Alabama Ethics Commission, led by Republican racist Frank "Butch" Ellis of Shelby County, gives AG Steve Marshall a free pass on unlawful campaign donation

Steve Marshall and "Luv Guv" Robert Bentley

The Alabama Ethics Commission yesterday voted to give Attorney General Steve Marshall a free pass for accepting more than $700,000 in unlawful campaign contributions from the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). In what should be a surprise to no one, the vote largely was engineered by Frank C. "Butch" Ellis, a commissioner from Shelby County, which widely is considered the most Republican, crooked, and racist county in Alabama.

From a report at al.com:

The Alabama Ethics Commission voted 3-2 today that there was insufficient evidence that Attorney General Steve Marshall violated the state campaign finance law.

Former Attorney General Troy King had filed the complaint and was at today’s meeting but left before the vote was taken.

King had alleged that Marshall’s campaign contributions from the Republican Attorneys General Association violated the state campaign finance law. Marshall has said the contributions were legal. King filed the complaint in July, while he and Marshall were engaged in a runoff campaign for the Republican nomination for attorney general. Marshall won the runoff and went on to win the general election over Joe Siegelman.

USA Today brought national attention to the RAGA donation in an article published on Nov. 5, the day before the midterm elections. How outrageous is the Alabama Ethics Commission's conduct in the Marshall matter. As we showed in a Dec. 5 post, it did not just start getting nutty with yesterday's vote:

Marshall, appointed AG in February 2017 before scandal-plagued governor Robert Bentley left office, defeated Democrat Joseph Siegelman in the November midterms despite national reports that he had accepted $735,000 from the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), which officials from both parties said violated Alabama law.

The Alabama Ethics Commission failed to resolve the issue before the Nov. 6 election, so complaints are pending, both with the ethics commission and the Montgomery County district attorney's office. Before the election, Siegelman noted that Marshall could be forced from office if the ethics commission applied state law properly.

Was there serious doubt the donation violated Alabama ethics law? Consider these words from Bill Britt, publisher of Alabama Political Reporter (APR), written on Oct. 11 about Marshall's cozy relationship with 3M, a major polluter in Alabama:

RAGA is not registered with the state and commingles its funds with other political action committees, masking the donors contrary to Alabama law. Ethics Commission Executive Director Tom Albritton knows Marshall’s contributions were unlawful, so does Secretary of State John Merrill, but no one is willing to act. Even Marshall himself is on the record saying the type of contributions he received from RAGA are illegal and banning such contributions was, “the only legal protection standing between Alabama voters and the reality or appearance of quid pro quo corruption.”

Troy King

 Perhaps the larger question for the Commission and the Alabama Republican Party is should a candidate who willingly takes illegal campaign contributions be allowed to remain on the ballot? . . .

The right remedy in the Marshall situation lies with the Alabama Republican Party, which is responsible for pursuing such violations and taking appropriate action, but the so-called party of law and order has taken a pass on the Marshall fiasco, choosing to remain silent.

So, even Republicans know the RAGA donations are unlawful, but Marshall is a favorite of the Mike Hubbard-Robert Bentley-Bob Riley wing of the party -- as evidenced by his recent firing of special-prosecutions chief Matt Hart. Does anyone expect that crowd to take ethics violations seriously?

APR reported yesterday that Troy King received notice of the hearing less than 24 hours in advance, and he was the primary complainant. That was a sign the fix was in.

Butch Ellis proved to be the fixer, a role with which he is quite familiar from his years of turning Shelby County into a racist, ethical sewer. How racist? Butch Ellis played a central role in a U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Butch Ellis' father, Handy Ellis, joined with notorious Birmingham Safety Commissioner Bull Connor to lead a walkout of Alabama delegates at the 1948 Democratic Convention. The issue of contention? Civil rights, primarily for black Americans:

Butch Ellis’s father was Handy Ellis, a former lieutenant governor and the chairman of the Alabama delegation at the 1948 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

With Birmingham Commissioner of Safety Bull Connor, Ellis led the Dixiecrat walkout of the convention after declaring that Alabama delegates were instructed “never to cast their vote for any candidate associated with a civil rights program such as adopted by this convention.”

Bottom line: Butch Ellis is the son of a prominent Dixiecrat, meaning he has been a thinly veiled white supremacist for much of his life. At yesterday's Ethics Commission meeting, Ellis stood up for the white elites who want a do-nothing AG like Steve Marshall, so they can keep Alabama as one of the most corrupt states in the nation. From al.com:

The commission heard a number of other cases behind closed doors today. After the commission reopened the meeting, Commissioner Butch Ellis made a motion that there was insufficient evidence that Marshall violated the state campaign finance law. Commissioner Beverlye Brady offered a substitute motion saying there were “ample facts” to show that Marshall had violated the law.

Butch Ellis

Brady’s motion was rejected on a 3-2 vote. Brady and Commissioner Charles Price voted for it. Voting no were Ellis, Commissioner John Plunk and Commission Chairman Jerry Fielding. The commission then voted to approve the Ellis motion on insufficient evidence on an identical 3-2 vote. That closed the case.

The Ethics Commission determines whether there is probable cause that the law was broken. Had Brady’s vote prevailed, the case would have been referred to a district attorney.

Brady and Fielding declined to comment on the case after the meeting ended.

Brady and Fielding probably could not comment because they were trying not to puke.

As noted above, complaints regarding the RAGA donation remain with Montgomery County District Attorney Daryl Bailey. Attorneys Julian McPhillips and Melissa Isaak apparently filed the complaint with Bailey's office because they expected a sham ruling from the Alabama Ethics Commission.

If that was the case, McPhillips and Isaak certainly proved to be on target. Is there any chance Daryl Bailey will be different, that he actually has respect for the rule of law? I'm not holding my breath.

Reporting on Steve Marshall's acceptance of illegal campaign funds in Alabama AG race shines light on the theft of our home via a wrongful foreclosure

Jessica Medeiros Garrison and Luther Strange

Reports on the funneling of illegal campaign cash to Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has unearthed evidence that might shine light on the theft of our house in Birmingham via a wrongful foreclosure.

