Federal Judge Henry Wingate Doesn't Make An Effort To Apply The Law Correctly In Paul Minor Civil Case

U.S. Judge Henry Wingate

Paul Minor, one of the most successful plaintiffs' lawyers in Mississippi history, has been released from prison on his Bush-era conviction for "crimes" that do not exist under actual law. Minor's legal problems, however, are far from over. With U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate still in charge of his fate, things could go from bad to worse for Paul Minor.

How could Wingate, a black Republican who apparently qualifies as Mississippi's version of Clarence Thomas, still be in charge of Minor's fate? After all, Wingate presided over multiple criminal trials in the Minor matter; how could he possibly serve as an impartial arbiter in a related civil matter?

The answer is, "He can't, but he's doing it anyway--in what's left of our so-called U.S. justice system."

As part of the fallout from the criminal case, insurance giant USF&G sued Minor and his one-time client, Peoples Bank of Biloxi, Mississippi. The basic claim is that Minor and the bank benefited from actions that were found to be unlawful. The civil case was filed in 2003, but it was put on hold pending the criminal matter. When Minor was released from prison earlier this year, the civil case kicked into high gear.

A reasonable citizen might ask, "How could the same judge hear both cases? He's heard the evidence, he's issued orders on various matters . . . how could he possibly be an impartial arbiter in the civil matter when he's already ruled on pretty much the same issues in the criminal matter?"

Under the law, such a citizen is asking all of the right questions. Per 28 U.S. Code 455, a federal judge must disqualify himself in "any proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." That means Wingate was required by law to step down from the Minor civil case, without being asked. But so far, the judge has resisted all of Minor's efforts to get him off the case.

Even if Wingate had handled the criminal case in an impeccable manner, he should not be hearing the related civil matter. But Wingate's recalcitrance becomes especially troubling when you consider that he butchered the criminal case in almost every way imaginable.

Here are just two of many posts we've written about the botch job Wingate committed on U.S. v. Minor, et al:


Henry Wingate: Portrait of a Corrupt Judge (January 28, 2008)


Judge In Paul Minor Case Continues His Evil Ways (June 14, 2011)


We are not alone in our critique of Wingate's actions. Columbia University law professor Scott Horton called some of Wingate's rulings in the criminal case "breathtaking" and "unconscionable" in a 2007 article for Harper's.

USF&G's lawyers, from the Jackson, Mississippi, firm of McCraney, Montagnet, Quin & Noble, almost surely know they have no legal basis for the civil claim. They apparently have the judge in their hip pocket, however, so the case is proceeding apace.

Consider just some of the facts and law connected to the criminal case:

* USF&G claims that it was the victim of a fraudulent scheme involving Minor and former Mississippi Chancery Judge Wes Teel in the underlying Peoples Bank case. But USF&G voluntarily settled the case, and Teel did not even issue a final ruling in the matter. He did favor Peoples Bank at summary judgment on the issue of liability, but that finding was in line with prevailing Mississippi law at the time. Where is fraud in a case that USF&G voluntarily settled?

* At the heart of USF&G's civil complaint is the contention that it was the victim of a bribery scheme involving Minor and Teel. But the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned all of the bribery-related convictions in 2009. The remaining convictions essentially rested on an honest-services fraud charge.

* In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Skilling v. U.S., 28 S. Ct. 2896 (2010), honest-services convictions can stand only in cases where bribes or kickbacks are involved. As already shown, the bribery convictions in the Minor criminal case were overturned. And kickbacks were not even alleged.

That leaves us asking this question about the USF&G civil case: Where's the beef? The case rests on . . . well, almost nothing. But the firm is seeking $12.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages anyway.

Minor probably has grounds to seek Rule 11 sanctions against USF&G lawyers for bringing a nonmeritorious case for the purposes of harassment. He also probably has grounds for an abuse of process claim against USF&G and its attorneys.

With Henry Wingate on the case, what are the chances that a Ronald Reagan appointee would hold an insurance company and its lawyers accountable for bringing a baseless civil complaint?

The chances are slim, but the public should pay close attention to Henry Wingate's actions in USF&G v. Minor. It's a classic study of a federal judge who is so arrogant that he doesn't even try to hide his favoritism toward a corporate litigant. And the corporation seems happy to benefit from the law being bent like a pretzel.

Luther Strange's Statements On Voting Rights Act Offer A Glimpse Into His "Sordid" Lack Of Values

Luther Strange

Of all the public statements about the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act (VRA), perhaps the most ironic belongs to Alabama Attorney General  Luther Strange.

