Feds have no evidence that Missouri resident Scott J. Wells sought out child-porn images or took "affirmative actions" to receive them, but they seem determined to proceed with a baseless case anyway

Scott J. Wells

The federal child-pornography case against Missouri resident Scott J. Wells could come down to a simple question: Did Wells ask anyone to send him images of child pornography?

We already have shown the Wells case should be dismissed, and never should have been brought, based on a number of grounds, which include: (1) The government has charged Wells with an offense that would be physically impossible to commit; (2) The feds do not even allege that Wells took some of the most common actions that prove "knowing" receipt or distribution of child porn -- such as use of file-sharing programs or subscriptions to Web sites that sell unlawful images (also known as contraband). (3) The feds launched their search of Wells' home, leading to his arrest, based on two images sent from Facebook to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC); although the images sound almost identical, and Wells has said a Tennessee woman named Kara Adkins sent it to him unsolicited, and he sent it back when he realized it appeared to be a naked photo of Adkins' daughter, whom Wells understood to be 19 years old (not a minor); (4) There is no evidence in the government's criminal complaint -- embedded at the end of this post -- that Wells knowingly downloaded and saved the Adkins image, or any other unlawful image to his computer.

As for the number of images found on a computer in a child-porn case, the criminal complaint in U.S. v. Wells suggests the following: (1) The government repeatedly -- and apparently incorrectly -- uses the term "upload" to describe Wells' actions, which indicates he did not download (or save) anything improper to his computer; (2) The government based its search on two (maybe one) images, and courts have found in U.S. v. Miller, 527 F. 3d 54 (3rd Cir., 2008) that 11 images were not enough to be relevant for purposes of probable cause in a child-porn investigation. From our April 2019 post about the Miller case:

In Miller, the appellate court found: "The second factor, the number of images of child pornography found, likewise does not weigh in the government's favor in light of the overwhelming number of adult images that were found. The government presented evidence pertaining to only twenty of the 1200-1400 images found on the zip disk, and the District Court subsequently determined, in the process of sentencing Miller, that only eleven of these images constituted child pornography. Miller contended that he was unaware of the existence of these images . . .

As you can see, these cases can become fairly involved. But many of them, including U.S. v. Wells, can be resolved with a simple question: Did the accused ask anyone to send him child porn, did he seek it ought in any way and download it to his computer to take "control and dominion" over it, did he take "affirmative actions" to seek out unlawful images. Several court cases spell out the law on this. One is U.S. v. Kuchinski (9th Cir., 2006), which held:

We have made it plain that a person does knowingly receive and possess child pornography images when he seeks them out over the internet and then downloads them to his computer. In fact, we have declared that, “[i]n the electronic context, a person can receive and possess child pornography without downloading it, if he or she seeks it out and exercises dominion and control over it.” Romm, 455 F.3d at 998;  see also United States v. Tucker, 305 F.3d 1193, 1204 (10th Cir.2002)

Another such case is U.S. v. Stulock (8th Cir, 2002), which held:

After a bench trial, Stulock was convicted of knowingly receiving the child pornography videotape, but he was acquitted on the charge of knowingly possessing child pornography. The possession charge specified only the images found in the browser cache.  The district court explained that one cannot be guilty of possession for simply having viewed an image on a web site, thereby causing the image to be automatically stored in the browser's cache, without having purposely saved or downloaded the image.

A review of the government's criminal complaint -- embedded below -- shows little or no evidence that Scott Wells asked to receive child-porn images, sought them out in any way, or took "affirmative actions" to assert "dominion and control" over them.

This adds to the evidence that the Wells case, by law, must be dismissed. But prosecutors (led by James J. Kelleher), apparently wanting to avoid the embarrassment and possible legal repercussions of bringing a baseless case, have dug in their heels and seem to be determined to proceed, whether they have a legit case or not. And Brady Musgrave, Wells' third court-appointed lawyer, has made it clear he has no intention of filing any pretrial motions that would actually defend his client.

Feds must think Missouri resident Scott J. Wells has superpowers because they charged him with child-porn offenses that are physically impossible to commit

Scott J. Wells

How did federal prosecutors level child-pornography charges on Missouri resident Scott J. Wells, even though their own narrative shows it was physically impossible for him to commit the alleged offenses?

The charging documents the feds prepared are kind of important -- Wells has been unlawfully detained for more than two years, based on them. But does anyone in the Western District of Missouri bother to proof read their own filings? Does anyone bother to read them at all? The answer to both questions seems to be no. (The charging documents are embedded at the end of this post.)

The case against Scott Wells begins unraveling near the end of page 3, moving on to page 4, of the criminal complaint-affidavit in Case No. 6:17-cr03043-MDH, under the heading "Probable Cause." James D. Holdman Jr., a special agent (SA) with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Office of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in Springfield, MO, prepared the affidavit and writes as follows:

Probable Cause 

7. On March 8, 2017, Southwest Missouri Cyber Crimes Task Force (SMCCTF) Officer (TFO) Lee Walker reviewed two CyberTips, 16533142 and 16099575, from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Both CyberTips were initiated by Facebook. . . . CyberTip 16099575 was received by NCMEC on December 21, 2016, and CyberTip 16533142 was received by NCMEC on January 15, 2017.

8. CyberTip 16533142 was initiated by Facebook, after a file, 9p6ov3uhu4048okk15645265_10210760647827988_2086195755_n.jpg., containing suspected child pornography had been uploaded from a Facebook account. The suspect file was uploaded from a Facebook account with a screen name of scott.wells.79 and user ID 11033732066. The account listed a verified email address of scottw3820@yahoo.com. The suspect file was uploaded on December 15, 2016, at 15:18:55 hours UTC, using IP address 173.19.198.141. This affiant reviewed the image from CyberTip 16533142. The image depicts a minor, prepubescent female lying on what appears to be a bed with her pants pulled down, her legs spread and up in the air, exposing her vaginal and anal area. The minor female's hands are on her bottom.

9 CyberTip 16099575 was initiated by Facebook after a file, erhdoxdu14c8wk44015644194_10210760665228423_1722966896_n.jpg., containing suspected child pornography had been uploaded from a Facebook account and sent to another Facebook account. The suspect file was uploaded to and sent from scott.wells79's Facebook account. The suspect file was uploaded on December 15, 2016, at 15:18:55 UTC, using IP address 173.19.198.141. The suspect file was sent from scott.wells79's account to an account with a Facebook screen name of kara.adkins1007. This affiant reviewed the image from CyberTip 16099575. The image depicts a minor, prepubescent female laying on her stomach with no pants on, with her legs spread, exposing her vaginal and anal area.

First, we note that Nos. 7-9 deal with two issues: (1) No. 7 describes Facebook's actions in sending a "cyber tip" to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which forwarded the tip to a law-enforcement task force in Southwest Missouri; (2) Nos. 7 and 8 describe actions Scott Wells allegedly took, sparking a search of his home and an arrest.

