

In short, Jill and Jim face a shortfall of $2,000 to $2,500 -- as Jim explains in the video. He also explains how Schnauzer readers can help. After watching he video, we hope you will consider making a contribution. Details on contributing ate at the summary below the video at Jim's YouTube channel.

Thank you.

Defense counsel resorts to all kinds of preposterous scams and trickery as our "Jail Case" is pending before the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta

Virginia Emerson Hopkins

Our federal lawsuit over my wrongful arrest and incarceration in Shelby County, Alabama ("The Jail Case") is pending before the U.S. Eleventh Circuit of Appeals in Atlanta. The process presents a classic example of what defense attorneys can do when they know they have no case, know the case is rigged in their favor -- or maybe both.

Some of defense counsel's actions in Roger Shuler, et al v. Liberty Duke, et al would be comical if the issues at stake were not so serious. An appeal would not be necessary, of course, if U.S. District Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins (Northern District of Alabama) weren't so crooked and oily that she squeaks when she walks. Hopkins is more than happy to waste your taxpayer dollars by repeatedly ruling contrary to black-letter law and forcing an appeal that should not be necessary. Hopkins and her husband -- Anniston lawyer Chris Hopkins -- essentially bought a judicial seat with donations to the Richard Shelby/Jeff Sessions/George W. Bush crime syndicate, so her bogus rulings were no surprise.

The good news is that Judge Hopkins' unlawful rulings probably rise to the level of fraud on the court, which means her orders are void, and we can pursue that avenue if the Eleventh Circuit screws us again. I'm still researching the fraud-on-the-court issue, but it could prove to be our best path to justice on all of the cases where judges have sullied the "machinery of the court" with fraudulent rulings.

History teaches that we should be prepared for a shock if the Eleventh Circuit actually dispenses justice. This is the same court that already has cheated us on a variety of issues -- employment discrimination and First Amendment violations, wrongful foreclosure, unlawful sheriff'a sale of the full ownership rights to our house, violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Oh, and this is the same court that cheated former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, forcing both men to be wrongfully imprisoned for roughly six years each.

The Eleventh Circuit process began with the filing of our appellants' brief (embedded at the end of this post). That gave defendants an opportunity to file response briefs, and most of them did so. (Note: Almost all of those documents were served to us in hard-copy format, and our scanner was stolen during our eviction in Missouri, so we have no means of converting them into a digital format for publication here. The documents can be viewed via PACER [for a fee].)  We then filed a reply brief (embedded at the end of this post, doing our best to point out the mountain of absurdities that defense counsel produced.

Hopkins primary screw-ups in he district court involved the statute of limitations for cases involving allegations of false arrest and imprisonment (as ours does) and state immunity for state agents, such as sheriff's deputies, acting outside the "line and scope of their employment."

Defense counsel must know Hopkins got it wrong on those issues because none of them made a particularly strong effort to argue for her findings. Opposing lawyers, however, came up with some real gems -- failing to get it right on even simple factual issues, matters of public record. It will take more than one post to outline all of the hilarity, but let's start with perhaps the most corrupt outfit of all -- defendant Rob Riley (and other members of his law firm) and their "counsel," Joseph Stott and Freddie Harrington, of the Birmingham firm Stott and Harrington.

Stott and Harrington

The Stott lawyers argued that our complaint was due to be dismissed because of a legal doctrine called res judicata, which essentially means the issues have been, or could have been, decided in a prior action. Another term for it is "claim preclusion." In this instance, the lawyers for Rob Riley and Co. contend our claims against them were litigated, or could have been litigated, in Roger Shuler, et al v. Jessica Garrison, et al, which we call "The House Case." Aside from the fact "The Jail Case" raises a number of claims against the Riley defendants that were not present in "The House Case," the res judicata argument has a bigger problem: There was no "prior action" to "The Jail Case," and that element must be present for claim preclusion to apply. From our reply brief:

