Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard goes on trial today in a state where outrageous courtroom shenanigans have become almost the norm

Mike Hubbard

The criminal trial of Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn) begins today in Lee County, so it's an appropriate time to examine the grim reality of far too many Alabama courtrooms, state and federal.

Jury selection in the Hubbard case is expected to take most of this week, with opening statements set for May 24. If recent history is a guide, all kinds of courtroom corruption could take place behind the scenes. Considerable evidence points to the following happening in the Land of Atticus Finch:

Two jurors having improper communications during a high-profile trial, apparently trying to steer other jurors toward a guilty verdict--with assistance from the judge? The married judge in the same case having an extramarital affair with his married courtroom deputy, who interacts frequently with jurors? An FBI agent in another high-profile case, having an affair with the federal court reporter who recorded and transcribed secret grand-jury testimony in the case? The FBI agent giving information to the governor, a long-time political opponent of a key defendant? The judge in the second case learning that the FBI agent had an affair with the courtroom deputy in the first case?

All of this is part of the recent sordid history in Alabama's "justice" system. And these were high-profile cases, with extensive press coverage. God only knows what happens in thousands of low-profile cases that take place in out-of-the-way courthouses around the state every year.

How do we know about this sleaze? Well, we've reported on much of it since Legal Schnauzer began in June 2007. On top of that, attorney Donald Watkins provided a captivating guided tour last week on his Facebook page. It's likely that few people on the planet have more insights about the real world of Alabama "justice" than Donald Watkins.

"There is no other system like it in America," Watkins writes, and then provides evidence to back up that statement--which I'm pretty sure he did not mean as a compliment. Let's take a closer look at some of the highlights (or lowlights, depending on your perspective) of Watkins' tour through a system that is riddled with dysfunction. If you have hip boots, put them on because this is a little like wading through raw sewage:


U.S. v. Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy

Evidence suggests jurors Sam Hendrix and Katie Langer engaged in improper e-mail communications, trying to push other jurors toward guilty verdicts. This episode never has been properly investigated, and that might be because Judge Mark Fuller was helping Hendrix and Langer. Writes Watkins:

One of the many issues raised in this case was whether two jurors – jury foreman Sam Hendrix and juror Katie Langer – engaged in improper communications with each other and with fellow jurors during the trial and deliberations by the jury. An alleged email exchanged between Hendrix and Langer indicated that Fuller and these two jurors were steering the jury towards a conviction of Siegelman and Scrushy. One of the emails Langer allegedly sent to Hendrix stated:

“gov & pastor [i.e. defendant Richard Scrushy] up s—t creek. good thing no one likes them anyway. all public officials r scum; especially this 1. pastor is reall a piece of work...they missed before, but we won’t...also, keep working on [juror number] 30...

will update u on other meeting….Katie”.

Another alleged Langer email stated:

Judge really helping with jurors still having difficulties with #30 ...any ideas??? Keep pushing on ur side. Did not understand your thoughts on statute But received links….Katie”.

A federal judge working with rogue jurors to cook a case? It blows the mind, but Watkins adds another element to the scheme:

Katie Langer

What the public and defendants did not know at the time was that Fuller, who was married, was having an extramarital affair with his married courtroom deputy – the very courtroom official who interacted with trial jurors on behalf of the court. Fuller later married this courtroom deputy.

In 2015, Fuller was forced to resign his judgeship after a Court of Appeals judicial panel probing his 2014 arrest in Atlanta for beating his second wife confirmed our 2014 exclusive Facebook investigative reports that detailed Fuller’s serial martial cheating, out-of-control wife-beating episodes, and perjury to judicial officers.

Yep, Mark Fuller . . . a classic example of the kind of fair-minded jurist that George W. Bush (and Karl Rove) wanted on the federal bench.


U.S. v. Milton McGregor, et al

This was the Alabama bingo case, which involved two trials, and produced zero convictions. That outcome might be embarrassing enough for the feds. But when you add the conduct of FBI agent Keith Baker . . . well, it becomes a candidate for the Sleaze Hall of Fame. Baker, it seems has epic "zipper problems," and evidence suggests he provided information to Governor Bob Riley, a prime political enemy of defendant Milton McGregor. Did Baker, and Riley, commit criminal acts? Writes Watkins:

Local FBI agent Keith Baker was one of the case agents who worked on the Siegelman-Scrushy bribery case. Baker later became the lead FBI case agent in the 2010 federal bribery case against VictoryLand owner Milton McGregor, Dothan casino developer Ronnie Gilley, several state legislators, and two lobbyists. McGregor and Gilley were accused of bribing the defendant legislators. What the public and defendants did not know at the time was this: Baker, who was married, was having a secret extramarital affair with Mallory Johnson, a married federal court reporter who recorded and transcribed secret grand jury testimony in this case. Mallory leaked this testimony to Baker, who appears to have given this evidence to then-Governor Bob Riley, a longtime political foe of McGregor.

When this matter was brought to the attention of trial judge Myron Thompson, he conducted a closed hearing to get to the bottom of this matter. Baker and Johnson confirmed their secret love affair and the grand jury leaks. Text messages between the two lovers seemed to bring Riley directly into the mix.

That was not the only surprise awaiting Judge Thompson:

When Baker received a defense request for 8,000 text messages on his phone during the time period of his investigation, they went missing. A check on the FBI servers revealed the copies of the text messages were also missing for that period of time. No other text messages on the server were missing.

Thompson also learned that Baker had a secret inappropriate relationship with an unnamed "female courtroom deputy” during Siegelman’s trial. Fuller only had one such deputy – the woman he married. An upset Judge Thompson thereafter banned Baker from his courtroom during the trial proceedings.

Missing text messages, multiple extramarital affairs across multiple trials, spoonfeeding grand-jury information to the governor, rogue jurors trying to force a guilty verdict? It all sounds off-the-charts crazy. But who knows what skulduggery will take place--or already has taken place--in the Hubbard case. (BTW, did Baker's messages go missing because he was texting then Governor Bob Riley? Again, if proven, was this criminal activity? Is someone in the U.S. Department of Justice trying to protect Riley?)

Keith Baker (far right)

If you believe Alabama's justice system could not possibly be that crooked, consider this: You might think Keith Baker and Katie Langer -- assuming they aren't in prison (and they are not) --would have been shipped to legal purgatory, as punishment for dishonorable actions in a system that is supposed to be based on honor--and the rule of law.

But you would be wrong. After the Siegelman trial, Langer (who had been a gymnastics teacher) completed law school and earned a bar card. (How did that happen? Did she receive help in exchange for her actions in the Siegelman case?) Keith Baker exited the federal branch, but he remains in law enforcement.

Yes, Katie Langer and Keith Baker both now work for Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange. And that's the office that, beginning today, takes Mike Hubbard to trial.

Sources tell us that both Langer and Baker are working on the Hubbard case.

God help us all.

