Dark money that boosted Florida GOP candidates traces to Alabama operatives, including ex employees of Matrix LLC, with its ties to Alabama Power

 

Dark money that benefited Republican candidates in Florida has been traced to former employees of a  Montgomery-based consulting firm with longstanding ties to Alabama Power and Southern Company, according to a report at the Orlando Sentinel. The case reportedly has the attention of criminal investigators in Florida, and it has a civil component -- in the form of a lawsuit that Matrix LLC founder Joe Perkins has brought against his former employees. Write Sentinel reporters Jason Garcia and Annie Martin:

The source of more than half a million dollars spent last year promoting “ghost” candidates in key state Senate races remained a mystery even as the scandal rocked Florida politics, but newly public records suggest the money is tied to political players in Alabama.

At issue is $550,000 donated last year by a dark-money nonprofit to a pair of political committees that promoted little-known independent candidates in three key Senate races: Senate District 9 in Central Florida and Senate Districts 37 and 39 in South Florida. The money paid for nearly identical mailers apparently tailored to persuade Democratic-leaning voters to support the independent candidates in each of the three races, all of which were ultimately won by Republicans.

Authorities in Miami-Dade County have since charged two people in connection with one of those races, including former Republican state Sen. Frank Artiles, who is accused of bribing one of the independent candidates to run. Prosecutors say it was part of a plot to siphon support away from the Democratic candidate in District 37 and tilt the election to the Republican, Sen. Ileana Garcia of Miami.

During the election, the two political committees filed campaign finance reports showing they got all of their money from the same donor. They initially identified that donor as Proclivity Inc., a nonprofit set up in Delaware and based out of a UPS store in Atlanta. But they later changed their reports to say the donor was Grow United Inc., a nonprofit set up in Delaware but based out of a UPS store in Denver.

But investigators in the Artiles case have obtained records that suggest the nonprofits had ties to consultants working at the time for Matrix LLC, an Alabama-based communication and political consulting firm.

That's where Joe Perkins enters the picture:

According to records from a separate civil lawsuit, those consultants all left Matrix at the end of last year amid a falling out with the firm’s founder, Joe Perkins, a Democratic strategist and behind-the-scenes power broker. Matrix recently sued its ex-employees — who now work together at a new consulting shop in Florida — accusing them of diverting fees from clients to businesses and nonprofits they set up for themselves.

Based in Montgomery, Alabama’s state capital, Matrix says it specializes in “assisting clients with highly sensitive and crisis situations.” There’s no indication the firm or Perkins are targets of investigators.

Perkins said he didn’t know anything about Proclivity or Grow United. He also said he had “no direct knowledge” of whether his former employees were involved in the campaigns. He declined to elaborate further, citing his lawsuit against them, to which they have not yet responded.

“The extent of any involvement that these other folks may or may not have had starts to get into the substance of my lawsuit,” Perkins said.

How did Sentinel reporters trace the dark money? It wasn't easy, with the funds following a winding trail that led to Alabama:

The Florida Center for Government Accountability, a government watchdog group, helped the Orlando Sentinel obtain and review documents to trace the dark money’s path to Florida.

“It was extremely difficult to unmask this trail of records, which does not appear to be unintentional,” said Michael Barfield, the center’s director of public access.

State authorities raided former state lawmaker Frank Artiles home in Palmetto Bay on Wednesday, March 17, 2021. Prosecutors say Artiles bribed a friend to run as a spoiler candidate in a South Florida state Senate race.

How exactly do the funds tie to Alabama? That's complicated:

At the time of last year’s elections, little was publicly known about Proclivity or Grow United except they were both set up in 2019 by Richard Alexander, according to Delaware corporate records, and they were 501c4 “social welfare” organizations, according to campaign finance records.

But investigators in the Artiles case obtained a copy of an $80,000 check from Grow United to one of the political committees used to promote the independent Senate candidates in Florida. The check, which Alexander signed, was issued by a bank in Alabama.

And separate tax and campaign finance records show that there is a Richard Alexander in Alabama associated with other nonprofits that have made significant campaign contributions in Florida.

For instance, a nonprofit called “Mothers for Moderation” donated $230,000 in August 2018 to the Florida Democratic Party. On its campaign finance reports, the party listed Mothers for Moderation’s address as Richard Alexander’s home address in Cullman, Ala.

In addition, Mothers for Moderation’s principal officer is Stephane Egan, according to a tax return. She is Richard Alexander’s sister.

Alexander and Egan have another sister: April Odom,the former chief spokesperson for Birmingham’s mayor who was working last year for Matrix LLC. According to litigation records, one of Odom’s colleagues at Matrix at the time was a Tallahassee-based consultant named Abigail MacIver.

And investigators in the Artiles case also obtained messages that appear to show that Alex Alvarado, the Republican political operative in Tallahassee who ran the two political committees that promoted the independent candidates, was working with both Alexander and someone identified in his phone as “Abbie M.”

"Abbie M" appears to be a key figure in all of this:

The person communicating with Abbie M isn’t identified in the records. But the messages were released as part of a larger batch of records that also include dozens of text messages from Alvarado to two other women involved in his political committees.

The texts with Abbie M began Oct. 6, a few days after Alvarado’s political committees received the $550,000 and a few days before they had to file campaign finance reports with the state.

“Get me C4 info when possible please,” an outgoing message said.

“Jeff was supposed to send to you. Let me follow up,” Abbie M responded.

A short time later, Abbie M sent the name, address and tax forms for Proclivity Inc., the organization Alvarado’s political committees initially claimed as their donor. Those details were included in the public campaign finance reports Alvarado’s political committees filed later that week.

In December, the records show Alexander emailed Alvarado to ask for a “correction,” writing that the source of the committees’ funding should have been listed in elections records as Grow United, not Proclivity. Alvarado responded he would make the switch “immediately.”

The Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office refused to confirm whether Abbie M is Abigail MacIver or answer questions about the evidence made public so far. But Abigail MacIver’s boss at the time was then-Matrix CEO Jeff Pitts.