Second, we note the areas in Nos. 8 and 9, highlighted in yellow, where Holdman states multiple times that Wells "uploaded" suspect images from his own Facebook account -- the second time sending the image to another Facebook account. I don't claim to be an expert on computer terminology, but I'm pretty sure there is a difference between an "upload" and a "download." Here is how one Web site puts it:

Uploading is the process of putting web pages, images and files onto a web server. Downloading is the process of getting web pages, images and files from a web server.

To make a file visible to everyone on the internet, you will need to upload it. When users are copying this file to their computer, they are downloading it.

In other words, when an image originates with a user and is placed on the Web, it is uploaded. When an image already is on the Web and someone clicks on it, perhaps saving it, that is a download. Scott Wells has said he received a Facebook file from a woman in Tennessee (apparently Kara Adkins) and clicked on it without knowing what it was and without asking for it. When he saw the image, he thought it was the woman's daughter, that the mother essentially was enticing Facebook users with pornographic images of her own child. Wells has said he forwarded the image to the daughter in an effort to alert her about the mother's unlawful acts. Federal prosecutors now claim this act of alerting a victim amounts to distribution of child porn.

Brady Musgrave

So, prosecutors don't seem to know the difference between an upload and a download, and that alone might be grounds to dismiss the case because the feds' narrative appears to misstate the facts of the case. But the feds' much bigger problem can be found in the green highlighted areas above.

In No. 8, the affidavit states that Wells "uploaded" the first file on "December 15, 2016, at 15:18:55 hours UTC."  In No. 9, the affidavit states that Wells "uploaded" the second file -- a different file, with a different file name -- on "December 15, 2016, at 15:18:55 hours UTC."

The feds have charged Scott Wells with "uploading" two separate suspect files -- and he did both at the exact same time, right down to the second. I took enough physics in high school to know that can't be done. David Copperfield couldn't do it, so Scott Wells -- who is almost legally blind in one eye and must use a walker from the effects of a benign brain tumor -- certainly couldn't do it.

That leaves this question: Will Brady Musgrave, Wells' third court-appointed attorney -- take the necessary steps to get the charges dismissed and his client freed from more than two years of wrongful incarceration? We intend to find out. Another question: How did U.S. prosecutor James Kelleher let the Wells case get so far without noticing that it alleges an offense that is physically impossible to commit. As a "minister of justice" under Missouri law, will Kelleher do the right thing and dismiss the case -- maybe even helping Scott Wells receive the compensation to which he is entitled, under federal law, for having two years of his life stolen.? Is Kelleher capable of doing the right thing? We intend to find out about that, too.

BTW, this is not the only ground upon which the Wells case -- as a matter of law -- must be dismissed. We will discuss another one in an upcoming post.


(To be continued)

Feds have detained Missouri resident Scott J. Wells on child-porn charges that their own narrative shows would be physically impossible for him to commit

Scott J. Wells

The United States government has detained a Missouri man for more than two years on child-pornography charges that, according to the feds' own narrative, involve alleged offenses that were physically impossible for him to commit.

That means there was no probable cause to arrest Scott J. Wells or search his home, which led to his incarceration in spring 2017. It also points to gross misconduct (or incompetence, or both) from federal prosecutor James J. Kelleher, who is directing the case against Wells, and U.S. Magistrate Judge David P. Rush, who ordered Wells' arrest. It also raises questions about the competence or integrity of James D. Holdman Jr., the special agent (SA) with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who prepared the criminal complaint and affidavit seeking an arrest warrant for Wells. (The complaint and affidavit, in one document, are embedded at the end of this post.)

Where does Wells go to get back the two years of his life the feds stole from him? That question now rests in the lap of Springfield attorney Brady Musgrave, who became the third court-appointed defense attorney assigned to the case, back in February. That came after we reported on a letter private attorney Shane Cantin sent to Wells, saying he had no defense and surely would be convicted. That, in blunt terms, was pure horse excrement. It remains to be seen if Musgrave will be any better than Cantin -- or public defender David Mercer, whom the record suggests did nothing to provide a defense for Wells.

Brady Musgrave

Musgrave is with the Springfield firm of Jones and Musgrave. In our view, he will not have much choice but to act on the blatant shortcomings apparent in the government's court filings. The feds' screw-ups are numerous, but they are relatively subtle for someone (like myself) who is not used to reporting on child-porn cases. I missed the government's most significant mistake -- the one that proves Wells could not possibly have committed the alleged offense -- for several months, and it only recently came to my attention.

For now, a trial is set for August, but if Musgrave does his job, it should not get that far. To be sure, Kelleher and Rush will pull every trick at their disposal to ensure that Wells unlawfully goes to trial and is wrongly convicted.. But any competent defense lawyer, who is not compromised, should be able to quickly ensure the indictment against Wells is dismissed, and he is released from custody.

We already have shown the case against Wells lacked probable case -- mainly because the feds provide zero evidence that Wells acted "knowingly" or that Wells knew individuals in the alleged images were minors (under age 18) -- both statutory requirements for a conviction. But the newly discovered hole in the feds' case is so enormous that it should force dismissal ASAP.

In fact, the new hole in the Wells case is of such substance that it raises this question: Have the charges against Scott J. Wells been a hoax from the outset? Did the feds actually receive "cyber tips" about Wells' alleged activity from Facebook and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)? Or did someone -- pissed off that Wells fought state child-sexual abuse charges, which fell apart due to Wells' apparent innocence and the ineffective assistance of counsel provided by Missouri lawyer, David Shuler (my brother) -- create the federal charges out of whole cloth as a form of retaliation?

What is the newly discovered evidence -- apparent right in the government's own documents -- that should set Scott Wells free? We will spell it out in an upcoming post.



(To be continued)

Could companies like Facebook and Best Buy face civil liability for helping law enforcement bring child-porn charges against individuals who prove to be not guilty?

Dr. Mark Rettenmaier

The ongoing Scott J. Wells child-pornography case in Missouri started when Facebook sent a "cyber tip" to federal law enforcement. A similar case in California started roughly two years ago when a Geek Squad supervisor at Best Buy reported child porn was found on a computer that had been turned in for repair.

Dr. Mark Rettenmaier, an Orange County physician who owned the computer in California, wound up facing child-porn charges that were eventually dropped. Our review of the Wells case file indicates the charges against the Springfield resident also should be dropped. In fact, I recently discovered new evidence that points to the government having no case against Wells. (More on that in an upcoming post.)

Documents in the Rettenmaier case showed FBI agents paid Best Buy employees to act as informants -- and the charges were dropped after a judge threw out almost all of the evidence as unlawfully obtained. We have reported on multiple cases where individuals lives were turned upside down because of child porn found on computers that they did not put there and were not aware of. (See here, and here.) In the Missouri case, Scott Wells has been detained in federal prison for more than two years, even though he's had no trial and been convicted of nothing.