Federal judge overseeing lawsuits against Ashley Madison says hacked data from extramarital-affair Web site will be kept out of courtroom proceedings

A federal judge in Missouri has ruled that plaintiffs cannot use hacked data to build their case against the extramarital cheating site Ashley Madison and its parent company, Avid Life Media. The ruling comes roughly three weeks after U.S. District Judge John A. Ross found plaintiffs must proceed under their own names, that they will not be able to use pseudonyms.

Last summer's hack of Ashley Madison data produced a flurry of federal lawsuits, including several brought by Birmingham law firm Heninger Garrison Davis. The class-action complaints have been consolidated at U.S. District Court in St. Louis, with Ross (who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2010) overseeing the case.

So far, Ross has ruled in Ashley Madison's favor on a couple of key issues. Writes Kristen V. Brown, a reporter at Fusion:

A Missouri judge is making it very hard to sue Ashley Madison over last year’s massive data breach. First, the U.S. district court judge ruled that breach victims couldn’t sue the company anonymously, meaning that their names will go into the public record as users of the infidelity dating website. Now, that same judge has ruled that plaintiffs cannot use hacked data to build their case against the company. So Ashley Madison is legally protected, for now, from the secrets exposed in the hack of its client records and corporate email.

Ashley Madison’s parent company Avid Life Media faced a rush of John Doe lawsuits after the hack that exposed the identity of millions of its users. In the Missouri suit, 42 plaintiffs filed under pseudonyms alleging that Ashley Madison failed to “adequately secure” users’ personal and financial information. When a hacking group named “Impact Team” leaked the identities of users last summer, it revealed that the site had been lax on security and had retained records of users who had paid the company for a permanent deletion of their accounts.

Avid Life Media asked that its leaked documents be kept under wraps during court proceedings because they had been criminally obtained. U.S. District Judge John A. Ross sided with the company, even though the wide distribution of those documents online is the very thing users argue turned their lives to turmoil.

What was Ross' reasoning? Writes Brown:

“The fact that the content of some of Avid’s internal documents … has been to some extent placed on the internet and reported in news articles does not change the nature of the documents. They remain stolen documents,” the judge wrote in an April 29 ruling.

The plaintiffs had argued that the documents were no longer confidential, because they are widely distributed on the internet. This was the same argument Google used when fighting for the right to use emails exposed in the Sony Pictures hack in a legal battle with the MPAA—and while Google was barred from using the hacked documents themselves in the case, which is ongoing, the company has cited press articles that reference the documents in their filings

Ross went on to find that lawyers and journalists have very different obligations in how they handle the case:

In the Ashley Madison decision, the judge found that even news articles referencing the leak were off limits. While journalists were protected under the First Amendment in publishing the stolen information online, he wrote, attorneys involved in private litigation had differing ethical responsibilities.

Judge John A. Ross

 “The fact that plaintiffs intend to use only news articles quoting from the original documents as opposed to the original documents themselves is, in the court’s view, a distinction without a difference,” Judge Ross wrote. “The quality and nature of the information remains the same. It is stolen information and cannot form the basis for a good faith belief of evidentiary support for a pleading.”

It's not all bad news for plaintiffs in the case, as Brown notes:

The silver lining to this cloud is that the documents revealed in the hack could come out during the case’s discovery process. “Regardless of whether some of the documents at issue may be ultimately discoverable, Avid has, and has always had, the right to keep its own documents until met with proper discovery requests or ordered to disclose them by the court,” wrote the judge.

So to get the hacked documents admitted in court, the plaintiffs will need to ask Ashley Madison to produce them. Luckily, the plaintiffs have a very good idea of the smoking gun documents it should request.

Less than one month in office, Gov. Robert Bentley showed signs of being corrupt--but most of us didn't notice, or failed to grasp what it could mean

Gov. Robert Bentley and Rebekah Caldwell Mason
(From nytimes.com)

Governor Robert Bentley showed signs of being corrupt when he was less than one month into his first term, but it's likely few Alabamians noticed. Even those who did notice, including me, did not grasp what it might foretell roughly six years down the road.

Bentley is under state and federal investigations in a scandal that ignited from an extramarital affair with former advisor Rebekah Caldwell Mason and shows signs of becoming a conflagration involving abuse of public trust and resources. Few probably saw that coming, given that Bentley appears to be a kindly, aging dermatologist, who never had an impure thought.

But let's go back to February 7, 2011, less than three weeks after Bentley took office. On that date, Bentley appointed Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner to a vacant seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Why Joiner? It almost certainly was because Bentley grew up in Columbiana, and the Joiner family is so prevalent in the town that it includes an area called Joinertown.

So, Bentley showed early on that he's a true believer in Good Ole' Boy politics--make appointments based on who knows who, not on qualifications (and certainly not on integrity). But it gets much darker from there.

Mike Joiner is the No. 1 driving force behind the legal travails that have haunted my wife, Carol, and me for roughly 16 years. And we hardly are the only targets of his abuse. If you were to survey a cross-section of lawyers in the counties surrounding Shelby, quite a few would tell you the Columbiana courthouse is famous for its "home cooking." In other words, Shelby County is where the rule of law goes to die, with cases cooked to favor lawyers who are based in Shelby--no matter how crooked they might be. And Joiner, at the time Bentley promoted him, was presiding judge of the Shelby circuit.

Here, in an earlier post, is how I explained our personal experiences with Joiner:

How bad a judge is Joiner? I've written more than a dozen posts about our experiences with him, but here is a section from one that best describes how he butchered a bogus lawsuit that was filed against me by Mike McGarity, our criminally inclined neighbor--with the help of his ethically challenged attorney, William E. Swatek: (Editor's note, Swatek has a record of unethical behavior dating back some 35 years, but he is based in Pelham, which means he is a "favored son" to Joiner and other Shelby County judges.)

Joiner, by my conservative estimate, made 20 to 30 unlawful rulings in my case, all favoring Bill Swatek and his client, Mike McGarity. But I tend to focus on summary judgment because that's the most important issue, the one that would have brought the case to a lawful conclusion. And the indisputable record shows this:

The case had to be dismissed on so many grounds--eight to 10, at least--that I filed three motions for summary judgment (MSJ), each raising distinct issues of fact and law. On the first MSJ, McGarity filed a response, but he filed no timely evidence as required by law. He did file an affidavit--which did not dispute the fundamental facts and law at hand--but it was 10 days late and had to be stricken as a matter of law. Joiner denied summary judgment anyway.

On the second and third MSJs, McGarity filed no response at all--no affidavit, no evidence, nothing. That meant the evidence I filed, which was different from the evidence in the first MSJ, was uncontroverted. In such circumstances, Alabama law is clear: Summary judgment must be granted and the case dismissed. In fact, the law in all jurisdictions is clear: Such an MSJ simply cannot be denied, and it's a "nondiscretionary" ruling. It's about as clear and universal as law can get, like "three strikes and you're out" in baseball.

But Joiner could not get it right, and he denied all three MSJs.

The law in the McGarity lawsuit was the equivalent of 2 + 2 = 4. Here's how easy it was:

"When a party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment offers no evidence to contradict that presented by the movant, trial court MUST consider the movant's evidence uncontroverted, with no genuine issue of material fact existing." Voyager Guar. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Brown 631 So. 2d 848 (Ala., 1993).