Marshall, appointed AG in February 2017 before scandal-plagued governor Robert Bentley left office, defeated Democrat Joseph Siegelman in the November midterms despite national reports that he had accepted $735,000 from the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), which officials from both parties said violated Alabama law.

The Alabama Ethics Commission failed to resolve the issue before the Nov. 6 election, so complaints are pending, both with the ethics commission and the Montgomery County district attorney's office. Before the election, Siegelman noted that Marshall could be forced from office if the ethics commission applied state law properly.

How might this connect to the theft of our home? It comes around to Jessica Medeiros Garrison, an Alabama GOP operative and former executive director of RAGA. Garrison perhaps is best known for serving as campaign manager and mistress for Marshall's AG predecessor (and former U.S. Senator) Luther Strange. She used my accurate reporting on her extramarital affair with Strange to file a baseless lawsuit against me and to write a preposterously defamatory article about me at the women's fashion magazine, Marie Claire.

It all could spell trouble for JPMorgan Chase, which is the largest bank in the United States and the sixth largest in the world.

As for Garrison's lawsuit, it produced a $3.5-million default judgment from Jefferson County Circuit Judge Don Blankenship -- a black man who apparently has  no problem ignoring the rule of law to serve the interests of white elites. Blankeship's ruling has no basis in fact or law, and under the Alabama Constitution and relevant case law, is void because I never received notice of Garrison's application for default judgment or the hearing on said issue. The docket in the Garrison case shows I never was notified of her efforts to get a default judgment, which she applied for three times, and her "gift" from the court is a nullity that can be attacked as void at any time.

Until January 2016, Garrison was senior advisor to RAGA and the affiliated Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF). Before that, she was executive director of RAGA and president of RLDF. Garrison started shifting away from those positions when The New York Times exposed RAGA as a glorified shakedown outfit.

USA Today, in its Nov. 3 article that touched on the illegal contribution to Steve Marshall's campaign, shined light on corporate entities that have succumbed to RAGA shakedowns:

[Marshall's] GOP primary challenger, [Troy] King, raised $2.2 million, while Marshall’s Democratic opponent in the general election, Siegelman, has raised more than $606,000, much of it via small donations. About 83 percent of Siegelman’s campaign funds come from within the state, compared with 74 percent for Marshall’s, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of state campaign finance data. . . .

RAGA’s contribution represents about 20 percent of Marshall’s total fundraising. King sought a temporary restraining order barring the Marshall campaign from spending the RAGA money, arguing Alabama’s Fair Campaign Practices Act of 2010 banned political action committees active in the state’s elections from taking contributions from other PACs. Filings with the IRS show RAGA accepts contributions from super PACs such as the General Electric PAC and JP Morgan PAC.

This is where the mess hits close to (our) home. How? Our mortgage was held by Chase Mortgage, an affiliate of JPMorgan Chase,, which has dumped cash on the RAGA of Jessica Medeiros Garrison (former executive director) and Luther Strange (former member of the executive committee).

How is JP Morgan PAC tied to RAGA in the 2018 election cycle? From Troy King's letter to the Alabama Ethics Commission:

Now, during the 2018 election cycle, according to RAGA’s public filings with the Internal Revenue Service, RAGA’s PAC has again accepted a number of contributions from other PACs, including, earlier this year, nearly $16,000 from the J.P. Morgan PAC plus another $50,000 in PAC contributions in the last quarter of 2017. RAGA’s PAC has now, during this election cycle, made hundreds of thousands of dollars of contributions to Steve Marshall for Alabama, Inc.

Public documents show that in March 2014, when both Garrison and Strange were directly involved with RAGA, JP Morgan PAC gave $50,000 to the association. (See page 15 of the document embedded at the end of this post.) That was roughly one month before RAGA made a donation to the Luther Strange campaign, in the amount . . . of $50,000. It also just happened to be the same time frame in which our house went into foreclosure.

Did JP Morgan PAC make a direct contribution to Luther Strange, after it was more or less laundered through RAGA? The public does not know because the whole purpose of PAC-to-PAC transfers is to disguise the original source of funds -- and that's why they are illegal under Alabama law.

The Strange re-election campaign eventually returned the $50,000 to RAGA in 2014, so even "Big Lutha" seemed to acknowledge the donation likely was illegal. Steve Marshall has shown no signs of taking such a step, suggesting he is more corrupt than Luther Strange -- and that is quite an achievement.

Here on (our) home front, the question is this: Was Jessica Garrison in a position with RAGA to pick up the phone, contact someone at Chase Mortgage, and have a wrongful foreclosure launched on our home -- perhaps with Luther Strange's assistance? Did she, in fact, do that, causing us to lose not only our home, but just about all of our possessions due to brazen theft during an unlawful eviction after we were forced to move to Missouri?

If the answer to those questions is yes -- to borrow a phrase from Lindsey Graham -- there will be "holy hell to pay."

RAGA 1st Quarter 2014 by on Scribd

Jeff Sessions reportedly is planning a return to Alabama politics and the U.S. Senate, following his unceremonious ouster as Donald Trump's AG

Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions

(Updated at 9:30 a.m. on 11/8/18)

Less than 24 hours after Alabama voters essentially gave "two thumbs up" to corrupt politics, the man who is largely responsible for the state's toxic political culture was forced to resign as the nation's top law-enforcement official.

Now, we have news that Sessions is expected to return to state politics. From a report this morning at Alabama Political Reporter (APR):

Now-former Attorney General Jeff Sessions is reportedly eyeing a return to politics in the Yellowhammer State.

After Sessions announced his forced resignation Wednesday, two people familiar with his thinking told Politico that he is considering a run for his old seat as Alabama’s junior senator.

The seat is up for another election in 2020.

Democrat Doug Jones currently holds Sessions' old Senate seat. Here are details from the Politico report:

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions is considering running for his old Alabama Senate seat in 2020, according to two people familiar with his thinking.

Sessions was fired as attorney general Wednesday, less than 24 hours after Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives in the midterm elections. President Donald Trump had publicly savaged Sessions throughout his tenure, and his dismissal had long been expected.