Given the suffering wrongfully accused can experience because of baseless child-porn charges, we have this question: Is it wise for companies like Facebook and Best Buy to get involved? My answer is no. Could they face civil liability for siccing law enforcement on individuals who are proven to have violated no law? Under a legal doctrine known as malicious prosecution, I suspect the answer is yes.

Federal law, under 18 U.S.C. 2258A requires anyone engaged in providing an "electronic communication service" or a "remote computing service" to the public . . . who obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances "described in paragraph (2)" shall, as soon as reasonably possible [file a report with the Cyber Tipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).

What does the all-important paragraph (2) say? Here it is, straight from the statute:

(2) Facts or circumstances.—The facts or circumstances described in this paragraph are any facts or circumstances from which there is an apparent violation of—

(A) section 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2252B, or 2260 that involves child pornography; or

(B) section 1466A.

What are the chances that a Facebook or Best Buy employee can accurately dissect those provisions of law? My guess is zero. In the case of Best Buy, it almost certainly does not qualify as an "electronic communication service" or a "remote computing service." It is a retailer or merchandiser, so it's hard to see how it would fall under federal reporting guidelines.

Our research indicates about 20 states have laws that require certain professionals or individuals to report suspected images of child pornography. We suspect these laws use a variety of wording, so it's difficult to say which ones might be lawfully sound and which ones are not. But we see at least three likely problems with reporting laws at the federal or state level:

(1) Receipt, possession, or distribution of child pornography is not a clear-cut offense. If you witness someone punch another person, you can be reasonably assured some kind of law was violated, and authorities should be notified. But the presence of child pornography on a computer is not necessarily an indicator of criminal activity. The images must be there "knowingly," under the users' "dominion and control." to amount to a possible crime.

(2) Thanks to viruses, spam, malware, hackers, and the like, child porn can wind up on a computer without the user's knowledge.

(3) By law, child pornography involves a minor (under 18 years old), engaged in "sexually explicit conduct." How is a Facebook or Best Buy employee going to know the age of a stranger in a photograph? How are such employees going to know how "sexually explicit conduct" is defined under the law?

Statutes seem to be written with a mindset of, "Hey, if you see anything that you think resembles child porn, let's turn it over to authorities and let 'the professionals' handle it." In the Scott Wells case, we've already shown "the professionals" don't always handle cases professionally, and we recently discovered a screw-up in the criminal complaint that is a real jaw-dropper.

Law enforcement handled the Rettenmaier case in California in a farcical manner. This is from a 2018 report at NPR:

The FBI paid Best Buy Geek Squad employees as informants, rewarding them for flagging indecent material when people brought their computers in for repair.

That's according to documents released to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital civil liberties organization, which filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking records that might show warrantless searches of people's devices.

EFF filed its complaint last year after revelations about the FBI's interactions with Geek Squad technicians emerged in the case of Mark Rettenmaier, an Orange County physician and surgeon who took his computer in for repair when it wouldn't boot up. Rettenmaier faced child pornography charges after a Geek Squad employee flagged his computer to the FBI.

Were EFF's concerns well founded? Absolutely:

In May, a federal judge threw out almost all the evidence (which prosecutors said included hundreds of images of child pornography) because of "false and misleading statements" an FBI agent made in an affidavit to get a search warrant for Rettenmaier's house. The government ended up dropping the charges against him.

The records now released to EFF shed a bit more light on the relationship between Best Buy and the FBI. The documents show a range of interactions: a $500 payment from the FBI to a Geek Squad employee, a meeting of the agency's Cyber Working Group at Best Buy's computer repair facility in Kentucky, and a number of investigations in which Geek Squad employees called the FBI field office in Louisville after finding suspected child pornography.

A key question is whether Best Buy employees "go fishing" in customers' devices with the goal of helping the FBI.

That's what Rettenmaier's attorney James Riddet argued a Geek Squad technician had done when he searched the "unallocated space" of Rettenmaier's computer, where he found an image that was used to persuade a judge to grant a search warrant for his home.

"Their relationship is so cozy," Riddet told The Washington Post last year, "and so extensive that it turns searches by Best Buy into government searches. If they're going to set up that network between Best Buy supervisors and FBI agents, you run the risk that Best Buy is a branch of the FBI."

Best Buy officials seem convinced they are following the law, but we aren't so sure about that:

Best Buy tells NPR that it does indeed report discovery of child pornography to law enforcement, citing a "moral and, in more than 20 states, a legal obligation" to do so — but it says it prohibits employees from looking for "anything other than what is necessary to solve the customer's problem." 

EFF says it is concerned the FBI is using Geek Squad informants to conduct private searches as a means of circumventing Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless searches.

The following from NPR should serve as a caution light for employers who might stumble onto supposed evidence of child porn:

The FBI would not comment on the matter, citing ongoing litigation. "In addition," a spokesman said in an email to NPR, "the FBI does not provide any information on the dealings with informants, for obvious reasons."

We are not sure about the status of ongoing litigation, but if it helps companies refrain from fingering innocent people for child-porn charges, that should be a good thing.

Child-porn laws require that an image depict a "minor" in "sexually explicit conduct," but feds seem to be guessing at subjects' ages in the Scott J. Wells case?

Scott J. Wells

How many defenses does Scott J. Wells have to federal child-pornography charges? His lawyer, Shane P. Cantin of Springfield, MO, says in writing that he can't think of any. Without a single day of law school, I can think of about a half dozen -- under two or three broad categories.

Let's start with perhaps the most important category in this area of law -- age. Under 18 U.S.C. 2256, an image can be child pornography only if it is a "visual depiction" of a "minor" who is "engaged in sexually explicit conduct." Details on alleged crimes involving child pornography can be found at 18 U.S.C. 2252A.

But the No. 1 element, per Sec. 2256, is that the image must depict a "minor," which is described as "any person under the age of 18 years." Under U.S. law, you can view an image of stomach-churning pornography to your heart's content -- if it depicts an 18-year-old. If it depicts someone who is age 17 years, 11 months, and 28 days, you could land in the federal slammer for 20 years or more.

How tricky can this get? Let's consider two age-related elements in the federal statutes:

(1) Must prosecutors present evidence of name, address, and birth date in order to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person depicted is a minor? A reasonable person might conclude the answer is yes, given the fundamental importance of age in this area of the law. But our research indicates prosecutors, in the real world, do not have to prove age with particularity -- or, with certain judges, they can get away with guessing at it, obtaining arrest and search warrants by more or less stating, "This person looks like a minor to me." Scott Wells has been detained at Leavenworth, KS, or Missouri county jails for roughly two years, and yet, the criminal complaint offers zero proof that he ever knowingly received or distributed an image of someone under 18 years of age.