Riley’s res judicata argument fails because it is based on the false notion that there was a “prior action” to this one. In fact, Riley admits that res judicata claim preclusion holds “. . . any claim that was, or that could have been, adjudicated in the prior action is barred from further litigation.” A simple review of court records shows there was no “prior action” to this one. The instant case (Shuler, et al v. Duke, et al) was filed on March 26, 2016. The other case (Shuler, et al v. Garrison, et al) was filed on April 29, 2016. In simple language, this case came first. Therefore, res judicata and similar doctrines, such as collateral estoppel, do not apply and do not bar the Shulers’ claims. Also, Riley falsely claims certain issues in the instant case already have been decided in the “prior action.” One, there was no prior action. Two, the Eleventh Circuit has not upheld any of the district court’s findings in Garrison. The Shulers’ appeal was (wrongfully) dismissed on alleged error in the Notice of Appeal, but no trial-court rulings were upheld in Garrison on the merits, so there were no affirmances per the Eleventh Circuit. 

(Note: We have grounds to challenge the dismissal in Garrison on "fraud on the court" grounds, which make the ruling void and subject to attack at any time because, as a matter of law, it is a nullity.)

The Riley defendants also argue our complaint must be dismissed, per the Rooker-Feldman Dostrine, which generally holds that a federal district court cannot review rulings of state courts. The Riley argument, as stated by the Stott attorneys, has a few holes. From our reply brief:

Riley’s Rooker-Feldman argument fails for multiple reasons, but the primary issue is this: Per Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F. 3d 1266, 1276 (11th Cir., 2009), the Riley-Duke state-court proceeding has not lawfully ended because Roger Shuler had no reasonable opportunity to appeal; the 42-day window for filing a notice of appeal lapsed during his five-month incarceration. When a state-court proceeding has not ended, it cannot be subject to Rooker-Feldman. 

A second reason Riley’s Rooker-Feldman argument fails: The Eleventh Circuit has found that Rooker-Feldman does not apply to interlocutory state-court judgments, such as the preliminary injunction that caused Roger Shuler’s unconstitutional incarceration in the instant case. From "Revisiting Rooker-Feldman," Florida State University Law Review, 2009: “The circuits are split on whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars suits in lower federal courts that challenge state court interlocutory orders. The Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits use a narrow approach, applying Rooker-Feldman only to final state court judgments.” Also from "Revisiting RookerFeldman" . . .  (“Federal courts have been somewhat divided about whether Rooker-Feldman can bar lower federal-court jurisdiction when a state court has made an interlocutory ruling, such as granting a preliminary injunction.”) As noted above, the Eleventh Circuit has come down against a bar on state-court interlocutory rulings, such as the preliminary injunction at issue in the present case.

So, there you have it in plain language: The Eleventh Circuit has found that Rooker-Feldman does not bar federal review of state-court interlocutory rulings, such as the preliminary injunction that caused me to lose my freedom for five months. The Riley defendants and their defense counsel -- all of them lawyers -- should know that. But they raised the baseless argument anyway. If you ever have the misfortune to be involved in a court appeal -- federal or state -- you are likely to run across such bilge from the other side.

We've got many more examples of it, some of which rise to the level of outrageous. We will address those in upcoming posts.


(To be continued)

Activist Matt Osborne seems to flip his wig upon learning that the Dry Alabama false-flag scheme likely violated law that prohibits efforts to defraud the U.S.

Matt Osborne

The "brains" behind the Dry Alabama false-flag operation, which might have gift-wrapped a U.S. Senate seat for Doug Jones (D-AL), seemingly blew a gasket upon reading our recent report that showed his actions likely had violated federal law.

Matt Osborne, of Florence, Alabama, has claimed since The New York Times exposed his underhanded tactics in early January, that he and his associates were acting within the law. In fact, Osborne claimed no law governed the deceptive use of social media to interfere with a federal election -- such as a U.S. Senate race.

Our recent report showed that a specific law -- 18 U.S.C. 371 ("Conspiracy to Defraud the United States") -- governs such interference, and Osborne likely violated it. In fact, it's the same law Special Counsel Robert Mueller used last July to indict 11 Russian nationals in the Trump-Russia investigation.