I've seen lowland gorillas at the Birmingham Zoo who could have gotten that ruling right. But Joiner and Swatek have been golf buddies for years, scratching each other on the back (and God knows where else), and so . . . Carol and I learned that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (you know, the one about "equal protection" and "due process" and all that junk) means absolutely zero in Shelby County, Alabama. Doing favors for crooked lawyers like Bill Swatek--who probably have done unspeakable favors for you--is the guiding principle for judges like J. Michael Joiner.

Judge J. Michael Joiner
(From ratherexposethem.blogspot.com)

In February 2011, Gov. Bentley had every reason to know Mike Joiner was crooked. If the governor didn't know that, he could have assigned someone to contact a few lawyers in Jefferson County, and they would have told plenty of stories about Joiner in action.

But Bentley didn't care. The appointment wasn't about finding the best candidate for the job--or even a modestly qualified candidate for the job. It was about taking the easy route--appointing someone that Bentley knew thought like him, talked a phony religious game like him, and has "values" like his.

One of those values, we now know, involves skirting the law when it seems expedient. It's all about serving the interests of one's "tribe," whether it benefits Alabama or not.

Speaking of "values," the Joiner appointment was the second time in less than a month as governor that Bentley had shown a skewed, narrow world view. The first came on Inauguration Day, when he told an audience that those who had not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior were not his "brothers and sisters,"

The "brothers and sisters" comment drew national and international news coverage. The Joiner appointment received very little attention, even in Alabama. Here, from a post dated Feb. 8, 2011, is our take on the two subjects:

Bentley has said that he intends to be governor for everyone in Alabama. But this is the second time in his brief reign that Bentley has made statements or taken actions that indicate he is captive to his own narrow world view. On his inauguration day, Bentley generated national news when he said that those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior are not his "brothers and sisters." Bentley later admitted that he was speaking in the language of his personal faith, apparently oblivious to the fact that not everyone subscribes to his particular form of Christianity.

The Joiner appointment is not likely to generate much news, but it is much more important than the "brothers and sisters" story in terms of what it says about Bentley. This appointment is an example of "homerism," of provincial thinking at its worst. Bentley is from the Shelby County town of Columbiana, which serves as the county seat and has been Joiner's base of operations since he became a judge in 1992. Joiner is a lifelong resident of Shelby County, and his family roots are planted all around the Columbiana area. In fact, he has so many relatives there that one section is called Joinertown. . . .

Joiner became a judge, and keeps easily getting re-elected, because half of south Shelby County is related to him. It certainly is not because of his qualifications or performance.

Bentley appointed Joiner simply because he is well known in the governor's hometown. It's a classic example of small-minded thinking, exactly the kind of thing that Alabama does not need.

What should we learn from this? Well, it tells me that Robert Bentley didn't suddenly become corrupt when he first espied Rebekah Mason, her butt swishing and her boobs swaying.

Nope, Robert Bentley was corrupt long before that.

Erik Davis Harp, former gambling kingpin and business partner with Jessica M. Garrison, is arrested on concealed-weapon charge near Panama City Beach

Erik Davis Harp

A man who was indicted as a ringleader in a Panama-based sports gambling ring--and once was a business associate of Alabama GOP operative Jessica Medeiros Garrison, was arrested recently in Florida.

Erik Davis Harp, 43, was arrested on March 15 near Panama City Beach, Florida, for carrying a concealed weapon (firearm). Harp has extensive ties to the University of Alabama.

Officers from the Bay County Sheriff's Office made the arrest, but it is not clear how they became aware that Harp was carrying a concealed gun. Our experience has shown that concealed-weapons charges often come after a traffic stop, with the weapon found when officers determine they have grounds to search the vehicle.

We do not yet have details on events leading to Harp's arrest. Aside from the circumstances, an obvious question or two hangs out there: Why would a man, who once helped lead a gambling ring that generated more than $20 million a month, be carrying a concealed weapon? Is this arrest a sign that Harp still is involved with activities connected to major crime families, with familiar names like Gambino and Genovese?

Harp has been a somewhat shadowy figure since coming to our attention in August 2013 after being among 30 people indicted in an investigation of illegal offshore sports gaming. Along the way, we learned that Harp and Jessica Garrison had been partners in Margaritaville LLC, which involves rental of a condominium in Orange Beach, Alabama. Harp spent a number of years in Tuscaloosa and is a graduate of the University of Alabama, where he met Garrison and her ex husband, Tuscaloosa City School Board president Lee Garrison.

What has Harp been up to since smoke from the gambling case died down? That's hard to say. (The Queen's, New York, district attorney prosecuted the gambling case, and it remains unclear what, if any, punishment Harp received). Records from the weapons arrest show his address as 4000 Marriott Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida. That is home to the Marriott Legend's Edge at Bay Point.

So, Erik Harp lives full time at a Marriott Resort? That could be, but our Web research indicates he has, or did have, a number of far-flung business interests. They include:

(1) Colorado Gold and Precious Metals -- Harp is listed as the company's agent, and his address on the records is 1016 THOMAS DR. #177, Panama City Beach, FL, which is a UPS Store. The corporation appears to be affiliated with a company called Gold Rush Denver, which is at 1664 S. Broadway in the Mile High City. According to its Web site, Gold Rush has six locations in Colorado.

(2) Granite Peak Energy LLC (Dupont, WA) -- Scott Carino is listed as agent, with an address in Tacoma, Washington, and Harp is listed as manager. Records from the Washington Secretary of State show Harp's address as the UPS store in Panama City Beach. Carino also is affiliated with a family real-estate development firm called Carino and Associates.

(3) TAGG Holdings LLC -- Harp is listed as manager, with an address of the UPS store in Panama City Beach. The company started in February 2016, and Maudie Harp also is listed as a principal.

(4) Cani Investments LLC -- Harp is listed as registered agent, along with Elvia Harp. Like TAGG Holdings, this company formed in February 2016.

Speaking of investments, Harp has contributed financially to an entity that he apparently holds dear, and it's quite familiar to people across Alabama. More on that in an upcoming post.


(To be continued)

Did Gov. Robert Bentley access critics' medical records, and did such tampering date to last fall and the appearance of "delusional disorder" in my records?

Gov. Robert Bentley and Rebekah Caldwell Mason

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley might have unlawfully accessed the medical records of at least one critic, according to an article yesterday at the Alabama Political Reporter (APR). The article, by publisher Bill Britt, focused on former state law-enforcement chief Spencer Collier, and it hints that Bentley's interference with private records might be a relatively recent occurrence. But we've seen evidence that Bentley's snooping might date at least to September 2015.

Britt already has reported that Bentley improperly accessed federal and state criminal databases to seek damaging evidence about two citizen journalists--attorney Donald Watkins and me--who first brought the governor's extramarital affair with former senior advisor Rebekah Caldwell Mason to public attention. Britt's article yesterday states that Bentley used his status as a physician to access a prescription-drug database.

If that proves to be the case, it might not be the first time Bentley, or someone associated with him, tampered with medical records.