Alabama operatives tied to the scheme were not anxious to answer questions from the Sentinel: 

Pitts declined to answer questions about his involvement in last year’s Florida Senate races. MacIver, Odom and Alexander could not be reached for comment. Pitts, MacIver and Odom are now working for Canopy Partners, a Florida-based consulting firm that Pitts co-owns, according to litigation records — and all three are among the ex-Matrix employees named in Matrix’s civil lawsuit.

“The firm has always followed the letter and spirit of the law and any insinuation to the contrary is absolutely false,” Al Vreeland, a lawyer representing Canopy Partners, said in a statement provided by a spokesperson.

Matrix has a deep history with some of the biggest names in the Alabama business world:

One of Matrix’s biggest clients has been Alabama Power, a subsidiary of Atlanta-based utility company Southern Co. Records show it also represented the Alabama teachers union and oil-drilling giant BP America.

In its lawsuit, Matrix accuses Pitts and the other former employees of conspiring with one particular client to cheat Matrix out of fees. The lawsuit doesn’t identify that client by name but says it is a publicly traded company based in Juno Beach.

Based on Securities and Exchange Commission records, there is only one publicly traded company headquartered in Juno Beach: NextEra Energy, the parent company of Florida’s largest utility, Florida Power & Light, which turned a $2.9 billion profit last year.

Under Simpson’s leadership, the Senate Republican campaign committee paid more than $7 million during the 2020 election cycle to Data Targeting Inc., a political consulting firm tapped to oversee state Senate campaigns for Republicans. And Data Targeting gave a $15,000-a-month consulting contract to Artiles to work on Senate elections in Miami-Dade County. It also reimbursed Artiles for expenses that line up with steps authorities say he took to orchestrate the campaign of the independent candidate in Senate District 37.

Meanwhile, the head of Associated Industries’ political council is Ryan Tyson, who is also the executive director of another nonprofit called Let’s Preserve the American Dream that operates out of AIF’s headquarters in Tallahassee. Records show Alvarado works with Tyson and Let’s Preserve the American Dream, which paid Artiles $5,000 a month since 2017. Tyson said his nonprofit recently ended its contract with Artiles.

A spokesperson for NextEra declined to answer questions about whether the company had any role in promoting spoiler candidates in last year’s Senate races.

“All of Florida Power & Light Company’s corporate political and charitable contributions, which are funded by shareholders or employees, not customers, comply with all applicable laws and are properly disclosed,” spokesperson Bill Orlove said. “The company does not discuss its individual political contributions.

Alabama judges trash federal law, including findings of the U.S. Supreme Court, by tossing people in jail for failure to pay debts -- especially in Marion County

Charles Anderson, of Winfield, AL (Connor Sheets, al.com)

Part Two

We have reported multiple times on Alabama judges who violate the law by conducting public court proceedings in secret. Now, we learn that some Alabama judges butcher the law by throwing people in jail for unpaid court debts.

How grossly unlawful is this? The answer: very. From a report at al.com, under the headline "‘How do you make them pay?’: Locked up in Alabama for debt":

Arresting people for failure to appear is a standard policing practice. But arresting them for failure to pay court-ordered fines, fees and restitution is far less common.

Holding people in jail over unpaid debts they don’t have the financial wherewithal to pay violates federal laws and constitutional protections against operating a debtors’ prison, according to Leah Nelson, who studies failure to pay cases in her role as research director at Alabama Appleseed Center for Law & Justice.

“I really do see this as a human rights crisis,” said Nelson. “You’re destroying people’s lives; you’re taking them away from their families and from their jobs. You are completely destabilizing them to punish them for not having money that they don’t have. It’s like a donut hole. ... That’s what this system is. It doesn’t make sense.”

The problem is particularly acute in Marion County, as Winfield resident Charles Anderson can attest:

Charles Anderson sat on his mother’s covered porch in rural Winfield, Alabama, Wednesday afternoon, chain-smoking Chesterfield 100s and sipping sweet tea from a mason jar as rain poured down on her carefully tended garden.

Barely 24 hours earlier, Anderson was locked up with three other men in a six-by-ten-foot cell in the Marion County Jail. The Army veteran served 28 days in the aging north Alabama facility after he was arrested last month for an unpaid debt. He had failed to make monthly payments on fines and fees associated with three court cases dating back as far as 2003.

The only reason he was able to be there in his “sanctuary” among the budding lantanas, weigela and roses of Sharon is because Linda Jacobs, his 72-year-old mother, cashed her monthly Social Security check on July 3, went to the circuit clerk’s office in the county seat of Hamilton on Tuesday, and paid $1,000 toward his outstanding court-ordered debts of more than $2,500.

“I offered to pay $300, and they called and told the judge, and the judge said he had to pay $1,000 to get out,” Jacobs told AL.com. “They take away your freedom, they lock you up, and you pay or they keep you locked up. It’s not right.”

Several other people remain incarcerated in Marion County solely because they are poor and don’t have loved ones with the financial resources to buy their freedom.

One man has been locked up in the jail since March, when he was arrested at a Winfield Walmart on three counts of failure to pay. A court document states that he would be released from county custody immediately if he were to come up with the $2,819.70 of court-ordered debts he currently owes. Another man has been held in the jail since he was arrested in April for failure to pay. His writ of arrest states that he “may be released upon payment of court costs, fines and restitution of: $4,182.56.”

Is there any basis in the law for this kind of treatment? No:

In Marion County, the justice system repeatedly cycles low-income people in and out of jail for failing to pay debts.

“In my opinion, it’s debtors’ prison because I owe money and you’re gonna lock me up for it,” Anderson said. “How is this the United States, where we’re supposed to have more freedoms than anywhere else in the world, and we’re incarcerating people for not having money?”

One resident calls the actions of Marion County authorities "extortion":

In more than a dozen cases filed over the past year that were reviewed by AL.com, court records show that people sat for weeks or months in the Marion County Jail simply because they were too poor to buy their release.

Though some people are arrested for failure to pay, Marion County often relies on failure to appear charges to arrest people with unpaid debts before demanding payment for their release.

But court records show that many people never receive the letters informing them of the payment review hearings, and several people who were arrested in the county for failure to appear since August 2020 told AL.com they had no idea they were due in court.