Osborne responded to our report, via a series of blog comments and Twitter messages, with a combination of vitriol, ignorance, nonsense, insolence . . . and, well, you get the idea. Osborne, who uses the handle "Stephen Miller's Fright Wig" on Twitter, appeared unable to counter the actual law we had cited -- the law he apparently failed to uncover before diving into the Dry Alabama swamp.

Does that mean Osborne will be prosecuted? Of course not, as we noted in our recent post. Given the disheveled state of our justice system, I'm not sure the feds could stage a solid trespass case -- never mind a case of possible election fraud. But Osborne has admitted engaging in acts that appear to violate Sec. 371, and that seems to go to criminal intent, so mounting a defense if charges are filed could be a challenge.

Meanwhile Doug Jones claims ignorance of the Dry Alabama scheme and has called for a federal investigation. But it strains believability to think Jones was so out to lunch that he was unaware of a scheme designed to help him beat favored Republican Roy Moore for Jeff Sessions' old Senate seat. Could Jones wind up selling Osborne and Co. down the proverbial river in order to protect his own exalted political status? Former Alabama governor Don Siegelman can tell you about Jones' penchant for backstabbing, so Osborne might want to be getting his life raft ready.

Something certainly seems to have Osborne in a state of agitation. Consider this comment he left at our March 20 post about apparent violations of Sec. 371:

Matt Osborne said... 

Is there a law against Facebook pages? No. Is there a law against Facebook pages presenting a point of view that you don't really agree with? Again, no. The reason I am going to "escape" charges is that there are no laws against what we did. None. Zero. Zilch. Strictly speaking, it wasn't even a violation of Facebook policy.

And that was kinda the point of doing Dry Alabama. "Look, see what I can get away with? Does this bother you? Maybe enough to pass a law against it? Good, let's have that conversation."

Of course, it's unlikely that Dry Alabama put Doug Jones over the top. The fact that his signs were EVERYWHERE, the massive enthusiasm for his candidacy, is how he won. He and his team worked their butts off to win every last vote they could, and it worked. I live on a street where every yard had a Doug Jones sign in 2017 but then local Republican candidates' signs in 2018. Jones was the most popular Democrat I've seen since I was a kid watching George Wallace win his final term.

Of course, the irony here is that of the two of us, Roger, you are the one who has been to jail for publishing falsehoods. That's what you get for printing the ravings of Bob Riley's aggrieved ex-girlfriend as headlines, I suppose.

March 20, 2019 at 4:25 PM

Notice in the first paragraph that Osborne sets himself up as an expert on federal law; that quickly washes away. Notice in the final paragraph that he takes a dig at me -- and someone he claims to be the "aggrieved ex-girlfriend" of former governor Bob Riley. Here is my response:

legalschnauzer said...

Matt:

Good thing you didn't go into the law because meaningless mental exercises like the one on display here would not get you far. A few points:

(1) Who was your "legal counsel" on this matter? Whoever it was, I would urge you to fire him.

(2) There is a law, as cited in my post, and Robert Mueller has used it to indict multiple Russian nationals for "defrauding the United States" by tampering with a federal election. You violated that law by tampering with a federal election -- the U.S. Senate race in Alabama. Under federal law, statutes often are written broadly, and you must check the case law to know what you are dealing with and how the law has been applied. You should have done that before engaging in a con game like Dry Alabama and then admitting what you had done. Your ignorance of federal law could bite you on the ass, big time.

(3) You don't know whether Dry Alabama put Jones over the top, and it doesn't matter anyway. A law does exist -- even though you are trying to wish it away -- and you broke it. Does that mean you will be prosecuted? Nope. Our justice system might be too broken to do its job. And Doug Jones might successfully cover things up. But you violated the law.

(4) What "falsehoods" have I published? Can you explain how anything I've published has, as a matter of law, been found false? Or are you just taking Liberty Duke's word on that. (Rob Riley, BTW, never has claimed under oath that my reporting was false. His lack of a denial, under oath, suggests even he knows my reporting was accurate.)

(5) So you and your friend, Melissa [Brewer], came to our house because you believed I had published falsehoods? Was your presence there a con job, as I now have come to suspect? Taking advantage of a woman (my wife, Carol) whose husband has just been kidnapped inside their home? Real classy, Matt. Shows how you respect women -- not to mention your disdain for rule of law.