(2) After age, the second most important element in these offenses involves the term "knowingly" -- and the two elements can merge. It is not a crime to accidentally stumble upon child pornography. It also is not a crime to have child pornography on your computer, without signs that you took "affirmative actions" to obtain and control it. Both go to whether the accused acted with "knowing" intent -- and the affidavit against Scott Wells provides little or no evidence of such conduct. [The criminal complaint, including an affidavit from a Homeland Security special agent, is embedded at the end of this post.] On top of that, federal law requires that an accused "know" an image depicts a minor. We will provide details on the relevant law in an upcoming post, but for now, let's consider this mind-blowing fact: The Wells complaint contains evidence that he did NOT know a subject was a minor -- and feds apparently can't prove otherwise -- but he still has been detained for two years and faces a trial this month.

U.S. Magistrate David P. Rush

Where does age appear in the complaint against Scott Wells? The first reference comes on page 4 of the affidavit from Homeland Security Special Agent James D. Holdman. The testimony involves a CyberTip from Facebook, where Holdman alleges Wells "uploaded' a suspect file from his Facebook account. [We are pretty sure use of the term "upload" is a mistake. That implies the image originated with Wells, and he put it on the Web. All other evidence we've seen suggests the image originated with a Tennessee woman named Kara Adkins, and Wells downloaded it after she sent it -- without him asking for it or knowing what it was.] Is it scary that a federal "expert" on child pornography might not know the difference between an upload and a download? It sure is.

From the Holdman affidavit:

This affiant reviewed the image from CyberTip 16533142. The image depicts a minor, prepubescent female lying on what appears to be a bed with her pants pulled down, her legs spread and up in the air, exposing her vaginal and anal area. The minor female's hands are on her bottom.

How does Holdman know the female is a "minor" and "prepubescent"? Is he an expert on human development? He doesn't say. I've seen an affidavit from another pending child-porn case in the Western District of Missouri where the affiant declares a female is "prepubescent" based on "body shape" and "the absence of pubic hair." Body shape can determine whether someone is 16 or 18? These federal experts aren't aware that folks of all ages and genders can shave "down there," accounting for a lack of pubic hair?

Is our "justice system" warped? Holdman appears to be guessing that the female is "prepubescent," but prosecutors used this information to get arrest and search warrants from U.S. Magistrate David P Rush (Western District of Missouri). During a search of Wells' home, which almost certainly was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment, agents seized Wells' laptop computer, along with a number of other items -- some of which belonged to other family members.

Michael Costello, a computer forensic analyst (CFA) with the Springfield Police Department, conducted a review of Scott Wells' laptop, and that's where age again enters the picture. From Holdman's affidavit:

On March 23, 2017, CFA Costello began his examination of Wells' Dell Inspiron Laptop. This laptop had Windows 10 Home installed, and the only user account was "scott." [Does that mean Scott Wells was the only one to use the computer? Not necessarily. Family members say he generally signed in to it and left it running, so that any number of people could access it.] CFA Costello found 60 images of child pornography, that being children under the age of 18 engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

How did Costello know the "children" were "under the age of 18"? He doesn't say, and he provides no birth dates or identifying characteristics, and like Holdman, he appears to be guessing.

Under federal law, Costello and Holdman do not have the final say. Scott Wells' thoughts regarding age also matter, and this is from page 7 of the affidavit:

Wells admitted to communicating with another user with the Facebook account name of Kara Adkins, but claimed he never sent the user any images. Wells then stated that he quit communicating with Adkins because she sent him an image of a 19-year-old showing her butt. 

Did Kara Adkins, who apparently lives in Tennessee and is the mother of the girl in the Facebook image, tell Wells that her daughter was 19? That remains unclear, but it is clear that Wells thought the girl was not a minor. And that matters, a lot, under the law. The U.S. Supreme Court says so.


(To be continued)

Report shows social-media giant has strengthened ties to right-wing goons, including Jeff Sessions, meaning our time in "Facebook Jail" might go beyond trolls

Legal Schnauzer is an unapologetically liberal blog, and we have been in "Facebook Jail" for more than a month, dating back to the weeks leading up to the Nov. 6 midterm elections. This marks roughly a dozen times in 2018 that the world's foremost social network has placed us in jail. We have tended to attribute our ongoing problems with Facebook to right-wing trolls -- pro-Trump, pro-law enforcement types --who file baseless complaints about our content. But a recent New York Times investigation suggests our problems -- and those of other progressive voices -- rest not with trolls, but with Facebook officials themselves.

The Times' report, published Nov. 14 (with a followup on Nov. 17), shows that -- even though tech companies have tended to align with Democrats -- Facebook is much more closely tied to right-wing forces than the public generally knows. That could explain our experiences with "Facebook Jail," along with those of other liberals on the social-media behemoth.

What exactly is "Facebook Jail"? In our case, it takes the form of notices that tell us posts from legalschnauzer.blogspot.com are "spam" and "violate community standards." That means any link from our blog will be blocked for an indefinite period of time. We can place an item on Facebook, letting followers know that the LS post exists, but we cannot provide a link that allows followers to easily click and go directly to the blog post. They have to do a Google search for "Legal Schnauzer" and take a roundabout trip to the post.

Our assignments to "Facebook Jail" have lasted from a few hours to a month or more. Messages to Facebook, informing them that our blog posts are not spam and do not violate community standards, tend to go unheard. Why is that? Well, let's consider what The New York Times teaches us about the company Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg made famous:


(1) Facebook hires right-wing attack dog to seek dirt on progressives, especially George Soros

Facebook used a Washington-based consulting firm called Definers Public Affairs to attack its perceived enemies. That includes George Soros, a billionaire philanthropist and Democratic Party patron, who has called Facebook a "menace to society." Definers, it turns out, has close ties to conservative entities, including the George W. Bush administration and Breitbart News. From The Times' followup:

Facebook initially hired Definers to monitor news about the social network. It expanded its relationship with the firm in October 2017 when scrutiny of Facebook was increasing over how Russian agents had used the site to sow discord before the 2016 United States election.

Definers began doing some general communications work, such as running conference calls for Facebook. It also undertook more covert efforts to spread the blame for the rise of the Russian disinformation, pointing fingers at other companies like Google.

A key part of Definers’ strategy was NTK Network, a website that appeared to be a run-of-the-mill news aggregator with a right-wing slant. In fact, many of NTK Network’s stories were written by employees at Definers and America Rising, a sister firm, to criticize rivals of their clients, according to one former employee not allowed to speak about it publicly. The three outfits share some staff and offices in Arlington, Va.

(2) Facebook knew about Russia's use of the site to meddle in the 2016 presidential election much longer than it let on

Facebook officials largely have downplayed their knowledge of Russian meddling, but The Times' Nov. 14 report shows company insiders -- such as former security chief Alex Stamos -- were aware of suspicious activity on the platform roughly a year longer than the public generally understood:

In the final months of Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, Russian agents escalated a yearlong effort to hack and harass his Democratic opponents, culminating in the release of thousands of emails stolen from prominent Democrats and party officials.