Daniel Ables sat in the Marion County Jail for over four months without appearing before a judge or having his case heard. Asked about his case, Sheriff [Kevin] Williams said Ables is one of the unfortunate people who fall through the cracks and end up serving months behind bars because their families are unable to pay for their release.

At 8:23 a.m. on February 22, a Marion County deputy arrested the Hamilton 41-year-old on an outstanding warrant for failing to appear at a March 2020 hearing to work out a plan to pay down his court-ordered debts stemming from a 2009 drug case.

As in many such cases in Marion County, the warrant for Ables’s arrest has two boxes checked. The first states that “[y]ou may release the accused person without taking the accused person before a judge or magistrate,” and the second, selected from three options below the first, says “[i]f the person posts a cash bond in the amount of $1915.60 with the court clerk.”

The “bond” in these cases is not a bond in the usual sense of an amount that a court orders incarcerated people to pay to ensure their return for a future court date. Instead, it’s equal to the exact total of all the fines, fees and restitution a defendant owes at the time.

During a . . . jailhouse phone call with AL.com, Ables said that he believed he would not have been locked up for months if he were wealthy, and that his life had been destroyed by this latest period of incarceration.

“It’s extortion. That’s pretty much what it is, is it not?” he said. “They’re gonna lock me up and hold me here for a year or some crap just because I can’t pay? What would you call it?”

Ables’s loved ones tried for months to raise the money the county had demanded for his release. Shortly after his arrest, his girlfriend offered to pay $700 toward his court-ordered debts but was told he could not be released for any amount short of $2,000.

At least one official seems to realize Marion County is acting outside the law:

Marion County Sheriff Kevin Williams sat down for an interview with AL.com . . .  in his office in the one-story building in Hamilton that houses the county jail. He said that though he doesn’t write the laws, he is charged with enforcing them, and that sometimes means holding people on unpaid debts in accordance with judges’ orders.

“If you’re sitting here and you can’t pay your fines, but you’re court-ordered to pay them, how do you fix that? How do you make them pay?” he said from behind his paper-strewn wooden desk. “That’s where I’m torn. I don’t know how to fix it. Do we keep incarcerating individuals who can’t pay who might be classified as indigent? We know we can’t do that. But they still have an obligation to pay the fines.”

An Alabama attorney says the solution is not all that difficult. You simply do not incarcerate people for failure to pay a debt. It's against the law, and the al.com story presents no one who disputes that:

Cody Cutting, an attorney and fellow at the Southern Center for Human Rights who litigates cases related to the criminalization of poverty in the South, said that no matter what justification officials in Marion County may offer, the situation faced by people like Anderson is unacceptable.

“If someone who is arrested can avoid incarceration by paying if they’re able to pay their entire court debt, but someone who is unable to pay that court debt through no fault of their own is forced to languish in jail for months, that violates the Constitution,” he said. . . .

In America, jailing people for unpaid debts has long been against federal law in most instances.

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the practice in a landmark 1983 ruling called Bearden v. Georgia, which held that courts may only sentence a person to prison for unpaid debts if the person “willfully” refuses to make payments toward the amount they owe. But the Supreme Court did not adequately define what “willfully” means, Cutting said, and over the ensuing decades judges in states including Alabama have continued to jail people for failure to pay without considering their financial status or other reasons for nonpayment.

Yet legal advocacy organizations like the Southern Center for Human Rights and the Southern Poverty Law Center have found repeatedly that judges in Alabama and many other states often jail people for failure to pay without conducting inquiries into their ability to make payments.

“It could not be clearer that it is unconstitutional to jail someone for failing to pay a fine if the ability to pay that fine is beyond that person’s control,” Cutting said. “In spite of how clear that constitutional command is, it’s completely apparent that jailing people for being poor is common practice in courts across the South.”

What about other examples of Alabama judges causing major hardship by ignoring black-letter law? We will address at least one in an upcoming post -- and it hits very close to home.

Former Missouri Governor Eric Greitens, whose rising star crashed because of a sex scandal, is seeking Trump endorsement for 2022 run at a U.S. Senate seat

Eric Greitens

Eric Geitens, who stepped down as Missouri governor in the wake of  a seamy sex scandal, is seeking an endorsement from Donald Trump for a 2022 GOP run at the U.S. Senate. It's hard to tell what is more nauseating: that a greaseball like Greitens thinks be belongs in the Senate, or that he is seeking the help of a greaseball like Trump. Some possible good news: A number of Republican honchos reportedly are advising Trump to steer clear of Greitens. From a report at The Washington Post:

Former Missouri governor Eric Greitens keeps getting questions on the campaign trail about the state of his relationship with former president Donald Trump.

But the scandal-scarred Senate candidate, who is trying to run under the banner of Trump’s “America First” movement, always finds a way to avoid a direct answer.

“We are honored to have so many of Donald Trump’s strongest fighters on our team,” Greitens said last month in one interview on a conservative podcast when asked about the relationship.

The dodge glosses over one of the most dramatic behind-the-scenes battles for Trump’s favor taking place right now. The former president has hosted a steady stream of potential candidates, sitting senators and political kibitzers who have tried to keep him from endorsing Greitens, a devoted cheerleader who is trying to use Trump’s grass-roots strength to emerge from disastrous allegations of bound hands and coercive sex that forced his resignation as governor in 2018. Trump advisers aware of the meetings spoke on the condition of anonymity to reflect private conversations.

 Greitens once was a Navy SEAL, but he seems to have little trouble sucking up to Trump:

Few candidates have done more in recent months to court Trump, or to compare his own controversy to the scandals that enveloped the former president. Yet in a state that Trump won by 15 points in 2020, the Greitens campaign has tested the question of just how far the former president and Republican voters are willing to go to overlook past misdeeds.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who is leading the Senate GOP campaign effort, is among those encouraging Trump to stay out of the primary in Missouri and elsewhere.

Several Republican strategists say they worry that the lurid scandals that brought down Greitens would create an opening for a Democrats if he is the nominee, especially if former governor Jay Nixon (D) decides to run. More likely, they say, Greitens would just increase the costs for Republicans to win the state, diverting resources from other contests.

