What might Donald Trump say at today's White House cabinet meeting, where administration successes are to be discussed? Will he be in his usual caustic form?

Trump counts ballroom/bunker project as major success (ABC News)

Donald Trump announced yesterday that a cabinet meeting planned for today at Camp David would be moved to the White House because of concerns about possible stormy weather. What's on the agenda? Several news outlets report it likely will be a cross between a pep rally and a cult meeting, with Trump giving each attendee an opportunity to praise him, Dear Leader, for an unerring ability to create chaos out of stability, war out of peace, inflation out of economic growth, distrust out of longstanding alliances.

Of course, we don't expect the gathered Trumpers to actually get real with the president; that would cause heads to roll and ketchup bottles to fly. Some reports, however, indicate attendees might discuss ways to end the war in Iran while trying to salvage at least a bit of our country's reputation as an indispensable world power.

But most accounts suggest the meeting will be heavy on the pep-rally component, with a lot of chest thumping and back slapping. Here's how a report at ABC News puts it:

According to a White House official, all Cabinet members were expected to attend, and the meeting would "highlight recent successes of the administration including economy and small business wins, Task Force to Eliminate Fraud highlights, and foreign policy updates."

So members of the Trump administration are going to talk about their successes? Your reaction to that news probably was a lot like mine: "Gee, that should be a short meeting."

But then the obvious hit me: The lackeys filling the Trump White House reside in a  different world than the one you and I inhabit. When I started the Legal Schnauzer blog in June 2007 -- it soon will complete its 20th year of continuous publication -- I quickly realized there was hunger out there for information about our justice system, which many people correctly seemed to sense was deeply flawed. They wanted to know specifics, about the judges, lawyers, cops, and administrators who had befouled American justice. They also wanted to know about the folks on the right side of history -- people often in the same professions noted above, who brought a sense of honor and fairness to an embattled system. And they wanted to know about good people who had been harmed by the system -- well known people like Don Siegelman, Richard Scrushy, and Paul Minor -- and relatively unknown people like Bonnie Cahalane, Sherry Carroll Rollins, Dr. Mark Hayden, David Roberson, Burt Newsome, and many more. And they wanted to know about other journalists, activists, broadcasters and authors, such as K.B. Forbes, Donald Watkins, Andrew Kreig, Tommy Gallion, Scott Horton, and Peter B. Collins, who were (and still are) part of a widespread effort to expose corruption.

It has been rewarding to share this space with readers who have their values in the right place, who bring curiosity and intellect to a subject that is sprawling and complex -- filled with mystery and promise. I sense that Legal Schnauzer readers value our democracy and the rule of law upon which it's built -- understanding our system, with all of its flaws, is grounded in civic virtue that still is worth cherishing.

That's why I'm certain our readers would be out of place in a meeting like the one to be held at the White House today. I have written dozens of posts about the rot and self-dealing, the prejudice and selfishness, that is at the core of the Trump ethos. 

Trump has built an administration on loyalty to him, with no regard for competence or a desire to actually govern. That has produced opportunists and bootlickers like Todd Blanche and Pam Bondi, RFK Jr. and Kristi Noem, Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel, Elon Musk and Pete Hegseth. From direct feedback here at the blog and various social-media sites where my work is cross-posted, I know our followers ache for the day when Trump and his acolytes are removed from power, held accountable, and the process of healing can begin. 

That's why I suspect our readers, and millions of Americans like them, can't imagine that a meeting focused on discussion of Trump-era successes would take very long. Here is the reality: Trumpers are likely to find success in actions and events that horrify regular Americans -- and people of conscience around the world. So I began to realize that Team Trump will find plenty to discuss, even if it means inventing "successes" where only failure actually resides. I began to imagine Trump welcoming his troops with an introductory statement that goes something like this . . .

Welcome, and I look forward to our discussions about the many successes we've had over the past 16 months. The Dumocrats under "Sleepy Joe" Biden and Barack Hussein Obama can't imagine the kind of accomplishments we have made. It all starts with this commandment: "Say what you mean, and mean what you say." Here are examples of the leadership our MAGA movement has  brought to the nation and the world:

1. I said, "I will be your justice, I will be your retribution." Did we succeed at that? Ask James Comey;

2. I said we didn't have time to grant due process and trials for migrants prior to deportation. Did we succeed at that? Ask the ones who've been deported anyway;

3. I said we would use the military to assist with domestic law enforcement, to fight crime in our cities, especially those led by Dumocrats. I said we would fight "the enemy within." Did we succeed at that? Ask the thugs who have been locked up;

4. I said we would use DOGE to greatly reduce the power, influence and body count of the regulatory state. Did we succeed at that? Ask the so-called "experts" who were in the bureaucracy and now are in the bread line;

5. I said we would have the fairest elections ever, that we would use the power of the courts and redistricting to make sure we never again let the Dumocrats steal elections. Did we succeed at that? Wait until you see how the 2026 midterms turn out;

6. I said I would appoint conservative, originalist judges to federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Did I succeed at that? Just do the arithmetic;

7. I said I would strengthen ICE and empower them to effectively and firmly enforce our immigration laws. Did I succeed at that? Ask Tim Walz and the Dumocrats who have failed miserably in Minnesota;

8. I said we would reduce our involvement with the UN, NATO, and European "allies" who can't be trusted to pay their fair share of the freight. Did I succeed at that? Ask yourselves this question: Do we need France or does France need us?

9. I said the Kennedy Center needed to be renovated, revived, and reinvigorated. It's a tired, dilapidated structure, but our improvement program is in progress. Did I succeed at that? Just wait until you see the new facility, with a great lineup of artists like Kid Rock, George Strait, and Lee Greenwood; 

10. I said we badly needed a White House ballroom, and we are moving forward with that, while the project has added a world-class military and security complex. When finished in summer 2028, there will be no other facility like it in the world. Did I succeed at that? Wait and see!