My first experience with odd events related to my medical history came last September 29 and 30 when my brother, Paul Shuler (almost certainly with the help of my lawyer brother, David Shuler), filed a petition seeking to have my wife, Carol, and me declared "incapacitated and disabled," essentially trying to make us wards of the state. This came just three weeks after we had been unlawfully evicted from an apartment in Springfield, Missouri (my hometown), a process that included sheriff's deputies brandishing at least one assault rifle and multiple handguns in our direction--with one deputy assaulting Carol and shattering her left arm.

During the course of the "INP and DIS" case, which was nutty from the outset, my brother's attorney ordered copies of our medical records. Carol had never been served, so she was not an official party to the case--and I remain baffled that her medical records could be produced. (Can we say "invasion of privacy"?) I had been served, so I was a party to the case, but I'm still not sure it was proper to have my medical records produced when the other side had not come close to even making a "prima facie" showing that they had a case. For example, they could have deposed my health-care provider, who told me he would have testified that he had seen no signs we could not take care of our personal or financial affairs.

We still have never seen the records, but Dan Menzie, our court-appointed lawyer, said mine included a notation about "delusional disorder."  The nurse practitioner I've been seeing for more than a year had never said a word to me about delusional disorder. When I asked if he actually had diagnosed me with a serious disorder, without telling me, he hummed and hawed and said it was just a notation he had made in the file. He also admitted that he would have to follow me around for an extended period of time to know if events I had spoken about were real or not, and he had not done that, so he had no grounds for making such a diagnosis. Given that, I said there was no reason to believe the notation was accurate, and that it was unfair (and potentially damaging) for me to have such information in my medical records. The nurse practitioner agreed and recently told me it had been removed.

Did Dr. Robert Bentley, someone associated with him, or someone else from Alabama play a role in getting false information placed into my medical records? What better way to discredit a journalist--the one who broke the story of the extramarital affair that threatens to bring down your administration--than to have him declared "delusional"--with zero facts to back that up?

It remains unclear what, if any, role Bentley played in the placement of curious notations in my medical records. But my brother recently asked the Missouri court to dismiss his "INP and DIS" case, and it's worth considering the following timeline:

March 23, 2016--Audio surfaces that confirms the Bentley/Mason affair, which I broke last August here at Legal Schnauzer, just nine days before our eviction;

March 28, 2016--Reports surface that Bentley pressured law enforcement to use criminal databases in order to gather dirt on me and fellow citizen journalist (and lawyer) Donald Watkins;

March 28, 2016--Paul Shuler's attorney files a motion to dismiss the incapacitation case.

What does this tell you? It tells me that once audio surfaced confirming the Bentley/Mason affair, my brothers lost interest in the incapacitation case. Perhaps they said, in unison, "Damn, Roger was right all along."

News flash to siblings: Roger has been right about a lot of things all along.

As for signs that Bentley is messing with Spencer Collier's medical records, this is from Bill Britt's article:

Former members of Gov. Robert Bentley’s administration say the Governor is obsessed with his authority as Chief Magistrate. Bentley has been accused of ordering law enforcement agents to target critics, especially those who have exposed his relationship with former senior adviser Rebekah Caldwell Mason. And now, it is believed, that there is at least one instance of a former associate’s medical records being violated, in order to launch a whisper campaign against that individual.

There is suspicion that Bentley, who still holds an active medical license, may have accessed or ordered others to search the State’s Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) database to find information that could be used against Spencer Collier, former head of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA).

Several former associates close to Bentley are fearful that he is accessing their most private information, in an effort to destroy their lives and reputations as well.

Bentley has shown signs of having the kind of paranoia that drove Richard Nixon from the White House. Writes Britt:

In late March, this publication found that according to high-ranking officers and staff, Bentley pressured law enforcement officers to use federal and state resources to target those critical of his relationship with Mason.

In an effort to find potentially damaging information on those who spoke out against the couple, Bentley instructed top law enforcement agents to investigate private citizens, in direct conflict with the law, said those close to the matter.

(All of these individuals spoke on background to alreporter.com, because of a criminal investigation surrounding this and other matters.)

Two individuals with detailed knowledge of the incidents say Bentley ordered the use of the National Crime Information Center, (NCIC) and the Law Enforcement Tactical System (LETS) to find any incriminating evidence that might be used against attorney Donald V. Watkins and Legal Schnauzer blogger, Roger Shuler.

Is the same being done with the controlled substance database?

If the answer proves to be yes, Bentley might have stepped in some serious "doo doo""

According to Alabama code Section 20-2-214-3: “A licensed physician approved by the department who has authority to prescribe, dispense, or administer controlled substances may designate up to two employees who may access the [PDMP] database on the physician’s behalf.”

When asked if he thought Bentley or his surrogates had accessed his medical records, Collier declined to give a direct answer saying only, “It is a matter best left to law enforcement.”

Speaking on background, a Birmingham physician said any doctor could easily enter the database to determine what controlled substance medications an individual had been prescribed, but without the person’s consent, it would be a crime.

Under Section 20-2-216: “Any person or entity who intentionally obtains unauthorized access to or who alters or destroys information contained in the controlled substances prescription database shall be guilty of a Class C felony.”

What if Bentley or his associates tampered with medical records in Missouri, where he apparently is not licensed to practice medicine? What if Rebekah Mason directed the tampering on the governor's behalf. What if individuals in Missouri knowingly participated in such a scheme?

The ramifications, given use of the word "felony" above, could be serious.

Bill Baxley claims reports of a plea deal in the Mike Hubbard case are false, but that might not be the final word on the subject, as trial date approaches

Bill Baxley
(From alchetron.com)

Bill Baxley, one of the attorneys for Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn), says reports that a plea-bargain deal has been reached in the speaker's criminal case are false. Does that mean the trial on 23 felony ethics charges will begin, as scheduled, on May 16 in Lee County? Not necessarily.

Several reports last week made it seem Baxley's statements had put the matter to bed. The headline on one read: "Breaking: Hubbard's Attorney Confirms Plea Deal Report is False." Another claimed Baxley had "totally shut down" the Hubbard plea deal "rumors."

It's true that, even if a plea deal has been reached, Hubbard can back out until the court accepts it. That means, no matter the status of any plea deal at the moment, a trial still could take place.

According to multiple reports on the Web, the plea deal would call for Hubbard to plead guilty and receive an 18-month prison sentence (six months suspended) in exchange for cooperating with state and federal officials in investigations of Gov. Robert Bentley, Senate President Del Marsh, and former Gov. Bob Riley.

Baxley has called such reports "preposterous," claiming there is "not one grain of truth" to any of them.

We can think of at least two reasons that Baxley's statement should not be taken as the final word on the subject:

(1) Baxley might not know what he's talking about -- The plea-deal reports originated with attorney Donald Watkins, who has provided insightful coverage on a number of Alabama scandals at his Facebook page.