That's because Strange praised the high court's decision to gut VRA at the same time he was being sued under VRA.

It's hard to imagine a more flagrant display of hypocrisy from a public official. But given what we are learning about Strange's personal life, perhaps we should not be surprised at anything he might say or do.

This is the same Luther Strange who argued back in January that the VictoryLand casino should not be granted a liquor license because the facility and its owner, Milton McGregor, have "a sordid past." 

Based on our roughly three-month investigation of Strange's personal affairs, we can safely say that Strange knows a thing or two about sordid activities. We will be providing details in a multi-part series of posts that begins tomorrow.

The public already has plenty of evidence about Strange's tendency to make deceptive public statements that are hypocritical and, at times, downright dishonest. Consider his words on the Supreme Court's ruling on the VRA in Shelby County v. Holder. This is from an NPR report titled "In Alabama, Voting Decision Seen As A Sign of Progress, Setback":

The 5-4 decision declared unconstitutional a section of the law that established a formula to identify state and local governments that were required to get approval from the federal government before they made changes to their voting laws. The Supreme Court said Congress can change that part of the law — Section 4 — to reflect "current conditions" if it wants to continue to enforce it.

Luther Strange, Alabama's Republican attorney general, calls the ruling historic.

"What I'm most pleased about [is] it's a recognition of the tremendous amount of progress that we've made in Alabama over the last 50 years," he says.

Strange did not stop there. From NPR:

Strange says there's no doubt that federal oversight was needed in the 1960s. But times have changed.

"To treat Alabama the way all the other states are treated is a huge victory — symbolically, I think, and practically," he says.

"Big Luther" apparently neglected to mention one tiny detail: At the time he spoke those words, he was the defendant in a federal lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act.

In a case styled Johnny Ford, et al v. Luther Strange, et al, the mayor of Tuskegee and other residents of Macon County allege that Strange and Governor Robert Bentley violated the Voting Rights Act by usurping the authority of the county sheriff when Strange's office raided and closed the VictoryLand casino in February. 

Plaintiffs' lawyer Donald LaRoche, of Brockton, Massachusetts, alleges that racism and thuggish Republican Party politics drove the VictoryLand raid, which heaped "economic devastation" upon residents of majority-black Macon County. From the complaint:

Beginning in 2003, white political leaders of the Alabama and National Republican Party . . . , including but not limited to Governor Bob Riley, initiated plans to elect white Republicans to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government in the State of Alabama, allegedly referred to as "Operation 2010."

In order to raise funds to accomplish their goal, Alabama Republican leaders and elected officials entered into a scheme with the Mississippi Choctaw Indians Casino Operators . . . and later the Alabama Poarch Band of Creek Indian Casino Operators. . . .

This scheme included eliminating competition to Indian Gaming from non-Indian Gaming, including "VictoryLand" located in Macon County, Alabama. Eliminating VictoryLand served the dual goals of both by providing Indian Gaming a monopoly in Alabama and shutting off potential non-Indian Gaming . . . contributions that Republican political leaders feared could be used to thwart their political plans.

Strange, of course, is a card-carrying member of the Bob Riley machine, via mutual ties to the Birmingham law firm Bradley Arant. Machine members consistently have claimed they oppose gambling, in all forms, on a moral basis. We already have shown that one machine member, the former governor's son Rob Riley, has feet of clay when it comes to issues of private morals.

We are about to show the same thing regarding Luther Strange.


(To be continued)

RealtySouth Agent Amber Darnell Says Clear Law Will Not Stop The Sale Of Bonnie Cahalane's House

Amber Darnel

An Alabama real-estate agent says she plans to sell a house belonging to a Chilton County woman who was unlawfully incarcerated for five months last year.

Circuit Judge Sibley Reynolds ordered Bonnie Cahalane jailed as part of the fallout from a divorce case styled Wyatt v. Wyatt, and then orchestrated an agreement for the sale of Ms. Cahalane's house while she was under threat of being returned to jail if she did not comply.

Court documents show that Amber Darnell, of RealtySouth, is listed as the agent for the Cahalane property. I called Ms. Darnell recently and informed her that both Ms. Cahalane's incarceration and the resulting sales agreement were contrary to black-letter Alabama law.

Ms. Darnell's response, in so many words, was that she is just doing what she's told, and the sale will proceed. (See video at the end of this post.)