With that, let's start discussions of the incredible list of successes we have under our belts. Even George Washington and Abraham Lincoln could not have dreamed of the kind of achievements we have made -- and we are just getting started. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Blanche fails to assure senators that Trump's new "slush fund" won't go in the pocket of a pardoned J6 rioter/child molester or a J6er who beat a cop

This Jan. 6 rioter, pardoned by Trump, now is a convicted  child molester

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who ramrodded Donald Trump's "weaponization fund" into existence, was the subject of a hearing before the U.S. Senate yesterday. and that proceeding produced proof that the smell of Trump's latest venture -- some are calling it a "slush fund"-- is getting more rancid by the day.  Let's consider two stomach-churning moments from Blanche's testimony:

First, Blanche was given ample opportunity to state that his Department of Justice (DOJ), which will be in charge of disbursing funds, would ensure that money will not go to a pardoned Jan. 6 attacker who now is a convicted child molester. Blanche failed to provide such assurance, per a report at Raw Story:

Attorney General Todd Blanche got an earful from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) on Tuesday after a Senate Appropriations hearing devolved into a heated confrontation over the Justice Department's controversial anti-weaponization fund — and whether a pardoned child molester could collect from it.

The fireworks started when Van Hollen pressed Blanche on a deeply troubling case: a Trump pardon recipient who allegedly molested two children after receiving clemency and then tried to buy their silence by promising them money he expected to receive from the DOJ fund.

"Can you commit to making the rule so that that person is not eligible for a payout under this fund?" Van Hollen demanded.

Blanche immediately got defensive and never gave Van Hollen a satisfactory answer. To be clear, Van Hollen was not asking about a theoretical matter; this disturbing case is very real. In fact, it is worse than Raw Story makes it sound. It involved a Florida man named Andrew Paul Johnson, who was a Jan. 6 rioter granted a pardon by Trump. 

After being released from prison on that matter, Johnson was accused of molesting two children. Contrary to Raw Story's report, Johnson did not just "allegedly molest two children." A jury convicted him of five criminal charges, and a judge sentenced him to life in prison on March 5, 2026. From a report at NPR:

Just months after President Trump's mass pardons for Jan. 6 rioters freed him from prison, a Florida man repeatedly sexually abused two middle-school aged children.

The man, Andrew Paul Johnson, was sentenced to life in prison, after a Florida jury found him guilty of five criminal charges, including molestation, lewd and lascivious exhibition and transmission of material harmful to a minor.

Police reported that Johnson, 45, tried to keep the children quiet by telling them he would share millions of dollars in restitution money he expected to receive from the Trump administration in connection with his Jan. 6 case.

"He said not to tell anybody," one of Johnson's victims testified. 

Both children later testified that they were too afraid to tell any adults about what they had endured, according to trial records obtained by NPR. 

"We were scared," Johnson's other victim testified. "Like, we didn't realize that this stuff was not okay because we were 12 years old." 

Yes, Johnson tried to bribe his victims, apparently based on the word of a Trump DOJ official who predicted months ago that Capitol rioters would receive millions. And Johnson is just one of the most recent examples of the impunity Trump has helped breed into his followers. Here is more from NPR:

Johnson is one of several pardoned Capitol riot defendants who have been arrested for new crimes since receiving clemency for their actions during the 2021 insurrection. Opponents of Trump's mass pardons say the president's actions have instilled a sense of impunity among members of the mob who stormed the Capitol.

"They think they're untouchable," said Congressman Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat who served on the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack. Trump's pardons, Raskin told NPR, "definitely have made Americans less safe."

In recent weeks, two former Jan. 6 defendants were arrested in the Washington, D.C. area.

Jake Lang, who was charged with assaulting police with a baseball bat during the riot, was arrested for allegedly threatening a police officer who had also previously protected the Capitol.

"Public execution is the only solution for animals like you," Lang told the officer at a rally for the fifth anniversary of the attack, according to prosecutors and video of the scene. Lang has pleaded not guilty.  

Lang also appeared in court this week in St. Paul, Minn., on a felony charge of damaging property after posting a video of himself knocking down an ice sculpture put up by protesters opposing the federal government's immigration crackdown.

Meanwhile, Bryan Betancur, who already has a lengthy criminal record, was also arrested this week on charges of assault and battery. At the time of the Capitol riot, Betancur was on probation and wearing a court-mandated GPS monitor for a prior burglary conviction. His latest arrest took place after videos emerged that appeared to show him touching women's hair while riding the D.C. Metro. Multiple women have accused Betancur of stalking them and making harassing comments online.  

Last year, after another pardoned Jan. 6 rioter was charged with threatening to kill House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Trump was asked if his pardons undermined his tough-on-crime policies. 

"No, you have thousands of people that we're dealing with, and, you know, if one goes haywire," Trump said, before pivoting to criticize Democrats. 

As part of the administration's push to rewrite the history of the attack, which injured approximately 140 police officers, an official White House website describes all of the Jan. 6 defendants as "patriotic Americans prosecuted for their presence at the Capitol." Trump himself has referred to the rioters as "great people." 

What about the second stomach-churning moment from Blanche's testimony? Details on that come from a separate Raw Story report under the headline "Todd Blanche forced to admit violent MAGA rioters could get federal payouts":

During his testimony Tuesday before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche made the startling admission that Jan. 6 Capitol rioters who had been convicted of assaulting police officers could be eligible for “multi-million dollar payouts” using taxpayer dollars.