After Sessions left the Senate in 2017, his vacated seat was won by Democrat Doug Jones in a special election upset. Jones is up for a full term in 2020, and he is widely viewed as the most vulnerable incumbent senator facing reelection given Alabama’s conservative tilt. Republicans are certain to contest the seat aggressively as they look to protect their majority. 

Former Republican Sen. Luther Strange, who was temporarily appointed to Sessions’ former seat, took to Twitter on Wednesday evening to encourage a comeback bid. 

“Jeff Sessions for Senate in 2020!” Strange wrote.

Would Sessions cruise back into his old Senate spot. Politico says the answer is "not necessarily":

Sessions, who spent two decades in the Senate, is practically a household name in his home state, and speculation has been simmering for weeks within Alabama political circles that he might seek a return. Yet, party officials stress that the 71-year-old Sessions wouldn’t necessarily face a clear path should he wage a comeback. Trump’s relentless attacks on the former attorney general, they say, have taken a toll on his popularity in the state.

And others are certain to be interested in running. GOP Rep. Bradley Byrne is widely talked about as a potential contender.

A small detail -- that Sessions lied multiple times to Congress about his interactions with Russian interests during the 2016 presidential campaign -- seems to be left out of the political calculus. Also ignored is evidence that the Alabama State Bar is providing cover for Sessions by ignoring bar complaints based on his false statements to Congress.

Doug Jones

As for Wednesday's news, how ironic is it that Donald Trump would fire Jeff Sessions as U.S. attorney general so soon after voters gave the Alabama Republican Party -- largely forged in Sessions' smarmy, crooked image -- resounding victories in yesterday's midterm elections. As a citizen who repeatedly has been cheated in the dysfunctional legal and political environment that Sessions helped create, I find it highly ironic that "the Evil Elf" now is being shown the door for failing to adequately protect a man -- who likely will go down as the most corrupt president in U.S. history -- from criminal investigation.

If anyone has the off-kilter moral compass to protect a glorified mobster like Donald Trump, it's Jeff Sessions. After all, he essentially created the postmodern era of political prosecutions in the "Heart of Dixie." But even Sessions could not ignore the mountain of evidence that he was connected to Russian election meddling in 2016 -- and, in fact, has been tied to the Russian mafia and its oligarchs while serving as U.S. senator -- and thus, had no choice but to recuse himself from the Trump-Russia investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

In a brazen attempt to derail the Mueller investigation, Trump had to find someone -- since Sessions could not do it -- to protect him from being held accountable for selling out his country to Vladimir Putin. In short, Sessions' No. 1 political talent is cheating, but forced to remove himself from anything involving the Mueller probe, he was useless as a cheater on Trump's behalf.

Now, THAT"S irony, but it doesn't end there. Consider the schizophrenic actions of Alabama voters in recent days: In a poll published Oct. 28, they said government corruption and ethics were their top concerns going into the midterms. So what did they do? By sizable majorities, they decided at least four statewide races by choosing candidates -- all Republicans -- with clear ties to corrupt politicians. Here is a rundown:

* Governor -- Kay Ivey swamped Democratic challenger Walt Maddox, 61 to 39 percent. Ivey has been paying the legal fees of her scandal-plagued predecessor, Robert "Luv Guv Bentley, even though state law does not require it. Ivey long has been aligned with former Gov. Bob Riley, the Big Kahuna of Alabama corruption. Does any of that bother Alabama voters, who supposedly are concerned about unethical government? Apparently not.

Kay Ivey and Walt Maddox

* Attorney General -- Steve Marshall defeated Democrat Joseph Siegelman, 60-40 percent, even though Marshall was appointed to the position by the hideously corrupt Bentley -- in exchange for a promise to investigate prosecutors in the case of former House Speaker Mike Hubbard. On top of that, Marshall accepted more than $700,000 in apparently unlawful campaign contributions from the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). Marshall could be prosecuted and removed from office, pronto, but that doesn't seem to trouble Alabama voters in the least.

* Alabama Supreme Court, Chief Justice -- Tom Parker easily defeated Democrat Robert Vance, 58-42 percent -- and that actually was the closest of these races. Parker long has been an ally of former Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was booted from the bench for directing lower-court judges to decline to issue same-sex marriage licenses in defiance of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In fairness to voters, they had no good choice in this race. Vance is nothing but a stooge for large corporate law firms, such as Maynard Cooper Gale, Balch Bingham, Adams and Reese/Lange Simpson.

* Alabama Supreme Court, Place 4 -- Jay Mitchell defeated Democrat Donna Smalley, 61-39 percent, even though he is directly tied to Mike Hubbard, who arguably is the poster boy for smelly political deals. As a partner at Maynard Cooper Gale, Mitchell was one of the architects of Hubbard's failed (so far) criminal appeal. Being tied to one of the most corrupt politicos in modern Alabama history did not hurt Mitchell's chances with voters.

How does a reasonable person even begin to explain all of the above? Well, some might claim large chunks of the Alabama electorate are ill-informed, backward, racist, or just plain dense -- and I would not necessarily argue with any of that.

But I think it goes deeper than any of those explanations. I think there is a more wide-ranging answer to what ails Alabama -- and many other states. We will address that in an upcoming post.

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

Joseph Siegelman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve Marshall and Robert Bentley

Consider just a few alarming questions that might raise:

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

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

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

Steve Marshall takes campaign cash from 3M, then refuses to join other states in suing the Minnesota polluter, suggesting he isn't fit to be Alabama AG

Steve Marshall and Robert "Luv Guv" Bentley,
the disgraced governor who appointed him. 

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has taken $2,500 in campaign donations from 3M Company at the same time he refuses to join other states in suing the Minnesota-based polluter. Does this point to criminal activity by Alabama's chief law-enforcement officer? The answer is "maybe." Does this point to a short-sighted, compromised, unethical attorney general? The answer is "definitely."

Alabama Political Reporter (APR) broke the story of Marshall's cozy relationship with 3M and noted that his response had been mostly to feign ignorance and attack reporters who ask pesky questions on the subject.