(6) Who is "Bob Riley's girlfriend," of whom you speak? She made me print falsehoods? How? (On the subject of girlfriends, does Doug Jones have one, not his wife? I'm hearing he does. I even have a name and address and workplace. Check it out.)

(7) Congrats on drinking the Doug Jones Kool-Aid to the max. He has a history as a backstabber (ask Don Siegelman), and he will sell you and your Netroots friends down the river at the first opportunity.

March 20, 2019 at 8:31 PM

I challenge Osborne to cite any "falsehoods" I have published, and not surprisingly, he comes up empty. I've reported several times that Osborne and a woman named Melissa Brewer came to our home to visit my wife, Carol, a few days after Shelby County deputies had kidnapped me from inside our house and taken me to jail for a five-month stay. Osborne never has indicated my reporting on that issue was off target, but now he claims the woman was someone other than Melissa Brewer -- whose online profile indicates she is a "copywriter, content curator, and social media strategist" in Washington, D.C.. In fact, the subject of Melissa Brewer seems to be quite sensitive for Osborne. Hmmm . . .

Doug Jones

To show that two can play the "dig" game, I ask Osborne to respond to tips I've been receiving that Doug Jones has a "zipper problem" that could become public in the near future. (In fact, I'm working on the story right now.) Osborne apparently did not want to go there, but he did return fire:

Matt Osborne said...

If Dry Alabama is "interference" in a federal election, then why isn't Brad Parscale [digital media director for Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign] in prison right now? If It was "cheating," then lots of political operators belong in prison, too.

According to the USSC, I have a First Amendment RIGHT to lie, "cheat," and spend dark money on political campaigns.

Roger, her name wasn't Melissa. This is how good you are with facts. We came to visit Carol because we genuinely wanted to be sure she was okay and had some groceries. I wanted to bring attention to the unacceptable beating and arrest of an indie journalist, as I was one at the time. Since then, I have learned that other, better, less-insane journalists have disproven much of your reporting. It's also become clear to me that you are completely bonkers. I suspect that if I went through the IP addresses on these comments, I would find they are mostly coming from inside your house.

March 21, 2019 at 10:40 AM

Osborne has a "right" to cheat on federal elections? I suspect Robert Mueller would beg to differ. Other "less-insane journalists" have disproved much of my reporting? Surely Osborne wants to share their names and links to their work. Well . . . maybe not.

legalschnauzer said... 

Matt:

Your ignorance of federal law is blinding, and it could land you in deep doo-doo. A few thoughts:

(1) Whatever Brad Parscale may or may not have done has nothing to do with your situation. Sure, other political operators might belong in prison. But you interfered with a federal election and were stupid enough to admit it. Our system is flawed, and yes, some people get away with unlawful acts and some don't. You might get away with it, and you might not. But you clearly interfered with a federal election, "defrauding the United States," just as Mueller has alleged against Russian nationals. You can't refute that, so you try to change the subject. There is a law against what you did, and if Doug Jones put you up to it, he violated the law, too.

(2) Is the "USSC" the U.S. Supreme Court? What case are you referring to? Does it involve tampering with an election, because that's what you've admitted you did? Again, you are trying to change the subject, to dark money, First Amendment, etc. Your situation isn't about that. It's about tampering with a federal election, which you have admitted to doing. And you call ME insane? Now, that IS "hilarious."

(3) Carol told me she thought the woman's name was Melissa, and Carol usually has a pretty good memory on such things. If that's not correct, what is the woman's name? As you recall, I wasn't around for introductions.

(4) So, you thought my arrest and beating were unacceptable, but now you are OK with it? Is that the effect Doug Jones and Rob Riley have had on you? Or maybe you entered our home under false pretenses all along?

(5) Who are these journalists who have disproven my reporting? Can you provide their names and links to their articles that disprove my reporting? My reporting never has been disproven in court, as a matter of law, so how did these journalists manage to do it? I can't wait to find out your details on that. Also, can't wait for info on "Bob Riley's girlfriend." You mean he had a girlfriend, kind of like Rob's version of Liberty Duke?