“I keep saying to the president: We want to nominate electable people. I think he’s trying to find the most Trumpian person who is electable,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who recently traveled to Trump’s Bedminster resort in New Jersey and said it was “an encouraging sign” for Republican chances to take over the Senate that the former president was, for now, staying out of some races. “A lot of people on the ground are encouraging him to stay out. They are saying don’t put Missouri in play.”

But the efforts by Greitens to win the endorsement and the support of Trump’s most devoted followers have not abated. Greitens has hired a coterie of former Trump aides, and won the endorsement of former Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani and former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik, whom Trump pardoned after a guilty plea for tax fraud and lying to the government. Former interior secretary Ryan Zinke, former White House aides Boris Epshteyn and Sebastian Gorka and several others from Trump’s orbit have signed on to the effort.

The campaign has hired Trump’s former pollster, Tony Fabrizio, who produced a March survey that showed Greitens leading the crowded field. Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former Trump campaign aide and the girlfriend of his son Donald Jr., has been hired to chair the Greitens campaign.

“Gov. Greitens has unparalleled support among the MAGA base and beyond in ruby-red Missouri,” campaign adviser Epshteyn said in a statement, citing campaign event turnout and small-dollar donation numbers. “That support is evidenced in polling by President Trump’s pollster which shows Greitens annihilating all the other candidates.”

Greitens has also gone all in on Trump’s false claims of election fraud, even embracing the idea that a new ballot count in Arizona and other states could lead to President Biden being replaced by Trump before the next presidential election.

“If they don’t have the ballots in Arizona, they don’t have the victory,” Greitens said during a June appearance on another conservative podcast, a comment that goes beyond the position taken by his rivals in the Senate contest, who have also expressed concern about the fairness of the presidential election but left more fantastical predictions alone.

James Harris, a Republican consultant in Missouri who has worked with Smith, expressed what has become a widespread concern among GOP officials.

“I think if the election were to be held today in a five- or six-way race, Eric Greitens is ultimately the nominee,” Harris said. “If there was a prolonged effort on educating people on all he did, his support would fall pretty quick and he would pose a serious problem in the general election.”

Greitens political star once only seemed capable of rising. But heavy baggage has brought him down to earth:

Greitens was once seen as a rising star in the party, with a movie-star appearance and campaign talent that Trump typically gravitates toward. But his rise was upset in 2018, when his former hairdresser accused him of coercing her into a sexual encounter three years earlier.

She testified under oath to a special investigative committee of the Missouri House that he led her to his basement, bound her hands, blindfolded and undressed her and later coerced her into performing oral sex. She said she believed he had taken a photo of her at the time and threatened to release it publicly if she spoke of their relationship. Greitens declined to testify in his own defense, but he made his cellphone available to police, who found no evidence that a photo was taken.

In a separate audio recording made days after the encounter, the woman agreed when an acquaintance asked if she had been “half-raped and blackmailed,” according to a bipartisan report written by the Republican-held Missouri House. “Yes,” she said.

She later told House investigators, when asked whether she consented to sex, that “it felt like consent, but, no, I didn’t want to do it.”

A prosecution for invasion of privacy based on the photo allegation fell apart, with the lead investigator later being charged with lying in a deposition and the prosecutor being referred for a disciplinary hearing. A separate Missouri Ethics Commission investigation of Greitens’s 2016 gubernatorial campaign found “probable cause” that his campaign had failed to disclose some contributions, but concluded that Greitens did not have knowledge of the violations even though he was “ultimately responsible for all reporting requirements.” His campaign paid a fine.

Greitens has admitted to the affair but denied the specific behavior described by the woman, pointing to her testimony that she felt like she was “remembering it through a dream.”

Greitens has reached into the GOP playbook to decide that liberals caused his downfall:

On the campaign trail, Greitens has become practiced at minimizing and deflecting questions about the accusations, largely by claiming that he is the victim of the same liberal forces that attacked Trump in office, and dismissing criticism from “Republicans in name only.” He has also emphasized that the criminal prosecution against him collapsed.

“I feel incredibly blessed to have lived through that,” Greitens told a conservative audience at a town hall July 15 in O’Fallon, Mo., of his various scandals. “Because I feel like I had a window into the true viciousness of the left. I had a window into what is really at stake for this country. I feel like I was pulled aside and I had an opportunity to come back with stronger faith, with more courage, even bolder.”

Sen. Josh Hawley, one of the most powerful Republicans in the state, has made clear that he does not think Greitens has been absolved of wrongdoing. As Missouri’s attorney general, he had called for Greitens’s resignation in 2018, and when asked this year whether he stood by that decision, he said, “I wouldn’t change any of that.”

Hawley is one of the three senators, along with Scott and Graham, who are known to have discussed the race with Trump, and advisers working for Greitens’s rivals consider him an asset in their efforts to prevent Trump’s endorsement of the former governor.

“Josh has had a number of conversations with different candidates and President Trump,” Kyle Plotkin, Hawley’s chief of staff, said in a statement. “He hasn’t made any decisions, but stay tuned.”

Greitens’s campaign remains confident of his ability to win over Trump supporters in next year’s primary, regardless of the positions taken by other elected officials.

“There’s one thing RINOs and liberals have in common — they’re terrified of Governor Greitens going to Washington to fight for President Trump’s policy,” Greitens’s campaign manager Dylan Johnson said in a statement.

Stacy George, GOP candidate for governor of Alabama, seems to think healthy people can't die from COVID-19 -- a statement wildly out of touch with reality

Stacy George and his wife, on what must have been a slow news day

 

Who has made the most ignorant statement about COVID-19 in the history of the pandemic? There is a lot of competition for that "honor," including from a former president of the United States. But we have to give the award to a candidate for governor of Alabama. (Gee, there's a surprise.) From a report at al.com:

Alabama gubernatorial candidate Stacy George today criticized Gov. Kay Ivey for making comments that he said belittled people who choose not to get COVID-19 vaccinations.

George responded to statements Ivey made Thursday to reporters who asked the governor about Alabama’s rising COVID numbers and how to get more people to take the vaccine.

Ivey said, “I don’t know. You tell me.”

“Folks are supposed to have common sense,” she said. “It’s time to start blaming the unvaccinated folks, not the regular folks. It’s the unvaccinated folks that are letting us down....I’ve done all I know how to do. I can encourage you to do something, but I can’t make you take care of yourself.”