"I've been told not to discuss anything with you because of this court order," Darnell said. "So I have no response on anything."

Darnell said she wasn't aware of Cahalane's incarceration, and it had nothing to do with her. "That's confidential information . . . all I'm trying to do is sell the house."

I reminded Darnell that it is actually is public information, from court records, and asked for the name of her superior at RealtySouth. She said it is Patty Bingham, and I stated that the company is unlawfully selling a house, one that essentially is being stolen from its owner.

Does that concern Amber Darnell or anyone else at RealtySouth? I couldn't tell that it does. Darnell claimed that Cahalane had agreed to the sales arrangement, but I said that came when she was wearing prison clothes and under the duress of being unlawfully returned to jail. A contract under such circumstances, by law, is void--but that didn't seem to bother Amber Darnell.

"I'm doing what the court has asked me to do," she said.

I noted that Ms. Cahalane likely will have grounds for a civil-rights complaint in the future, and that could expose RealtySouth to substantial liability.

Ms. Darnell's response? "All I can do is do what they've told me to do."


(To be continued)

Town That Was Shaken By Jerry Sandusky Scandal Welcomes Ted Rollins And His Past As Child Abuser

Ted Rollins (right) with Copper Beech
founder Jack McWhirter at
Penn State 

You might think that residents of State College, Pennsylvania, would be hyper vigilant about anyone with a history as a child abuser entering their environs. After all, State College was the site of the Jerry Sandusky scandal, with the former Penn State assistant football coach at the heart of perhaps the most notorious child sexual abuse case in modern U.S. history.

So why are State College and the massive university in its midst throwing out the welcome mat for Ted Rollins, the CEO who has a documented history of being a child abuser? Rollins and his Charlotte-based company, Campus Crest Communities, are set to open The Grove at State College, which is one of about 40 such student-housing complexes the company has built around the country.

On top of that, Campus Crest announced earlier this year the purchase of Copper Beech Townhome Communities, which has been a major player in the student-housing sector for 20 years. Copper Beech just happens to be based in State College, PA, and its founders, John and Jeannette McWhirter, are among Penn State's largest donors in recent years.

It's likely that many residents of State College would not recognize the name Ted Rollins. And they almost certainly know little or nothing about his background. But the man--and his ugly history as a child abuser--now have a major presence in the town where Jerry Sandusky conducted his dirty work. We know him here in Alabama, of course, from his central role in the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case, which stands as the most grotesque example of judicial corruption we have encountered in the civil arena.

Ted Rollins' ties to State College, PA, came to mind when Penn State announced last Friday that it has reached tentative agreements to pay out millions of dollars to victims in the Sandusky case. From a report at espn.com:

Penn State could soon be paying out millions of dollars to victims of former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky after disclosing Friday it had tentative agreements with some of the young men who say he sexually abused them.

The school does not plan to comment on specifics until the deals are made final, which could happen in the coming weeks. University president Rodney Erickson called getting approval for settlement offers "another important step toward the resolution of claims from Sandusky's victims."

Penn State is working "toward the resolution" of the horrific Sandusky scandal, but at the same time, it is welcoming a student-housing company that is led by a man who is a proven child abuser. Last week's announcement about settlements in the Sandusky case came one month before The Grove at State College is to open in August for the start of the 2013-14 academic year. And it came roughly four months after Campus Crest announced its acquisition of Copper Beech.

Do residents of State College, and officials at Penn State, recognize the irony in this flurry of activity? It's possible that they simply are ignorant about Ted Rollins' background, but it is hardly a secret. We've written about it extensively here at Legal Schnauzer, and our reports have been picked up at a number of national Web sites.

Here are just a few of the posts we've written about Ted Rollins' record as a child abuser:


Campus Crest CEO Ted Rollins Once Beat His Stepson To A Bloody Pulp (April 17, 2012)


Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins Has A Conviction For Assault In His Background (May 2, 2012)


How Was Campus Crest CEO Ted Rollins Convicted Of "Simple Assault" In North Carolina? (May 10, 2012)


For the record, the Ted Rollins story does not end with the mere physical abuse of his stepson. He also was investigated for child sexual abuse, based on a report from an anonymous citizen. Here are some of our posts on that subject:


Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins Was Investigated For The Sexual Abuse Of His Stepson (September 12, 2012)


Towels Soiled With Feces Point To Child Sexual Abuse Involving CEO Ted Rollins (September 13, 2012)


The bottom line? A state investigation in North Carolina led to no action against Ted Rollins. No steps were taken to protect his apparent victim. 

