Tales of intrigue from Tommy Gallion: An intrepid attorney, with deep Southern roots, shines a bright light in the darkest corners of Alabama politics

Shadow Government, Southern Style: A Saga of Political Corruption From D.C. to Dixie (2020), by Thomas T. Gallion III; available from Amazon and Kindle eBooks

Tommy Gallion's Shadow Government  might be the most searing examination of Deep-South political corruption in the postmodern era. It is a work of considerable depth and breadth, deserving of its own review -- which we will endeavor to provide in an upcoming post. It also is "in the moment," filled with essentially breaking stories, largely unknown to the reading public here in the midst of election season, that would merit space in any major newspaper. Gallion set out to become an investigative journalist before settling into a long legal career, with a base in Montgomery, AL. Shadow Government shows that he has the searching eye and inquisitive mind of  a reporter.

Tommy Gallion

 Before delving into our review in a few weeks, we will produce a series of posts that examine some of the breaking news found in Shadow Government's pages. This is the first of those posts:

Doug Jones and Rob Riley visit Richard Scrushy's barn to check out "antique cars"

U.S. Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) and Rob Riley (lawyer son of former GOP governor Bob Riley) might seem like an unlikely pairing. But here is how they resorted to subterfuge in an effort to gain information they could use against Richard Scrushy, former HealthSouth CEO and codefendant in the political prosecution of former Democratic governor Don Siegelman. From Shadow Government, Southern Style:

During the summer of 2018, I met with Scrushy to learn what had happened to him. . . . I asked Scrushy if they found any documents in his barn that they used against him. He said there were many documents in that barn, all of which were taken by [the law firm of Rob Campbell, Bob Riley's son-in-law] when Judge [Alwin] Horn issued his ruling against Scrushy. Since Scrushy isn't a lawyer, I explained to him that all Riley and Jones wanted to do do was look and see what was there so they would know what documents to take or subpoena. I explained to him that I considered Riley's and Jones's lying to him about why they wanted to go into his barn fraud in the indictment.

Scrushy explained to me how this all came about: "One day, Rob Riley and Doug Jones showed up at my home and said they wanted to look at my collection of cars I kept in our barn. So I showed them around, and they saw that I had numerous pallets of documents from the federal trial in which I had been found not guilty. I didn't suspect anything because I trusted Rob and took them to the barn and left them inside because I had to go to another appointment."

After I heard this, I explained to Scrushy that after I had retrieved the documents in my investigation, I thought I knew what had happened to him. It took me hours to reach the understanding that this was part of a scheme by these plaintiffs' lawyers to take Scrushy down and obtain control of all of his assets. After I revealed to Scrushy what I had uncovered, he realized that Riley and Jones were lying to him and this was just an unethical legal ploy to set him up for a lawsuit and take over everything he and his family owned. It was now apparent that they were there to look at his personal files, not his antique cars. I have checked and do not find that Riley nor Jones has any antique cars.

Apparently, though, they saw what they needed to see. Shortly after their barn visit, Doug Jones and Rob Riley, along with Campbell's firm and several other lawyers, sued Richard Scrushy and cost him everything he had. Since Scrushy was a big supporter of Rob Riley's father and even held a fundraiser for him, he naturally trusted Rob. He discovered, with my help, that Republican Rob Riley and Democrat Doug Jones were close and were both plaintiffs' lawyers. Scrushy brought me documents and told me the entire story as to what happened to him, and I was stunned as the whole picture of this fraud came together so clearly. Scrushy had been in prison several years when Riley, Jones, et al., filed the final lawsuit. The judge would not continue the trial and the judge knew that Scrushy could not get out of prison to defend himself. This was a non-jury trial, and it appears the fix was in: The judge ruled with the plaintiffs in this civil trial although Scrushy had been found not guilty by a jury in a previous criminal trial that contained the same facts. The judge stripped Scrushy of everything he owned. Three very significant factors merit being noted concerning Judge Horn's court in this case: There was no jury of Scrushy's peers, there were no live witnesses, and Scrushy was not allowed to attend the trial. Welcome to justice, Alabama style!

Doug Jones ignores criminal investigation at Austal USA as he decries Mobile firm's loss of U.S. Navy shipbuilding contract to competitor in Wisconsin

Austal USA shipyard in Mobile

U.S. Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) recently voiced displeasure with the U.S. Navy's decision to award a shipbuilding contract to a Wisconsin company over a bid from an Alabama firm, Mobile-based Austal USA. At first glance, this seems to be a story of a politician who is disappointed at his failure to bring home the pork for one of his state's large employers. But at second glance, Jones appears to be hopelessly ill-informed -- or he simply is lying to his constituents. Perhaps of more concern -- especially to progressive voters of color, who largely put the senator in office -- Jones might be tossing bouquets at former GOP Gov. Bob Riley, one of the slimiest politicians in modern American history. That suggests, as we've noted before, that Jones is a classic DINO (Democrat In Name Only).

How did Jones react to news that Austal USA had come in second to Fincantieri, of Wisconsin? Consider this report from Alabama Political Reporter (APR), with the headline "Jones disappointed that Austal lost frigate contract to Fincantieri":

Austal USA’s bid for the U.S. Navy’s $795 million contract to build the next-generation guided missile Frigate was rejected in favor of a design offered by Fincantieri Marinette Marine, a Wisconsin-based shipbuilder. U.S. Senator Doug Jones, D-Alabama, did not hide his disappointment with the Navy’s decision. Austal builds the Independence class littoral combat ship (LCS), expeditionary fast transports, and other navy vessels in Mobile.

“I am disappointed that the Navy chose not to award the contract for the next-generation guided-missile frigate to Austal USA,” Jones said. “Austal is the only U.S. shipbuilder providing ships to the Navy on time and on budget right now. It is my understanding that this award is for the first ten of a potential 20-ship buy, and I am confident that if Austal chooses to compete for future awards, the Navy will find Austal to be the best choice.

“Just last December, Austal USA celebrated 20 years of shipbuilding in Mobile,” Jones said. “Austal’s extraordinary success is testament to its unmatched local workforce and its ability to build highly capable, cost-effective ships safely and on schedule. I especially appreciate Austal’s commitment to the health and safety of its employees and the community, as well as to our national security, through the workforce protection measures it has implemented and its economic support donations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our shipbuilders are critical to our national defense, and I am grateful for their dedication during this difficult time.”