Facebook had said nothing publicly about any problems on its own platform. But in the spring of 2016, a company expert on Russian cyberwarfare spotted something worrisome. He reached out to his boss, Mr. Stamos.

Mr. Stamos’s team discovered that Russian hackers appeared to be probing Facebook accounts for people connected to the presidential campaigns, said two employees. Months later, as Mr. Trump battled Hillary Clinton in the general election, the team also found Facebook accounts linked to Russian hackers who were messaging journalists to share information from the stolen emails.

Could Facebook face legal liability for failing to contain the Russian disinformation campaign? The answer appears to be "maybe." Does Facebook have motivation to stifle voices -- such as ours -- that speak out in support of the Robert Mueller investigation? The answer appears to be "yes."


(3) The Social Network, Jeff Sessions, and "Sweet Home Alabama"

Are we stretching to suggest Facebook might have motivations to stifle a blog with roots in Birmingham, AL? The New York Times investigation suggests the answer is "no."

Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg

The Times makes clear that Facebook has worked to forge connections with former Trump attorney general and U.S.  Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) -- and evidence strongly suggests the abuse directed at Mrs. Schnauzer and me (in Alabama and Missouri) has its foundation with Mr. Sessions and his allies. Reports The Times:

Then Donald J. Trump ran for president. He described Muslim immigrants and refugees as a danger to America, and in December 2015 posted a statement on Facebook calling for a “total and complete shutdown” on Muslims entering the United States. Mr. Trump’s call to arms — widely condemned by Democrats and some prominent Republicans — was shared more than 15,000 times on Facebook, an illustration of the site’s power to spread racist sentiment. . . .

In the end, Mr. Trump’s statement and account remained on the site. When Mr. Trump won election the next fall, giving Republicans control of the White House as well as Congress, Mr. [Joel] Kaplan was empowered to plan accordingly. The company hired a former aide to Mr. Trump’s new attorney general, Jeff Sessions, along with lobbying firms linked to Republican lawmakers who had jurisdiction over internet companies.

Who was the former Sessions aide that Facebook went out of its way to hire? It was Sandra Luff, as reported at al.com in May 2017:

A former aide to Alabama Senator turned U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been hired by Facebook.

Axios reported Sandra Luff, who served as Sessions' Legislative Director while he was in the Senate, will be Director of Executive Branch Public Policy at the social media company. She also worked with Trump's transition team.

"Sandy's experience and understanding of the political landscape will make her an invaluable asset to our team. We are excited to have her aboard," Facebook's vice president of U.S. public policy Greg Maurer said in a statement.

The move appears to be the latest efforts by Facebook to reach out to the Trump administration.

So, Facebook has been reaching out to Trump and Sessions flunkies, covering up its knowledge of Russian meddling, and hiring right-wing firms that deal in opposition research?

Is it any wonder Legal Schnauzer has spent much of 2018 in Facebook Jail -- and maybe it has nothing to do with trolls?

Jarrod Ramos' fatal shooting at newspaper in Annapolis, MD, did not usher in an era of attacks on the press; those attacks already had started in Alabama

Jarrod W. Ramos

In the wake of the recent deadly shooting at the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland, several commentators have suggested it might usher in an era of attacks on the free press. If those commentators had been able to walk in my shoes over the past 10 years, they would know such an era already is under way -- especially in Jeff Sessions' Alabama.

Sessions and/or his acolytes have relentlessly attacked this blog since 2008, when I was cheated out of my job at UAB for reporting on the Don Siegelman case in a way that then Gov. Bob Riley (and his son, Rob "Uday" Riley, and Rob's legal partner, current U.S. Sen. Doug Jones) found displeasing.

The attacks became so flagrant that they included my kidnapping, from inside my Birmingham home without a warrant and no allegation of a crime, and a five-month incarceration (from Oct. 2013 to March 2014) in the Shelby County Jail -- making me the first U.S. journalist to be incarcerated since 2006, the only imprisoned journalist in the western hemisphere for 2013, and apparently the only journalist in U.S. history to be jailed due to an unlawful preliminary injunction in a defamation case. In other words, Alabama in the Sessions era became more of a First Amendment backwater than places like Venezuela, Chile, and El Salvador.

No one should be surprised that Sessions, in his role as Trump attorney general, has not ruled out  jailing journalists in the future.

The actions of shooter Jarrod W. Ramos in Annapolis were dreadful, but they did not start a movement that had not already been going on for a while. In fact, there are a number of parallels between the Ramos case and the attacks we've experienced at Legal Schnauzer. Let's take a look:

(1) Facebook as a platform for harassment -- The Ramos story started when he connected with a former high-school classmate, a woman, on Facebook. At first, the woman tried to be friendly and helpful when Ramos noted that he was struggling with some issues in his life. But she sensed something was amiss and tried to withdraw from the conversation, sparking threats, harassment, and stalking from Ramos. She pursued criminal charges, and Ramos was found guilty, with coverage of that case sparking his crusade against the Capital Gazette. Trolls of some nature -- from Alabama, Missouri, Russia, parts unknown -- have been attacking my Facebook account for months -- causing URLs to Legal Schnauzer to be blocked for anywhere from 30 days to a few hours. It's happened at least a dozen times since the first of this year.

(2) Baseless defamation claims as a mechanism to silence reporters -- Ramos brought a defamation lawsuit against the Capital Gazette (CG) that was almost laughably weak. Acting as his own lawyer (pro se), Ramos could not point to a single item in the CG's story that was false. It's hard to support a defamation claim when you admit the story in question is accurate. Ramos also seemed unaware that journalists are legally privileged to report on official and public proceedings, such as a court case. Ramos' lawsuit was no weaker than the sham defamation claim Rob Riley brought against Legal Schnauzer and me (even my wife, Carol, who had nothing to do with the blog until after I was thrown in jail) over my reporting on his "friendship" with lobbyist Liberty Duke. How irregular was the Riley lawsuit, which led to me being thrown in jail for "contempt" over a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction that have been prohibited under more than 230 years of First Amendment law?

Rob and Bob Riley

a. Riley and Duke (the plaintiffs) never sought discovery to prove their case. (Maybe that's because they had no case.) Riley never has stated under oath that my reporting was false; Duke filed an affidavit making such a claim, but why didn't Riley follow suit? Did he and his colleagues think it was OK for her, a non-lawyer, to lie under oath, while such an act might put his bar card at risk?

b. Riley and Duke never asked for a trial or a jury, both of which have been required under decades of defamation law. Instead, they asked corrupt retired judge Claud Neilson (a Bill Baxley crony) to unlawfully act as a one-man censor.

c. As a matter of law, my reporting on the Riley/Duke relationship never has been found false or defamatory.

d. I never was hit with any money damages in the case, and Riley/Duke never made any valid request for such damages. They did ask for "sanctions" against me, but those are prohibited under Alabama law against a non-attorney representing himself -- as I was.