Residents of State College, PA, and supporters of Penn State should be familiar with that kind of story. Jerry Sandusky first was investigated for inappropriate conduct with a child in 1998, but nothing came of it. More than 13 years passed, with an untold number of additional victims, before Sandusky finally was held accountable.

Some of the evidence against Ted Rollins can be viewed in black and white, as in the following court documents from Franklin County, North Carolina. Perhaps Penn State officials should become familiar with them.


(To be continued)

Ted Rollins Arrested for Assault by Roger Shuler

Ted Rollins Convicted of Assault by Roger Shuler

Records Show That Black AL Judge Dorothea Batiste Received Harsher Treatment Than White Colleague

Dorothea Batiste

Perhaps the most important term in a discrimination action is "comparator." Often used in employment cases, comparator refers to someone who is "similarly situated" but is outside the complainant's protected class (based on race, gender, age, etc.) If it is shown that the comparator was treated more favorably than the complainant, it might prove a case for discrimination.

In the pending disciplinary action against Alabama Circuit Judge Dorothea Batiste, it probably would be hard to find a more perfect comparator than Suzanne Childers, who perhaps is best known for toting a gun to court. Both women sat as judges in the Domestic Relations Division of Jefferson County. Both did not hesitate to use contempt powers in cases where it appeared parties were ignoring court orders.

The record presents one glaring difference between the two women--Batiste is black, and Childers is white. Here is another difference: Batiste is facing possible sanctions from the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (AJIC) for allegedly making excessive use of her contempt powers; Childers never faced such an inquiry, even though records show her use of contempt power dwarfed that of Batiste.

Does that suggest the AJIC is going after Batiste because of the color of her skin? Put more bluntly, does it mean the AJIC is a racist organization?

A review of documents in the Batiste case could lead a reasonable person to conclude that the answer to both questions is yes.

Julian McPhillips, the Montgomery-based attorney who represents Batiste, puts the discrimination question front and center in a Motion for Summary Judgment that calls for the charges against Batiste to be dropped. (See summary judgment motion at the end of this post.)

Central to Batiste's defense is her contention that AJIC rules preclude investigation of a judge for alleged erroneous rulings, absent evidence of bad faith. And Batiste claims that the AJIC does not even make firm allegations of bad faith, much less present any evidence of it. From the summary judgment motion:

Even though the AJIC only sparsely hints at bad faith, in the alternative, the fact is that the AJIC cannot point to one shred of evidence that Judge Batiste did engage in bad faith. As such, the AJIC does not meet the requirement of its own rules, which state:

"It (AJIC) does not review either final judgments or allegations of legal error or abuse of judicial discretion during a court proceeding absent evidence of bad faith."

As has been amply argued in the preceding pages of this motion and brief, there is a total absence of bad faith on the part of Judge Batiste, and as a result Judge Batiste is due to receive summary judgment in her favor on this issue.

As aforestated, all the complaints against her revolve around her allegedly misguided or misinformed use of the contempt power in a court proceeding. The AJIC Rules do not allow the AJIC or the Court of the Judiciary to review either "allegations of legal error or abuse of judicial discretion during a court proceeding absent evidence of bad faith." But that is what the AJIC has done. Hence, Judge Batiste is entitled to summary judgment.

McPhillips makes a powerful case. He argues  that, even if Batiste mistakenly used her contempt powers, that does not mean she did so in bad faith--and the AJIC has neither alleged nor shown that she acted in bad faith. Based on the commission's own rules, it is not allowed to investigate Batiste's actions, much less impose discipline upon her.

Suzanne Childers

The argument becomes even more powerful when McPhillips turns his attention to five contempt orders issued by Batiste's white colleague, Suzanne Childers.  (See copies of the contempt orders in exhibits at the end of this post.) Here is a summary of what they show:

Finally, reflecting on a standard for measuring Judge Batiste's good faith, when compared to other judges, are five copies of orders from a white female judge, Suzanne Childers, all in 2011-2012 (the same time period Batiste is being questioned about), wherein Judge Childers confined parties, respectively, for 325 days, 520 days, 310 days, 355 days, and 255 days. By contrast, the most Judge Batiste ever ordered someone confined was for 12 days, and usually no more than 2-3 days. (See Exhibits H, I, J, K and L.)

Those numbers are staggering, so let's put them in perspective. Childers confined one party for more than one year, three others for almost one year each, and another for almost nine months.