Fincantieri will build an adapted variant of the Italian FREMM (European multi-purpose frigate) in Wisconsin at its Marinette shipyard. The contract also includes plans for up to nine more ships from the firm — a deal that’s ultimately worth more than $5.5 billion.

Are Jones' sad-sack utterances telling the full story? Not exactly. For that, you need to turn to a January 2019 Legal Schnauzer post titled "Former Alabama Gov. Bob Riley is a lobbyist for Austal USA, the Mobile ship builder that is under federal investigation and has international financial woes, too":

Former Alabama Gov. Bob Riley is the chief lobbyist for a Mobile ship-building company that federal investigators raided last week. Austal USA, with its international headquarters in Henderson, Western Australia, long has been a pet project for Riley -- both while he was governor and since he left office.

Austal USA is one of Mobile's largest employers, with a workforce of about 4,000. It builds Littoral Combat Ships and Expeditionary Fast Transports for the U.S. Navy, and al.com reports it is competing in a selection process for a series of next-generation frigates.

The nature of the investigation remains unclear, but it appears to have grown from a financial probe in Australia. From a report at maritime-executive.com:

Australian ferry and defense shipbuilder Austal is cooperating with an Australian probe into market disclosures it made in 2015 regarding cost overruns on LCS-6, the Littoral Combat Ship USS Jackson. Austal builds one of the U.S. Navy's two LCS variants, the aluminum-hulled Independence-class ships.

In a filing released through the Australian Stock Exchange on Thursday, Austal confirmed that it is "assisting an investigation by ASIC (the Australian Securities and Investments Commission) into market announcements . . . with respect to earnings from its Littoral Combat Ship program." Its American division, Austal USA, confirmed Friday that it is also cooperating with the U.S. Navy in an unspecified investigation. Local media reported that officials from the Department of Defense, the NCIS and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service were spotted at the Austal USA yard in Mobile, Alabama.

So, Austal USA and its parent company have problems with cost overruns, apparent financial chicanery, and a Defense Department criminal investigation, but Doug Jones claims the company should have been awarded the Frigate contract?

As for Bob Riley, here is how we put it in our earlier post. For the record, Doug Jones is legal buddies with former First Son and oily operative Rob Riley:

Could this develop into a full-blown scandal, with Bob Riley at the center of it? It's too early to tell, but Riley (often in conjunction with one or both of his oily children -- Rob Riley and Minda Riley Campbell) has been tied to corruption for years. So far, the Rileys have managed to mostly dodge accountability. But if they are found to be involved in an international financial scam, involving misuse of U.S. defense funds . . . that tune could change.

Either way, Alabamians should be keeping a close eye on this story. Riley and his successor as governor, Robert Bentley, dumped millions of taxpayer dollars into Austal USA. Right now, it looks like that could have been a bad bet -- with everyday Alabamians being left holding the bag.

Journalism watchdog group designates my "arrest for blogging" in Alabama as a "censorship violation," proving Rob Riley is a liar and Claud Neilson is a fraud

My mugshot from the Shelby County Jail in Alabama.

We recently discovered that my 2013 "arrest for blogging" in Shelby County, Alabama, has been designated a "censorship violation" by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). That teaches us at least three important characteristics about the defamation case -- a 100 percent civil matter -- brought by Republican thug Rob Riley and lobbyist Liberty Duke, that caused me to spend five months in the Shelby County Jail and become the only U.S. journalist to be imprisoned in the past 14 years.

Our research indicates I am the only American reporter to be incarcerated totally outside the law -- it is legal for a court to jail a journalist for failing to turn over evidence related to a possible criminal case, but mine had nothing to do with a criminal matter -- and perhaps the only one ever to be imprisoned because of a preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order, both of which have been found to be unlawful "prior restraints" under more than 200 years of First Amendment law.

The CPJ's censorship designation also shines unflattering light on some of the bad actors who made my arrest happen, bringing a touch of Russia to the United States, well before Donald Trump aligned us with a country that is controlled by, and associated with, organized crime:

(1) Specially appointed (and retired) Circuit Judge Claud Neilson is a con man, who unlawfully acted as a one-man censor, which is plainly outside U.S. law and makes all of his rulings void as products of fraud on the court;

(2) There was no jury because Riley and Duke never asked for one. Instead, they wanted Neilson, probably under instructions from the Riley camp or its associates, to designate my reporting as defamatory without the slightest bit of discovery or deliberation by jurors. The only evidence was an affidavit from Liberty Duke, essentially claiming she had never engaged in a romantic relationship with Rob Riley; curiously, Riley never filed any document, or made any statement under oath, denying the relationship with Duke. Because I was not allowed to challenge Duke's affidavit via discovery, and no jury was involved, my reporting never has been found to be defamatory, as a matter of law. And yet, I lost five months of my freedom because of journalism that never has been found to be anything other than accurate.

(3) Rob Riley is a liar, which should not be stunning news to anyone who has followed Alabama politics over the past 20 years or so. In an interview with CPJ while I was in jail, Riley declared that the law supported his efforts. He, of course, cited no law to support that claim, and he clearly did not con the folks at CPJ; otherwise, they would not have declared the case a matter of censorship.

Let's take a closer look at these three issues, working from the bottom up:

(3) This is from a November 2013 interview of Rob Riley by CPJ reporter Sara Rafsky, titled "Censorship in Alabama's Shelby County":

Riley said in a telephone interview he has a right to seek injunctive relief in a defamation case and there is legal precedent for doing so. He said someone who decides "to make up a lie, destroy someone's reputation, that's not journalism."

Riley told CPJ: "Shuler has a history of making up things and writing things that are outlandish lies...I am going to pursue every avenue possible to me in the courts to defend my name, my family and my business...He has no proof this is true. He has just decided to be a cyber-bully and make stuff up and I've had enough."