March 21, 2019 at 11:28 AM

Osborne seems to engage in classic avoidance behavior. I ask him to cite these court cases that give him a "right" to cheat on a federal election; he has no answer. If Melissa Brewer did not come to our home, I ask him to state the name of the woman who did; again, no answer. I ask him to cite names of journalists who have disproven my reporting, with links to their articles; we get crickets from Matt O.

We will have more from our zany back-and-forth with Matt Osborne, who claims to be a political lefty. For now, I can only note how much he sounds like some of the right-wing loons we've encountered over the years -- especially the noxious Aaron Worthing (also known as Aaron Walker) and Robert Stacy McCain.


(To be continued)

Activist Matt Osborne and his ties to Doug Jones campaign -- plus his actions in Dry Alabama false-flag project -- raise red flags here at Legal Schnauzer

Matt Osborne

About a week after my "arrest for blogging" in 2013, Alabama activist Matt Osborne contacted my wife, Carol, and asked if he could come to our home in Birmingham. Carol gave the OK, and Osborne and a friend named Melissa Brewer showed up at our door with "supplies" (canned goods, cat food, over-the-counter meds, etc.) -- and they took photos and videos of the area in our basement where Shelby County deputies had beaten and abducted me.

I had been online friends with Matt for a while, generally sharing his liberal views and keeping up with his writings at various Web sites -- mostly Osborne Ink and Breitbart Unmasked. I saw him as an important Web-based voice -- a talented, intelligent guy, who was pugnacious enough to do battle with underhanded conservatives, such as the felon poser, and gay-sex troller Ali (Akbar) Alexander and his nutty National Bloggers Club.

For about four years, Carol and I have assumed Osborne came to our home in good faith, from a genuine intention to help at a time of crisis. But I started to have doubts about that when Osborne contacted me in October 2017 -- about six weeks before the Doug Jones-Roy Moore U.S. Senate special election -- and informed me he was connected to the Jones campaign in some capacity, suggesting I should retract a post about a Russian-bot attack on the Moore campaign's Twitter account.

Why did Osborne's ties to Doug Jones alarm me? Well, I've known since spring 2008 that Doug Jones is a shady, ethically challenged guy -- mainly because of his lawyer-tribe ties to despicable Republican thug Rob Riley, the oily son of former Gov. Bob Riley. In fact, I was cheated out of my job at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), where I had worked for almost 20 years, after I reported on the dubious reasons Rob Riley joined Jones in a lawsuit against HealthSouth -- a story that originated with Sam Stein, of Huffington Post.

For the record, I don't think it's a coincidence that UAB concocted a bogus scheme to fire me -- falsely claiming I was blogging at work, contrary to the words of their own IT expert (Sean Maher) who had examined my work computer activity -- not long after my report on Jones, Riley, and the HealthSouth case. My blogging likely was seen as a threat to Jones and Riley's share of what would become $51 million in legal fees from the HealthSouth case, money that probably helped fund Jones' U.S. Senate campaign in 2017.

I also learned that Jones is a world-class backstabber, with a string of victims that include former Gov. Don Siegelman, late VictoryLand owner Milton McGregor, and Dothan developer Ronnie Gilley. Also, it became clear that Jones was prone to look the other way at the crimes of moneyed elites, such as University of Alabama honcho Paul Bryant Jr., whose company was tied to a massive insurance-fraud case in Pennsylvania.

In short, Doug Jones is a "bastard-coated bastard with bastard filling," and I've come to believe anyone affiliated with him has a shaky moral compass, poor judgment, a strong case of naivete -- or a combination of the three.

Doug Jones

My concerns about Osborne's actions involving Carol and me grew with recent reports that he was a central figure in "Dry Alabama," a disinformation project designed to boost Doug Jones in the Senate race by falsely claiming Roy Moore supported a statewide ban on alcohol -- never mind that it's hard to see how a U.S. senator could provide political muscle on a state issue such as alcohol sales and consumption.