(3) Murder vs. kidnapping -- Thankfully, I was not murdered like the five CG employees that Ramos shot. But evidence suggests that one reason for suing Carol was to incarcerate both of us and possibly kill both of us -- with no one likely ever knowing what happened to us. Aside from that, I clearly was the victim of a state-sanctioned kidnapping. Officer Chris Blevins showed no warrant on the scene, never said he had a warrant before entering our home, never stated his reasons for being on our property (a violation of Alabama law), and could not produce a warrant when a judge ordered him (and prosecutors) to do so at my trial for "resisting arrest." Aside from the warrant issue, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that it is unlawful for a law-enforcement officer to enter a residence without a warrant for a "routine felony arrest." (See Payton v. New York, 455 U.S. 573, 1980.) My case involved no felony, no allegation of a crime at all -- and yet, cops broke into our home, which they clearly cannot do under law that has been around for more than 30 years.

(4) Attacking employment as an act of terror -- The victim of Ramos' harassment lost her job at a bank, under peculiar circumstances, not long after her Facebook interactions with him turned dark. She has stated that she believes Ramos contacted her employer and caused her to be terminated. There is zero doubt that Rob Riley, or someone affiliated with him, caused me to be cheated out of my job at UAB -- where I had worked for 20 years -- because of my reporting on the Siegelman case. Evidence also strongly suggests that Riley and legal buddy Doug Jones were alarmed about my reporting on a federal HealthSouth lawsuit, which wound up generating more than $51 million in attorney fees, with several million of that going to Riley and Jones. In fact, it has been reported that funds from that lawsuit largely helped finance Jones' run for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions.

Right-wing fruit loops Diamond and Silk head to Capitol Hill to whine about the same "social-media filtering" Facebook uses against my progressive blog

Diamond and Silk, with their hero.

Two black women from North Carolina, who frequently express their undying devotion to Donald Trump online, have become a cause celebre among conservatives by claiming Facebook discriminates against their right-wing views. Lynette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson -- professionally known as Diamond and Silk -- even are scheduled to testify Thursday before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on the subject of "social-media filtering."

Diamond and Silk are mostly a poor attempt at low-brow humor and attention-grabbing, so it's hard to figure what the judiciary committee hopes to accomplish with their testimony. But Rep. Billy Long (R-MO), a former auctioneer from my current district in Missouri, is pushing their act -- and Long never has been confused with a statesman or a policy wonk. If Billy Long is involved, you can bet the whole thing is a charade. Our guess is that Diamond and Silk's issues have everything to do with trolls and nothing to do with discrimination.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently testified before Congress in what was supposed to be a serious inquiry into the Cambridge Analytica data scandal and related issues. Billy Long helped turn it into a clown show by asking Zuckerberg about Diamond and Silk. Zuckerberg, apparently realizing that Long is what passes for "leadership" in the postmodern Republican Party, gave a serious answer, as reported at NPR:

Just days before Zuckerberg was slated to testify before key House and Senate congressional committees last week, Diamond and Silk alerted their followers on Facebook that their content was being suppressed by Zuckerberg's massive social media platform. . . .

The conservative website Drudge Report splashed it as a top story. Conservative Twitter accounts lit up with concern.

" 'BOOM' Diamond And Silk make the Drudge Report........ Don't start none, won't be none!" the partnership wrote on their Facebook page.

And then came the hearings where Zuckerberg faced Congress. . . .

"What is unsafe about two black women supporting President Donald J. Trump?" asked Rep. Billy Long, R-Mo. . . .

The CEO told lawmakers that any efforts to limit the duo's reach was an "enforcement error" on the part of the Facebook team but did not detail what Facebook had done — or why.

Diamond and Silk's main point seems to be that Facebook makes stupid decisions that result in censoring and blocking only those with right-wing views. That's a crock of barnyard excrement; I know from firsthand experience that Facebook makes the same dumb decisions against users on the left as it does against users on the right . In fact, Facebook takes progressive bloggers who write about serious subjects -- such as police brutality -- and blocks their links by deeming them "spam" and "unsafe."

I know because it's happened to me twice in the past month. The gist of Diamond and Silk's complaint, which they are taking to Capitol Hill, is that Facebook "limits the reach" of their right-wing views.. But the same "unsafe" label has been applied to my blog, Legal Schnauzer -- twice in the past month. In fact, as I write this, I'm still in "Facebook Jail" -- with my blog link blocked so that it can't be shared via links on Facebook.

Is my reach being limited? It sure as heck is -- and I'm about as far from a conservative as you can get; I wouldn't say a positive word about Donald Trump if someone tried to force me at gunpoint. Also, I'm not just a second-rate "comedy" act. I'm a journalist, with a B.J. degree from the University of Missouri and more than 35 years of professional experience -- with a daily newspaper, magazines, institutional publications, broadcasts, you name it.

Legal Schnauzer has been ranked among the top 50 law blogs in North America by Cision, a Chicago-based Web marketing and research firm. My blog, at No. 37, was the only one on the list that is truly independent -- not affiliated with any law firm, law school, legal organization, media outlet, or social-justice organization. In short, Legal Schnauzer has been ranked by a company, which deals with such issues on a daily basis, as the best blog of its kind in the United States and Canada.

Facebook's treatment of our progressive blog has been so outlandish that we recently asked (only slightly in a joking manager) if the company supports police brutality. After that post, we were out of Facebook Jail for roughly one working day, and then went right back in. We are considering a lawsuit against Facebook and the individuals attacking the blog if the problem is not corrected, pronto.

Why the question about police brutality? In September 2015, I watched deputies brutalize my wife, Carol, and break her arm during an eviction in Springfield, Missouri, which was unlawful on at least 12 grounds. I've published X-rays that show the comminuted fracture (broken in more than two places), plus photos taken about an hour after the incident that show the beginnings of severe bruising that eventually would cover Carol's left arm (plus the right arm, which was not broken but was black and purple for its full length, thanks to police-imposed violence.)

Carol Shuler's broken arm, a photo that Facebook
deemed "unsafe".

Roughly eight hours of trauma surgery was required to repair Carol's arm, and she is expected to regain, at most, 75- to 80- percent usage. It will never be the same. During the whole process, Carol faced a number of complications -- shock, blood loss, nerve damage, elevated pressures -- that could have been life threatening.

Unbelievably, Greene County prosecuting attorney Dan Patterson brought bogus "assault of a law enforcement officer" charges against Carol, an obvious "cover charge" designed to impede her pursuit of civil damages.