Did Rafsky or her ogranization believe Rob Riley? Well, just look at the headline; it essentially identifies Riley as an accomplice to censorship, meaning the law provides no support for his actions. Also, consider these words from later in Rafsky's article, referencing the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP):

Leading press freedom and civil rights groups say the ruling contradicts decades of First Amendment jurisprudence and does so in complete secrecy. As the RCFP said: "Neither a default judgment nor a full adjudication on the merits of the defamation claims appears to have occurred...Courts have determined that bans on speech prior to such determinations are prior restraints. The Supreme Court has found prior restraints to be presumptively unconstitutional and has never upheld one." The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an amicus curiae brief in the case on November 1, expressed exasperation in its motion for leave to file. "Indeed, because the entire record is sealed, the ACLU is forced to rely on Internet postings of documents for information regarding the Court's proceedings. There is simply no legal justification for the filing of every document under seal," the ACLU said, noting the irony that its brief is most likely to now also fall under seal (the document was posted online by Legal Schnauzer).

Both the RCFP, in a letter it filed in the case, and the ACLU mention New York Times Co. v. United States, the landmark 1971 Supreme Court decision which allowed publication of the Pentagon Papers and appeared to settle the issue of prior restraint definitively in the United States. The ruling conceded wiggle room only for the most exceptional situations, such as publishing troop movements in wartime or preventing imminent "nuclear holocaust."

(2) Why is a judge forbidden to act as a one-man censor, as Neilson did in my case? Consider these words from Bernard v. Gulf Oil Co., 619 F. 2d 459 (5th Cir., 1980, citations omitted):

Prior restraint has traditionally been defined as a "predetermined judicial prohibition restraining specified expression . . .." Litwack, The Doctrine of Prior Restraint, 12 Harv.C.R.-C.L.Rev. 519, 520 (1977). This expansive definition has not often been further elaborated. There are, however, four separate but related features that may serve to distinguish prior restraints from limitations on free speech imposed by subsequent restraints.

1. Origin. A prior restraint is generally judicial rather than legislative in origin, although an enabling statute may authorize the judicial suppression of publication. Near v. Minnesota, supra. The essence of prior restraint is that it places specific communications under the personal censorship of the judge. Kalven, Foreword: Even When a Nation is at War, 85 Harv.L.Rev. 3, 33 (1971).

Neilson had every reason to know he could not act as a one-man censor, but he did it anyway. This again points to fraud on the court, perpetrated by Neilson and likely others, which would make all of his rulings void and subject to being vacated.

(1) Press groups have blasted Neilson for his handling of Riley, et al v. Roger Shuler, et al, and perhaps none did a more thorough job than the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Freedom of Expression, which is based at the University of Virginia. The center issues "Jefferson Muzzles Awards" each year to those who committed one of the year's "more egregious or ridiculous affronts to free expression." Neilson was an "honoree" for 2014-15, and it even drew coverage from al.com. Here is the Jefferson Center's basic citation for Neilson's "award":

Alabama Circuit Court Judge Claud D. Neilson for ignoring a basic tenant of defamation law that “equity will not enjoin a libel” and holding blogger Roger Shuler in contempt of court until he removed allegedly defamatory statements from his website. Shuler spent five months in jail before finally agreeing to remove the statements because he felt he could not endure jail any longer.

The center then takes a deep dive into issues of the case:

Alabama resident Roger Shuler is a former newspaper reporter who since 2007 has maintained the blog Legal Schnauzer. The blog aims to “scale all obstacles in pursuit of truth and justice” and since its founding Shuler has used it to allege a wide variety of illegal or unethical activities by Alabama’s public officials and political figures.

In late 2013, Shuler posted claims that Rob Riley, son of a former Alabama Governor and active member of the Republican Party, was engaged in an extra-marital affair. Riley strongly denied the allegation and went to court seeking an injunction prohibiting Shuler from writing anything further about the alleged affair and asking that all posts about Riley be removed from the blog. At a hearing in which Shuler was not present, acting Circuit Judge Claud Neilson issued the requested injunction, effectively placing a prior restraint on Shuler’s speech. Shuler did not comply with the injunction, however, and not only refused to remove his earlier posts on Riley but also soon wrote a new one. Shuler’s non-compliance landed him in jail for contempt of court. He remained in jail for 5 months until he could not bear incarceration any longer. In March 2014, Shuler had his wife remove the allegedly defamatory posts about Riley and he was released from jail.

While in many circumstances it is not unusual to find someone in contempt of court for refusing to obey a court order, it is virtually unheard of in the context of allegedly defamatory speech. Were it otherwise, individuals could effectively silence critics by merely alleging their speech to be defamatory without actually having to prove it. To avoid this, the established remedy for reputation harming falsehoods is post-publication relief, not pre-publication censorship. Yet Judge Neilson issued an injunction without any finding that Shuler’s posts about Riley were defamatory. By issuing a prior restraint on Shuler’s speech, Judge Neilson employed a legal mechanism that the U.S. Supreme Court has described as “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” Moreover, Judge Neilson’s unconstitutional injunction deprived a U.S. citizen of his liberty for 5 months. In hopes that it will inspire him to learn what any law student in a basic First Amendment course already knows, Alabama Judge Claud Neilson is awarded a 2015 Jefferson Muzzle.

When a law enforcement officer went to Shuler’s house to arrest him for contempt of court, an altercation occurred resulting in a resisting arrest charge against Shuler. That matter involves legal issues that are not relevant for the purposes of this Muzzle.

Many other questions arise from the trampling of the First Amendment found in Riley v. Shuler. Here are a few:

* Why did Rob Riley produce no affidavit, or any form of sworn statement, denying an affair with Liberty Duke? Why did only Duke produce such a document?

* Why did Birmingham attorney David Gespass, during two visits with me in jail, offer no path to justice? His strategy essentially was to get the whole thing over as quickly as possible, apparently to the benefit of Rob Riley, with no benefit to me. Here are words from a Gesspass letter:

"I do not think the petitioners are expecting money damages, as the complaint alleges you have no resources, but they are asking for costs and attorney fees for the injunctive relief and that can end up being tens of thousands of dollars. Thus, there is something to be said for having this case resolved as quickly as possible at the trial level and appealing the constitutional issues."

Then, we have this, from the same letter:

"Another consideration is how much discovery do you want to engage in. If discovery is conducted, they will want you to identify your source, which I would assume you would not be willing to do unless they were willing to come forward on their own. Obviously, if you do not reveal them, that will weaken your ability to defend the case, and that, too, argues in favor of getting it done quickly, and making constitutional arguments, rather than defending on the grounds that the statements were all true."

