Tuesday, August 6, 2013

The Constitution's Lofty Status Under Alabama Law Means Electronic Bingo Hearing In Dothan Is A Sham

Center Stage Alabama
A hearing continues today in Dothan on last year's seizure of cash and electronic-bingo machines from Center Stage Alabama. Everyone involved seems to be acting as if there is a genuine legal controversy, but there isn't.

Electronic bingo is legal at Center Stage, and every lawyer in the Houston County Courthouse should know it. That means Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange and his agents acted unlawfully when they raided the facility last July, taking 691 machines and $283,000 in cash. That means the forfeiture hearing, now in its second full day, should have been over in about five minutes--with property returned to Center Stage, and Strange referred to the U.S. Justice Department for investigation.

How can we say that with certainty? It's because of a simple provision of law that holds in Alabama--and probably all 50 states. It's the kind of common-sense holding that would-be lawyers probably learn in the first week of law school. But Luther Strange ignores it as he wastes taxpayer dollars on a crusade that is not grounded in law. For that matter, former governor Bob Riley did the same thing when he launched his anti-gambling task force in December 2008.

What is the principal that should be guiding the forfeiture hearing in Dothan? Here is the simple version: The constitution trumps a state statute.

Another way to look at it: When the constitution and a statute appear to be at odds, the constitution prevails.

Houston County Circuit Judge Michael Conaway has to know that; it's unlikely that anyone could pass a bar exam without knowing that. So why has Conaway allowed the forfeiture hearing to drag into a second day? Our best guess is that Bob Riley appointed Conaway to the bench, so the judge now is part of a high-level conspiracy to convince Alabamians there is a controversy about electronic bingo in Alabama.

No such controversy exists, at least not in Houston County, home to Center Stage, and Macon County, home to VictoryLand. And yet, Luther Strange has directed raids at both facilities.

How does Strange get away with it? Well, he is a pro-corporate Republican of the sort favored by Alabama's white elites--and such GOPers also are supported at the polls by many middle-class whites who inexplicably vote against their own economic interests.

But it doesn't end there. Our appellate courts are 100-percent controlled by such Republicans. Our corporate-owned mainstream press is not about to wake up and inform Alabamians that Bob Riley and Luther Strange have poured millions of taxpayer dollars down a sinkhole. And the Obama Justice Department, so far, has shown that it doesn't have the spine to take on corruption that started under George W. Bush, especially in a deep-red state that Democrats aren't likely to win any time soon.

We haven't studied all of the constitutional amendments that allow electronic bingo in various Alabama counties. But Amendment 569, Bingo Games in Houston County, is easy to understand. So is Amendment 744, Bingo Games in Macon County. Here is the primary difference between them: In Houston County, the county commission is charged with promulgating rules and regulations on bingo; in Macon County, that duty falls to the sheriff.

Either way, the Alabama Constitution provides no role for the attorney general if the regulating authorities determine bingo is legal in a particular county.

So why the controversy? Well, there isn't one--under the law. Luther Strange and Bob Riley, it appears, have a political interest in creating a phony controversy. That's probably because it will benefit the Indian gaming entities who have backed them financially.

Dothan-based rickeystokesnews.com is providing up-to-the minute reports from the Houston County Courthouse, and the proceeding sounds like a replay of the hearing earlier this year over a liquor license for the VictoryLand casino.

Various agents for Luther Strange have paraded to the stand to testify that, in their opinion, the Center Stage equipment amounts to slot machines that are illegal by Alabama statute. Here is an example of the issues at hand, from a live report at rickeystokesnews, focusing on an exchange between AG attorney Sonny Reagan and agent Gene Sisson:

Reagan is still questioning Agent Sisson. States Exhibit 6. Reagan asks Sisson to identify a game that is being played. Lucky Star System. Agent Sisson’s hand.
The Lucky Star System is not that much different than any other game we have looked at. Sisson’s recollection is that you purchase the ticket from the Mega window. He can’t recall if there was a Lucky Star window or not. It was a new game.
Agent Sisson is describing the screen. Reagan is asking if this system played in the same fashion as the other game. Sisson says yes and that there are also time restraints on the game like the other games.

That's all interesting, but if the Houston County Commission finds the machines constitute a form of bingo, they are legal. The Alabama Constitution, as approved by voters in Amendment 569, says so. 