While testifying, Blanche was asked by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) about whether violent insurrectionists who participated in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot would be eligible for payouts from the new fund.

Backed into a corner while under oath, Blanche took the unusual approach -- for a Trumper -- of telling the truth:

“During Police Week, I heard from a number of law enforcement friends who found it appalling that there was the possibility that folks like the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys who had assaulted Capitol Police officers could receive multi-million dollar payouts from this fund,” Merkley said. “Will you commit that no one who has been convicted of assaulting a police officer will receive a payout from this fund?”

Blanche conceded that while he shared in Merkley’s “concerns,” the fund would ultimately be eligible for anyone who claims to have been unfairly targeted by the Biden administration’s Justice Department.

“Anybody can apply,” Blanche said. “The commissioners [of the fund] will set rules, I'm sure – that's not for me to set, that's for the commissioners. And whether an individual, an Oath Keeper as you just mentioned, applies for compensation... anybody in this country can apply.”

Trump threatens to sue somebody, anybody for something, anything regarding release of Epstein files -- proving his ignorance on the rule of law is boundless

(Instagram)

Donald Trump says he intends to sue over his name being prominently featured in the Epstein files, proving he is too ignorant to hold any public office, much less the presidency. How did we come to that conclusion? We will address that question in a bit, but first, let's take a look at this article from Raw Story under the headline "'We'll certainly sue: Trump vows vengeance after being named 3,000 times in Epstein files." Alexander Willis writes:

President Donald Trump was named more than 3,000 times in the Justice Department’s release Friday of around 3.5 million files on Jeffrey Epstein, and on Saturday, Trump vowed vengeance against author Michael Wolff and potentially the Epstein’s estate for what the president alleged was a conspiratorial effort to damage him politically.

“Wolff, who’s a third-rate writer, was conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to hurt me politically or otherwise and that came through loud and clear,” Trump told reporters Saturday, The Independent reported. “So we’ll probably sue Wolf on that… maybe the Epstein estate, I guess. I don’t know. But we’ll certainly sue Wolff.” 

Trump does not seem terribly sure about who he would sue. And he is so clueless about what grounds he might have for the lawsuit that he doesn't even address the issue. That is in keeping with Trump's usual legal strategy of "let's file a lawsuit now and worry about the facts and the law later -- hopefully after the other side reveals a squishy backbone and writes us a nice, big check." This strategy has been remarkably successful so far, as shown in the following items:

(1) CBS News and Paramount Global agreed to pay $16 million to resolve a Trump lawsuit over a 60 Minutes interview last summer with Kamala Harris that Trump contended was deceptively edited to make  Harris appear more favorable;

(2) YouTube agreed to pay $24.5 million to Trump and several others, settling a lawsuit over YouTube’s suspension of their accounts following the events at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021;

(3) Meta settled for $25 million, on claims similar to those in the YouTube case;

(4) X agreed to a $10 million settlement less than a month later also for deplatforming Trump after Jan. 6;

(5) One law firm, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, reached an agreement with Trump  to commit $100 million in pro bono work to causes that both the firm and Trump champion;

(6) Milbank LLP also agreed to commit $100 million in pro bono work;

(7) Another firm, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, reached an agreement to avoid an executive order. And the Paul Weiss firm reached an agreement to have an executive order rescinded;

(8) Columbia University agreed to a $221-million resolution regarding federal investigations into allegations of discrimination;

(9) The federal government and Brown University reached an agreement with the Rhode Island institution to restore its research funding. As part of the agreement, the university will pay $50 million in grants over the next decade to workforce development organizations in Rhode Island. Brown has said it will also take steps to combat antisemitism, refrain from considering race in the admissions process, and ban transgender women from competing in women’s sports.

(10) In a case that so far has gone against Trump, a federal judge ruled in favor of Harvard University, finding the Trump administration illegally froze more than $2 billion in federal research funding as retaliation for protected First Amendment-related activities. The court blocked the funding freeze, and the administration has since announced an appeal of the decision;

(11) In another case that went against Trump, A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore more than $500 million in National Science Foundation (NSF) and other federal research grants to UCLA. The funding, which supported hundreds of health and science projects, was initially frozen due to federal claims that UCLA failed to adequately address antisemitism on campus. U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin issued a preliminary injunction forcing the restoration of funding, ruling that the NSF violated an earlier order by cutting funds. By October 2025, UCLA successfully regained nearly all of the roughly 500 suspended grants. The Trump administration, showing its willingness to deal in glorified extortion, sought a $1.2-billion settlement, which involved demands for addressing antisemitism, potential bans on certain international students, and the hiring of an outside monitor.

As for Trump's threat to sue somebody, anybody over release of the Epstein files, the information released certainly isn't flattering, as Raw Story's Alexander Willis makes clear:

(A) In the latest batch of Epstein files, new allegations against Trump have been unearthed. One woman told the FBI in 2016 under penalty of perjury that she had personally witnessed Trump threaten to “disappear” a girl and have her entire family killed, and that she had personally witnessed Trump sexually  abuse “minor females.”

(B) Another inclusion in the files was a child sex abuse tip against Trump that was passed to the FBI for further investigation, and another, was an allegation that Epstein’s associate Ghislaine Maxwell had attempted to “effectively pimp” a young girl to Trump.

Despite the newly unearthed allegations, Trump has not, and is not, facing any criminal charges related to his past relationship with Epstein, and has denied  wrongdoing.

 How did we conclude that Trump would be stupid, moronic, brain dead (well . . . you get the idea) to sue anybody regarding release of the Epstein files? The following thoughts came to our mind:

1. Re: Item B above, the sworn statement to the FBI was signed on June 18, 2016. Trump had wrapped up the GOP primary by that point and went on to defeat Hillary Clinton under curious circumstances in that year's general election. How does he prove that a conspiracy hurt him politically? How does he prove damages? After all, he "won" at every step along the way;

2. Is Trump trying to claim defamation? How does he prove this information, given under penalty of perjury, is false? Does Trump even know the legal basis of a defamation claim?