Notice the references in both statements to getting he case resolved quickly, with no mention of damages for the harm done to Carol and me. Also notice that Gespass seems to be unaware that the burden of proof is on Riley and Duke. It was their duty to prove my reporting was false, and if they fail at that, I wouldn't have to prove it is true. Gespass refers only to discovery directed at me, without mentioning the discovery (emails, text messages, letters, photographs) we could direct at Riley and Duke.

What kind of attorney is David Gespass? A piss-poor one, who in this case, apparently was trying to protect Rob Riley.

* How did Christina Crow, a small-town attorney (Union Springs) from a small-time firm who served as Liberty Duke's lawyer, wind up as the current president of the Alabama State Bar?

Sources have been providing information that shines light on all of those questions and reveals the real motivations behind a bogus defamation lawsuit that caused me to land in jail for five months.

We invite you to stay tuned


(To be continued)

Committee to Protect Journalists 2019 survey shows no U.S. reporter has been incarcerated since my arrest in 2013, putting Alabama in company with Iran, Iraq, Uganda, Russia, Egypt, and other rogue states

My mugshot from the Shelby County Jail in Alabama.

The decade of the 2010s is coming to a close, and in that time frame, only one U.S. journalist has been incarcerated. Who is it? You are reading him right now. In roughly the past 14 years, only one U.S. journalist has been arrested for what a journalism Web site calls a "censorship violation" (by a court). Again, you are reading him.

I've tended to describe my five-month incarceration in Shelby County, AL, beginning on Oct. 23, 2013, as an "arrest for blogging." But I like the term "censorship violation" better because it plainly states that specially assigned Circuit Judge Claud Neilson acted outside the law in ordering my arrest, and Homewood lawyer Rob Riley and his "colleague" (lobbyist Liberty Duke) acted outside the law in seeking my arrest -- based on a preliminary injunction that even a creepy, vexatious fruit loop like Ken "Popehat" White recognized as wildly unconstitutional.

In December 2013, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) released a list of imprisoned reporters around the globe and gave me the distinction of being the only journalist in the Western Hemisphere to be jailed. CPJ recently released its 2019 survey, and it confirms one point about my arrest of which I've been uncertain: I am, in fact, the last U.S. journalist to be incarcerated. Since my release in March 2014, no other American reporter has been arrested on our shores.

How do I know that? For the first time, the 2019 CPJ survey includes a database of all journalists who have been arrested from 1992 through 2018. It shows that no American journalist has been arrested since that calm fall evening in 2013 when Shelby County deputy Chris Blevins broke into the basement/garage portion of our home -- without showing a warrant, stating he had a warrant, or even stating that a warrant existed -- shoved me to a concrete floor three times, doused me with pepper spray, and dragged me out of my home, where his partner, Jason Valenti, threatened to break my arms as I lay on my own driveway, numb and disoriented from the pepper spray.

From CPJ's 2019 survey, by Elana Beiser and titled "China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt are world's worst jailers of journalists":

The number of journalists imprisoned globally for their work in 2019 remained near record highs, as China tightened its iron grip on the press and Turkey, having stamped out virtually all independent reporting, released journalists awaiting trial or appeal. Authoritarianism, instability, and protests in the Middle East led to a rise in the number of journalists locked up in the region -- particularly in Saudi Arabia, which is now on par with Egypt as the third worst jailer worldwide.

In its annual global survey, the Committee to Protect Journalists found at least 250 journalists in jail in relation to their work, compared with an adjusted 255 a year earlier. The highest number of journalists imprisoned in any year since CPJ began keeping track is 273 in 2016. After China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, the worst jailers are Eritrea, Vietnam, and Iran.

While the majority of journalists imprisoned worldwide face anti-state charges, in line with recent years, the number charged with “false news” rose to 30 compared with 28 last year. Use of the charge, which the government of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi applies most prolifically, has climbed steeply since 2012, when CPJ found only one journalist worldwide facing the allegation. In the past year, repressive countries including Russia and Singapore have enacted laws criminalizing the publication of “fake news.”

This year’s census marks the first time in four years that Turkey has not been the world’s worst jailer, but the reduced number of prisoners does not signal an improved situation for the Turkish media. Rather, the fall to 47 journalists in jail from 68 last year reflects the successful efforts by the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to stamp out independent reporting and criticism by closing down more than 100 news outlets and lodging terror-related charges against many of their staff. With the industry gutted by government shutdowns and takeovers, and scores of journalists in exile, jobless, or cowed into self-censorship, authorities on October 24 enacted a legislative package that granted new appeals on convictions for certain offenses -- including “propaganda for a terrorist organization,” a favorite charge of prosecutors -- and shortened some pretrial detention periods.

Want to see my place on the list? Here's how I did it:

* Click on the database link;

* Go to the drop-down box under "Show" and click "Imprisoned";

* Use the drop-down box under "Years" to select "2006 to 2019." (Note: I started with 2006 because that's the year San Franciso-based videographer Joshua Wolf was arrested after taking video of a protest, where a court later determined a crime might have taken place and ordered Wolf to turn over his video as possible evidence. Wolf refused and was arrested. Such judicial orders related to possible crimes are lawful in the United States.)

* That search turns up 1,176 journalists. The list is alphabetized by first name, and Wolf appears on page 26, and the charge against him is listed as "retaliatory."

* I turn up on page 46, with a charge of "censorship violation." You can click on my name and find this summary of case:

Shuler, whose blog Legal Schnauzer specializes in allegations of corruption and scandal in Republican circles in Alabama, was arrested on contempt of court charges for failure to comply with an October 1, 2013, preliminary injunction prohibiting him from publishing certain stories on his blog.

The charges stem from a defamation suit brought by prominent local attorney Robert Riley, Jr., son of a two-term former Alabama governor and a rumored future political candidate himself. The suit is related to Shuler's blog posts in July 2013 that claimed Riley had an extramarital affair and offered details.

Riley vehemently denies the allegations. In an interview with CPJ, Riley said he has a right to seek injunctive relief in a defamation case and there is legal precedent for doing so. He said someone who decides "to make up a lie, destroy someone's reputation, that's not journalism."

As the case was pending, the Circuit Court of Shelby County issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting Shuler from publishing more about the alleged affair. When Shuler continued to publish stories about Riley on his blog, the lawyer filed a petition asking that the blogger be held in contempt. He was arrested weeks later.