A simple check of Alabama case law makes it clear. We provided evidence in a post earlier this year about VictoryLand and its owner, Milton McGregor:

Perhaps McGregor's strongest argument, however, comes from a simple legal concept that is spelled out across Alabama state law. Here is one way to put it: If a conflict exists between a state statute and a constitutional amendment, the Alabama Supreme Court has held that the constitutional amendment controls and takes precedence over the statute.
In other words, the constitution trumps a statute. And a case styled Chorba-Lee Scholarship Fund Inc., et al v. Sheriff Mike Hale, et al, 60 So. 3d 279 (2010) is one of many cases that spell it out:
"Undeniably, the legislature cannot enact a statute that conflicts with the Constitution, that is, that prohibits that which is permitted by the Constitution or that permits that which is prohibited by the Constitution.'" Opinion of the Justices No. 373, 795 So.2d 630, 632 (Ala.2001) (quoting City of Birmingham v. Graffeo, 551 So.2d 357, 361-62 (Ala. 1989)).

Law does not get much more simple than this, and we've provided links to the case law that proves our fundamental point: The constitution trumps a state statute--and that means bingo is legal in Houston County and Macon County.

Why, then, are a bunch of attorneys and law-enforcement agents engaged in a charade at the Houston County Courthouse? What has been driving Bob Riley and Luther Strange to declare that lawful bingo operations are illegal?

Alabamians should be taking a hard look at those questions.


Anonymous said...

Will the people of Alabama ever wake up?

Anonymous said...

You nailed it, LS. Are mainstream reporters too stupid to figure this out? Are they lazy? Or do their "handlers" (editors) prevent them from writing the truth?

Molli said...

After reading RickeyStokesNews.com's coverage of this bogus case yesterday I also concluded that it sounded identical to the (also bogus) ABC Board v Victoryland hearing. All the AG's focus on is what the machines look like. What these cases should be about is why a constitutional amendment can be stomped on, arrogantly ignored and shat upon by our corrupt Attorney General. Total Nonsense. Let us not forget how they judge shopped Conaway. Why bother with a court session...he probably has already written his opinion and final order.

Anonymous said...

No doubt in my mind that Conaway will allow Luther to get away with stealing Center Stage's property?

Anonymous said...

Great reporting, LS. No one else will shine light on this the way you do. Not only should the hearing have been over in five minutes, it shouldn't have been scheduled at all. Luther Strange and Bob Riley only pulled these raids because they knew our courts are corrupt.

Anonymous said...

Why aren't the lawyers for Center Stage and VictoryLand calling press conferences and shouting from the rooftops what you report in this post? The public needs to be educated.

Anonymous said...

How many new schools could be built with the money wasted on this? How many teachers could be hired? How many police officers and fire fighters hired?

legalschnauzer said...


Not only does it sound like the VictoryLand/ABC case, but I think the cast of characters is pretty much the same. If my memory is correct, some of the same AG agents are involved in both cases.

Anonymous said...

Bob Riley and Luther Strange should personally have to repay the state for all they have cost us--or better yet, let's throw them in the slammer.

Anonymous said...

This just proves that Judge Young in Macon County was absolutely right to deny Luther's search warrant. Young stated that the sheriff found the machines constituted a form of bingo that was lawful under the Alabama Constitution. End of story. Luther did not have probable cause for his search warrant, and Young got it right.

Anonymous said...

Yes, to 12:14 PM; lazy & prevented

Seriously needed is another Ben Bradlee,

or at least someone pretending to be Jason Robards, that's

acting as Ben Bradlee, who green-lights Woodward & Bernstein for

investigative reporting resulting
in exposing "Watergate".

"handlers" are dictated to thru fear of lost advertising, past has been bad,

now internet, newspapers worst, al.com good example,

television following in lockstep,

Alabama's airing of CBS 60 minutes interview with Seigelman blacked-out is good example; imagine what else public being denied access to.

Anonymous said...

A black politician, or any Democrat, would never get away with this kind of stuff.

Anonymous said...

I recommend reading "Attorney General Shoots Airball For Justice" at alreporter.com for more insight into Big Luther's absolute lack of humanity.

Anonymous said...

What I don't get is why isn't the HEDA lawyers sighting the cases which you LS highlight in your article? Maybe they will at some point, but it appears to me that they continue to go back and forth over how the game is played when their arguments and evidence should be focused on the illegality of the raids.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't it Mr Barber (Task Force 1st edition) that said something like "..if it looks like a slot machine, it is.."


Anonymous said...