But Dorothea Batiste is the one on trial for excessive use of contempt power?

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, recently overturned a key section of the Voting Rights Act by more or less stating that we no longer have reason to worry much about mistreatment of racial minorities in Alabama.

You never would know it from studying the case of Dorothea Batiste.

Dorothea Batiste Summary Judgment by Roger Shuler

Dorothea Batiste Childers Exhibits by Roger Shuler

A Glimpse At Information On Ted Rollins' Cell Phone Raises Questions About Alabama Divorce Case

The overarching question in the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case might best be summed up this way: How does a woman who married into one of the wealthiest families in the United States wind up with a divorce judgment that is so viciously one sided that she and her daughters have to go on food stamps?

You apparently don't have to know any of the parties or the issues involved to have that question come to mind. I discovered that from my recent conversations with a man who claimed to have come into possession of Ted Rollins' iPhone during a renovation project at Campus Crest Communities' headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.

I've never been able to determine the man's identity--or if his story is 100 percent true. But from checking Ted Rollins' phone, and conducting Google searches that led to my posts about the divorce case, the man said he could tell Birmingham resident Sherry Carroll Rollins experienced an unusually cruel outcome in court. In fact, the man said, her phone number on the iPhone is listed as "Sherry 'Use Caution, Ex Wife' Rollins."

After I discussed Campus Crest's substantial support from Wall Street--which was in the neighborhood of $400 million and now exceeds $700 million--the man had an understandable response. "Here's my question," he said. "Why is the [ex] wife doing so badly, why has she been neglected? And what about the kids?" (See video below, starting at about the 3:30 mark.)

The only response I could come up with at the moment? "I guess he's just incredibly ruthless."

I went on to explain, however, that Ted and Sherry Rollins got married without a prenuptial agreement--something that apparently had never been done in the modern history of the Rollins family--and that meant Ted Rollins stood to lose major sums in an equitable distribution of marital assets. That, I told the man, probably is the best answer to your question.

We went on to discuss the ugliness in Ted Rollins' background--his conviction for assault on his stepson (then 16 years old), plus an investigation based on a citizen complaint about possible child sexual abuse of the same stepson. 

Why would someone with such ugly events in his background proceed to orchestrate a monstrous courtroom cheat job on his ex wife? Why not reach a reasonable divorce settlement that would help ensure such events stayed under wraps, especially if you someday plan to launch a public company on Wall Street?

Such arrogance must be beyond the grasp of everyday folks because neither I nor my anonymous caller could come up with ready answers to those questions.


(To be continued)


Previously in the series:

How Did An iPhone Belong To CEO Ted Rollins Come To Play Central Role In Curious Con Game? (July 9, 2013)

How Did An iPhone Belonging To CEO Ted Rollins Come To Play Central Role In a Curious Con Game?

Our coverage of the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case has taken a number of twists and turns, but the most bizarre twist might have come a few weeks back when a man contacted me and claimed to be in possession of Ted Rollins' iPhone.

What happened next apparently was an attempted scam on me, Ted Rollins, or perhaps both of us--and I suspect it might have constituted a federal crime. For sure, it was one of the strangest episodes since this blog started in June 2007--and that's saying something. 

This tale even includes allegations about child pornography and child abuse, although I never received evidence that such images actually exist. (See video at the end of this post.)

It all started with an anonymous comment to a post I had written about the Rollins divorce, which involves Birmingham resident Sherry Carroll Rollins and her ex husband Ted Rollins, who now is CEO of Campus Crest Communities and a member of the mega wealthy family behind Orkin Pest Control, Dover Downs Gaming and Entertainment, and other profitable enterprises. The post in question was not new; it had been up for some time, so I was surprised to see a comment for it.

The commenter stated that he had information about Ted Rollins that might be of interest to me, so I suggested that he contact me by phone or my personal e-mail account. The man  called me--with the name and number showing up as "unknown"--and told me the following story, which comes from notes I've kept on the episode:

The caller said he worked for a company that was involved in the renovation of Campus Crest's offices in Charlotte, NC. As part of the project, he said, Campus Crest discarded numerous electronic devices--phones, cameras, laptops, etc.--and told crew members that they were welcome to take any objects from a pretty large pile. The caller said he took an iPhone and one other item--a camera, I think it was. 