A veteran of numerous high-profile criminal cases, Watkins is well acquainted with the behind-the-scenes process leading to a trial date. Here is what he said about the usual plea-deal process:

Plea deal talks occur in every criminal case. Hubbard’s case is no exception. In high-profile cases, these discussions are usually initiated, in the first instance, through behind-the-scenes intermediaries, rather than direct talks between the trial attorneys. This approach affords prosecutors and defense counsel “plausible deniability” in the event a plea deal is reached in principle and becomes public, or falls through the cracks, before the defendant formally enters his/her guilty plea in court. This approach also allows prosecutors and defense counsel to truthfully say to inquiring reporters that there is “no plea deal” until such time as a deal has been presented in court.

Watkins notes that a guilty verdict on any one of the 23 counts could put Hubbard in prison for two to 20 years. With convictions on roughly half of the counts, the speaker could be looking at a virtual life sentence--although we suspect even a high sentence would be reduced at some point for such a high-profile (white?) defendant.

A trial is extremely risky for Hubbard. Meanwhile, the plea deal described publicly would require him to spend only one year behind bars and give him a chance to pick up the pieces of his life. Writes Watkins:

Again, my sources stand by their account of a plea deal. Hubbard is not bound by any tentative deal reached by intermediaries unless and until he announces it in open court and Judge Walker accepts it. Lawyers in high-profile cases handle plea deals in this fashion in order to avoid the appearance of weakness in their PR spin and trial positions in the event their client elects to proceed with a trial and take his/her chances with a jury verdict.

The deal . . . is an incredibly attractive one for Hubbard and prosecutors. It allows both sides to declare victory.

(2) Baxley might not be telling the truth -- I've seen Bill Baxley in action--up close and personal, you might say. He represented GOP operative Jessica Medeiros Garrison in her defamation lawsuit against me. I saw numerous signs that Baxley and the truth are distant acquaintances, at best. Here are several examples of Baxley engaging in dubious actions in my case:

Donald Watkins
(From ajc.com)

(a) He accused me of criminal behavior toward his client -- In a letter to me dated August 16, 2013, Baxley stated that my efforts via e-mail to request an interview or seek comment from Garrison constituted the crime of harassing communications. In a post about two weeks later, I showed that Baxley's assertions were way out of line with the actual law. Does Bill Baxley have a habit of making untruthful statements for dramatic or threatening effects? In my experience, the answer is yes.

(b) He accused me a second time of criminal behavior toward his client -- Not content to accuse me of harassment, Baxley sent a second letter that accused me of stalking. Again, I showed in a post that Baxley had careened wildly off the legal tracks. More untruths, used for purposes of drama or threats? I would say yes.

(c) He attacked my credibility via another blogger -- In August 2013, Dothan blogger Rickey Stokes posted an attack piece against Legal Schnauzer, claiming that my reports about Jessica Garrison's extramarital affair with Attorney General Luther Strange were "highly questionable." Stokes said he came to that conclusion after conversations with two unnamed sources, one of whom Stokes said he "would trust with my life in his hands."

Well, I certainly can be fooled, but I wasn't fooled by this. What is Bill Baxley's hometown? Dothan. His brother, Wade (who died in March 2015) was a prominent lawyer there, and his nephew, Hamp, still practices law there. I promptly wrote a post noting that Stokes' sources likely were from the Baxley family. More importantly, I noted that the sources probably did not tell Stokes that a member of the Baxley family represented Jessica Garrison.

A little more than a month later, Stokes admitted in a public forum that Bill Baxley had hoodwinked him; Baxley had been his source, without admitting that he had a vested interest in getting a hit piece printed about me.

Here is part of what Rickey Stokes wrote in the forum:

As to the Dothan Baxley family contacting me about the article, the answer is NO. As to Bill Baxley and I having a telephone conversation over this matter, yes. My entire adult life I have known Bill and Wade Baxley. . . .

That relationship is what resulted in the phone call. And yes, after a conversation with Bill explaining some things to me, not that he was filing a lawsuit against anyone, but answering some questions, resulted in my article.

Translation: Bill Baxley conned Rickey Stokes into writing an attack piece, filled with false information, against me. That raises this question: If Jessica Garrison's defamation case was so strong, why did Baxley feel the need to con a blogger into trying to discredit me? Answer: Garrison's case was not strong, and as a matter of law, court proceedings showed that my reporting was neither false nor defamatory.

Here is one other thing to keep in mind about Bill Baxley and the Hubbard case. For some reason, Baxley (who was a Democrat in his political days) has jumped in bed with some of the sleaziest Republicans Alabama has to offer. We're talking Jessica Garrison, Luther Strange, and others connected to what should be called the Riley Raw Sewage Company. (Motto: "If you don't smell like s--t already, you will when we get through with you.")

Both Baxley and Rob Riley have represented Hubbard at various times in the pre-trial process. Evidence suggests Baxley, Bob Riley, and Rob Riley were involved in various schemes to obstruct the Lee County grand jury. Baxley denounced the plea-deal reports via a May 3 interview with Leland Whaley at radio station WYDE in Birmingham. This is from Whaley's bio at the WYDE Web site:

Leland has worked in public service as a District Director for then US Congressman Bob Riley. Leland was a key campaign manager for Bob Riley’s successful 2002 race for Governor. Leland served in the Riley Administration as Assistant Director in the Alabama Development office overseeing the effort to preserve and recruit military jobs in the Base Realignment and Closure Process. Leland also directed the Alabama Film Office for ADO. Leland has advised dozens of conservative organizations, causes and candidates and has lectured on communication strategy throughout the state of Alabama.

When Baxley wanted to get his message out about the plea deal, he turned to a true-blue Riley-bot. Why might the crusty old lawyer have done that? According to Donald Watkins, a plea deal could result in Hubbard unearthing everything he knows to investigators about Bob Riley--and possibly son, Rob Riley, and daughter, Minda Riley Campbell.

Mike Hubbard

Such a thought probably makes several Riley sphincters tighten. Perhaps Baxley wants a trial--in which evidence suggests Hubbard is likely to be found guilty--in order to save several Riley butts.

If Baxley has a trace of decency about him--and that has not become apparent to me--perhaps he knows Hubbard's life could be in danger, and he is trying to protect the speaker.

It's also possible Baxley knows reports that Hubbard already has admitted guilt could taint a jury pool if a trial does take place.

Finally, I see three ways Hubbard can get off on these charges, even though it's hard to imagine he has a legit defense on any of them:

(1) Luther Strange's office can screw up the prosecution (a real possibility);

(2) Someone could slip cash to the judge, a prosecutor, or two-three jurors, especially the foreman, to buy a not-guilty verdict (a real possibility). If you think such stuff doesn't happen in America's "justice" system, you are kidding yourself;

(3) White, conservative jurors ignore the evidence and law, and refuse to convict one of their own--especially one with a cute blonde wife, a couple of white  kids (including one with the adorable name of "Riley"), and extensive ties to the area's economic and cultural Colossus, Auburn University.

Was Baxley's conversation with Donald Watkins another con game intended to protect his new-found friends in the GOP? Will Donald Watkins fall for it, as did Rickey Stokes?

I doubt it. I suspect Watkins is way too smart for that. Watkins wrote with great deference about Baxley, but I imagine he can see right through a con man.