You make a great point, @1:22. I'm starting to think the lawyers on both sides like making money off this trumped-up controversy.


Where does the Constitution or the Code of Alabama authorize agents of the ABC Board enforce gaming laws or engaging in raiding gaming halls or carrying out any directions or orders by the Attorney General of Alabama related to gaming laws?

legalschnauzer said...


Good question. Are the agents testifying in Dothan with the ABC board?

Anonymous said...

At 4:45 PM and 6:04 PM
You may find the answers you seek within the Alabama Title 28, Article 12, Section 28-4-310/11/12
Constitution authorizes Governor, but provides Governor authority to delegate same to Attorney General; what do you think?

Mary said...

The prosecution,the AG.,the judge bought and paid for it's just a vicious circle of corruption.

David in S. Alabama said...

Anonymous at 6:04 needs to explain what part of"he is made the executive head of the law-enforcement machinery of the state and is charged with supervising and directing the enforcement of the laws of the state for the promotion of temperance and the suppression of the evils of intemperance and he is authorized to supervise, direct and give orders to any and all officers of the state" pertains to bingo halls.

Also where in the section does it mention the Attorney General?

Anonymous said...

There is a reason why every person involved in the case is acting as if LS's argument is nonsensical. And that reason is that...wait for it...LS's argument is nonsensical. LS jumps over the threshold question of whether the games at issue constitute "bingo" at all (or at least within the meaning of the amendments). The amendments do not matter if the games being played are not "bingo." And the Alabama Supreme Court has found that the term "bingo," as used in similar amendments, does not include these slot machine type games. Barber v. Cornerstone, 42 So.3d 65 (Ala. 2009). You don't have to agree with that reading, but it does not excuse LS's baffling ignorance of the actual legal issues he purports to "report" on.

However, LS has never been one to allow basic legal reasoning to impede his neverending quest to expose a vast high-level conspiracy between seemingly every judge in the state (no matter the party), almost every lawyer in the state, Chilton county realtors, university officials, the Illuminati, the FreeMasons, the Bilderburg group, Lee Harvey Oswald etc. etc...Either EVERYONE is in on it (including Country Crossing's own lawyers), or LS 's posts are a bunch of ill-conceived tin foil behatted gobbly-gook...

Ultimately, the beauty of a conspiracy theory is that it can never be disproven, it just grows larger.

legalschnauzer said...

Good try, 3:12, but you fail. I'm not making an argument; I don't have a horse in this race, so there's no argument for me to make. I'm simply citing what the law says, that a constitutional amendment trumps a state statute, and the Alabama Constitution leaves it to the county commission (Houston Co.) or the sheriff (Macon) to regulate the games and determine if they are a form of bingo. The crux of Luther Strange's argument has been that the machines in question constitute slot machines and "gambling devices," both of which are illegal under Alabama statute. But Luther can't get around the fact that the constitution trumps a state statute--and you can't get around it either. The argument you make is a horse that even Luther Strange hasn't chosen to ride in this race. As for a conspiracy, you apparently pulled that out of your own rear end because it didn't come from my reporting. Sorry that the Alabama Constitution gets in the way of your agenda.

Anonymous said...

"and the Alabama Constitution leaves it to the county commission (Houston Co.) or the sheriff (Macon) to regulate the games and determine if they are a form of bingo"

This is simply inaccurate. Per both the Macon County and the Houston County amendments, the respective local body is vested with the power "promulgate rules and regulations for issuing permits or licenses and for operating bingo games within the county jurisdiction." That does not mean that those bodies get to "determine if [the games] are a form of bingo."

It is a pretty basic principle that the judiciary is the body which interprets the law. The Alabama Supreme Court has held that the term "bingo," as used in the Macon County and similar amendments, does not include the types of games at issue here. Therefore, the constitutional amendments you keep citing do not apply to begin with. In other words, although the basic principle that the constitution trumps statutory law is true, that is irrelevant if there is no conflict between the two. If the amendments do not permit these games, as the Supreme Court has ruled, there is no basis to keep citing the amendments as trumping anything. If these games are not "bingo," then the amendments do not apply from the outset. It is pretty simple.

The reason why the Attorney General and the lawyers in the case are arguing about the gambling statute and not the constitutional issue is because the constitutional issue was settled nearly four years ago. See Barber v. Cornerstone. The presumption undergirding the whole thing is that the games at issue do not constitute "bingo" under the terms of Amendment 569. Because Amendment 569 does not permit the games the only question remaining is whether the games are in violation of the criminal statute.