When the man got home, he discovered that the iPhone included lots of information--contacts, e-mails, texts, photos, music, etc.--from its previous owner. After going through the material, the man discovered that the phone had belonged to Campus Crest's CEO. "I guess Mr. Rollins gave the phone to someone in IT, and they forgot to clear out everything and mistakenly put it in with the stuff to be thrown away," the caller told me. 

The man said he Googled Ted Rollins' name, discovered my blog, and decided that either Sherry Rollins or I might be interested in the phone. The caller also said that he had found at least two nude photos on the phone of a young person he believed to be an under-aged member of the extended Rollins family. The man said he was concerned this might constitute child pornography and raise various criminal issues. He also said the phone included images of a boy who had a black eye and apparently had somehow been roughed up.

What happened next? We will explore that in a series of upcoming posts. But for now, these questions are foremost in my mind: Who was this guy, and what in the heck was he up to?

I don't have solid answers for either question. But I did tape record our conversations, so we know what his voice sounds like, and you can check it out at the video below.

Note: I've edited the audio to delete a name that was associated with the alleged images of a nude child. 


(To be continued) 

Federal Court Cites Immunity In Granting Dismissal Of $25-Million Lawsuit Against Judge Robert Vance

Robert Vance Jr.

A federal court has dismissed a $25-million lawsuit against Jefferson County Circuit Judge Robert S. Vance Jr. It appears, however, that U.S. District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn ignored binding Eleventh Circuit precedent in issuing the dismissal. 

Bessemer attorney Austin Burdick, representing Dr. Steven Mark Hayden of Wetumpka and the William B. Cashion Nevada Spendthrift Trust, has filed a notice of appeal. Based on our review of the relevant case law, Blackburn's ruling should be overturned. That would present a rare case of a state judge being forced to answer for his unlawful acts.

Blackburn dismissed the case against Vance by citing judicial immunity, a doctrine that protects judges from liability for almost all acts taken in their judicial capacity. But Blackburn admits in her ruling that she could find no case law that was on point with the facts alleged against Vance. And she ignores a controlling Eleventh Circuit case that suggests immunity does not protect Vance on at least two grounds. (See Burdick's response to Vance's motion to dismiss, plus Blackburn's ruling, at the end of this post.)

The federal complaint grew out of a state case styled styled William B. Cashion and Western Steel Inc. v. Steven Mark Hayden, et al (Case No. CV-2012-209). At the heart of the controversy is William B. Cashion, an 84-year-old businessman who is co-founder of Bessemer-based Western Steel Inc. (WSI) and a shareholder in several other Alabama corporate entities. In 2007, while in the midst of a divorce, Cashion executed a durable power of attorney, designating his nephew, Dr. Steven Mark Hayden, as his agent and attorney-in-fact. Acting in that capacity, Hayden established a Nevada trust to protect assets when his uncle began investing heavily in an Alabama gold mine.

Vance issued four rulings in the Cashion case, even though the matter was not assigned to him. All four rulings were favorable to Cashion and his attorneys from the Birmingham firm Maynard Cooper & Gale (MCG), which has contributed heavily to Vance's election campaigns. In fact, public records show that MCG lawyers gave at least $3,600 to Vance's most recent campaign, and that far exceeds the $2,000 threshold set by Alabama law, requiring Vance's recusal.

Central to the federal complaint are the four rulings, including a temporary restraining order (TRO), that Vance issued when the case was not assigned to him. At the time, the case had been assigned to Circuit Judge Houston Brown. Hayden and the trust allege that the unlawful TRO has kept them from nurturing the trust's principal and caused the loss of investment returns and interest totaling more than $20 million.

Did Vance act outside his judicial capacity in a way that removes the cloak of judicial immunity? The plain language of a case styled Sibley v. Lando, 437 So. 3d 1067 (11th Cir., 2005) indicates the answer is yes. 

Sibley establishes a four-prong test for determining whether a judge is acting in his judicial capacity. Here is how it reads:

Whether a judge's actions were made while acting in his judicial capacity depends on whether: (1) the act complained of constituted a normal judicial function; (2) the events occurred in the judge's chambers or in open court; (3) the controversy involved a case pending before the judge; and (4) the confrontation arose immediately out of a visit to the judge in his judicial capacity. Scott v. Hayes, 719 F.2d 1562, 1565 (11th Cir.1983).

Based on allegations in the federal complaint, which must be taken as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss, Vance fails to meet prongs 3 and 4.