Records from the Alabama Secretary of State (SOS) show 3M gave Marshall $2,000 on 9/7/2018. The company gave $500 on 4/3/18. 3M is just one of several polluters to dump cash into Marshall's coffers. (Records showing the 3M donations are embedded at the end of this post.)

How could this be criminal? If it involves a "quid pro quo" (something for something) agreement -- such as, "We will contribute to your campaign if you promise not to sue us"-- that would appear to constitute federal funds bribery under 18 U.S.C. 666. That's the same statute under which former Alabama governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy wrongly were convicted and sent to federal prison for roughly six years each.

It's ironic, then, that Marshall's Democratic opponent is Joseph Siegelman, Don's son. When the 3M funds are combined with $735,000 in illegal contributions Marshall took from the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA, former employer of Jessica Medeiros Garrison, one-time campaign manager and mistress for former AG Luther Strange), it raises serious questions about the incumbent's fitness for office.

We have no doubt that Joseph Siegelman is the better candidate, and APR publisher Bill Britt seems to leaning in the same direction, with an editorial about Marshall's dubious donations from RAGA. Writes Britt:

RAGA is not registered with the state and commingles its funds with other political action committees, masking the donors contrary to Alabama law. Ethics Commission Executive Director Tom Albritton knows Marshall’s contributions were unlawful, so does Secretary of State John Merrill, but no one is willing to act. Even Marshall himself is on the record saying the type of contributions he received from RAGA are illegal and banning such contributions was, “the only legal protection standing between Alabama voters and the reality or appearance of quid pro quo corruption.”

Perhaps the larger question for the Commission and the Alabama Republican Party is should a candidate who willingly takes illegal campaign contributions be allowed to remain on the ballot? . . .

The right remedy in the Marshall situation lies with the Alabama Republican Party, which is responsible for pursuing such violations and taking appropriate action, but the so-called party of law and order has taken a pass on the Marshall fiasco, choosing to remain silent.

Republican Party Chair Terry Lathan and the Executive Committee could end the charade by immediately moving not to certify Marshall’s votes in the upcoming general election. Of course, this would mean conceding the race to Democrat Joe Siegelman. This might not be palatable, but how much more bitter is a win by cheating?

Since the party will not act on the issue, it falls to Ethics Commission Chairman Judge Jerry Fielding who can swiftly move to bring the Marshall matter before the Commission. . . .

It is now time for the commission to act because the people have a right to know if their attorney general is a cheat.

As for 3M, its donations to Marshall are about as smelly as those from RAGA. Writes APR's Josh Moon:

When the attorney general of Minnesota learned of the years of pollution dumped from a 3M plant into his state’s waterways, he filed a lawsuit demanding the company clean up its mess.

A few years later, on the eve of the trial, 3M settled, agreeing to pay $850 million to make Minnesota’s water clean again.

Michigan has followed suit, with its Republican governor asking his attorney general to also file suit against 3M.

At least three other states have also filed lawsuits against the company, with court records documenting decades of pollution and also concerted efforts by 3M and other polluters to mask the dangers of that pollution.

Alabama isn’t one of those states.

Oh, we have the pollution. Testing near a 3M plant in Decatur has shown high levels of pollutants similar to the ones in Minnesota and Michigan, and it has left residents in Lawrence and Morgan counties afraid to drink their tap water.

But Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall isn’t filing a lawsuit.

Instead, he’s busy threatening reporters and pretending like he has no clue about the three-year-long ordeal.

Does Marshall deal with such issues in a forthright manner? Nope, he draws a page from the Donald Trump playbook and blames the press for his own shortcomings. Writes Moon:

Multiple sources have confirmed to APR that a spokesperson in Marshall’s office, communications director Mike Lewis, contacted WHNT-TV station, at Marshall’s direction, to complain about reporter Chelsea Brentzel, who is the station’s lead reporter on the ongoing water issues in north Alabama.

Brentzel’s mistake: Accurate reporting.

With residents clamoring about the water situation, she and WHNT have produced multiple stories, asking for comments from multiple state officials. That included Marshall, whose office continually ignored their requests for comment.

The one time Brentzel was able to corner the AG, back in July, to ask if any legal action was planned, he said the Alabama Department of Environmental Management hadn’t told him to file a lawsuit.

But when Brentzel quoted Marshall’s opponent, Joseph Siegelman, in a recent story saying he would take action if elected and questioning Marshall’s lack of action, suddenly the station couldn’t get the AG’s office off the phone.

Sources familiar with the calls said Lewis, at Marshall’s direction, complained about Brentzel’s recent story, calling it “political.” Because making sure the people of the state can drink their damn water is political now.

And then there was the threat.

Lewis informed the WHNT bosses that the AG’s office planned to freeze out Brentzel and would no longer respond to her requests, according to the sources.

Heck, 3M is just one of several polluters who appear to be playing footsy with Steve Marshall. Consider a few others who have dumped cash on him, per SOS records:

* International Paper PAC -- two donations totaling $5,000

* Koch Industries (Wichita, KS) -- two donations totaling $10,000

* Monsanto (St. Louis, MO) -- one donation of $1,000

* McWane Inc. -- two donations totaling $20,000

* Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama -- four donations totaling $4,000

Alabama appellate court affirms most of the convictions against former Speaker Mike Hubbard, but the question remains: What took them so long?

Mike Hubbard

When an appellate court issues a ruling in a high-profile criminal matter, the finding itself usually is the big news. But that is not the case in Michael Gregory Hubbard v. State of Alabama.

The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on Monday upheld convictions on 11 of 12 ethics-law violations against Hubbard, former speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives. That should not have been a surprise to anyone -- although Hubbard lawyer Bill Baxley claimed to be "shocked" -- given the mountain of evidence pointing toward Hubbard's guilt. But the primary question in this case was: What in the world took the court so long?

A jury of Hubbard's peers in Lee County convicted him on 12 of 23 counts in June 2016. Yes, that is more than two years ago. Hubbard filed his first appellate brief in May 2017, which is roughly 15 months ago. Yes, courts can be slow, but they aren't that slow.