As to whether you peddle in conspiracy theories, I suppose that the best thing to do is allow your accusations to speak for themselves. To most clear eyed readers, it seems obvious that you have allowed your personal disdain for the legal system to overwhelm any rational thought with regard to its operation. It seems that every post is suffused with notions of secret and illicit machinations and that, apparently, everyone involved is in on it. The simpler (and more accurate) view is that you simply have a poor understanding of the law, and that many of the supposedly inappropriate actions that you report on are nothing of the sort. I am not trying to be ugly, but for most of the actions at issue the perception of wrongfulness that permeates your posts is ultimately grounded in your own ignorance of the legal principles, not infidelity to them. Admittedly, this benign explanation is far less sexy than bribes, covert agreements, improper collusion throughout an entire coordinate branch of government, etc.

legalschnauzer said...

First, I agree that my statement re: "determine if they are a form of bingo" goes too far. But that was in a comment and not in my post or my reporting. But you are wrong in your statement that Barber v. Cornerstone found machines in Macon (or Houston) counties are not bingo. That case involved a preliminary injunction in Lowndes County and was not about constitutional amendments in other counties. Further, a subsequent Supreme Court case (Tyson v. Macon County Greyhound Park) found that Cornerstone "cannot be binding authority." Further still, the Supreme Court has held (Chorba-Lee Scholarship Fund v. Hale) that no court is at liberty to restrict the plain meaning or words of a constitutional amendment. And as you admit, the plain words of the Macon and Houston Co. amendments state the sheriff and county commission, respectively, are responsible for promulgating rules and regulations re: operation of bingo games. Nowhere does it mention a role for the governor or attorney general.

As for conspiracy issues, why don't you dispense with the generalities and point to a specific example of where my reporting is inaccurate. Keep in mind that I repeatedly cite to actual law and publish documents straight from court files.

You haven't been able to show anything inaccurate in this post, and I doubt you will be able to do it in any other.

Anonymous said...

Where to start? First, nowhere in Tyson was it found that Cornerstone "cannot be binding authority." In Tyson, the Supreme Court ruled that VictoryLand could not seek injunctive relief to halt a criminal proceeding, and that as a general matter, the courts would not have proper subject matter jurisdiction over such actions. The Court recognized that it reached the merits in the Cornerstone case despite similar facts, but in doing so they "did not adhere to the boundary lines long established in our precedent," and noted that "the issue [of subject matter jurisdiction] was not raised" in Cornerstone. In sum, the precedential value of Cornerstone's substantive holding was in no way challenged or called into question by Tyson. Cornerstone's six factor test defining "bingo" is still the law. 42 So. 3d 65, 86.

You are correct to note that the precise amendment at issue in Cornerstone was indeed the Lowndes County amendment, and not the Macon or Houston County amendments. However, the language used tracks across all of these amendments, and given that fact, Alabama courts recognize the Cornerstone case as authoritative in its construction of "bingo" in those amendments (and that is why VictoryLand and County Crossings were shut down). Your invocation of a "plain reading" rule of construction is ironic given the fact that the ruling in the Cornerstone was based on that very principle.

You once again display your unwillingness or inability to understand basic legal principles when you go back to the fact that the Sheriff/County Commission is given the right to "promulgate rules and regulations for the licensing and operation of bingo games." A plain reading of that language reveals that the respective local authorities are only given the authority to regulate "bingo games." If the games at issue are not "bingo games," as the Supreme Court found, then the local authorities are without power to promulgate anything.

In sum, as I stated from the outset, the threshold issue is whether the games are indeed "bingo." Because the Supreme Court has ruled that they are not, your constitutional v. statutory conflict is completely illusory. Look no further than that if you want something inaccurate in your reporting.

As far as conspiracies go, the implications of your posts are clear. For example, in this post you claim (incorrectly, as shown above), that the law is crystal clear, and that all of parties/the judiciary are not following it. The implication is clear that you think there is some willful refusal to follow the law, presumably according to some arrangement (how else can such disregard be explained after all?). This implication is reinforced by the questions you pose at the end of the post ("Why, then, are a bunch of attorneys and law-enforcement agents engaged in a charade at the Houston County Courthouse? What has been driving Bob Riley and Luther Strange to declare that lawful bingo operations are illegal?"). This is just one example, but such "reporting" is a mainstay of your blog. Unfortunately such unfounded attacks do a disservice to your ability to expose and clean up actual corruption in our state.