First, the case was not pending before Vance; at the time of his four rulings, it was pending before Judge Houston Brown. Second, Hayden and the trust allege there was no legitimate visit to Vance in his judicial capacity, certainly not one where all parties were present. From page 9 of the federal complaint:

On March 28, 2012, the conspiracy between Cashion and Vance to deprive the Trust of due process continued as an ex parte hearing was conducted wherein Judge Vance and counsel for Cashion discussed an injunction and settlement of this matter.  . . . 

Exhibit 8 reflects that present at the hearing were only Judge Vance, Attorney Bethay for Cashion, and Attorney Miller for Cashion.

A review of the Case Action Summary Report shows that on March 28, 2012, no Answer had been filed on behalf of the Trust and that no attorney of record had noticed an appearance on behalf of Angela Rea Hayden as trustee for the William B. Cashion Nevada Spendthrift Trust.

Neither Angela Rea Hayden nor anyone else claiming to represent the trust was present for the March 28, 2012, hearing. In fact, Mrs. Hayden has never been to the Jefferson County Courthouse.

Under the controlling law of Sibley, what constitutes a "visit to the judge" under prong 4? That is not clear, but court documents show that no one from one side of the controversy was present. Given that the case was assigned to Judge Brown at the time, and no one representing the Haydens and the trust was present, Vance appears to have been acting outside his judicial capacity. That is based on prongs 3 and 4 of the Sibley test.

Blackburn seems to acknowledge that her order dismissing the case against Vance is resting on weak legs.  From page 6 of her order:

The court has found no Alabama case directly on point with the situation in this case. However, in a recent decision, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals noted that “Subject-matter jurisdiction generally lies with a court . . . and not with a specific judge sitting on that court . . . ” Ex parte Montgomery, 79 So. 3d 660.

How weak is Blackburn's reliance on Ex parte Montgomery? It's extremely weak.

First, Montgomery was a divorce case that involved facts radically different from those present in Cashion. Second, Montgomery involved orders that had been issued by both the judge assigned to the case and the presiding judge (while the assigned judge was on medical leave). Third, the appellate court rejected the husband's argument that orders by the presiding judge were void, but it did so because that issue had not been raised before the trial court; the appellate court made no definitive finding on the merits of the husband's argument. (Blackburn pulled her language from a footnote that included no support from controlling law.)

Here is the primary relevant finding from Montgomery:

Accordingly, because the husband never argued to the trial court that all orders entered by Judge Johnson were void because he did not have the authority to enter the orders, we conclude that the husband has waived consideration of that issue.

Judge Johnson was a presiding judge, acting on behalf of a judge who was on medical leave. That was not remotely the case with Vance. Even if a state case such as Montgomery were controlling law in a federal case--and it isn't--it conflicts with Sibley, which is controlling federal law within the Eleventh Circuit. The bottom line? Sibley cites two grounds upon which Vance is not protected by judicial immunity.

Blackburn likely was grasping at any straw she could find to let a judicial colleague off the hook--and she grabbed a straw that is stunningly weak and contrary to Eleventh Circuit precedent.

A serious review of the relevant law leads to only one conclusion: Robert Vance Jr. acted outside his judicial capacity in Cashion, and he therefore is not protected by immunity. That means he is subject to being held accountable for the substantial damages he allegedly caused to the Haydens and the Cashion trust.

Robert Vance--Response to Dismissal Motion by Roger Shuler

Robert Vance--Order on Dismissal by Roger Shuler

Lawyer Who Filed Shelby County v. Holder Lawsuit Has Family Ties to Dixiecrats And Bull Connor

Bull Connor's fire hoses

The Alabama lawyer who filed the original complaint in a case that last week overturned a key section of the Voting Rights Act has family ties to the Dixiecrat movement that opposed racial integration in the mid 1900s. The lawyer also has roundabout ties to notorious Birmingham Commissioner of Public Safety Bull Connor, who is known for ordering fire hoses and police dogs turned on black demonstrators in 1963.

Frank C. "Butch" Ellis has been a municipal lawyer in central Alabama for more than 40 years, and in 2010, he joined with Bert Rein of Washington, D.C., to launch Shelby County v. Holder. The case concluded last week with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, that found Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. (Key documents from throughout the case can be found here, at the Web site for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights.)

Roberts' opinion outraged many observers on the left, who consider the Voting Rights Act to be the primary legacy of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Some went so far as to suggest Roberts and his supporters in a 5-4 ruling engaged in criminal acts when overturning Section 4.