3. What if Wolf, the Epstein estate, or some other defendant refuses to cave and fights back with a countersuit, forcing Trump into the discovery process, with the president and his allies likely having to sit for depositions under oath and engage in production of documents.

4. What if defendants go on to prevail in a bench or jury trial, allowing them to recover damages for the expense and trouble Trump put them through. They also might seek sanctions against Trump and his attorneys for pursuing a baseless lawsuit. Between damages and sanctions, it could put a significant dent in Trump's wallet.

5. Many of the documents in the Epstein files appear to be based on court documents, which almost certainly would be open to public review. Since Congress ordered the files to be released, they would be deemed public. (Per AI Overview: "Documents released by Congressional action are generally deemed public. Under U.S. copyright law, works created by the federal government—including Congress—as part of their official duties are not eligible for copyright protection and are automatically in the public domain.") With all Trump and his DOJ (Pam Bondi and Kash Patel) have done to keep the files hidden, does the prez now want to deal with them becoming an open book.

6. Finally, in the ultimate irony, Trump seems to have forgotten that he also signed the legislation that Congress passed, forcing the files to be released. Does that mean Trump plans to sue himself for allowing the Epstein files to become public. That would be a legal first and make Trump a worldwide laughingstock in the process. Given his notoriously thin skin, it's doubtful the president could handle that.

Trump, if re-elected, threatens to prosecute the media and his political enemies, a sure signal this guy is not mentally well and is unfit to serve in the office he seeks

Trump and Smudge, the cat of many memes

 

Donald Trump, if re-elected, is calling for his critics -- including media organizations and their employees, to be prosecuted for treason, according to a report at The New Republic. This came on the same weekend that Trump said Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and America's top military officer, deserves to be put to the death for treason. And it comes roughly one week after Trump said during a speech in South Dakota that, as president, he could prosecute his political enemies. 

If this does not convince Americans that Trump is mentally ill, dangerous, unfit to hold any public office (much less president), and -- to put it bluntly -- too ignorant to be allowed anywhere near the White House, it's hard to imagine what will.

It's hard to rank Trump's nutty statements, but for purposes of this post, we will stipulate that his threat to prosecute the media for engaging in Constitutionally protected speech (by, you know, the First Amendment) is No. 1. Of all people, a president should understand the rights to free speech and a free press; after all, it's called the First Amendment for a reason -- many scholars see it as the most important provision in our founding documents, a building block of what it means to live in our democracy. That Trump doesn't get that  indicates he is too dim-witted and hard-headed to serve in the office he seeks.

How alarming are Trump's statements of the past 8-10 days? The New Republic (TNR) gives an idea with this headline: "Trump Goes Full Deranged, Suggests Charging People He Doesn't Like With Treason." If that is not clear enough, TNR adds this sub-headline: "This is not a joke. Donald Trump is stating very plainly what he would do if re-elected." Torri Otten provides the appropriate tone with these words from an article dated 9/25/23:

Donald Trump went over the edge over the weekend and began calling for his detractors to be prosecuted or even put to death.

“They are almost all dishonest and corrupt, but Comcast, with its one-sided and vicious coverage by NBC NEWS, and in particular MSNBC, often and correctly referred to as MSDNC (Democrat National Committee!), should be investigated for its ‘Country Threatening Treason,’” he wrote on Truth Social Sunday night.

“I say up front, openly, and proudly, that when I WIN the Presidency of the United States … the LameStream Media will be thoroughly scrutinized for their knowingly dishonest and corrupt coverage of people, things, and events,” he said. “They are a true threat to Democracy and are, in fact, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! The Fake News Media should pay a big price for what they have done to our once great Country!”

Trump has never been a fan of news outlets that give him the slightest bit of negative or unbiased coverage. He even turned on his once-favorite Fox News after the network confirmed Arizona voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 election.

But the fact that he is threatening to censor news outlets through federal regulatory powers is terrifying, not to mention a huge violation of the Constitution.

Otten is right on target. That polls tell us large swaths of the American electorate do not grasp the reality that Donald Trump is a raving lunatic, and that he probably is incompetent to run a corner lemonade stand . . . well those folks could do us all a huge favor and stay at home on election day.

How does Trump con his MAGA followers into believing he actually is fit to serve as president? Consider his words above: "The LameStream Media . . . are a true threat to Democracy and are, in fact, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!" 

Psychologists call this "projection." Trump, of course, is the real threat to Democracy -- a genuine enemy of the people. But he uses projection to lull the MAGA crowd into a false sense of security, providing a distraction from the issues that really cause their fears and anxieties -- and confirms their prejudices. It's a subtle rhetorical device that essentially amounts to saying, "Hey, look over there. Those are your enemies." Trump makes regular use of projection, and it's a big part of his con-man act.

Let's return to Tori Otten's piece, where she provides background on Trump's recent ravings:

Trump’s threat to the news media was actually his second attempt to menace detractors this past weekend alone. On Friday, he slammed Mark Milley, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggesting that perhaps he also committed treason.

“This guy turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States,” Trump said on Truth Social. “This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!”

Trump was referring to two phone calls Milley made to Beijing, one during Trump’s last months in office and the second in the aftermath of the January 6 riot. The calls, which were to assure China that Trump was not planning to attack the country, were done at the direction of other Trump administration officials.