What about specifics that might lead us to have qualms about Matt Osborne? Let's consider:

The "RogerS" scam

Evidence suggests my arrest, at least in part, was driven by a narrative involving a mysterious character called "RogerS." Here's how we explained it in a post dated July 13, 2015:

Members of a right-wing bloggers' club concocted the notion that I was encouraging a federal lawsuit against them, and other conservative figures, and they wrote about it obsessively in the days leading to, and following, my October 2013 arrest.

At the heart of the matter is a commenter at a progressive Web site who goes by the handle "RogerS" and appears to have a fair amount of knowledge about legal matters--in fact, he was encouraging liberal activist Brett Kimberlin to file a federal RICO lawsuit against members of the bloggers club and other individuals on the right. When Kimberlin did, in fact, file a RICO suit, I wound up in jail roughly one week later. Coincidence? That's hard to say, but let's look at what we do know.

In certain corners of the blogosphere, it became popular to suggest that "RogerS" and Roger Shuler (me) were one and the same--even though I had nothing to do with the comments in question, I was not aware of any possible federal lawsuit, and I have no clue about the identity of "RogerS." Still, evidence suggests I might have paid a high price--loss of my freedom for five months and eventual loss of our home-- for something that did not involve me.

As for the National Bloggers Club, it operates under a media umbrella created by the late right-wing publisher and provocateur Andrew Breitbart--and its president, Ali A Akbar, has a criminal history and admitted connections to former Bush White House adviser Karl Rove. Akbar also has a history of trolling for gay sex on adult Web sites.

Where did RogerS originate? We've explained that, too:

"RogerS" apparently made his first appearance in a September 18, 2013, post at the progressive blog Breitbart Unmasked (BU). Interestingly, that was one day after I broke the Bill Pryor gay-porn story. "RogerS" commented about a possible lawsuit that Kimberlin was planning against a number of individuals connected to the Breitbart Network.

Another commenter on the same post replied: "RogerS is one of two very cool people in Alabama . . . Everyone should read his latest: A very "stiff" portrayal of a federal judge." That's the first sign I can find of connections forming between "RogerS," Roger Shuler, and the Bill Pryor story--and it came from a commenter at a liberal Web site.

So, RogerS grew from Breitbart Unmasked, and BU's editor at the time was . . . Matt Osborne. Let's consider a few of the questions that poses:

Ali Akbar on Grindr gay-sex app

(1) Is RogerS even a real person? Could he be a "false flag" that Osborne -- or someone connected to him -- created? After all, "Dry Alabama" proves Osborne has a taste for false-flag operations.

(2) Was RogerS created to antagonize Ali (Akbar) Alexander and his right-wing blogging loons and scare them into having me falsely arrested -- probably with the assistance of the Alabama State Bar?


Matt Osborne's in-home visit while I was in jail

Was Osborne's visit to our house, while I was locked up, an act of good faith, or one with ulterior motives?

Well, we know my arrest, on the surface, was driven by a bogus defamation lawsuit that Rob Riley and his lobbyist "gal pal" Liberty Duke filed against me. We know Rob Riley and Doug Jones have been aligned in the legal tribe for more than 10 years. And we know Matt Osborne has been aligned with Doug Jones at least since 2017.

Could Osborne's alliance with Jones date back to 2013 and beyond? Could Jones, or someone tied to him, have directed Osborne to go to our house as a ruse, designed to assist Rob Riley's arrest scheme -- and perhaps stand up for Bill Pryor's "honor"?

Why would someone want to have access to our house just days after my arrest? I can think of all kinds of reasons, most of them dark and disturbing. I like to think that Matt Osborne would not go along with such a scheme, but we now know he engaged in deceptive election practices on Doug Jones' behalf, so what would keep Osborne from entering our home under false pretenses -- designed to assist Doug Jones and his lawyer pal, Rob Riley, perhaps in their shared desire to abuse the reporter who outed Bill Pryor as a closeted gay? By the way, Jones long has professed his undying respect for Pryor.

Matt Osborne has proven he engaged in dishonest activities that deceived Alabama voters -- a false-flag scheme to benefit Doug Jones. I see no reason why he would not engage in a false flag directed at Carol and me.

As elections and criminality intersect in the age of Trump, Alabama's AG race -- featuring Steve Marshall and Joe Siegelman -- captures national spotlight

Joseph Siegelman

Leave it to Alabama to produce the strangest race in perhaps the most bizarre midterm- election cycle in American history.