Former Alabama principal Catherine Armstrong Bell, cleared of sex charges, has been denied expungement as Alabama courts repeatedly misapplied the law

Catherine Armstrong Bell
(From dailymail.co.uk)

A ruling that denied expungement to a former Alabama school principal, who lost her job and home after being wrongfully accused of having sexual contact with a student, was the result of multiple butchered decisions by Alabama courts and law-enforcement officials. Even the Alabama Legislature appears to have played a role in screwing things up.

The good news is that Catherine Armstrong Bell appears to have a technical avenue by which she could get her record cleared. The bad news is that should have happened already--and would have, except for mind-boggling incompetence in Alabama's "justice" apparatus. Given that the case originated in notoriously corrupt Shelby County--where the legal nightmare for my wife, Carol, and me originated--it's possible Bell has been intentionally cheated.

Bell was arrested and charged in 2013 with three counts of being a school employee engaging in sexual intercourse with a student younger than 19 and one count of being a school employee engaging in sexual contact involving touching of a student. In late 2014, the case was dismissed after the student recanted and stopped cooperating with prosecutors.

Bell, 35, maintained her innocence all along, and the case received international attention via the UK Daily Mail, which reported that DNA and electronic evidence came back negative. The paper also reported that Bell has struggled to find work since the charges were made public.

Expungement of her record would have been a first step toward helping Bell get her life back. But Alabama "justice" officials have botched that process in astounding ways. Let's examine the actions of several dunderheads who have wrongfully kept Bell's record from being cleared. Our analysis is driven largely by review of an Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals ruling released last Friday. A copy of the ruling is embedded at the end of this post.

How gross is the corruption and incompetence in Alabama's "justice" system? The following "cavalcade of con artists" in the Bell case should give you an idea: (Note: Explaining this case involves a number of citations to the Code of Alabama, and that involves a lot of numbers that can be confusing. But please hang in there with us. The Bell case is a classic example of how Alabama courts cheat every-day people.)

(1) Shelby County prosecutors, "led" by District Attorney Jill Lee -- Prosecutors started the screw job in the Bell case by citing Code of Alabama 12-25-32(14) to support their claim that expungement should be denied because three of the charges against Bell involved allegations of "nonconsenual sex" and the fourth was "particularly reprehensible."

At first glance, the prosecutors appear to be on the right track because the Alabama Expungement Statute (under Sec. 15-27-2) states as follows:

(a) A person who has been charged with a felony offense, except a violent offense as defined in Section 12-25-32(14), may file a petition in the criminal division of the circuit court in the county in which the charges were filed, to expunge records relating to the charge . . .

That seems reasonable enough--until you realize what sub-section (14) actually says. Here it is:

(14) VIOLENT OFFENDER. A violent offender is an offender who has been convicted of a violent offense, or who is determined by the trial court judge or a release authority to have demonstrated a propensity for violence, aggression, or weapons related behavior based on the criminal history or behavior of the offender while under supervision of any criminal justice system agency or entity.

Our research has turned up nothing that indicates Bell has a "propensity for violence, aggression or weapons-related behavior based on the criminal history . . . of the offender." In fact, we've seen no sign that Bell has a criminal history at all.

Prosecutors found the language about "nonconsensual sex" and offenses that are "particularly reprehensible" in sub-section 15. But the statute clearly states that only sub-section 14 is to be used for determining if an individual is a violent offender who might not be subject to having records expunged. The rest of Section 12-25-32 applies to the Alabama Sentencing Commission and has nothing to do with expungement.

Were prosecutors grasping at anything they could find in an effort to punish an individual who had been falsely accused of a crime? Sure looks like it. Why would prosecutors care if a wrongfully accused party has her record expunged? If they see their role as making sure that justice is done, they should want that to happen, right? So why were these cretins in Shelby County opposing it.

(2) Shelby County Circuit Judge Dan Reeves -- Thankfully, this doofus retired from the bench in March 2016. But he still had time to show his utter incompetence in the Bell case. Carol and I have seen Reeves up close on several occasions, and he has shown that he is both a political hack as a judge and an utterly miserable human being.

Reeves denied Bell's petition because he found the charges were excluded by the provisions of Code of Alabama 15-27-2(a). That foolishness apparently left even the justices on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals scratching their heads. Here is what they wrote in Footnote No. 4 on page 3 of their opinion:

FN4 -- By citing § 15-27-2(a), the circuit court apparently found that Bell's felony charges were "violent offenses" as defined in § 12-25-32(14), Ala. Code 1975.

As noted above, sub-section 14--for purposes of the Bell case--would apply only if she had been CONVICTED of a violent offense. But she wasn't convicted of anything; her accuser recanted and essentially told prosecutors to take a hike.

Reeves denied Bell's petition because he found the charges against her were excluded by Code of Alabama 15-27-2(a). That's because the charges are not included on the list of violent offenses. And Bell was not convicted of either offense, so the section Reeves cited didn't apply anyway.

Bottom line? Reeves, by law, had to grant Bell's petition on multiple grounds--but he still could not get it right.

(3) Court of Criminal Appeals -- The geniuses on this court found there is no statutory provision for direct appeal to them on denial of a petition for expungement. Rather, the trial court's ruling in such a matter is subject to review only by certiorari.

That is correct, meaning the appellant must petition to the Alabama Supreme Court. But get this: The Court of Criminal Appeals ruling states that Bell already had petitioned to the Supreme Court. Here it is:

Bell appealed the denials to the Alabama Supreme Court and that Court transferred the appeal to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, rescinded the transfer, and then transferred the case to this Court.

Yes, you read that correctly. Bell and her lawyers (Jonathan Lyerly and Charles Cleveland) did exactly what they were supposed to do--and after all three Alabama appellate courts played hot potato with it--the petition still wound up in the wrong court. We hope you will remember that next time Alabama judges whine that the system needs more money. Fact: Judges tend to grossly mismanage the money they already have.

(4) Alabama Supreme Court -- Roy Moore and Co. apparently are so busy trying to cheat VictoryLand that they can't be bothered to actually read the Alabama Expungement Statute. It specifically says that the only avenue for review is via a certiorari petition to . . . THEM. But when they get such a petition, they send it to the wrong court--not once, but twice. (Sigh!)

(5) The Alabama Legislature -- This Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight screwed up on a couple of items:

(a) Why is certiorari review required? Why does a person who has been falsely accused of a crime not have a right to direct appeal? Certiorari review can be denied, with zero explanation. This provision makes zero sense;

(b) Legislators seem to have problems with simple arithmetic. As noted above, the legislation says the key provision regarding "violent offenses" is found in sub-section (14). But the list of violent offenses, to which the statute apparently refers, is in sub-section (15).

No wonder we are confused. The Alabama Expungement Statute appears to be horribly screwed up, and when you put it in the hands of corrupt judges like Dan Reeves, well, abominations like the Bell case ensue.

As for possible good news, but the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals gives Bell a possible avenue toward justice. It says she should seek an "extraordinary writ" under Rule 21 of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Perhaps that would give the appellate court an opportunity to tell the trial judges in Shelby County to pull their heads out of their asses--so that Catherine Armstrong Bell can start rebuilding her life after being the victim of horrendous injustice.