Trump, of course, appointed Milley to his role in 2018—but since then has repeatedly lashed out at the general. His Friday comments came after The Atlantic published a profile of Milley that described how he “protected the Constitution from Donald Trump.”

It should go without saying, but Trump making comments like this is incredibly dangerous. His followers have shown themselves quick to spring to action. Hundreds of January 6 defendants have said they descended on Washington because Trump personally called on them.

Republican lawmakers too quickly follow the former president’s commands. Another Trump supporter, Arizona Representative Paul Gosar, has also called for Milley to face death. In his newsletter Sunday, Gosar baselessly claimed that Milley and then–House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had worked to delay the National Guard’s response to the January 6 riot, to make Trump look bad.

“In a better society … General Milley would be hung,” Gosar wrote. “How this traitor remains in office is a question we need answered.”

(If it’s any consolation for Gosar, Milley retires on October 1.)

Gosar has shown himself remarkably willing to take up Trump’s call, even on the most extreme behavior. In December, Gosar posted on X, then called Twitter, backing Trump’s call to terminate the U.S. Constitution and overturn the 2020 election. He deleted the post an hour later, after it sparked backlash.

Gosar is the goofball that Stop the Steal organizer Ali Alexander claimed helped plan the Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol. Alexander has strong ties to Alabama, and at last report, was the subject of a police report in Colorado, alleging he had attempted to obtain "d--k pics" from teen boys. In a post dated 5/2/23, the communications manager for the Johnstown, CO, Police Department said the allegations against Alexander were under investigation. Our research indicates Alexander could face 2-6 years in prison and a $500,000 fine if prosecuted and convicted for "online solicitation of a minor" in Colorado.

On top of that, Alexander has a well-documented criminal history from the days when he was known as Ali Akbar. He also has a history of seeking gay sex via the Grindr online app.

(Note: I've included a meme of Trump and Smudge the Cat in an effort to add some levity to this post. But there is nothing amusing about the subject matter. If you are an American, Republican or Democrat, Trump is a threat to your way of life. I pray we get that before it's too late.)

Maryland judges treated alleged shooter Jarrod W. Ramos lawfully in defamation lawsuit that apparently helped spark deadly shooting at Annapolis newspaper

Jarrod Ramos

Judges acted lawfully in dismissing a defamation lawsuit brought by alleged quintuple murderer Jarrod W. Ramos, in a case that apparently helped spark Ramos' deadly shooting spree last week at an Annapolis, Maryland, newspaper. Records show Ramos was not close to having a valid defamation claim -- in fact, he had no legal case at all -- but judges treated him with exceptional courtesy, even though some in the community already recognized him as a dangerous and threatening guy.

That's ironic because we've written 10 years worth of posts here at Legal Schnauzer about solid citizens, from all walks of life, who courts greeted with unlawful rulings, even hostility. (See Don Siegelman, Sherry Carroll Rollins, Paul Minor, Linda Upton, and Carol Tovich Shuler, for examples.)

Ramos sued the Capital Gazette for its coverage of a 2011 criminal harassment case, where he pleaded guilty and received a 90-day suspended jail sentence, with 18 months of supervised probation. The charge stemmed from Ramos' vulgar and threatening behavior toward a former high school classmate, a young woman, he encountered on Facebook.

Staff writer Nick Hartley wrote a story for the Gazette about the harassment case, titled "Jarrod wants to be your friend," and Ramos responded by suing Hartley, editor and publisher Thomas L. Marquardt, and the newspaper's parent company.

Ramos represented himself, pro se, and one problem with his lawsuit should have been readily apparent to anyone with the slightest knowledge of defamation law -- or the ability to look up central elements of the tort at a library, or on the Web. Journalists generally are legally "privileged" to report on official proceedings and public documents -- upon which many of our Legal Schnauzer posts are based.

That means, even if false information is presented in a court case or other official proceeding, a journalist is privileged to report it, as long as he does so accurately and with fairness -- in other words, if he reports both sides of the case, as presented in court.

In Alabama, the privilege is spelled out statutorily at Code of Alabama 13A-11-161.  At case law, Wilson v. Birmingham Post-Herald, 482 So. 2d 1209 (1986) spells out the privilege:

It is undisputed in the instant case that the Post-Herald news report at issue constitutes a fair and accurate report of the statements made by two Cuban refugees to the Birmingham Police Department in the course of an official investigation and summarized in the official police incident report. [Reporter Kathy] Biele was present during the interrogation. According to the sworn affidavits of two police officers present, the news report at issue accurately reflects the investigation and the police incident report. There is no suggestion in the evidence to the contrary. The news report, therefore, is conditionally privileged under § 13A-11-161 and the common law.

Not only did Ramos ignore the journalist's privilege to report on public and official proceedings, he brought a case that, overall, was preposterously weak. How weak was it? That question can be answered by examining the appellate case, Ramos v. Hartley, et al (MD Court of Special Appeals, 2015). Consider some of the issues raised in the appellate opinion:

(1) Ramos failed to serve defendants with the complaint, filed an amended complaint after the statute of limitations had expired, and provided the court with almost no information:

On July 23, 2012, just one week before the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations, the appellant filed his initial complaint, charging the appellees with defamation, in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County ("the July Complaint"). The appellant failed to serve a copy of the complaint on the appellees. . .

There was no supporting documentation or affidavit submitted with the complaint. On October 9, 2012, and over two months after the statute of limitations for a defamation claim had expired, the appellant filed a fuller complaint ("the October complaint"). Instead of four bare-bones paragraphs, the October complaint was one of 22 pages. The October complaint also added the charge of invasion of privacy.