Those comments marked a change in tone for Ivey, who has stressed personal responsibility as she has advocated for vaccinations and held news conferences when she received her shots in December and January.

George took offense at those comments, even though Ivey -- for once in her political career -- was absolutely right about something. In fact, multiple experts and frontline workers have said the Delta variant makes this a "pandemic of the unvaccinated." Ivey's words, it seems, simply were a statement of fact. Still, they ruffled Stacy George's feathers:

George, a correctional officer at Limestone Correctional Facility who announced his run for the Republican nomination on July 1, said he has not received a COVID-19 vaccine.

“I am one of those non-vaccinated people that Governor Ivey just scolded,” George said in a statement. “Unlike Governor Ivey I respect everyone who gets the vaccine as well as those like me that choose not to get the vaccine for various reasons. A governor should never belittle the people that disagree with her.”

George said he had a tough bout with COVID-19 last year and had fever for about seven days. Because of that, he said he believes he probably has antibodies to fight off the virus. But he said he would probably not receive the vaccine even if that was not the case, partly because he’s not in a high-risk population for serious illness from COVID.

In terms of ignorance, George was just getting warmed up:

“I just don’t see the need in healthy people like myself being vaccinated,” George said. “And that’s my opinion. But I respect people that choose to be vaccinated. It’s just a personal choice. Kind of like the free enterprise works in Alabama.”

The virus is surging in Alabama. The state reported that 727 COVID patients are receiving care in Alabama hospitals as of Friday, the most since the end of February.

As of today, Alabama continues to have the lowest vaccination rate in the nation with 33.9 percent of the population fully vaccinated, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The more contagious Delta variant appears to be driving the rise in sickness.

Here are a few questions for Stacy George: (1) What makes you, a corrections officer, qualified to be governor of Alabama? (Answer: absolutely nothing); (2) How do you know you are super-duper healthy, considering you've already had COVID-19 once? Do you think all 4.2 million people who have died from COVID around the world were unhealthy to begin with? None of them were healthy?

And here is a message from planet Earth for the would-be governor: The coronavirus has a demonstrated capacity for turning healthy people into unhealthy people -- often in a span of about five days. And the virus has a demonstrated knack for turning unhealthy people into dead people. Stacy George's opinion appears to have no basis in scientific research, so it has pretty much zero value to Alabamians. And this opinion comes from a man whose "Que Sera Sera" approach to the virus already has failed to protect him once.

The good news? Stacy George has zero chance of becoming governor of Alabama, so hopefully no one will be sticking  a microphone in front of his face again anytime soon.

Cesaire McPherson faces criminal charges less than four months after outing John Merrill, in a case similar to that of Robert Bentley critic Spencer Collier

Cesaire McPherson

The woman who revealed her extramarital affair with Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill -- causing him to cancel plans to run for a U.S. Senate seat in 2022 -- has been arrested on domestic-violence charges. This marks the second time in roughly two years that an individual who has spoken publicly about the sordid secrets of a prominent Republican has wound up facing criminal charges. In both cases, the charges stem from alleged domestic incidents involving children.

The most recent case involves Cesaire McPherson, whose revelations about her role as Merrill's mistress -- which included statements about his fondness for butt plugs during sex -- put an end to Merrill's U.S. Senate hopes, at least for now. The earlier case involved Spencer Collier, former chief of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA), who helped reveal then-Gov. Robert Bentley's extramarital activities with senior advisor Rebekah Caldwell Mason. That led to Bentley's resignation from office as part of a plea deal related to criminal charges involving public corruption.

Were the charges against Collier legitimate, along with the current charges against McPherson? Is it coincidence that Collier and Bentley faced criminal charges not long after speaking out about Bentley and Merrill? Or are powerful GOP politicians using law enforcement to target those against whom they seek to retaliate? 

Those are disturbing questions to ponder, but given Alabama's toxic political environment, it's possible McPherson and Collier were targeted -- with law enforcement used for abusive, and likely unlawful, reasons. Let's examine the McPherson case first, via a report at al.com:  

Cesaire McPherson, the 44-year-old former mistress of Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill, was arrested and charged with two counts of domestic violence in Autauga County, according to court filings.

In April, McPherson went public with audio recordings of her and Merrill while revealing an affair with Alabama’s secretary of state between November 2017 and November 2020.

Merrill initially denied an affair but later admitted to an “inappropriate relationship” with McPherson after being confronted by AL.com with McPherson’s recordings. The revelation led Merrill to rule out a Senate campaign in 2022.

McPherson was arrested Thursday on two counts of third-degree domestic violence, according to Autauga County Jail and court records.

She was released from the county jail Friday afternoon after posting $12,000 bond, records showed.

What are these charges all about? To my nostrils, they emit a smell of flimsiness, maybe even political chicanery:

Warrants filed in her case allege that McPherson chased her daughter throughout her home with scissors “which created a substantial risk for serious injury.”

A second warrant accuses McPherson of beating an unnamed female “with her hands, fist and a belt.”

Both warrants stem from an alleged May 1 incident in Autauga County.

It’s unclear whether the victims described in both warrants were the same person.

After reading that, we could not help but think back to the Spencer Collier case. From a Legal Schnauzer post dated 6/17/19:

Spencer Collier, former chief of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA), was arrested last Friday in Baldwin County on a charge of filing a false report with law-enforcement authorities. Coming just two days after Collier announced a settlement in his wrongful-termination/defamation lawsuit against former Governor Robert Bentley, the arrest emits all kinds of noxious fumes.

Collier stated in a lawsuit deposition that, while working for Bentley, he learned the governor had a fondness for misusing law-enforcement resources to target perceived enemies. . . . Does that help explain Collier's arrest on charges that would have to improve to be flimsy? Our guess is yes.

Collier, once a personal friend and political ally of Bentley's, likely landed on the enemies list after helping reveal Bentley's extramarital affair with aide Rebekah Caldwell Mason and challenging his termination as unlawful. The story of Bentley's affair with Mason, which we broke here at Legal Schnauzer, led to Bentley's resignation in April 2017 after he pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors and agreed never to hold public office again. The Mason affair, which ended Bentley's marriage of 50 years, helped earn him such nicknames as "Luv Guv" and "Horndog Governor." Mason became known as "Home Wrecky Becky."