Catherine Armstrong Bell Ruling by Roger Shuler

Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman is released from solitary confinement, where he landed after discussing Robert McDonnell case with Washington Post

Don Siegelman
(From nytimes.com)

Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman has been released from solitary confinement at the Federal Correctional Complex in Oakdale, Louisiana.

Siegelman was sent to solitary confinement last week after he was quoted extensively in a Washington Post (WaPo) article about the case of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell, whose 2014 conviction on public-corruption charges was reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) last Wednesday. The nation's high court twice has declined to hear Siegelman's case, even though it presents issues that are almost identical to those in the McDonnell case.

Many of the issues raised in the McDonnell case could have been resolved in 2010, or maybe even earlier, if SCOTUS had heard the Siegelman case. That the high court is hearing the case of McDonnell (a Republican) while ignoring the case of Siegelman (a Democrat) raises all kinds of ugly questions.

Those issues get even uglier when you consider that Siegelman wound up in solitary confinement just days after discussing the McDonnell case with Washington Post reporter Robert Barnes. Officials with the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) claimed Siegelman was punished mainly for selling a shirt to raise funds for a documentary, called Atticus v. the Architect, about his case.

I'm not sure anyone, especially Siegleman, is buying that. Here is what he said in a letter to supporters about his return to the general prison population:

For unsaid reasons, I was directed to go back to the camp. Just had dinner with a group of guys, have a new bed assignment. I should be getting my personal property back from the "Special Housing Unit" tomorrow.

I'll keep you posted on any new developments

What prompted BOP officials to make such a stupid move in the first place, so closely aligned with the Washington Post interview? Here is Siegelman's best guess:

I suspect the BOP figured out that my donating a T-shirt to raise money for the International Documentary Association, to help produce a documentary on "The Political Assassination of Don Siegelman," was protected by the First Amendment. . . .

All is well for the moment. . . .

Court records show that McDonnell, his wife, and family received $177,000 in luxury items from businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr., but McDonnell supporters say evidence shows the former governor never took official action on Williams' behalf. The gifts were legal under Virginia law.

That factual scenario is quite different from the one in Siegelman, but the cases still raise similar legal issues. Writes WaPo's Barnes:

“Quid pro quo” translates from the Latin to “something for something.” McDonnell’s attorneys acknowledge the governor got something — Virginia’s laws did not forbid the gifts — but said he gave nothing.

Siegelman’s case is the reverse. He gave Alabama health-care executive Richard Scrushy a new term on an important industry regulatory board. But Scrushy’s offering was a $500,000 campaign contribution to push a referendum measure for a lottery that would benefit the state’s underfunded school system. (Note: This information from The Washington Post is inaccurate, and it has been widely misreported at numerous news outlets. Please see Editor's Note at the end of this post for explanation.)

“The Siegelman case was different from all others,” Siegelman said, in the detached tone of the Georgetown Law graduate that he is. “There was no personal benefit, not a penny of any financial gain. There wasn’t any self-enrichment scheme. There was no testimony of a quid pro quo, much less an explicit or express quid pro quo. And the contribution was not even to me but to a ballot initiative.”

Andrew P. Miller, a former Virginia attorney general, agrees with Siegelman, a Democrat, and McDonnell, a Republican. Miller helped drum up support for both men as they presented their cases to the Supreme Court.

“I’m bipartisan in my concern about this,” he said.

Experts who have followed both cases say they see similarities--and differences. Writes Barnes:

The similarity [Milller] sees is that both men were rising stars in their respective parties brought down by prosecutors appointed by the president of the opposite party.

Grant Woods, a former Republican attorney general from Arizona, said that, if anything, Siegelman had the bigger complaint.

“The Siegelman case to me is a complete travesty of justice from start to finish,” Woods said. The McDonnell case, on the other hand, “is just more of an interesting legal question.”

Editor's note: The information from The Washington Post regarding Scrushy's alleged $500,000 donation to Siegelman's lottery campaign is inaccurate. That figure has been misreported numerous times at multiple news outlets, including ours. We attempted to set the record straight in an April 8, 2013, post titled "Richard Scrushy: Convictions in the Siegelman case are grouded in former aide's flawed testimony."

Scrushy says prosecutors repeatedly told the press during the 2006 trial that he gave Siegelman $500,000 to support the then-governor's education lottery campaign. The story obviously has legs because 10 years later--just last week, in fact--The Washington Post was repeating it. Scrushy, however, has said multiple times--in 2013 and again this week--that it is not true.

We will provide details on the actual events in an upcoming post, but here is the gist of it:

* Scrushy gave $250,000, via HealthSouth, to help the Alabama Democratic Party pay down debt from the lottery initiative, which already had been defeated. Scrushy gave no money to support the lottery campaign.

* A Maryland company, Integrated Health Services (IHS), gave $250,000 for the lottery campaign, but Scrushy said he was not involved with that.

* Scrushy only agreed to help pay down the Alabama Democratic Party's debt after former Alabama Power CEO Elmer Harris asked him to. And Siegelman, Scrushy said, played no role in that effort.

Mike Hubbard has accepted plea deal, with 18-month sentence in exchange for testimony against Bentley, Marsh, and Bob Riley, according to reports

Mike Hubbard

Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn) and state prosecutors have reached a plea deal that calls for Hubbard to receive an 18-month prison sentence in exchange for testimony about alleged corruption involving Gov. Robert Bentley, Senate President Del Marsh, and former Gov. Bob Riley, according to multiple reports in the Web press.

The first report surfaced yesterday at The Meck, a Dothan-based blog published by David Meckley. Attorney Donald Watkins confirmed last night on his Facebook page that the deal had been finalized. What are details of the deal? Watkins has answers:

Hubbard will: (a) resign from public office; (b) plead guilty to public corruption charges; (c) agree to an 18-month sentence, 12 months of which will be served in the Lee County jail and 6 months of which will be suspended; and (d) be allowed to register as a lobbyist after serving his sentence. As part of his deal, Hubbard will cooperate with state and federal prosecutors investigating allegations of public corruption by Governor Robert Bentley, former governor Bob Riley, and Senate President Del Marsh.

Our Facebook news team first reported on April 17, 2016, that early "street" reports of the deal had been confirmed, including the 18-month sentence. TheMeck.blogspot.com reported additional details of Hubbard's deal in its story.

The Hubbard deal will be publicly announced after the legislature adjourns. The plea deal will be announced in open court on or before the start of Hubbard's scheduled May 16, 2016, criminal trial.

State Rep. Alvin Holmes (D-Montgomery) might have stepped in "doo doo" by issuing a threat last week to legislators who might consider supporting an effort to impeach Bentley. I have wondered publicly if Holmes stepped over the line into criminal extortion with his threat. (See comments at link.) Investigators apparently have the same concern. Writes Watkins:

Investigators are also looking into threatening statements made by State Representative Alvin Holmes (D-Montgomery) to fellow legislators last week to determine whether these statements rose to the level of criminal "extortion" under state law. Holmes threatened to "out" legislators who are engaging in extra-marital affairs if they voted in favor of the House's impeachment resolution against Bentley. Investigators believe Holmes may have crossed the line with his threat.