A number of observers have speculated that the all-Republican appellate courts -- perhaps with the assistance of the right-leaning Alabama State Bar -- were stalling on the Hubbard ruling until after the 2018 midterm elections in November. The thinking apparently was that not even an Alabama court could be so shameless as to overturn all of the convictions in the Hubbard case -- so, with an affirmance virtually a given, Republican leaders feared that releasing the appellate ruling before November could damage GOP hopes at the ballot box.

(What's that you're saying? American courts are supposed to be above such unseemly political considerations? Hah, your mind must be stuck in another place and time. Alabama courts are the place where integrity went to die, and courts in many other states aren't much better.)

So, we are left with this question: If the Hubbard ruling was delayed by political considerations, why did the Alabama legal hierarchy change directions and release the 160-page opinion now, as the calendar has not even hit Labor Day?

That suggests something happened to change certain privileged white, conservative minds. What could that have been? Well, others have been engaging in speculation about the Hubbard delay for months, so I feel entitled now to join the fray.

Hubbard is a card-carrying member of the Riley Inc. political machine, so former Gov. Bob Riley and his cronies (including oily lawyer/son, Rob Riley) probably want to see the former speaker get off. Is that because of a deep and abiding affection for Hubbard. Probably not. A number of political insiders have stated that Hubbard, if he actually is headed to prison, is likely to dish enough dirt to make sure a number of politicos go down with him. Thoughts of a bitter and talkative Hubbard in an orange jumpsuit could be causing indigestion in some quarters.

Alabama appellate courts (and the Alabama State Bar) are infested with Jeff Sessions/Bob Riley butt-sniffers who would have no problem helping a crook like Hubbard go free. But we get the impression that the right-wing legal gangsters who have turned Alabama into a justice cesspool are reluctant to draw attention to themselves right now. And that probably explains release of the Hubbard ruling this week, as opposed to, say, early 2019.

I have a guess or two about what might have raised enough concern -- even fear -- to cause Alabama legal elites to stop sitting on the Hubbard ruling -- and here they are:

(1)  The Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen Connection -- Manafort, Donald Trump's former campaign chair, was found guilty last week of financial crimes. Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney, reached a plea agreement on the same day involving campaign-finance violations. Could those events be causing consternation in Alabama legal circles?

Well, both men have connections to Alabama -- Manafort via his work with Sessions and other pro-business types in a failed attempt to land an Air Force refueling tanker contract, an effort that had ties to Russian oligarch and reputed mafioso Oleg Deripaska; Cohen via his efforts to help Tennessee businessman Franklin Haney get a stalled nuclear plant in northeast Alabama off the ground.

It's likely Manafort and Cohen will reach an agreement to cooperate with Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the Trump-Russia investigation, and federal agents already have raided Cohen's home and office to seize documents. Could all of that direct Mueller's attention to Alabama and the possible corrupting influences of Russian interests on the state's corporate, political, and legal climate? Did such concerns cause the Hubbard ruling to be issued sooner rather than later?


(2) Joseph Siegelman and the Fear of God -- We have posited that some of the state's conservative elites (including a Democrat or two) are not too keen on Joseph Siegelman's run for Alabama attorney general. That's because certain elites played roles in the political prosecution of Joseph's father, former Gov. Don Siegelman. Joseph Siegelman is not even 30 years old, but he won the Democratic primary and will face the GOP incumbent Steve Marshall in November. Marshall appears to be the clear favorite, but if Joseph Siegelman were to pull an upset and take office with a mindset to extract retribution from those who caused his father to unlawfully spend more than six years in federal prison . . . well, that could cause sleepless nights for a few prominent Alabamians.

On top of that, Marshall was appointed by Robert "Luv Guv" Bentley, the state's hideously corrupt former governor -- and that was a deal that caused even some Republicans to wretch; it could be a major turnoff for large blocks of voters.

Also, the peculiar death of Marshall's wife, Bridgette Gentry Marshall, in late June still has not been fully put to bed. One gets the sense that a scandal -- involving his wife's death or some other issue -- could bite Marshall between now and November 6. If that were to happen, it could throw the election in Siegelman's direction and lead to a clean-up effort the state desperately needs, but certain elites are determined to avoid.

Are my theories far-fetched? Maybe. Are they completely out to lunch? I don't think so.

Jill Simpson -- whistle blower, opposition researcher, and retired attorney -- probably knows more than any other human about the corrupting influences that plague Alabama's public infrastructure, and she shared her thoughts about the Hubbard decision in a Facebook post.  Simpson seems to be on a wavelength not all that far from my own:

I figure Hubbard will appeal this case to the Alabama Supreme Court, but hats off to the Alabama Appeals Court for going ahead and deciding -- and maybe the Supreme Court will decide quickly, affirming the convictions against Hubbard, and we can all see him locked up. 

It is time for lying Mike Hubbard to go to jail. Mike sent out over a million emails lying about me as the Siegelman witness, plus mail circulars that even made it to my family home, to my sick, elderly mother before she died. It was full of lies about me ,told by Rob Riley and Mike Hubbard. 

I spent many years after that event seeing that all of the stories of Hubbard's wrongdoing came out in the press. I worked behind the scenes to see the stories told on his corruption within the Republican Party. Moral of the story: Lie about me. and I am going to out your misdeeds. 

The Alabama Resistance and I were viciously attacked by the same gang of thugs that went after [Hubbard prosecutor] Matt Hart and Roger Shuler, who saw the stories told on their bad behavior. These Alabama Gang thugs were run by Jeff Sessions, Billy Canary, Rob Riley, Baron Coleman, Ali Akbar, Stacy McCain, and [Hubbard lawyer] Lance Bell, with help from Tripp Vickers and Mark Moody at the Alabama Bar.

Federal Judge Madeline Haikala sprang into action on FOIA case on the same date Joseph Siegelman's run for attorney general hit the Alabama press -- hmmm

Joseph and Don Siegelman

Why did U.S. Judge Madeline Haikala sit on the Siegelman FOIA case for roughly 10 months before springing into action that brought the case to a close in February 2018? It's almost as if something happened in February that prompted Haikala to rip off three slap-dash rulings, ending with the case being dismissed in a fashion that almost certainly was contrary to law.