Why did Collier's arrest sound dubious to our ears?

The first sign of fishiness surrounding Collier's arrest involves the offense with which he was charged. Based on published reports, he apparently was charged under Code of Alabama 13A-10-9 (False Report to Law Enforcement Authorities), which states:

A person commits the crime of false reporting to law enforcement authorities if he knowingly makes a false report or causes the transmission of a false report to law enforcement authorities of a crime or relating to a crime. . . 

The key word in the law is "knowingly." That word, by law, goes to a culpable mental state and is described at Sec. 13A-2-2 as follows:

(2) KNOWINGLY. A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that the circumstance exists.

That raised a couple of obvious questions:

Was Collier aware his alleged actions constituted a violation of law? Let's look at how relevant events have been described in the press. From al.com:

Spencer Collier, the state’s former top cop, was arrested in south Alabama amid accusations he filed a false report.

Collier was booked and quickly released from Daphne City Jail, according to local law enforcement. A spokesperson from the Daphne Police Department said Collier’s charge related to a report he made regarding fraudulent credit card use while he was staying in a local hotel Thursday evening.

He turned himself in to the Daphne City Jail at around 1:30 p.m., according to Daphne PD Sgt. Jason Vannoy, who characterized the incident as “domestic.”

How was the incident domestic? Here is more from al.com:

Collier addressed the arrest and his family situation in a statement.

“My adult son, who is a recovering addict and multiple felon, used my bank card without my permission,” said Collier in a message to AL.com. “I filed a police report, being this is the second time in a year that he has done this. I was unaware that my wife (we are currently estranged) gave him permission. He pressed charges because I listed him as the suspect.”

He added: “I have no doubt that I will be exonerated - but the entire episode is embarrassing. I am so sorry for any embarrassment that this has caused the City of Selma. I wish to apologize to the Daphne Police Department and also express my gratitude for their professionalism throughout the entire incident.”

Having been told about Collier’s defense of what happened, Sgt Vannoy of the Daphne PD said that fundamental information given by Collier to an investigating officer was deemed to be false.

Collier wound up pleading guilty, perhaps to put the matter behind him or to avoid the expense of a trial, but press reports indicate he did not act knowingly. So, how did he wind up facing criminal charges that clearly were not in line with the facts or applicable statute?

Let's consider some questions this press account raises:

1. Collier plainly states that he was unaware his estranged wife had given his son permission to use the credit card. What does this say about Collier's "culpable mental state"? It suggests he didn't have one.

2. Was the credit card in the name of both Collier and his estranged wife? If his wife's name was not on the card, did she have grounds to give the son permission to use it? At this point, we lack information about the nature of the card.

Spencer Collier

3. Sgt. Vannoy, of the Daphne PD, said the "fundamental information given by Collier to an investigating officer was deemed to be false." But we know from the language in the statute that is not the key element of the offense. The accused must act "knowingly," and the available evidence indicates Collier did not know his statement to the investigating officer was false.

Many questions swirl around Collier's arrest, but two facts appear to be clear:

* Collier did not knowingly violate the false reporting law, and he never should have been arrested;

* That the arrest came two days after Collier announced a settlement in his lawsuit against Bentley -- and Collier's estranged wife sought a protection order one day after the lawsuit announcement -- suggests someone was unnerved about the settlement. Who might that be?

First, the lawsuit settlement surprised many observers, including this one. Taxpayers were funding Bentley's defense, so he appeared to have little or no incentive to settle. That Bentley did settle suggests discovery in the lawsuit might have produced potentially damaging information about Bentley, Mason, and their associates. Did Collier attorney Kenneth Mendelsohn catch someone on Team Bentley in a perjury trap, with criminal implications? If such information involved donors to ACEGOV, also known as the "Girlfriend Fund," it could be making some of the state's powerful and moneyed elites nervous.

As we reported last August, Collier filed a motion seeking information about donors to ACEGOV. Did that motion yield information that led to a lawsuit settlement and Collier's unlawful arrest?

We suggest that federal and state agencies need to launch a criminal investigation based on that question.

Now, an investigation might need to examine how Cesaire McPherson came to face criminal charges, less than four months after she outed John Merrill.

"Luv Guv" Robert Bentley repeatedly uses the word "trust" in offering advice about vaccinations, though he betrayed the trust of Alabamians -- and his wife

"Luv Guv" Bentley and Rebekah Caldwell Mason

 

Former Alabama governor Robert Bentley has weighed in on America's COVID-vaccination problem and decided individuals should take medical advice from professionals they trust, according to a report at Yellow Hammer News (YH). This comes from a man whose wife of 50 years could not trust him around another woman.

As for medical professionals to trust, they do not include Dr. Anthony Fauci, widely considered the nation's foremost expert on infectious diseases -- but still seen as a bogeyman among pro-Trump Republicans. Trying to play to the Trumpie audience, Governor? Pretty clever, especially for a guy who resigned from office in disgrace, complete with a mugshot.

Finally, Bentley dives into a litany of things he would do if in charge during the pandemic. And that raises one question: How would a Gov. Bentley find time for all of this while also allowing time to feel up senior adviser Rebekah Caldwell Mason? Only so much time in the day, "Luv Guv." From the YH report:

If former Gov. Robert Bentley were in charge of Alabama’s COVID-19 response, he would put an emphasis on working with local officials, especially with regards to any efforts to raise the state’s vaccination rate.

During an interview with Mobile radio FM Talk 106.5, Bentley, a board-certified dermatologist who continues to practice in Tuscaloosa, acknowledged the “complicated” nature of the pandemic but also cautioned against blaming those that remain unvaccinated.

However, he also encouraged vaccinations, adding individuals should base any medical decisions on those that they trust.