(2) Due to the service and statute-of-limitations issues, the appellate court expressed doubt that Ramos had any case at all, much less a viable defamation claim:

Although we have serious reservations over whether the October complaint can be found to relate back to the July complaint and is, therefore, even cognizable, it is completely unnecessary to anguish over this nuance in the filing chronology. But see, Crowe v. Houseworth, 272 Md. 481, 485-86 (1974); Fischer v. Longest, 99 Md. App. 368 (1994). Even the fuller October complaint, assuming its viability, palpably fails to state, as the hearing judge found and ruled, a chargeable offense. One solid reason for affirming the trial court is enough. Scott v. Jenkins, 345 Md. 21, 28 (1997) ("Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts that, if prove true, would support every element of the asserted claim.")

(3) Despite the weakness of Ramos' case, trial judge Maureen M. Lamasney gave him a hearing and listened respectfully to his arguments. We've seen signs for years that many citizens, who come to court with valid claims or defenses, often are not treated in such fashion:

On November 26, 2012, the appellees filed a Motion by Defendants to Dismiss with Prejudice the Complaint and a Request for Hearing. A full hearing was conducted by Judge Maureen M. Lamasney on March 29, 2013. The appellant's complaint was that he had been defamed in a newspaper article about his having pleaded guilty to a charge of criminal harassment. At the motion hearing, Judge Lamasney probed the appellant to point out a single statement in the article that was actually false or to give a single example of how he had been harmed by the article. He could not do so. Judge Lamasney's ruling was clear.

(4) Ramos could not point to any false information in the Capital Gazette article. No kidding. Here is a colloquy between the court and Ramos:

"THE COURT: "All right. Mr. Ramos, I'm going to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss this case. And it will be dismissed with prejudice. And I'm going to grant it for the following reasons: You are required in your complaint to state a claim with sufficient specificity.

"MR. RAMOS: Your Honor —

"THE COURT: I'm talking now.

"MR. RAMOS: Yes, I'm sorry.

"THE COURT: And dismissal is proper only if the facts and inferences, even if proven, would not entitle the plaintiff to relief. And that is what I am finding in your case, that you do not lay out a prima facie case for defamation or for invasion of privacy, or being placed in the false light.

"And the reason I'm finding that is that there is absolutely not one piece of evidence, or an assertion by you that the statement was false. . . .

"You know, I understand exactly how you feel. I think people who are the subject of newspaper articles, whoever they may be, feel that there is a requirement that they be placed in the best light, or they have an opportunity to have the story reported to their satisfaction, or have the opportunity to have however much input they believe is appropriate.

"But that's simply not true. There is nothing in those complaints that prove that anything that was published about you is, in fact, false. "It all came from a public record. It was of the result of a criminal conviction. And it cannot give rise to a defamation suit.

(5) The court explained, fully and succinctly, why Ramos' lawsuit was dismissed -- and the explanation was on point with the law:

"MR. RAMOS: If I understand correctly, then the basis is that there's not a showing of falsity?

"THE COURT: Correct.

"MR. RAMOS: And rather that there is an application of privilege.

"THE COURT: Correct, both that the article was simply not defamatory, that it was based on public record, that you haven't alleged that it was false, and that the article appears to be substantially accurate, and it would fall into the privilege which would make any complaint unsustainable, because they reported a criminal case. They reported a matter of public interest."

(6) The appellate court summarized the reasons that Ramos' claim was a clunker from the outset:

A discussion of defamation law would be an exercise in futility, because the appellant fails to come close to alleging a case of defamation. In his five-page brief, the appellant devotes two and one-half pages to legal argument. He never alleges that any basic fact contained in the article about his guilty plea is actually false. He claims only that "Hartley's column fails the test of fairness because he editorialized on the story's meaning." There is no allegation of any specific harm that he suffered as a result of the article. He simply described the harm as "incalculable, unforeseen, and potentially unknowable." That does not do it.

The appellant is pro se. A lawyer would almost certainly have told him not to proceed with this case. It reveals a fundamental failure to understand what defamation law is and, more particularly, what defamation law is not. The appellant is aggrieved because the newspaper story about his guilty plea assumed that he was guilty and that the guilty plea was, therefore, properly accepted. He is aggrieved because the story was sympathetic toward the harassment victim and was not equally understanding of the harassment perpetrator. The appellant wanted equal coverage of his side of the story. He wanted a chance to put the victim in a bad light, in order to justify and explain why he did what he did. That, however, is not the function of defamation law.

The appellant was charged with a criminal act. The appellant perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant plead guilty to having perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant was punished for his criminal act. He is not entitled to equal sympathy with his victim and may not blithely dismiss her as a "bipolar drunkard." He does not appear to have learned his lesson.

Lies my Missouri public defender told me: With Carol's freedom at stake in bogus "assault" case, Patty Poe cooked up some double whoppers, with cheese (Part 1)

Patty Poe

What's it like to have your own lawyer lie to you? Carol and I have a lot of experience with this question, and "infuriating" is one answer that comes to mind -- especially when you consider that your freedom or your money probably are on the line whenever you communicate with a lawyer. But here is perhaps the more important question: How can you tell your own lawyer is lying to you? According to the punch line of a classic lawyer joke, "His lips are moving" is the usual answer. While that answer can provide a satisfying belly laugh, it is short on specifics.

Being able to detect your lawyer's lies can only help you -- and your case -- if you are able to determine the specific nature of his lies and the honest version of what he is saying. In other words, it's not all that helpful just to know your lawyer is lying; you need to know how he's lying (why he's lying is another key factor) and what is the accurate information that helps you move forward.

Having just come from an experience where Missouri public defender Patty Poe lied to us repeatedly about Carol's "assault of a law enforcement officer" case, this seems like a good time to help others learn from our experiences. With that in mind, this is the first of a multi-part series about a sad truth in the American justice system: Yes, the other guy's lawyer is likely to lie -- most of us kind of expect that -- but your own lawyer is the one who really can inflict pain by lying to you.