As it turns out, something did happen in February -- and if that caused Haikala to dismiss the FOIA case, it speaks to political payback and provides another example of hideous corruption in Alabama's federal courts.

Here is the really disturbing question: What if Haikala was taking signals from one or more "power brokers," someone who had an interest in making sure the truth about the Don Siegelman prosecution remains under wraps? What if the power broker was thinking ahead to concerns about the outcome of what likely will be the most bitterly contested race -- at least behind the scenes -- in Alabama's midterm elections of November 2018.

The peculiar handling and outcome of the FOIA case suggests something foul is in the air. And that almost always happens when politics and the federal judiciary intermingle in Alabama.

So, what happened in February that might have sparked action in the FOIA case? News broke on Feb. 9 that Joseph Siegelman had qualified with the Democratic Party to run as attorney general. Ironically, that's the same date Haikala -- after letting the matter lie dormant so long that many people probably forgot out it -- issued the first of three rulings that swept the case out the door, almost under cover of darkness. The docket shows Haikala's other rulings came on Feb. 23 and 28 -- and, boom, the FOIA case was gone, after many Alabamians likely had forgotten it ever arrived.

Joseph Siegelman brought the FOIA case, long before announcing his AG candidacy, seeking Department of Justice (DOJ) documents from his father's prosecution -- especially documents related to the dubious recusal of then U.S. attorney Leura Canary. Various attorneys connected to Don Siegelman had been seeking such documents, via FOIA, for roughly 12 years. The most recent effort, in the form of Joseph Siegelman's federal lawsuit, ended with the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) turning over requested documents -- but they were so heavily redacted due to claimed exemptions under FOIA -- as to be virtually useless.

Haikala did nothing to make OPR turn over information in a readable format. Was someone unhappy that Joseph Siegelman decided to run for attorney general? Were Haikala's hurried and nonsensical rulings on the FOIA matter a form of political payback? Was someone pulling the judge's strings, meaning Haikala is corrupt and accomplishing little other than to add to the sewer-like qualities of Alabama's justice system?

If the answer to that last one is yes, the power broker in question probably is named Doug Jones, as in the U.S. Senator who upset Roy Moore last December to claim Jeff Sessions' old seat. Consider the evidence we've already presented:

(1) Doug Jones is a "Democrat" (in name only) who once served as Don Siegelman's defense attorney, so a reasonable person might expect him to support Joseph Siegelman for AG. But that is not the case -- and Jones and Don Siegelman had a heated discussion on the issue in February, just before the senior Siegelman had emergency heart surgery. In fact, Don Siegelman's surgery was on Feb. 9, the same day his son qualified as an AG candidate and Madeline Haikala made her first ruling that would lead to dismissal of the FOIA case.

(2) Jones made it clear that he supported Bradley Arant lawyer Chris Christie, who was Joseph Siegelman's opponent in the Democratic primary. Another Christie supporter was Sirote Permutt lawyer Barry Ragsdale, who defended former federal judge Mark Fuller as he faced wife-beating charges. Fuller, of course, railroaded the Don Siegelman prosecution, causing the former governor and codefendant Richard Scrushy to unlawfully spend roughly six years each in prison.

(3) Alabama Democrats don't like to hear this, but evidence strongly suggests Doug Jones is more loyal to the Bob Riley wing of the Republican Party -- which includes such luminaries as Jeff Sessions; Bill Canary; Luther Strange; and Bob's oily son, Rob "Uday" Riley -- than he is to any Democratic causes. After all, Jones and Rob Riley teamed up on a federal HealthSouth lawsuit, which allowed them to take home a hefty chunk of $51 million in attorney fees. That probably is the No. 1 reason Jones could afford a Senate run.

(4) Could Joseph Siegelman, as Alabama AG, pose a threat to Doug Jones, Rob Riley, and their political allies? The answer is yes -- if the younger Siegelman is serious about cleaning up his home state, which badly needs cleansing. Doug Jones took a number of curious actions as Don Siegelman's defense lawyer -- including charging him $300,000 without even taking the case to trial. And Rob Riley played a central role in setting up the baseless Siegelman prosecution, which led to Bob Riley becoming two-term governor of Alabama -- with the help of Siegelman votes disappearing overnight in GOP stronghold Baldwin County, flipping the 2002 election.

(5) It's not clear how the Obama administration (Democrats) came to appoint a federal judge who clearly does not abide by Democratic principles, such as respect for the rule of law, due process, and equal protection. Doug Jones has touted his connections to Obama  VP Joe Biden, so perhaps Jones pushed for Haikala's nomination, even though she came from a conservative, pro-corporate law firm (Lightfoot Franklin), and like Jones himself, is more or less a Republican in disguise. Does Haikala owe here judicial seat to Doug Jones, and is that why he might have had her ear on the Siegelman FOIA matter?

Joseph Siegelman defeated Chris Christie in the June primary and is set to face incumbent Steve Marshall, who has the support of the state's white conservative elites -- and that group probably includes Doug Jones. A determined younger Siegelman in the AG's chair might lead to investigations that could expose the truth behind his father's prosecution -- and it could spell big trouble for Doug Jones, Rob Riley, and their allies.

Given the ugliness in Alabama politics over the past 25 years or so, this much is certain: Powerful white elites, both Republicans and Democrats, see Joseph Siegelman as a threat, and they will pull out all the stops to make sure he does not become the chief law-enforcement officer of Alabama. That includes the strong possibility that, if the race appears to be remotely close, it will be stolen for Steve Marshall, who is likely to protect the corrupt status quo.

If the Siegelmans are committed to a Joseph Siegelman victory, they had better develop a rock-solid plan to prevent election theft. Our bet is that they will definitely need it.

Federal judge in Siegelman FOIA case seems to favor privacy of government employees over the public's right to know if its business was conducted lawfully

Joseph and Don Siegelman

Which is more important: (A) That the public be assured its justice-related work is conducted ethically; or (B) The personal privacy of justice-related government workers is protected?

In a semi-functional democracy, the answer clearly should be "A." But the recent dismissal of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman suggests the answer is "B" -- at least in the minds of federal judges and Department of Justice (DOJ) employees.