Breaking reports tend to answer some questions, while raising others. Perhaps the major question raised here is: Why are federal investigators checking into Del Marsh and Bob Riley, what information can Hubbard give them, and will that bring even more prominent Alabama politicos into the fray? Here is an even better question: Will unlawful actions of Indian gaming interests be unearthed, and will that help explain much of the corruption Alabama has experienced over the past 20 years? Come to think of it, could this create a trail that leads to national political figures who have turned Alabama into a legal and political sewer (hello, Karl Rove!)?

Sorry, but once you start thinking about all of the questions this raises, it's hard to stop. It's also hard to wipe the smile off your face at the thought of certain conservative crooks winding up in the orange jumpsuits they so richly deserve.

For now, we know for sure that the Web press has led the way in breaking this story and following its various leads. Writes Watkins:

David Meckley d/b/a TheMeck.blogspot.com, Yellowhammer News, the Alabama Political Reporter, Roger Alan Shuler d/b/a Legal Schnauzer.blogspot.com, and other online journalists continue to lead the state's news media by breaking all of the leading news stories relating to Alabama's high-profile public corruption scandals.

One note of caution: Plea deals, by their nature, are shaky--and this one has plenty of time to fall apart. Writes Watkins:

Hubbard has the legal right to walk away from his plea deal at any time prior to its acceptance by the Court. If he does, his trial will go forward as scheduled.

More sex tapes might surface of Gov. Robert Bentley and Rebekah Caldwell Mason--and these reportedly are much more graphic than the first batch

Gov. Robert Bentley and Rebekah Caldwell Mason
(From nytimes.com} 

More sex tapes exist of Alabama Governor Robert Bentley and former advisor Rebekah Caldwell Mason--on top of those already made public, which had Bentley talking about caressing Mason's breasts and exploring her nether regions. The new tapes, according to a report from Birmingham attorney Donald Watkins, are more graphic than the ones already made public.

When might the new tapes be made public? We don't have an answer to that question, but Watkins reports (via his Facebook page) that federal subpoenas are being issued in Montgomery and Tuscaloosa, seeking documents related to Bentley, Mason, and her husband, Jon Mason.

On top of that, we have a not-so-subtle political extortion scheme from Alvin Holmes, a black Democrat, to punish legislators who might support impeachment of Bentley, a white Republican. How weird is that? Well, it gets even more strange when you consider that Holmes' punishment would come in the form of outing legislators who are engaging in extramarital activities of their own.

It looks like this story could heat up before it cools down. And who knows how many powerful Alabamians will have tumbled--perhaps into federal prison--before it's all over. Watkins says he does not expect Holmes' scheme to succeed. More on that in a moment.

As for the new, so far non-public, sex tapes, Watkins reports:

Finally, we are reporting today that more Robert Bentley-Rebekah Mason sex tapes exist. According to my sources, these tapes are much more graphic than the ones that have already been made public. And "yes", they prove once again that Bentley has lied to Alabamians about the nature and scope of his relationship with Rebekah.

Meanwhile, Watkins says the federal investigation is marching forward:

Federal grand jury subpoenas are being delivered in Montgomery and Tuscaloosa requiring the submission of various records relating to Governor Robert Bentley, Rebekah Mason, Jonathan Mason and others. This investigation is headed in the right direction.

What explains Alvin Holmes bizarre and brazen effort to protect Bentley? Here is Watkins' answer to that question. He says the scheme has its genesis with Joe Reed, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference:

Yesterday, State Representative Alvin Holmes (D-Montgomery) threatened to expose the extramarital affairs of his fellow legislators if they vote to impeach Governor Robert Bentley. Holmes is one of many "human shield" legislators defending Bentley. Holmes' threat, which seemed to be extremely bizarre for an African-American Democratic legislator, has angered voters in Holmes' House district and has infuriated advocates for ethical government around the state.

Our Facebook news team has solved the Alvin Holmes-Robert Bentley human shield mystery. Holmes is a longtime political "puppet" of Alabama Democratic Conference Chairman Joe L. Reed and deceased Alabama Education Association Executive Secretary Paul Hubbert. Reed and Hubbert teamed up to help Bentley defeat Bradley Byrne in the 2010 Republican primary elections. Reed also privately supported Bentley in 2014 election against Democratic gubernatorial nominee Parker Griffin. As a result, Bentley and Reed have developed a close personal friendship.

Alvin Holmes
(From yellowhammernews.com)

Away from public view, Reed functions as one of Bentley's trusted political advisors. In this undisclosed capacity, Reed works closely with Bentley and his chief legal counsel, David Byrne. Reed identifies "safe" blacks for Bentley to appoint to vacant judgeships and government boards, among other tasks.

In the matters relating to Bentley's "sex for power" scandal with lover Rebekah Mason, Holmes is Reed's public voice. This is why Holmes has not condemned the scandal. Rather, Holmes has threatened the legislators who're moving to impeach Bentley. This political threat or "drone strike" was called in by Reed.

The Reed-Holmes scheme appears to be foundering after 23 representatives signed on to support Rep. Ed Henry (R-Hartselle) and his plan to impeach Bentley. That gave Henry more than the 21 signatures required to introduce an impeachment resolution.

Where is this headed? Polls show, Watkins reports, that Alabamians overwhelmingly want Bentley gone--and they are likely to punish any legislator who tries to protect the governor. Writes Watkins:

Following the lead of State Representative Alvin Holmes (D-Montgomery) and Senate President Del Marsh (R-Anniston), all of the legislators and senators in this seemingly pro-Bentley group have banned together, essentially forming a protective “human shield” around Bentley. Holmes has even gone so far as to threaten lawmakers with exposure of their marital cheating if any member of this group breaks ranks. Holmes’ extortion threat has been effective, even with Del Marsh.

Those "human shield" legislators who are not controlled by Holmes by virtue of his extortion threat are under the direct control and dominion of House Speaker Mike Hubbard, who is awaiting trial this month on 23 felony counts of public corruption charges.

According to a poll by AL.com in March, nine out of ten Alabamians want Bentley gone. Every major newspaper in the state has demanded Bentley’s resignation. No corporate leader is publicly supporting Bentley, and many have told me privately that Bentley is a total disaster as governor. Yet, only twenty-three of 105 House members co-sponsored the impeachment resolution. None of the thirty-five senators have publicly supported Bentley’s removal or demanded his resignation.

Holmes, Marsh and their fellow "human shield" legislators have figuratively given Alabama voters the "middle finger" with respect to family values, transparency, accountability, and integrity in government. Holmes is not expected to run for re-election in 2018. Del Marsh wants to become Alabama’s next governor, yet he is refusing to stand for integrity in government when it matters the most. The “human shield” legislators who intend to run for re-election and who are following Holmes' lead are running the very real risk of ending their political careers and irreparably damaging their personal reputations. So be it.