If this sounds like an exercise in cynicism, that's because -- after 18 years of fighting injustice and being cheated by lawyers of almost every color, variety, and political stripe -- we are cynical. That's not to say we have totally given up on the notion of finding an honest lawyer. Many of the people I've stood up for here at Legal Schnauzer -- Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, Jill Simpson, Paul Benton Weeks, and others -- are people I consider honorable lawyers, attacked by the reptiles in their own profession.

While we have not been represented by an honest lawyer -- actually, I take that back; Springfield, MO, lawyer Dan Menzie did a solid job of representing us in the case where my brothers sought to have Carol and me declared wards of the state -- we hold out hope that one will enter our orbit someday. Until that happens, let's take a look at our interactions with Patty Poe in the weeks and months before she sought to withdraw from Carol's case.

We will examine a series of five emails Carol sent to Poe, along with Poe's responses to them. (Carol's five emails, and Poe's responses are embedded at the end of this post.)


(To be continued)

America is heading toward July 4, but sleaze involving Luther Strange, Jessica Garrison, Balch Bingham, and Superfund scandal never seems to take a holiday

Jessica Garrison and Luther Strange

I'll take Potpourri for $100, Alex

Jessica Medeiros Garrison's social-media profile takes a hit

We reported late last week that Jessica Medeiros Garrison, one-time campaign manager and mistress for former Alabama Attorney General and current U.S. Sen. Luther Strange, had left her "of counsel" role at Balch and Bingham amid news reports about Strange and the Balch law firm having connections to Birmingham's burgeoning Superfund bribery scandal.

The next day, al.com reported that Garrison had left Balch in May. That came in a story, titled "Will Jeff Sessions' Balch connections hang up corruption probe," in which reporter Kyle Whitmire notes that the Trump attorney general has close ties to Balch, and those could prove troublesome as a federal investigation moves forward.

Now, we learn that Garrison's social-media presence largely is no more. Her LinkedIn page remains, but her Facebook and Twitter accounts have gone dark. What does this mean? We're not sure, but it suggests that Balch and Big Lutha are in hot water -- and Jessica likely is in there, too.

Given Garrison's documented ties to organized crime, it never surprises us when we see signs that she is tied to corruption. And this could be getting deeply personal for your humble blogger. Documents from the bogus Missouri "assault" case against my wife, Carol, tied to our unlawful eviction in September 2015, show that members of my own family have taken extraordinary trips to stab Carol and me in the back.

Does that simply mean my relatives, particularly my brothers David and Paul, have become monumental dirt bags? That could be. But I long have suspected there is a "corruption highway" that has followed us from Alabama to Missouri, via a conduit that wanted to make sure I could not defend myself in certain courtroom matters (such as the defamation case that resulted in a $3.5-million default judgment for . . . Jessica Garrison; that judgment is void, as a matter of law, but I'm stuck in Missouri, unable to take care of it) or would not be in Alabama to report on bubbling dirt, such as the Superfund scandal.

If such a conduit exists, I long have suspected that Jessica Garrison is part of it. Now evidence is mounting that Garrison, with her ties to the Gambino and Genovese crime families, is going underground as light increasingly shines on the Superfund bribery scandal.


State Rep. John Rogers also goes underground as Superfund scandal generates heat

Jessica Garrison isn't the only one to go underground as the Superfund scandal heats up. So has State Rep. John Rogers -- sort of.

The scandal turned in Luther Strange's direction last Thursday, thanks to an Alabama Political Reporter (APR) story in which a source said Strange was present when a Drummond Coal representative offered Rogers a bribe.

Later that day, Rogers was to appear with U.S. Senate candidate Randy Brinson at a press conference in Montgomery to "out" Strange. Rogers failed to show, and according to APR's Josh Moon, he also started back tracking on the Superfund/Strange story. Wrote Moon, in a story titled "John Rogers' very curious 24 hours":

Rogers twice told the same story, Brinson said. He was offered control of a super PAC in exchange for fighting the superfund and Strange was present.

Again, Rogers was angry about it all. So much so that he agreed to appear with Brinson at a Thursday press conference to “out Strange.”

Rogers even organized the press conference at a Birmingham church, Brinson said.

So, why was Brinson left almost literally standing at the alter by himself in that church on Thursday afternoon, while at the same time Rogers was telling a TV reporter that Strange wasn’t present at the meeting where the bribe was offered?

“He was scared,” Brinson said. “When he called me Thursday, his voice was shaking. It wasn’t the same John Rogers. Something happened between Wednesday and Thursday and it scared him.”

Did someone threaten Rogers or those close to him? Rogers had told APR for its Thursday story that he did not want to talk on the record because "these people are dangerous." Rogers answered the phone when Moon called him on Thursday evening, but proceeded to talk mostly in circles. From Moon's Friday story:

I asked Rogers why he was telling people now that Strange wasn’t present, Rogers first told me he never said it to me. For the next several minutes, I recapped our conversations from the day before.

When I finished, Rogers said, simply, “I’m sorry.”

I asked him what happened, if someone had convinced him to change his story. He stammered for a couple of seconds, said he didn’t think so, then no, then said he had to go.

“It is frightening to contemplate the powerful forces who so rattled (Rogers) that he recanted his confirmation of facts reported by APR concerning an attempted bribe,” APR publisher Bill Britt said. “Screaming ‘fake news’ as Sen. Strange has done is standard fare these days, but it’s very disconcerting when a public official – one who turned down the bribe and worked for his constituents – is so scared that he takes these actions. It’s an affront to American principles and Alabama values.”