Leading press freedom and civil rights groups said the injunction contradicted decades of First Amendment jurisprudence and did so in complete secrecy, as all records in the case were initially sealed by the court. The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press wrote: "Neither a default judgment nor a full adjudication on the merits of the defamation claims appears to have occurred. ... Courts have determined that bans on speech prior to such determinations are prior restraints. The Supreme Court has found prior restraints to be presumptively unconstitutional and has never upheld one."

On November 12, 2013, the judge in the case filed a permanent injunction against Shuler and said he would unseal the court documents. It was not clear whether the permanent injunction pertained only to past defamatory content, such as a takedown order, or applied to future speech. In a footnote in the ruling, the judge said Shuler would remain imprisoned until he complied with the order to remove the statements. Carol Shuler wrote on Legal Schnauzer that her husband said in court that he could not remove the content from a jail cell.

Here is a little exercise I would encourage readers to try. Once you get to page 46 of the CPJ database, where my name appears, check out the origins of other journalists who appear on that page. They come from places such as Iran, Cuba, Uganda, Bangladesh, Congo, Iraq, Russia, Egypt, and Turkey. Shelby County, Alabama -- in terms of constitutional freedoms -- keeps some pretty disreputable company, and it suggests "The Heart of Dixie" has become a backwater and a police state, probably driven largely by former U.S. Senator and ex-Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions and his associates, who include racist Trump adviser Stephen Miller.

How will this situation change if Trump is "re-elected" in 2020? It almost certainly will not get better.

Below is a video about the CPJ's 2019 report:

AG William Barr hints that cop critics should not receive police protection, suggesting thugs with badges should be free to wreak havoc in communities

U.S. Attorney General William Barr said earlier this week that if some communities do not start showing more respect for cops, they might not get police protection. (See video above.)

Barr made the remarks while presenting the Third Annual Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service in Policing. Are Barr's comments pure nonsense? We would say yes, given that he seems to be suggesting that citizens whose taxpayer dollars fund law enforcement might not receive protection if they fail to bow sufficiently to cops. Barr also seems to ignore widely reported incidents of cops trafficking in violence against citizens, rather than offering protection. Finally, Barr's remarks are wildly out of line with the Schnauzer household's experiences with officers, which we have reported on frequently here at the blog -- and we happen to be white liberals who have been attacked by cop thugs while living in two bright red states, Alabama and Missouri -- even though it is clear black Americans receive the brunt of police misconduct.

Before I started reporting on political and legal corruption in Alabama -- much of it tied to statewide political figures, such as Jeff Sessions, Luther Strange, Bob Riley, Rob Riley, Bill Pryor, and Doug Jones -- my wife, Carol, and I had sparkling clean records and never had experienced a significant encounter with cops. Now, we both have been physically beaten by cops and spent time in jails -- me in Alabama (for five months); Carol in Missouri (for a few hours, with her time reduced because she needed a trip to a hospital for treatment of a broken arm, courtesy of cops.)

How goofy are Barr's remarks? Well, he somehow managed to compare the experiences of today's cops with those of military troops returning home from Vietnam. A report from NBC News provides details:

During a ceremony to honor police officers, Barr said crowds applaud departing troops and show their approval for individual service members in airports, but police get no cheers when they roll out of the precinct and get no ticker-tape parades when they come home.

In the Vietnam era, he said, the troops who served in that conflict bore the brunt of people opposed to the war.

"The respect and gratitude owed them was not given, and it took decades for the American people to realize that," Barr said. It's good to see troops today getting the proper recognition, he added.

"But I think today the American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers. And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves. And if communities don't give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need."

Civil-rights groups were quick to take issue with Barr, as NBC News reports:

"Support and respect are earned, not given as the result of a demand from those who carry badges and guns," said Jeffrey Robinson of the ACLU. "Attorney General Barr is telling communities across the country to bow their heads in respect to police even if those same police are violating their rights and killing people without justification."

Vanita Gupta, who headed the Civil Rights Division under President Barack Obama, said, "The idea that the attorney general of the United States, the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, is recommending abandoning communities as retribution for pushing for police reform or criticizing policing practices, is profoundly dangerous and irresponsible."

Carol and I disagree with Vanita Gupta's assessment. If cops were to abandon our neighborhood, we would applaud their exit. Neither of us ever has suffered significant harm at the hands of a so-called street criminal. Cops, on the other hand, have broken into our homes twice and beaten both of us -- leaving Carol with an arm that needed about eight hours of trauma surgery for repair. We have yet to see cops make a community problem better. Multiple times, we've seen them make problems worse. Here are a few "highlights" from out experiences with cops:

* When Mike McGarity, our criminally inclined neighbor, started repeatedly trespassing on our property (along with his kids and guests), we first tried having a rational conversation with McGarity, letting him know that the trespassers from his property were not welcome on ours. When that proved fruitless, I contacted an attorney who sent written warning, and we eventually called the Shelby County Sheriff's office. We asked the officer if he would visit McGarity and explain the law to him, since we weren't able to make him understand. "We don't do that," officer Michael Greene said. "We just write reports."

* In 2013, after I reported on Rob Riley's relationship with lobbyist Liberty Duke, plus Judge Bill Pryor's ties to 1980s and '90s gay pornography, Alabama deputies started swarming our property, with officer Chris Blevins eventually breaking into our home -- without showing a warrant, indicating he had a warrant, or stating his purpose for being there. -- beating me up, dousing me with pepper spray, and  hauling me for a five-month stay in jail. At the time, I was the first U.S. journalist to be incarcerated since 2006, and the only one in the western hemisphere to be jailed in 2013.

* In September 2015, Missouri deputies conducted an unlawful eviction at our duplex apartment, pointing an assault rifle at my head and slamming Carol so brutally to the ground, and yanking on her arms with such force, that they induced a comminuted fracture of her left arm -- the kind of injury that normally is seen in car crashes or other forms of intense trauma.

* Alabama cops brought a bogus resisting-arrest charge against me, and Missouri cops brought a false assault charge against Carol -- claiming she assaulted one of them, instead of the other way around. Those incidents led to court proceedings, where we watched cops lie repeatedly under oath, with at least one clear instance of perjury.