You know very well the implications your posts are intended to make, and to deny them is either incredibly dishonest or, in turn, willfully ignorant. Why does Roger Shuler have to obfuscate his intentions? What does he have to hide? Might his prior work at the Post-Herald have something to do with it? More to come... (see how easy that is?)

legalschnauzer said...

I notice that you cite no authority for your contentions regarding the statutory v. constitutional issues here. You make generalizations about the law that you claim support your case but can point to no specifics to back it up. Also, you can't get around two facts in the seizure matters at Macon and Houston Cos.: In both, Luther Strange cited Alabama statutes that make slot machines and gambling devices illegal. Those are the two reasons cited for seizure of the machines, and those are based on statutes, which are trumped by the constitution. As you say, this is simple.

Regarding Tyson, it actually was the Cornerstone trial court that dismissed the case on remand (after Tyson) and held that Cornerstone "cannot be binding authority."

You state that the constitutional issue was settled four years ago and reference Cornerstone. But as you admit, that case had nothing to do with Macon or Houston County amendments--or those in other Alabama counties beyond Lowndes.

As I figured, you can cite no examples where my reporting is inaccurate. You also can cite no specific law, other than Cornerstone, to support your contentions.

Besides that, this debate is inherently unfair because you know who I am, and if you read this blog, you know all about my background. I have no idea who you are and what agenda you might have.

I think it's time you reveal your identity, at least to me. Feel free to use my private e-mail at rshuler3156@gmail.com. If you are going to call into question the quality of my reporting and analysis--and do it at some length--I think I have a right to know who you are and what agendas you might have. We can go from there.

I'm perfectly fine with critical comments. But if we are going to have this sort of ongoing discussion, it's only fair that I know who you are.

Anonymous said...


I lost count how many times you contradicted your argument and showed LS to be correct. All that just to make yourself look like you MIGHT have an argument. You don't. I take it that your psychological jiberish must work for you at times. This isn't a court. This is the real world. Come back to it if you must.

You bring up an interesting subject re Sheriff. 1:06, sheriff's can't make laws! They are for enforcement. I find it interesting only because of the recent Senate bill introduced by Tripp Pittman and authored by Baldwin County Sheriff Hoss Mack making it almost impossible to qualify as a candidate in the upcoming 2014 race for Sheriff. Are we getting back to the Wild West? Or rather Dukes of Hazard? Any law giving a Sheriff law making authority is not legit and completely tyrannical. A lot like your comment 1:06.

You sound like an over educated worried rino tool. Lay off the sauce and save it for the court room. You won't get anywhere here. Your case in point = not proven = F = fail! Cheers

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 1:06 are you Jessica Garrison the love of Luther's life?

Anonymous said...

It appears this "anonymous" debater speaks the same propaganda of those in the Riley clan. Sounds like a Bryan Taylor or Sonny Reagan speech. Once again, refer to the Supreme Court of Alabama October Term 2007 - 2008 Muhammad & Frazier v. Johnny Ford and David Warren. In this Supreme Courts opinion they found in favor of Ford and Warren and repeatedly referred to "ELECTRONIC bingo" in Macon County. Why would they rule in favor of something involving an illegal activity? There was a period of time (most likely before Indian bribes)that Riley had no issue with McGregor. Heck the Riley family is knee deep in gambling ventures so I put no merit in his "morals" regarding gambling. IMO he just doesn't want anybody to make more cash than he does.

Molli said...

LS, that trial sure ended abruptly when it exposed the AG is secretly attempting to have a criminal case become his newest weapon in the ridiculous bingo debacle. My guess if they are trying to get a grand jury indictment in Houston County they are most likely working the same angle in Macon County. Ridiculous the money involved in this witch hunt. Must be very lucrative to keep the Indian gaming monopoly in tact.

legalschnauzer said...


You're referring to the Houston County case. I notice that Dothan Eagle is saying a ruling will take two months. Here is reference from Eagle article to criminal probe:

"Reagan’s objection led to a discussion in front of Conaway. Reagan could be heard saying the questions and answers could compromise an ongoing criminal investigation. Conaway sustained the objection, limiting the scope of questions concerning specific documents seized during the Center Stage raid."

legalschnauzer said...