As we recently reported, a FOIA lawsuit from Birmingham attorney Joseph Siegelman (Don's son and a candidate for attorney general of Alabama) produced documents from the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that were, according to a source close to the case, "so heavily redacted they were worthless." That means a 12-year government cover-up of documents about the "recusal" of Leura Canary (then U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama) -- and other key issues in the Siegelman prosecution -- will continue to keep the public in the dark.

OPR turned over the documents last April for in camera review, and U.S. District Judge Madeline Haikala -- surprise, surprise -- sided with the government. Haikala let the case stay dormant for roughly 10 months before dashing off three rulings in February 2018, the last being a final order, dismissing the case on Feb. 28.

This is the same Haikala,-- an Obama appointee and former attorney with Birmingham's Lightfoot Franklin firm, -- who twisted the facts and law into a pretzel in order to let Madison police officer Eric Parker off on criminal charges after he had body slammed Sureshbhai Patel (a grandfather from India), causing spinal injuries. We reported a four-part series about the myriad ways Haikala butchered the law in the Patel case. Our view is that she butchered the Siegelman FOIA case, too.

An online summary of the case docket indicates Haikala sided with the government because it claimed certain information requested was exempt under FOIA.  The final docket entry reads as follows:

2018-02-28 -- 28 -- FINAL ORDER - On February 23, 2018, OPR gave notice that it produced the identified non-exempt portions of its report to Mr. Siegelman. (Doc. 27). Because OPR produced the portions that are not protected from disclosure under FOIA exemptions 3, 5, 6, and 7(C), Mr. Siegelman's request for injunctive relief is now moot. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 2/28/2018. (KEK) (Entered: 02/28/2018)

FOIA includes nine exemptions, where the government does not have to produce information. In the Siegelman matter, OPR claimed exemptions 3, 5, 6, and 7(c). Let's examine the language in each of those four exemptions:

Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law.

Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies, including those protected by the:

1. Deliberative Process Privilege (provided the records were created less than 25 years before the date on which they were requested)
2. Attorney-Work Product Privilege
3. Attorney-Client Privilege

Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual's personal privacy

Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that

7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings
7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication
7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy

Detailed information is available at the following links: Exemption 3,  Exemption 5, Exemption 6, and Exemption 7. Without diving too deeply into the minutiae of FOIA law, let's try to look at this from the "reasonable man" perspective.

The government spent more than five years investigating Don Siegelman and co-defendant Richard Scrushy. In fact, the investigation dragged on so long that it passed the five-year statute of limitations, meaning the case, by law, could not go to trial. The prosecutors, judges, their offices, and courthouses -- all resources on the government's side of the case -- were taxpayer funded. After a jury reached a guilty verdict that ran contrary to facts and law, Siegelman and Scrushy were sent to federal prison for roughly six years each -- all at taxpayer expense.

Madeline Haikala

Does the public have a right to know if the prosecution was conducted lawfully? Well, the case cost taxpayers millions of dollars, so the answer clearly is yes. Why does the Office of Professional Responsibility, then,  seemingly feel it has no responsibility to the public? Why do OPR lawyers -- with assistance from a federal judge -- use FOIA as a tool to cloak information in darkness, rather than to shine light on government processes?

Exemptions 3 and 5 involve mostly inter-agency communications and legal privileges that can be arcane and mind-numbing. Without access to the full court file, it's hard to take an informed view of those, so we won't spent time on them.

Exemptions 6 and 7(c), both dealing with "personal privacy" (apparently of government employees, in the Siegelman case), are deeply alarming. Certainly Leura Canary and others who worked on the Siegelman prosecution have "personal privacy," to a certain extent. Let's imagine Canary used her work computer to jot out a grocery list, make a guest list for a party, or write a letter to a relative. If those showed up in a FOIA search, they understandably would be redacted as private.

But when Canary and her staff put on their prosecutors' hats and conduct public business, why should they be entitled to "personal privacy"? Why should their actions on the Siegelman case -- generally considered the most flagrant political prosecution in U.S. history -- be considered "private"?

Exemption 7, for example, applies to records that were "compiled for law enforcement purposes." But multiple courts have held it must a a "proper law enforcement purpose." What if the Siegelman case was brought for political purposes, which had nothing to do with legitimate law enforcement? That probably is the central question that Joseph Siegelman's FOIA lawsuit sought to answer. But the government apparently is allowed to unilaterally declare -- in a "trust me" sort of way -- that it acted in good faith, without providing any evidence to support that assertion.

As for Exemption 6, withheld information must fall in the category of " "personnel and medical files and similar files." Why would Joseph Siegelman be interested in personnel and medical files of DOJ employees? He wouldn't. Why would such files have an impact on his father's prosecution? They wouldn't. It's hard to imagine how Exemptions 6 and 7 could apply to the Siegelman FOIA request.

From  a practical standpoint, why would Leura Canary, her staff, and OPR be concerned about a FOIA request if the Siegelman case was conducted lawfully, for "proper law enforcement purposes?

That the government has been stonewalling now for 12 years suggests someone has something to hide. And the public should be outraged that it's still in hiding.

U.S. Judge Madeline Haikala dismisses FOIA case on Siegelman prosecution, as DOJ is allowed to produce documents so heavily redacted as to be worthless

Joseph and Don Siegelman

A lawsuit seeking information from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) about the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman has been dismissed. As often is the case with federal-court matters in Alabama, the final ruling is dubious -- in large part, because Judge Madeline Haikala received documents from the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) last spring and sat on the case for roughly 10 months before making a final ruling.

Does Haikala's ruling make sense under the law.? We don't have access to the entire court file, so it's hard to make a determination on that question. But an online summary of the case docket raises troubling questions and suggests powerful conservative forces -- both in Alabama and Washington, D.C. -- are trying to keep the lid on what really happened in a case that has become known as the most notorious political prosecution in American history.

Here is the most disturbing part: OPR turned over documents that "were so heavily redacted they were worthless," a source close to the case says -- and Haikala let the government get away with that. Haikala,an Obama appointee and former attorney with Birmingham's Lightfoot Franklin firm, is the same judge who twisted the facts and law into a pretzel in order to let Madison police officer Eric Parker off on criminal charges after he had body slammed Sureshbhai Patel (a grandfather from India), causing spinal injuries. We reported a four-part series about the myriad ways Haikala butchered the law in the Patel case.