As for William Barr, it's not fully clear what he meant with his recent remarks. From HuffPost:

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for clarification on who specifically Barr was referring to when he mentioned “communities” and what he meant by people finding themselves without police protection.

But American Bridge, a liberal super PAC that first flagged the comments, said the attorney general was referring to communities of color that have historically had a contentious relationship with law enforcement due to police brutality, mass incarceration and racial profiling.

“The Attorney General isn’t being subtle and that shouldn’t surprise us considering this administration’s record,” American Bridge spokesperson Jeb Fain told HuffPost in a statement. “When it comes to communities of color, he sees justice and equal protection under the law as subject to conditions.

“Barr’s words are as revealing as they are disturbing ― flagrantly dismissive of the rights of Americans of color, disrespectful to countless law enforcement officers who work hard to serve their communities, and full of a continuing disregard for the rule of law.”

Would Barr have much concern for our experiences with cops? Probably not, based on the HuffPost report:

The attorney general has proved before that he does not support the more humane criminal justice reform that’s coming to states, counties and local jurisdictions across the country. Since taking over as attorney general in February, Barr has maintained the “tough on crime” approach that President Donald Trump has adopted.

In August, Barr told the Fraternal Order of Police ― the country’s largest police organization ― that there should be “zero tolerance for resisting police.” The attorney general gave an emotionally charged speech going after local prosecutors he accused of making police officers’ jobs more difficult because of their more progressive approaches to criminal cases.

“There is another development that is demoralizing to law enforcement and dangerous to public safety,” Barr said in his August speech. “That is the emergence in some of our large cities of district attorneys that style themselves as ‘social justice’ reformers, who spend their time undercutting the police, letting criminals off the hook and refusing to enforce the law.”

Barr is also behind the Justice Department’s push to reinstate the federal death penalty, something that hasn’t been put to use since 2003. The attorney general scheduled five executions for this month and the next, though a district judge ordered a preliminary injunction while some of the people Barr wants to put to death legally challenge his workaround for reinstating capital punishment at the federal level. The injunction was upheld this week by a federal appeals court. The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to make a ruling.

Hints of violence and retaliation fill the air after Vindman deposition in Trump inquiry, but as targets of right-wing attacks for years, that is no surprise to us

Alexander Vindman

Leading Democrats in the Trump impeachment inquiry said after yesterday's testimony from a top Ukraine expert that they feared Republicans were seeking to reveal a whistleblower's identity so they could "punish" him and perhaps even jeopardize his safety.

The statements might be shocking to many Americans, like something you might expect to hear in a third-world country. But they hold little shock value here at Legal Schnauzer because my wife, Carol, and I have been under attack from right-wingers for at least 12 years -- all because I've dared to report on judicial and political corruption in Alabama and beyond. We've been targeted with loss of our jobs, theft of our home (via a wrongful foreclosure), financial devastation, use of law enforcement for physical violence, and much more.

Roger Shuler mugshot after "arrest for blogging"

In October 2013, deputies beat me up inside our Birmingham home, doused me with pepper spray (with an officer threatening to break my arm), and dragged me to the Shelby County Jail for a five-month stay -- apparently the only journalist in U.S. history to be incarcerated because of a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction that has been unlawful under more than 230 years of First Amendment law, without even the slightest hint of criminal allegations on my part. Nope, I reported accurately on the relationship between GOP thug Rob Riley and lobbyist Liberty Duke -- my journalism, as a matter of law, never has been proven in court to be false or defamatory -- and that's enough to earn you the brown-shirt treatment in the Alabama that produced a racist U.S. senator like Jeff Sessions, who is aligned with many of our attackers.

In September 2015, after we were forced to move to my home state of Missouri, deputies conducted an unlawful eviction on our apartment, pointed an assault rifle at my head, and manhandled Carol so viciously that they broke her left arm (shattered it, really, above the elbow), leaving her with a comminuted fracture (a break into three or more fragments) that required roughly eight hours of trauma surgery and involved complications that could have put her life at risk.

As you can see, the use of government force to "punish" someone is not new to us. We have been on the front line for that -- all because of my role and history as a journalist, which is much like that of a whistleblower. This is from an NBC News report about yesterday's 10-hour testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman:

Top Democrats at the deposition of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, said his testimony Tuesday was “extremely disturbing” and praised him for appearing despite attacks from the White House.

The closed-door deposition before House impeachment investigators lasted more than 10 hours.

Once it concluded, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told reporters that he hopes Vindman's example of patriotism "will be emulated by others."

Schiff said that he was "deeply appalled" by attacks made against Vindman on Fox News Tuesday night.

"The suggestion that because he's of Ukrainian origin, that he has some dual royalty...this purple heart recipient deserved better than that scandalous attack," Schiff said.

Schiff should not be surprised that conservatives, when they feel threatened, are prone to attack honest Americans in a vicious manner. Our legal woes started in a December 1999 when a Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama employee named Mike McGarity -- with an extensive criminal record -- moved in next door to us and promptly tried to take over our yard.That grew into attacks from legal and political elites -- probably because Dax Swatek, son of McGarity lawyer Bill Swatek, has ties to political luminaries such as Bill Canary (former head of the Business Council of Alabama, with connections to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) and Karl Rove. The first sign of such an attack probably came in 2008 (after I had started this blog in July 2007) when I was cheated out of my job at UAB -- where I had worked for 20 years -- because of my reporting on the political prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman. I don't have to guess that I was fired because of my reporting (on my own time, with my own resources) on the Siegelman matter. A UAB HR employee named Anita Bonasera told me that's why I was targeted, and I recorded the conversation. (See video at the end of this post.)

X-ray of Carol Shuler's broken arm.

Roughly one year later, Carol was cheated out of her job at Infinity Insurance, and that greased the skids for our downhill slide on the economic ladder. That was in 2009, and little did we imagine the amount of violence that lay in our future.

Comments after yesterday's Vindman deposition, strongly hinted at potential violence and retaliation. From NBC News:

Regarding reported attempts by GOP lawmakers to get Vindman to reveal the whistleblower's identity, Schiff said that Trump would love to "punish" the whistleblower. He also said the president's comments and actions have "jeopardized the whistleblower's safety."

"The President's allies would like nothing better than to help the president out this whistleblower. Our committee will not be a part of that. We will not stand for that," he said. "They have the right to remain anonymous. They certainly should not be subject to these kind of vicious attacks and other words and actions that threaten their safety for doing their patriotic duty," he said about whistleblowers.