A lot of things have happened in Alabama over the past 20-plus years that are an affront to American principles. Alabama courts, both state and federal, routinely turn out judgments that are an affront to our constitution. I was kidnapped from my home by law enforcement and tossed in jail for a five-month stay -- for reporting on this blog about political and court-related corruption in Alabama.

Bill Britt is correct to use the term "frightening," and I know about that in an up-close-and-personal way. John Rogers likely is getting a taste of it now.


Bill Pryor supports dishonesty from law enforcement

U.S. Circuit Judge Bill Pryor perhaps is best known for two things: (1) Once being Donald Trump's No. 1 pick to replace Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court, but finishing no higher than third; and (2) Appearing in the "full monty" for photographs from his college days that wound up on the gay-porn super site badpuppy.com.

From a legal standpoint, Pryor might now best be known for signing off on an opinion that allows law-enforcement officers to conduct searches under false pretenses. In other words, it's fine for cops to lie in order to get into your home. Gee, that's just what we need -- more reasons for the public not to trust cops.

The case, decided last week, is styled United States v. Eric Spivey, et al. Here's how the Atlanta-based Daily Report Online describes it:

Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revealed a deep divide Wednesday over what constitutes a legal search.

Judge William Pryor, whom President Donald Trump recently considered for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote the majority opinion signing off on a search that police initiated under false pretenses.

Judge Beverly Martin wrote a sharply worded dissent saying the search in the case before them was not the kind of reasonable search the founders had in mind when they wrote the Fourth Amendment.

The third member of the panel broke the tie. Judge Danny Boggs of the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation, sided with Pryor.

What was the "legal reasoning" that decided the case? From the Daily Report's Katheryn Hayes Tucker:

"This appeal presents the question whether deception by law enforcement necessarily renders a suspect's consent to a search of a home involuntary," Pryor wrote in his introduction.

As Pryor went on to explain, Eric Spivey and Chenequa Austin had twice reported to police burglaries of their Lauderhill, Florida, home.

"Two officers, one posing as a crime-scene technician, came to their house on the pretense of following up on the burglaries, but mainly, unbeknownst to them, to investigate them for suspected fraud," Pryor wrote. The couple let the police in without a warrant.

What the couple did not know was that police had already caught the burglar, who told them the home had evidence of credit card fraud and so much expensive merchandise such as iPads and designer shoes that he had to go back for more. The couple also didn't know the officers were really agents with the South Florida Organized Fraud Task Force. The agents found stacks of credit cards, card readers and an embossing machine, as well as a lot more high-end merchandise.

Ultimately, the pair pleaded guilty to credit card fraud related charges, conditioned on the right to pursue an appeal of the denial of their motion to suppress evidence. Pryor and Boggs upheld Judge William Dimitrouleas of the Southern District of Florida.

Pryor said the police officers' "ruse" was a "relatively minor deception that created little, if any, coercion."

Pryor admits the officers engaged in a "ruse," but he found it was OK because it was a "relatively minor deception." And some Americans wonder how we are headed toward a police state? Dissenting judge Beverly Martin, who was nominated to the federal bench by Bill Clinton and promoted to the appellate bench by Barack Obama, found Pryor's ruling abhorrent:

The ruse was not minor to Martin. Instead of a warrant, she wrote, the officers entered the home with a plan to "get around the Fourth Amendment's protections" to guarantee the right of people to be secure in their homes.

"This litigation could have easily been avoided. Instead of planning their ruse, the officers could have gotten a warrant," Martin wrote. "I am concerned that the majority opinion blesses the deliberate circumvention of constitutional protections, and in this way undermines the public trust in police. I therefore dissent."

How perverse was Pryor's opinion? Here is more from Judge Martin's dissent:

The two officers here had no warrant allowing their entry into the home of Eric Spivey and Chenequa Austin. Instead, they had a plan to get around the Fourth Amendment’s protections. They lied about their legal authority. They lied about their real reason for being there. And they took advantage of a public trust in law enforcement in order to search the Spivey/Austin home without a warrant. When Ms. Austin learned the true purpose of the officers’ presence in her home, she stopped cooperating immediately. Based on all the circumstances of her case, it is clear to me that Ms. Austin’s permission for the officers to enter her home was not voluntarily given.

Martin goes on to highlight the profound constitutional issues in play, the ones Pryor seems to shrug off:

The Fourth Amendment generally prohibits officers from searching a person’s home without a warrant. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 1380 (1980) (“[S]earches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.”). One exception to the warrant requirement is where the person voluntarily gives consent for the officers to search. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181, 110 S. Ct. 2793, 2797 (1990). The question before us here is whether Ms. Austin’s consent for the officers to search her home was voluntary. . . .

Eleventh Circuit precedent about consenting to a search emphasizes that the use of deception to get consent violates the Fourth Amendment because it is an “abuse” of the public’s trust in law enforcement. See id.; see also SEC v. ESM Gov’t Sec., Inc., 645 F.2d 310, 316 (5th Cir. Unit B May 18, 1981). . . .

Considering the totality of the circumstances under the standards set by our precedent, Ms. Austin’s consent was not voluntary. The officers used deceit, trickery, and misrepresentation to hide the true nature and purpose of their investigation as well as the authority they had to investigate the burglaries. This deception caused Ms. Austin to allow the officers into her home. And when the officers revealed the ruse to Ms. Austin, she immediately stopped cooperating.

Pryor, of course, was appointed to the federal bench by George W. Bush. Danny Julian Boggs, who joined him on the ruling, was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

As Americans worry about the latest on "Mika and Morning Joe," their rights to be protected from the actions of rogue cops are being eaten away -- with the help of a corrupt con man from Alabama named Bill Pryor.