Is there any reason to think Haikala got it right in the Siegelman matter? I don't see any.

The case started when Birmingham attorney Joseph Siegelman (Don's son and currently a candidate for Alabama attorney general) filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking documents about the prosecution that caused his father to spend more than six years in federal prison. Of particular interest were documents related to the supposed recusal of Leura Canary, who was U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama on the Siegelman case -- even though her husband, Bill Canary, had worked for the campaign of Siegelman's chief opponent, Bob Riley.

Madeline Haikala

Joseph Siegelman's lawsuit is the latest in an effort that has gone on for more than a decade, struggling to unlock the truth behind his father's case and meeting OPR stonewall tactics at every turn. This is from a Legal Schnauzer post of April 17, 2017:

The road to seeking government documents has been long and winding in the Siegelman case. It started with a FOIA request in 2006, a FOIA lawsuit in 2009, and years of stonewalling by both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

Are these documents sensitive? Well, the government has covered them up for 11 years, when both Republicans and Democrats controlled the White House. That has led to the current Joseph Siegelman lawsuit, with OPR supposedly turning over the documents and Haikala supposedly set to act with integrity while reviewing them outside of public view.

At the time those words were written, OPR had just turned over the requested documents for Haikala's in camera review. We now know those documents were so redacted, with information blacked out at every turn, that they provided almost no information about Canary's "recusal" or anything else related to the Don Siegelman prosecution. To justify the redactions, OPR apparently claimed the material was exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Haikala -- surprise, surprise -- sided with OPR, in a ruling that suggests we might as well not have a FOIA law if the government can get away with producing blacked-out documents that reveal nothing.

Here are the final four entries from Joseph Siegelman's FOIA case:

2017-04-10 -- 25 -- NOTICE by Office of Professional Responsibility, United States Department of Justice (Notice of Submission of Ex Parte, In Camera Material) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 04/10/2017)

2018-02-09 -- 26 -- ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - The Court ORDERS OPR to SHOW CAUSE by February 23, 2018 why the portions of the report identified above are subject to the FOIA exemptions claimed and cannot be segregated and produced, or to produce those portions of the report to the plaintiff. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 2/9/2018. (KEK) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

2018-02-23 -- 27 -- RESPONSE to re 26 Show Cause Order filed by Office of Professional Responsibility, United States Department of Justice. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 02/23/2018)

2018-02-28 -- 28 -- FINAL ORDER - On February 23, 2018, OPR gave notice that it produced the identified non-exempt portions of its report to Mr. Siegelman. (Doc. 27). Because OPR produced the portions that are not protected from disclosure under FOIA exemptions 3, 5, 6, and 7(C), Mr. Siegelman's request for injunctive relief is now moot. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 2/28/2018. (KEK) (Entered: 02/28/2018)

Notice that OPR turned over the requested (and heavily redacted) documents for Haikala's review on April 10, 2017, and the case went dormant until February 2018. Then, in a span of 19 days, Haikala issued three orders that disposed of the case -- with no sign she even considered any Siegelman arguments to OPR's claims of exemption -- with a final order dated February 28, 2018.

Does that smell funny to you -- especially when you consider Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions played a major role in launching the Siegelman investigation while serving as U.S. senator from Alabama? It sure smells funny to me, given that Sessions and his allies -- including some "Democrats" -- likely had major influence on Haikala, and her outlook for career advancement.

Bridgette Gentry Marshall's death remains under investigation in Murfreesboro, TN, with no official ruling of suicide and confusion about firearm recovery

Steve and Bridgette Marshall

The death of Bridgette Gentry Marshall remains under investigation and has not officially been ruled a suicide, according to a report at Alabama Political Reporter (APR).

Ms. Marshall, the wife of Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, died on June 24 in Murfreesboro, TN, reportedly from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. But the case still is open, with no official finding of suicide and no mention in police reports that a firearm was recovered, reports APR's Josh Moon. From the article:

The investigation into the death of Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall’s wife remains an open case in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and police officials there would not answer on Monday whether Bridgette Marshall’s death has officially been ruled a suicide.

Additionally, Murfreesboro Police will not disclose basic details about the firearm used in Marshall’s death, and the official police report omitted any mention of the recovery of the weapon.

What to make of the report's failure to mention that a firearm was recovered? That's hard to figure, and Moon writes:

APR was told by multiple current law enforcement officials who viewed the MPD report that leaving the recovery of the firearm — along with at least a general description of the weapon recovered — off the police report was odd. In light of those statements, APR contacted MPD to inquire about the weapon and why it wasn’t listed on the report.

MPD spokeswoman Officer Amy Norville told APR on Monday that a firearm was recovered by police at the scene, but she said, “we are not releasing the information about it because the investigation is still ongoing.”

When asked to clarify whether MPD had officially listed the cause of death as suicide, Norville responded: “According to the Detective on the case he has not closed the file, so it is still listed as an open investigation.”

How did such confusion enter the picture on the Marshall death? Moon explains:

On that initial report, the first officer on the scene, Eric Deleon, wrote that after discovering Marshall’s body on the couch inside an apartment on Puckett Creek Crossing, he contacted MPD’s Criminal Investigations Division, which took over the scene. Deleon listed “suicide” underneath a section of the report entitled “Description of Offense.”

According to law enforcement sources, that is likely not MPD’s official determination on the case, but was how officers initially viewed the incident. Additional evidence may or may not change that evaluation prior to an official designation.

APR requested to speak with an MPD official, and also asked specifically if the department still viewed Marshall’s death as a suicide, but neither question was answered.

According to the Tennessee Medical Examiner’s Office, an autopsy was performed early last week, but the results will not be available for several weeks.

Steve Marshall, who was appointed by scandal-plagued former Gov. Robert Bentley, faces a July 17 runoff against former AG Troy King. The winner will take on Democrat Joseph Siegelman in the Nov. 6 general election.