U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) added to those concerns:

Wasserman Schutlz said the Republicans present for the deposition were trying to get Vindman to reveal the identity of the whistleblower.

"What the Republicans are trying to do very clearly in their questioning is try to front door or back door Lt. Col. Vindman into revealing who the whistleblower is, even though in his testimony he says he doesn't he didn't know," she said.

"They've been unsuccessful," she added.

Press reports described a "tense moment" between one Democrat and one Republican. From NBC News:

Leaving the deposition, Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., said that he was concerned that Republicans in the room were trying to out the identity of the whistleblower, which caused a tense moment between Swalwell and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.

"My concern inside the room is that you know there, there’s an intent to out the whistleblower, and you know risk that person's life which is why we're trying to protect them," he said. "And that's what the quote, unquote tense moment was about."

Americans should not be surprised at anything Trump allies might pull in the near future. We know, from firsthand experience, that there is no level to which Republican thugs will not stoop when they feel threatened.

Yesterday marked the sixth anniversary of my "arrest for blogging" in Alabama, as GOP herd stormed secure Capitol room in a similar "F--k you" to the rule of law

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

Fort Worth cop Aaron Dean charged with murder in shooting death of Atatiana Jefferson, as nation wrestles with rogue cops who invade the home and wreak havoc -- which they have done twice in our lives

Forth Worth cop Aaron Dean: Charged with murder in the
shooting death of Atatiana Koquice Jefferson

When police abuse citizens, especially in or around the home, it leaves a kind of trauma that never goes away. My wife, Carol, and I know all about this, as we live daily with the effects of being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) We've had two encounters with cops breaking into our home and acting with violence -- both apparently driven by legal/political forces who wanted to shut down our investigative reporting on Legal Schnauzer.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as mass PTSD, but if it exists, the citizens of Forth Worth, TX, probably are feeling it after a white police officer early Saturday fatally shot a black, female resident named Atatiana Koquice Jefferson, 28, as she peered out a window from inside her own home. One minute, she was playing video games with her nephew; the next minute, she heard noise outside, went to check on it, and wound up dead. In fact, the story is moving quickly, with officer Aaron Dean arrested and charged with murder. Much more already is happening.

In our first experience, Alabama deputy Chris Blevins, with assistance from colleague Jason Valenti (who can be heard on a dash-cam video threatening to break my arms), entered our home, beat me up, doused me with mace and hauled me for a five-month stay at the Shelby County Jail. To my knowledge, I remain the only U.S. journalist since 2006 to be incarcerated. This was all over a fully civil matter -- a lawsuit for defamation from Alabama GOP politico Rob Riley and lobbyist Liberty Duke -- without a whiff of criminal allegations (and as limited court procedures later showed, without a whiff of defamation either.) Blevins did not show a warrant, state he had a warrant, or state his purpose for being on our property, which means this was a state-sanctioned kidnapping -- a gross violation of state law and the U.S. Supreme Court holding in Payton v. New York, 455 U.S 573 (1980).

Atatiana Koquice Jefferson

In our second experience, six to eight Missouri deputies -- some dressed in SWAT gear -- conducted an unlawful eviction, which included one deputy pointing an assault-weapon at my head. The incident ended with cops slamming Carol butt-first to the ground and yanking on her limbs so violently that they broke her left arm -- a comminuted fracture that required roughly eight hours of trauma surgery for repair. After the Missouri cops finished terrorizing Carol and me, the so-called "eviction crew" for landlord Cowherd Construction placed all of our furniture outside at the sidewalk and proceeded to drive off with just about everything they could carry. We lost all of our possessions except the clothes on our backs -- furniture, clothing, household goods, etc. We still are struggling to recover from that nightmare, while trying to cope with PTSD. (See Personal Note at the end of this post, along with body-cam video from Fort Worth.)

As for the Jefferson shooting, we already see signs residents are ready for accountability and dramatic changes in how Fort Worth is policed. Consider the following, per the Fort Worth Star Telegram and Dallas Morning News:

(1) Officer Aaron Dean resigns and is arrested and charged with murder . . .

A former Fort Worth officer has been arrested and charged with murder in the shooting death of Atatiana Jefferson, according to jail and court records. Aaron York Dean, 34, resigned from Fort Worth Police Department on Monday morning. Early Saturday morning, he shot and killed Jefferson, 28, inside her home on Allen Avenue while responding to a call from a neighbor about the front door being open, police said. Dean was listed as an inmate in the Tarrant County Jail as of 6:50 p.m. Monday night, according to records.

(2) Activists and leaders around the country react to arrest in Jefferson shooting . . .

Activist Shaun King, who has 1.1 million followers on Twitter, tweeted about Dean’s arrest: "This is a tiny measure of progress.

"This arrest is not justice. It's a half-step toward it, but this county has so many wrongs to get right."

S. Lee Merritt, Jefferson family attorney: "The family of Atatiana Jefferson is relieved that Aaron Dean has been arrested and charged with murder. We need to see this through to a vigorous prosecution and appropriate sentencing. The City of Fort Worth has much work to do to reform a brutal culture of policing."

(3)  Experts: Training emphasizes danger to cops over community safety . . .

The Fort Worth officer who shot and killed Atatiana Jefferson likely relied on police training that overemphasized the risk to an officer’s life while ignoring basic patrol guidelines every cop learns, law enforcement experts said Monday.

Jefferson, 28, was at her home in southeast Fort Worth when she was shot around 2:30 a.m. Saturday. She was up late playing video games with her 8-year-old nephew when a neighbor — concerned because Jefferson’s door was open and the lights were on — called a non-emergency police number.

When officer Aaron Dean and his partner arrived, they went to the backyard. Dean shot Jefferson through a bedroom window. It appears they did not yell “police” or go to the open front door, according to the snippet of body camera footage released Saturday by the Fort Worth Police Department. Both approaches should have been part of Dean’s training after he joined the department in 2018, the experts said.

(A Personal Note: The Legal Schnauzer journalism family -- including "Gabby, the Investigative Tabby," needs your help. Loyal readers have sustained this blog for years, and support is urgently needed now, as we fight for justice and transparency on multiple fronts, for ourselves and for the many other victims who have been the subjects of our reporting. Perhaps most importantly, we want to make sure Gabby has no shortage of "noms" in his bowl.