Issues don't come much more serious than the ones surrounding Carol's broken arm. But when I have reported on the subject, including photos of the arm just before X-rays revealed the break, Facebook has deemed my blog "unsafe" -- and my blog URL remains blocked. Diamond and Silk, with their goofy comedy routine about the most dangerous and incompetent president in our history, think they have problems with Facebook? Let's consider a timeline regarding the Legal Schnauzer case:

* 3/26/18 -- I write a post about Carol's cop-induced injuries, including photos of her broken arm;

* 4/6/18 -- After 10 days in Facebook Jail (our blog URL is blocked), we are deemed "safe" for the free world again.

* 4/9/18 -- After roughly one working day out of jail, we wind up back in jail after another post (featuring photos) about Carol's cop-induced injuries.

* 4/23/18 -- As I write this, our second stint in Facebook Jail has lasted 14 days. Combined with the earlier 10-day "jail sentence," we've had our reach limited for 24 days in less than a month.

What is happening in our case? The answer seems clear: Conservative, pro-cop trolls (many of whom probably are cops, perhaps using taxpayer-funded resources) have reported my posts to Facebook as "spam" in an effort to interfere with our reporting. The company apparently takes the word of trolls, people who intentionally abuse Facebook rules, and blocks targets without any investigation. Does that make sense? Not one lick, but that almost certainly explains our situation, and it probably explains the Diamond and Silk issue, too.

Are liberal trolls reporting Diamond and Silk as spam? I haven't seen that issue raised in news reports from across the country, but my guess is that the answer is yes.

If liberals are acting as trolls, it's wrong, and I don't support it -- even though I think Diamond and Silk's speech has about the same intellectual worth of a dried cow turd. Facebook should go about identifying the trolls and punishing THEM, instead of imposing restrictions on Diamond and Silk. Facebook should take the same action in my case.

Thousands of taxpayer dollars will be spent so that Diamond and Silk can go to Congress and whine about Facebook's discrimination against their right-wing views. In truth, the whole contretemps almost certainly has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with Facebook's silly policies -- and it's inability to deal with trolls, of all political colors.

Below is a video of Diamond and Silk, attacking broadcast journalist Megyn Kelly after she had the audacity to ask Donald Trump during a presidential debate about vile, rude, and sexist comments he had made about women over the years. As you can tell, Diamond and Silk have no respect for their own race or their gender.

That kind of Uncle Tomism must be a big hit among white, postmodern conservatives.

Legal Schnauzer post that asked if social-media giant supported police brutality seems to have prompted our quick release from troll-induced "Facebook Jail"

One of the photos, depicting the aftermath of police brutality,
 that caused Facebook to deem our blog URL
 "spam" and "unsafe."

After 10 days in "Facebook Jail," the URL for Legal Schnauzer has been deemed safe to return to the social-media world.

We received notice of the decision last Friday, less than 24 hours after we published a post titled "Facebook rewards trolls by putting a block on Legal Schnauzer URL, suggesting the company supports police who beat up women and break their bones."

Did that post prompt Facebook's decision to reverse its finding that our blog URL was "spam" and "unsafe"? We don't know, but the post raised questions that had to be unsettling to anyone at Facebook who might have seen it; for sure, the company reacted swiftly once the post went up. From the post of 4/5/18:

Does Facebook support police brutality? Based on our experience over the past week, the answer appears to be yes.

Last Monday, I published this post about the injuries my wife, Carol, sustained when deputies in Greene County, Missouri, brutalized her during our unlawful eviction in September 2015. The post features photos that show in grim detail the beginnings of severe bruising on her left arm -- plus a lump likely caused by pooling blood and a bone fragment pushing against the skin -- including the photo above. All of the photos were taken at the Cox North emergency room in Springfield, just moments before X-rays revealed a comminuted fracture (broken in two or more places) that would require trauma surgery for repair.

What happened the day after the post went up? When I tried to publish a Legal Schnauzer post on Facebook, I received a notice that my blog URL had been deemed "spam" and "unsafe." I notified Facebook at least three times that it was mistaken; the post clearly is not spam, and my blog is published from a secure URL, so it is not unsafe. A number of readers also have alerted Facebook that it is wrongfully blocking Legal Schnauzer's URL. This has been going on for nine days, as of today, and my blog URL still is blocked as being "unsafe."

What is going on? It appears that police (or pro-police) trolls have whined to Facebook about my post that reveals their handiwork, falsely claiming it is spam. Facebook's policy evidently is to take the word of any troll who wants to attack someone who poses a threat to them -- and then to take forever to correct the mistake, or maybe neglect to correct it at all. Another blogger sees the attack as being Alabama based, and he might well be correct -- or it could be a joint Missouri/Alabama operation. . . .

With this sort of ignorant policy in place, is it any wonder Facebook has lost at least $80 billion in market value from it's ongoing data scandal?

The block on our URL undoubtedly was the work of police-connected trolls. We suspect Facebook is not nearly as forward-thinking and progressive as it wants the world to believe. But still, the company probably did not like being depicted as a supporter of police brutality -- and if it conducted any research, it probably found that we were correct in asserting that the Schnauzer URL was blocked because of pro-police trolls -- so that might explain our quick entrance back into good graces, once our post ran on 4/5.

For those who follow me on Facebook, I'm going to be running URLs to the 10 days' worth of Legal Schnauzer posts that were wrongfully blocked.

Facebook rewards trolls by putting a block on Legal Schnauzer URL, suggesting the company supports police who beat up women and break their bones

The beginnings of severe bruising on Carol's broken arm,
courtesy of Missouri cops.

Does Facebook support police brutality? Based on our experience over the past week, the answer appears to be yes.

Last Monday, I published this post about the injuries my wife, Carol, sustained when deputies in Greene County, Missouri, brutalized her during our unlawful eviction in September 2015. The post features photos that show in grim detail the beginnings of severe bruising on her left arm -- plus a lump likely caused by pooling blood and a bone fragment pushing against the skin -- including the photo above. All of the photos were taken at the Cox North emergency room in Springfield, just moments before X-rays revealed a comminuted fracture (broken in two or more places) that would require trauma surgery for repair.

What happened the day after the post went up? When I tried to publish a Legal Schnauzer post on Facebook, I received a notice that my blog URL had been deemed "spam" and "unsafe." I notified Facebook at least three times that it was mistaken; the post clearly is not spam, and my blog is published from a secure URL, so it is not unsafe. A number of readers also have alerted Facebook that it is wrongfully blocking Legal Schnauzer's URL. This has been going on for nine days, as of today, and my blog URL still is blocked as being "unsafe."

What is going on? It appears that police (or pro-police) trolls have whined to Facebook about my post that reveals their handiwork, falsely claiming it is spam. Facebook's policy evidently is to take the word of any troll who wants to attack someone who poses a threat to them -- and then to take forever to correct the mistake, or maybe neglect to correct it at all. Another blogger sees the attack as being Alabama based, and he might well be correct -- or it could be a joint Missouri/Alabama operation. (See below.)