You would think a guy who already has betrayed the trust of Alabamians -- and his wife -- might resist daydreaming about being in charge again. But not Bentley:

“It’s very complicated, and I understand that,” he said. “I’m not trying to tell somebody else how I would do things. But I do have ideas on how I would handle it. First, I wouldn’t blame the unvaccinated because you can’t pit one side against the other. It’s not a blame situation. Look, I deal with patients who have to make decisions on whether or not they want a cancer removed, or this or that. And they have to make the decision. But you just have to give them good advice, and they have to trust whoever gives them advice. Now look, you can’t give this advice to Fox News or CNN or places like that. You really need to listen to people who know what they’re talking about, their physician, primarily. I just think we need leadership on this issue. This is a state issue. It is not a federal issue.”

“If I were governor, I would be out all over the state,” Bentley continued. “I would set up some task forces on a state level. But I would work with the locals, also — especially the local doctors, the local nursing situation, the local doctors’ association and the hospitals. But I would also work with the local officials, and some of the most important ones are county commissioners and mayors and our elected officials out there. So, I would work with them. I would even use the state health department, but I would be in charge of it, not the health department. And then, also, I would even use my national guard if I needed to. But what I would try to do for the people is get their trust, and I would give them good advice, scientific advice on whether or not these things are safe or not. When you read Facebook, or you watch the news, you really don’t get the truth because these people are not interested in the truth. They’re interested in ratings. You need somebody they would trust, and that’s what I would try to do as governor. I would be out all over the state, especially in areas we know there is a spike in this Delta virus.”

How would the "Luv Guv" do this while still tending to Ms. Mason's needs? Those boobs aren't going to massage themselves, you know.

Robert Bentley mugshot

That question will remain unanswered -- thankfully -- in Bentley's dream world. But get this about Dr. Fauci:

Bentley indicated he was a proponent of vaccinations but discouraged listeners from putting too much stock in National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has commanded the lion’s share of the spotlight.

“Again, I would encourage everybody to please get vaccinated — those that are not vaccinated,” he added. “Please look at it. And look at real science on it. Don’t listen to Dr. Fauci, and don’t listen to some of these other people.”

So Bentley is a man of science who could be trusted in a time of crisis, but Dr. Anthony Fauci is not? People should take COVID advice from a dermatologist, but not an infectious-diseases specialist. We long have seen signs that Bentley thinks the public consists mostly of dullards. Looks like that hasn't changed. In fact, this is over the top, even for the "Luv Guv."

Decision to conduct a joint trial violated constitutional rights of former Drummond exec David Roberson and produced an unfair verdict that should force a new trial

Was it fair for former Drummond Company executive David Roberson to be tried jointly with a Balch & Bingham lawyer -- the very lawyer who had assured Roberson and others at Drummond that their actions leading to the North Birmingham Superfund trial were legal?  The answer is no, says a nonprofit bar association that submitted an amicus curiae brief strongly suggesting the trials of Roberson and Balch lawyer Joel Gilbert should have been severed to avoid the high risk that Roberson would be prejudiced. In fact, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) says the district court's decision to try the case jointly merits a new trial for Roberson. A three-judge panel of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals seemingly ignored the amicus brief in upholding Roberson's conviction. But Roberson likely will seek an en banc review of the full 11th Circuit. Based on the NACDL brief, he will be armed with a strong argument.

The question at the heart of the NACDL's brief is this: Did Circuit Judge Abdul Kallon err when he  declined to sever Roberson’s trial from that of his attorney co-defendants, despite Roberson’s resulting inability to present a complete advice-of-counsel defense? The association's blunt answer is yes. Here is how the brief frames the argument:

This brief addresses a narrow but vitally important question: when, if ever, a criminal defendant may be tried alongside an attorney on whose advice he relied with respect to the alleged offense. A motion for severance under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a) always requires a careful balancing of competing interests. But joint trials of attorneys and their clients raise unique concerns that weigh heavily in favor of severance. The right to seek and rely on the advice of counsel is fundamental to our system of justice. For that reason, the law has long recognized that a defendant’s good-faith reliance on the advice of counsel may serve as a complete defense to many criminal charges. And the importance of the advice-of-counsel defense has only grown with time, as our world and our legal codes have become increasingly complex. Yet joint trials of attorneys and their clients risk undermining that defense by precluding client-defendants from presenting at trial the advice they obtained from their lawyer co-defendants. Courts should view such joint trials with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Why didn't  Kallon approach a joint trial with skepticism, and why didn't the 11th Circuit panel correct him? That remains baffling. The NACDL brief makes clear why it's baffling. (Some citations omitted for ease of reading.):

The facts of this case vividly illustrate the danger such trials create. David Roberson, a mid-level executive at Drummond, was indicted and tried on charges of federal bribery along with two of Drummond’s attorneys. At trial, the prosecution successfully introduced a portion of a statement Roberson made to investigators admitting his concerns about retaining the consulting services of the state legislator the trio was accused of bribing. But when Roberson sought to introduce the rest of his statement—explaining that he had resolved his concerns by obtaining advice from Drummond’s lawyers—that evidence was excluded to protect his co-defendants’ Confrontation Clause rights. That ruling appropriately sought to safeguard the other defendants’ constitutional rights under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). But it did so at the expense of Roberson’s own constitutional right to present a complete advice-of-counsel defense. Rather than subordinate Roberson’s interests to those of his attorneys, the district court should have granted Roberson a separate trial where his critical exculpatory evidence could be properly explored.

Joint trials of attorneys and their clients will often present such problems. Advice of counsel is a commonly raised defense—and one essential to the smooth functioning of highly regulated fields. But joint trials pose inherent obstacles to asserting the defense successfully: It is particularly likely that attorney and client co-defendants will have irreconcilable defenses, or that exculpatory evidence for one defendant will inculpate another and be rendered inadmissible because of the resulting prejudice. And because trials of this sort are often lengthy—perhaps implicating corporate activities governed by complex laws and regulations—there is a significant risk that prejudice against a defendant will manifest well into the trial. Accordingly, courts should exercise special care when considering the fundamental fairness of trials implicating the attorney-client relationship. By their nature, such trials present heightened risks of prejudice and inefficiency that should tip the balance in favor of prompt severance.