(As noted above, we've had two encounters with cops unlawfully entering our home and inflicting violence and terror on us. The result has been emotional and financial devastation. Carol and I have been diagnosed with PTSD, and we struggle with it daily. Our once solid finances are in tatters, and "eviction-crew" thugs, under the direction of Missouri landlord Trent Cowherd, stole almost all of our earthly possessions -- clothes, furniture, household goods . . . all gone.

(If you believe America's broken court system needs to be restored; if you believe our courts should dispense justice for all Americans, not just an elite few; or maybe if you are a fellow animal lover who happens to enjoy a good legal tale now and then . . . we hope you will consider making a donation.)

Alabama U.S. Senate hopeful John Merrill, now a noted TV and cultural critic, admitted in 2015 to "extramarital sexual encounter" but said woman's claim that she provided oral sex was false -- no kidding

John Merrill

The claims of Alabama U.S. Senate hopeful John Merrill that a preoccupation with "homosexual activities" and the "wife swap TV shows" is causing moral rot in America raises a host of discomfiting questions.

Is Merrill's steaming pile of hypocrisy, given his 2015 admission to an "extramarital sexual encounter," the smelliest part of this story? Or maybe it's the Alabama press' willingness to provide cover for a white Republican by failing to mention Merrill's own indiscretions in coverage of his bromide about old-timey television shows? Or is it the explanation Merrill gave to a newspaper's panel of four journalists in 2015 that was so flimsy it stretched credulity to the breaking point?

How did Merrill explain his dalliance with a woman named Millie Brinyark to higher-ups at al.com (The Birmingham News)? We would describe it as "off-the-charts goofy." But the assembled journos, casting inquisitiveness and healthy skepticism aside, seemed to swallow it, as fishermen like to say, "hook, line, and sinker."

After we broke the Merrill-Brinyark story on January 29, 2015 -- he was then, as he is now, Alabama's secretary of state -- Merrill met with members of the al.com staff in an apparent effort to squirm out of trouble. Here is how we described it in a post dated February 5, 2015:

Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill admits to having an extramarital sexual encounter but denies it included oral sex, according to an article published yesterday afternoon at al.com.

Merrill, a Republican with solid backing from business and religious organizations, also admitted to recommending the woman, Millie Brinyark, for a school-related job. But Merrill denied making the hiring decision, even though the job apparently was in a program he once managed. . . .

What is Merrill's version of the sexual encounter? Here is how al.com describes it:

Merrill said the woman called him and asked to meet on Sunday, Sept. 12 (2010), at a condo owned by her brother. (In her deposition, the woman said Merrill asked her about getting together that Sunday, but acknowledged that she suggested the location, saying she had to go there anyway to return a parking pass.). That is where the encounter happened that Merrill and the woman describe differently.

Merrill told reporters: "Basically, when I walked in, we started talking. She kissed me, I kissed her back. Then she started unbuttoning my shirt, and after that, she started to become more aggressive, and she actually did some other things in trying to engage me in some physical activity with her, which I declined, and I indicated to her that I was not going to do that.

"I stopped, and I said, 'I need to go, I'm not going to be here anymore'."

How did Merrill skirt Brinyark's graphic description, in a divorce-case deposition (under oath), of their encounter? Given that Merrill is a long-time chum of Birmingham attorney and former Alabama first son Rob Riley, it should be no surprise that his explanation is a tad hard to believe. From our February 2015 post:

The al.com article raises numerous questions, but perhaps the most staggering one is this: Why would a woman admit--under oath and penalty of perjury--to providing a man with oral sex, when she really didn't? Even Merrill can't seem to explain that one, especially considering that Brinyark's deposition reportedly was taken less than two weeks after the sexual encounter. From the al.com article:

Asked why the discrepancy exists between his version and what the woman testified to 10 days after the incident, Merrill said:

"I don't know, I don't know that I ever will know. But I do know this - I'd know if that (oral sex) had happened. I would know that, and I know it didn't."

Raise your hand if you think Millie Brinyark would admit, under oath in a divorce case, that she provided a BJ to a man other than her husband, when she really didn't. I suspect there aren't too many raised hands out there.

Millie Brinyark

As for the journalism on the Merrill story . . . well, it's been dreadful. We wound up breaking the Brinyark story after al.com's Kyle Whitmire admitted he was sitting on it. From a Legal Schnauzer post of January 2015:


Secretary of State John H. Merrill (R-Tuscaloosa) is the Alabama politician whose extramarital affair was revealed in court documents but went unreported in the mainstream press.

Kyle Whitmire, a reporter for al.com, admitted in a column on Tuesday that, prior to the 2014 general election, he had court documents that provided details about an unnamed public official's affair. The quality of the information was not in question because it involved sworn testimony in a deposition. Whitmire said it was "as close as it comes" to having a "story cold," but he "stuck it away," apparently not even consulting an editor about it. Whitmire hinted that other reporters in the mainstream press had received the information and ignored it.

Merrill, a Republican ally of former governor Bob Riley and a friend of Riley's son Rob, went on to handily win the secretary of state race over Democrat Lula Albert-Kaigler. Would Merrill have won if Whitmire had revealed the contents of court documents in his possession? That's hard to say. But multiple sources told Legal Schnauzer yesterday that the documents in question are from a divorce case in Tuscaloosa Circuit Court styled Bryan Scott Brinyark v. Mildred Murphree Brinyark.

Sources sent us copies of Millie Brinyark's deposition in the case, dated September 22, 2010, and Merrill's name is front and center. Ms. Brinyark, a former teacher, admits to allowing the married Merrill to touch her "private parts" and that she performed oral sex on him.

How small a person is John Merrill, this guy who wants to represent Alabama in the U.S. Senate? He actually had the audacity to blame his 2015 troubles on a "smear campaign." And al.com journos apparently were dim-witted enough to believe him. From Legal Schnauzer:

According to al.com, Merrill claims to be the victim of a "smear campaign" by unnamed individuals who widely circulated portions of the deposition to the press, politicians, members of his church, and others. How can it be a smear campaign when it involves public documents, about testimony that Merrill largely admits is true? The al.com journalists apparently did not ask Merrill that question.