With this sort of ignorant policy in place, is it any wonder Facebook has lost at least $80 billion in market value from it's ongoing data scandal?

Facebook is a big company, with more than 2 billion users, so we understand it might take awhile to fix a problem. But if the company is capable of applying a bogus block to a URL in a matter of hours (or less), why does it take more than a week to correct the error? And why can't a supposedly hip and up-to-date tech company develop a policy that at least makes a modicum of sense -- and does not reward trolls, those who abuse the FB platform?

At this point, we can only conclude Facebook supports police brutality -- and disfavors accurate and hard-hitting journalism that unmasks certain cops as thugs.

How did we reach that conclusion? We invite you to check out the "block notice" we received from Facebook, which still has not been corrected after nine days. It's at the end of this post.

We invite you to contact Facebook and ask why the company supports police brutality. Please feel free to share any responses you get.

Here is a take from Dael V. Escher, at steemit.com, in a post titled "The Foibles of Facebook censorship":

Facebook buckles to fascist demand from Alabama blocking this blogger.

Try posting this link on Facebook: legalschnauzer.blogspot.com it won't work no matter how you try.

Why? Because there are fake news supporters reporting this link on Facebook who live in Alabama.

Roger Shuler and his wife have been on the outs for years and treated like trash even though both had university jobs. (Carol's job actually was with an insurance company, and before that, she worked 18 years at Alabama Power.)

Check out Roger's blog and story. It is a long one: https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/search?q=jail 

He was arrested and jailed for almost a year without a warrant in America.

Why? Because he blogs about Alabama corruption. Yea, that's where Jeff Sessions came from, our "new" Atty. General.

I keep thinking about the silly insurance commercial "General" when I say it.

Roger and his wife supported Don Siegelman when he was under attack there and because of them trying to get the truth out in every which way, they have been condemned to a life of penury and forgotten.

Many times I have tried to bring this to the attention of contacts on social media, and it seems  to mostly fall on deaf ears.

Is Alabama GOP insider Jessica Medeiros Garrison positioning herself to ride on the Donald Trump train, even though she was a Jeb Bush gal not long ago?

Jessica Garrison and son: "Go, Jeb"
(From facebook.com)

A recent post on her Facebook page suggests Alabama GOP operative Jessica Medeiros Garrison is trying to jump on the Donald Trump train, now that it seems to be a winning proposition. That's odd because photos elsewhere on the page indicate Garrison has been a Jeb Bush supporter for some time.

Does that mean our gal Jessica -- best known for her extramarital affair with Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange -- is a political "two-timer," especially when it seems to her benefit?

The Facebook post in question does not amount to much; it simply is a photo of Garrison in a lovey-dovey pose with U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and U.S. Circuit Judge Bill Pryor. She has worked for both men in Alabama and has called Pryor her "mentor."

What was the purpose of the post? Well, I can't read Garrison's mind (and I sure would not want to try), but the post was dated November 20, which is two days after President-Elect Trump announced that Sessions would be his nominee as U.S. attorney general. One day after the Garrison post, on November 21, a "content warning" began to appear at Legal Schnauzer following our report about an explosion of interest on the Web about reporting here on Pryor's connections to 1990s gay-pornography via badpuppy.com. We also reported that a second nude photo of Pryor had surfaced, just in time for a possible confirmation hearing if he is nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.

For several weeks we predicted that, because of his ties to Sessions, Pryor would be a top candidate as Trump's choice to fill the vacant seat left by the late Antonin Scalia. Sure enough, on December 16, CNN and al.com reported that Pryor was one of two top candidates for the appointment, along with Diane Sykes from the Seventh Circuit.

So Garrison just happened to run a photo of herself with one Trump nominee and a likely Trump nominee. Gee, could Jessica be angling for a job in Washington, D.C., with the Trump administration -- even though she's under a child-custody order not to move more than 60 miles from her ex husband's home in Tuscaloosa? Could Jessica be looking for ways around that order, perhaps working for Sessions or Pryor from her home in Mountain Brook?

We will save that question for another day, but Garrison's post seems to have had the desired effect among her Facebook sycophants. Consider these comments from "friends" and responses from Garrison:

Peggy Harris Hollis: Girl, you really get around with the greatest people!

Jessica: I just choose to work for people I respect. Lucky to have had the opportunity to work for both of these great Americans.

Does that mean she respects Donald Trump, who is set to become "Pussy Grabber in Chief" on January 20. Bejeebus!! Here's another comment and response:

Neecie Tarrant: If you don't go to D.C., Jessica, please consider public service in Sessions' seat. Is that possible?

Jessica (blushing): Not in the cards for me at this point in my life. But I am certainly willing to help good people that want to serve. (Notice that Garrison doesn't say: "Holy crap, Batman! how could anyone think I'm remotely qualified to be a U.S. Senator? Does this "friend" have foam rubber for brains?" Nope Garrison gives the impression that she has the bona fides to be a U.S. Senator, but it's just not a convenient time for her now -- as in, "I have a kid, dammit!")

Speaking of kids, notice the photo above of Garrison and her little sprout, Michael. Note the head gear they are toting -- it says "Jeb" as in "Bush." Looks like Jess was all in for "Jeb," until he put the nation asleep during the GOP primaries and got crushed, run over by the Trump Train. Now, it looks like Jess might be angling for some kind of job with the world's most powerful "Pussy Grabber." After all, he's a man she can respect, and Jess has a long history of standing up for the rights of women.

I guess that includes the right for women to have their genitalia grabbed by some clown with a quick stiffy, especially if he's rich, and famous, and has the coloring of a Cheeto.

Is Jessica a loyal gal? Well last time I checked, Donald Trump and Jeb Bush weren't too fond of each other. From a recent Los Angeles Times article about the two GOP "giants":

As Donald Trump softens his harsh rhetoric on immigration, Jeb Bush has issued his own critique: The GOP nominee is “morphing” and Bush doesn’t like it.

"All the things that Donald Trump railed against, he seems to be morphing into — it’s kind of disturbing," Bush, who was trounced by Trump in the Republican primaries this year, said Thursday on WABC Radio.

Trump repeatedly castigated the former governor of Florida last spring for his call for a path to legal status for the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally.

In rallies and debates, Trump relentlessly called Bush “weak” and slammed his immigration plan as amnesty. He vowed instead to round up and deport everyone in the country illegally.

Would Jessica roll on Jeb Bush, without even a sloppy kiss goodbye? And what about Luther Strange, to whom she has pledged her everlasting fidelity?

Garrison has acknowledged, under oath, in court documents that reports about her affair with Strange likely have caused some in the GOP firmament to view her as "damaged goods." She and Strange both have said under oath that he had to take extraordinary steps to sweep the story under the bedspread and help save her job with the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) -- a job she no longer has, by the way.

More on that inside story coming soon.