Senate, House, and governor's races around the country certainly will receive more attention than the race for Alabama attorney general, between Republican "incumbent" Steve Marshall and Democratic challenger Joseph Siegelman (son of former governor Don Siegelman, who spent six years in federal prison because GOP thugs orchestrated a political prosecution against him.)

Marshall already carries the baggage of being appointed to office by former "Luv Guv" Robert Bentley, who resigned from office amid a sex-tinged scandal that our reporting brought to public attention.

As voters head to the polls today, the Alabama AG's race is making headlines because of a USA Today report about a $735,000 donation to the Marshall campaign from the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), apparently in violation of state campaign-finance laws.

Joseph Siegelman has raised the possibility that Marshall, if he wins today's general election, could be removed from office for engaging in criminal acts. Perhaps that would be fitting, given the national political environment in the age of Trump. From a recent al.com report on the Siegelman-Marshall race:

Siegelman hammered the point that Marshall could be the latest state official booted from office -- preceded by former Gov. Robert Bentley, Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard and Chief Justice Roy Moore -- if elected to a full term next month.

Marshall took office in February 2017 after being appointed by Bentley following Bentley's appointment of Luther Strange to the U.S. Senate.

"We are on the verge of potentially losing our attorney general," Siegelman said. "And I don't know how our state recovers from that."

Asked by AL.com following the press conference to expand on that assertion, Siegelman said, "The law is clear. If the violation takes place, then it's criminal if done intentionally. I am not attorney general. I'm in no position to act on a violation. The ethics commission is. The district attorney in Montgomery County is. If they want to take up this issue, they can.

"Under the law, if my opponent took this money knowing it was illegal or should have known it was illegal, then he can be prosecuted. If that happens, he would be removed from office and we would lose our attorney general."

A similar scenario could be unfolding on the national stage. Multiple news outlets are reporting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is expected to roar back into the news following today's midterms. From a report on that subject at New York Magazine?

Apart from filing a report to Congress and addressing [Roger] Stone’s fate, Mueller may have some other postelection surprises up his sleeve. The week before Christmas, Michael Flynn, Trump’s first and shortest-serving national security adviser, will go before a federal judge to be sentenced for lying to the FBI about the extent of his dealings with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador. When Flynn pleaded guilty last December, the special counsel included a clause in his plea agreement promising to ask the court for leniency at sentencing. The catch: In the course of his cooperation, Flynn must provide “substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense.” If Flynn truly sang for federal prosecutors, Mueller’s holiday gift to the president may just be another indictment of a person close to him.

Consider the possible implications of the infamous Trump Tower meeting. Multiple legal experts have stated the meeting could constitute criminal acts -- violation of campaign-finance laws, conspiracy to defraud the United States -- at the highest levels of the Trump campaign. From a report at USA Today:

“Don’t be fooled by word games,” Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown Law, told us via email. “There is no legal term ‘collusion.’ The legal term for collusion is the crime of conspiracy. If you agree to kill someone and take a step toward that (hired the killer, or encouraged the killer, met with the killer) you are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

“So, if you agree to defraud the U.S. or disrupt the elections (even if it’s not with the Russians) and you take a step forward (any step….meetings, payments etc.), that’s conspiracy,” Nourse said.

Nourse's comment was for an article published in August. Let's jump ahead to today's elections and consider what we might know, say, eight months from now. Perhaps we will have learned Trump became president largely because his team violated campaign-finance laws and, in fact, engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the government. Perhaps we will have learned Trump himself was right in the middle of it.

Steve Marshall and Robert Bentley

Consider just a few alarming questions that might raise:

* Has Trump ever been president, as a matter of law?

* If not, what happens with all of the actions he has taken, all the appointments (many of them for life) he has made?

* What about all of the campaign rallies Trump has conducted across the country in weeks leading up to today's elections? Were those the acts of an impostor, the product of fraud, a sham on the public? If Trump unlawfully affected the election outcomes, one way or another, would that invalidate the results? Would that mean Trump has tainted two elections (2016 and 2018)?