 How important are these issues in our criminal-justice system, especially in cases such as the Roberson-Gilbert trial? Answer: extremely important:

The right to seek and rely on the advice of counsel is central to our legal system. That right can be undermined, however, when prosecutors seek to try a criminal defendant and his attorneys at the same trial. A joint trial in these circumstances may—as here—lead to the exclusion of evidence critical to an advice-of-counsel defense. And where such prejudice requires a do-over of a lengthy trial, insisting on a joint trial at the outset may end up hindering rather than promoting judicial efficiency. Thus, while courts must weigh severance motions on a case-by-case basis, in this specific context the balance tips sharply in favor of prompt severance.

The issue boils down to balancing the risk of prejudice in a joint trial with the desire for judicial efficiency. The NACDL argues that such a balancing act, especially in cases such as Roberson-Gilbert,  should almost always tip in favor of avoiding possible prejudice by conducting separate trials:

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 allows courts to “order separate trials of counts, sever the defendants’ trials, or provide any other relief that justice requires” where “joinder of offenses or defendants ... appears to prejudice a defendant or the government.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a). Although joint trials can often “conserve state funds, diminish inconvenience to witnesses and public authorities, and avoid delays,” courts cannot “‘secure greater speed, economy and convenience in the administration of the law at the price of fundamental principles of constitutional liberty.’” Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 134, 135 (1968). Accordingly, in considering whether severance is warranted, courts must “balance the right of defendants to a fair trial, absent the prejudice inherent in a joint trial, against the interests of judicial economy and efficiency.” United States v. Gonzalez, 804 F.2d 691, 694 (11th Cir. 1986). Such balancing occurs on a case-by-case basis, as “[t]he risk of prejudice will vary with the facts in each case.” Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539 (1993). “‘Ultimately, the test is whether the defendant received a fair trial’”—that is, whether the trial achieved “[f]undamental fairness.” Gonzalez, 804 F.2d at 695, 696.

Undue prejudice may occur where “a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence.” That prejudice may take many forms, but two are particularly relevant here. First, a joint trial may cause unfair prejudice “when evidence that the jury should not consider against a defendant and that would not be admissible if a defendant were tried alone is admitted against a codefendant.” Second, a defendant may be prejudiced where “essential exculpatory evidence that would be available to a defendant tried alone [is] unavailable in a joint trial.” The Supreme Court addressed the first type of prejudice in Bruton. That case involved the admission of a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession that also inculpated the defendant. The Court held that admitting such a statement violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, because the co-defendant’s right against self-incrimination rendered the statement immune from cross-examination. In so holding, the Court rejected the argument that the prejudice could be cured by a “sufficiently clear” jury instruction “to disregard” the statement’s reference to the defendant. Accordingly, “where two defendants are tried jointly, the pretrial confession of one [non-testifying defendant] cannot be admitted against the other.” Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 206 (1987).

To comply with that rule, the defendants can be tried separately. See United States v. Avery, 760 F.2d 1219, 1223 (11th Cir. 1985) (introduction of statement by “non-testifying co-defendant that implicates another co-defendant can present the compelling prejudice that requires a severance”), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 449 (1986). Or the prosecution can refrain from using the co-defendant’s statement at all. Or, as the Supreme Court explained in Richardson, the statement may be redacted “to eliminate not only the defendant’s name, but any reference to his or her existence.” 481 U.S. at 211 (emphasis added). A redaction that still implicates the defendant, despite not naming her directly, will not suffice. See Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 195 (1998).

Another kind of prejudice can occur where being tried with others prevents a defendant from presenting “essential exculpatory evidence” of his own. That situation calls for severance because it compromises a defendant’s constitutional right to advance a complete defense. “Whether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324 (2006).

That right finds expression in (among other places) the “rule of completeness” embodied in Federal Rule of Evidence 106. See United States v. Kerley, 784 F.3d 327, 341-42 (6th Cir. 2015) (analyzing right to present a defense in light of rule of completeness). “Under that long-standing rule, ‘the opponent, against whom a part of an utterance has been put in, may in his turn complement it by putting in the remainder, in order to secure for the tribunal a complete understanding of the total tenor and effect of the utterance.’” United States v. Burns, 162 F.3d 840, 852-53 (5th Cir. 1998). Thus, when the prosecution seeks to offer inculpatory parts of a defendant’s prior statement, the defendant generally is entitled to introduce related exculpatory portions of the same statement. See United States v. Range, 94 F.3d 614, 621 (11th Cir. 1996) (applying “fairness standard”).

Roberson was not afforded this opportunity, and that's where a constitutional violation enters the picture. In short, he was denied the "fairness standard":

In a joint trial, however, efforts to safeguard one defendant’s confrontation rights under Bruton can impermissibly impede another defendant’s right to offer exculpatory evidence. This “‘reverse Bruton’ problem” occurs where “redacting [a] defendant’s own pretrial statement to exclude references to a codefendant in a joint trial” may “den[y] the [defendant a] chance to present a complete defense.” 1A Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure §224 (4th ed. rev. 2018). For example, redactions mandated by Bruton might “‘effectively distor[t] the meaning of the statement’” or exclude information that is “‘substantially exculpatory’” of a defendant. (“strict compliance with Bruton may at times violate the evidentiary rule of completeness”). In such situations, the proper solution is not to subordinate one defendant’s rights to the other’s, but to afford each a separate and fair trial.

The Roberson-Gilbert trial was not separate, and as a result, it certainly was not fair. The questions now: Will the full 11th Circuit look the other way in the face of such gross injustice? If so, what does that say about the 11th Circuit?

In essence, the NACDL notes, a defendant such as Roberson -- when tried with an attorney who has provided him counsel -- runs the risk of being found "guilty by association":

Beyond the specific context of an advice-of-counsel defense, joint trials of attorneys and clients also raise a heightened risk of prejudice due to inherent differences in their statures. As one court explained, “common sense tells us that an attorney, like a public official, lives in the public eye and thus may well be held to a higher standard of conduct by [a] jury regardless of any cautionary instructions.” United States v. Tsanges, 582 F. Supp. 237, 241 (S.D. Ohio 1984). Trying attorney and non-attorney defendants together raises an impermissible risk that “the jury might also hold the [non-attorney] defendants to this higher standard because of their association with” the attorney defendant. Accordingly, despite “the burden ... plac[ed] upon the Government and the judicial system by ordering separate trials,” it will often be that “justice requires severance.”