Message to Anon at 1:06--

I invited you to identify yourself if you wanted to continue this discussion, but you haven't done it. You present yourself as an authority on these matters, so my readers and I are entitled to know who you are and for whom you work. If you refuse to comment without shining some transparency on your identity, your comments will continue to be deleted.

legalschnauzer said...

Another message to Anon at 1:06--

I've never said you were motivated by improper purposes. But if someone is going to present themselves as an authority on a subject--and you have done that with your comments here--I want to know who that person is. And I believe my readers are entitled to know who that person is.

As for your own claims, you state that the Alabama Supreme Court has found that the games in Macon Co. and Houston Co. are not bingo games. Can you cite the case law on that?

One final point: Asking you to identify yourself is hardly "muzzling dissent." I'm encouraging dissent and encouraging you to write further, as long as you inform my readers and me who you are. Otherwise, we can make no judgment about the validity of your statements. You are just a ghost in the wind.

Lots of people make anonymous comments here, and those are welcome. But when someone sets himself up as an authority on a certain subject, stating that they are confident their view is the correct one, they should be willing to identify themselves.

If you aren't willing to do that, then you must not be much of an authority, and I see no reason to post your comments.

legalschnauzer said...

Another message to Anon at 1:06--

You say I haven't addressed your assertions, but I have. I have repeatedly pointed out where they are clearly wrong. For example, the second paragraph in the message you just sent is legally and factually wrong on almost every count.

Where you raise issues that are worth considering, I am willing to consider them--and I suspect my readers would do the same. But we want to know who you are, and you refuse to identify yourself. Your notion that an argument is separate from the person who makes it . . . well, it's absurd. If you truly believe that, you aren't worthy of having space on this blog.

Also, I challenge you to show one example, present post excepted, where I "cast implications" on someone who "opposes" me on this blog. And I challenge you to show that such "implications" are not on target, to show that they are not accurate under the facts and/or law.

I posed a similar challenge before, and you couldn't come close to meeting it. We'll see how you do this time.

Finally, if you think the words of someone who refuses to identify himself establishes "the truth of the matter," and that is going to have any impact on "what I'm about," you are sadly mistaken.

Your argument apparently is so shaky that you are ashamed to attach your name to it. As long as that's the case, I'm not going to give it three seconds of thought.

legalschnauzer said...

Once again, a message to Anon at 1:06--

Got to give you credit for being a piece of work--and a semi-talented con man.

You have stated over and over that AL Supreme Court has found machines in Macon and Houston Cos. are not bingo, and that demonstrably is not true. In fact, you pretty much admit it isn't true, but you keep making the same assertion anyway.

It's comical the way you seem to think people can't see through your agenda and your phoniness. If I were you, making such a weak argument, I wouldn't identify myself either.

Even more hysterical is your assertion that my blog is read by a tiny portion of the legal community, with my work having little influence on anyone, and yet you've probably written in the neighborhood of 40 paragraphs, trying (unsuccessfully) to convince me I'm wrong about my analysis of this bingo issue.

I have statistics, hard data, that shows me who reads my blog, how much they read it, and the kinds of influence it has. You clearly think my work here is important or you wouldn't waste time writing to me.

You are as dishonest with yourself as you are with me.

Finally, you must be lazy because you apparently haven't even bothered to read Luther Strange's arguments. He repeatedly argues that the machines in question violate Alabama statutes that prohibit slot machines and "illegal gaming devices." That is the statutory grounds for seizing property, and it's not about some wordplay regarding the definition of bingo.

BTW, you failed to point to a single inaccuracy in my reporting on the Sherry Rollins/UAB nurse story, or any other story.

I figured you were a fraud from the outset, and the more you write, the more you prove my suspicions were correct.

Anonymous said...

Wow LS, it appears you are having a conversation with a chicken $hit many days later! I bet this ghost is getting paid billable hours for his failed attempt (propaganda)to discount your points.

legalschnauzer said...

Oh, yes. It's been ongoing for a while. By my unofficial count, the guy has written me 14 paragraphs of comments I published and 37 paragraphs of material I haven't published--after I told him he needed to identify himself or I wasn't publishing more of his comments. That's 51 paragraphs of material he has devoted to trying to convince me my reporting is inaccurate, and he hasn't been able to do it yet--and he refuses to even try under his own name.

As I told the guy in comments you can see, I welcome anonymous comments. But if someone is going to pose as an authority on a complicated subject, I think my readers and I are entitled to know who that person is. Otherwise, we have no way of evaluating what he's saying.

For sure, this post seems to have touched a nerve with someone.