Here is how public-interest litigator Rob Hager expressed his contempt for "The Roberts 5" at the nationofchange.org:

Yet another ruling from the legislative workshop of the Roberts 5, has now surgically overturned the landmark Voting Rights Act that redeemed the national disgrace of the criminally depraved Jim Crow era. Their surgical strike in Shelby County effectively overturns the most significant legal outcome of the Civil War; violates separation of powers; invents a new rule of “state equality” for applying federal legislation that nowhere remotely suggested in the Constitution, that was rejected by the leading precedent, and is inherently preposterous; reverses numerous precedents; decides the case of parties that were not in court instead of focusing on the case before it -- as the Constitution, Article III, requires; and rejects the very idea of applying a known objective rule to adduced facts as defines the judicial process.

Hager makes a number of powerful arguments. But for now, we will focus on the man who gave birth to Shelby County v. Holder.

Butch Ellis is with the Wallace Ellis Fowler & Head law firm, which is right across the street from the Shelby County Courthouse in Columbiana. That courthouse is home to much of the corruption I've reported on this blog, including the unlawful sale of the full ownership rights to a house that my wife and I have owned for almost 25 years. Circuit Judge Hub Harrington presided over that fiasco, but no one is more embedded in Shelby County's corrupt culture than Butch Ellis. (We even have video that captures the sleaze in living color at a post titled "Showdown in Shelby County, Part II." This is Butch Ellis' kingdom, caught on tape.)

Ellis has contended in numerous published reports that Shelby County is a changed place, that black voter turnout is high and the county is solidly integrated. But a look at Ellis' personal history should raise eyebrows. That's because it has roots in an ugly effort to support segregation and throttle civil rights for black Americans.

Frank "Butch" Ellis

In a February 2013 piece at the Washington Spectator ("The Supreme Court v. Black Voters in Alabama"), journalist Lou Dubose spotlighted Ernest Montgomery, a black city councilman from Calera, Alabama, who retained his spot on the council only because of Justice Department intervention in 2009, via the Voting Rights Act. 

Roughly one year later, Butch Ellis filed the federal lawsuit that became Shelby County v. Holder. And Montgomery tells Dubose that Ellis' son, County Commissioner Corley Ellis, never told him the lawsuit was coming. Writes Dubose:

In 2010, Shelby County filed suit in federal court, describing Section 5 as a federal intrusion into state issues. It is this lawsuit that will be heard by the Supreme Court at the end of this month. Montgomery learned about the County Commission’s decision to sue the Justice Department when he read it in the Birmingham News. 

“As well as I know [County Commissioner] Corley Ellis—we have a friendship, not a close friendship but a friendship—I never got a heads up,” Montgomery said.

Maybe that has something to do with the Ellis family's background. Dubose explains:

Corley Ellis is the Shelby County Commissioner who neglected to inform Ernest Montgomery that the county had filed suit against the Justice Department. The Shelby County lawyer who filed the suit is Corley Ellis’s father, Butch Ellis. Butch Ellis’s father was Handy Ellis, a former lieutenant governor and the chairman of the Alabama delegation at the 1948 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. 

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

Bottom line? The lawyer who filed Shelby County v. Holder is the son of a Dixiecrat, the party that nominated Strom Thurmond for president at its 1948 convention--held at Birmingham's Boutwell Auditorium. And the lawyer's father was closely aligned with Bull Connor, the public official who ordered fire hoses turned on peaceful black demonstrators in 1963.

Perhaps we all should pay attention to the following words from Lou Dubose:

Faulkner’s—“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”—has been quoted so many times that it has become an exhausted cliché. 

Except in places where the New South seems incapable of escaping the Old South. 

In such places, those lines are as fresh as this morning’s news.

Was The Fiery Death Of Journalist Michael Hastings Connected To Atlanta Security Firm Called Endgame?

At the time of his death in a fiery car crash on June 18, journalist Michael Hastings was working on a story about alleged Anonymous leader Barrett Brown. Currently under federal indictment on charges related to computer hacking, Brown is the journalist who first reported on a shadowy private security firm in Atlanta called Endgame. 

The Web site freebarrettbrown.org reports that Hastings was planning to interview Brown in late June and had announced to his followers, "Get ready for your mind to be blown."

A Hastings/Brown interview almost certainly would have included questions about Brown's research on "black hat" private security firms that work with the official U.S. intelligence community. Some of these outfits also have powerful ties to corporate America via the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Primary among such firms is Endgame, which is based on the seventh floor of the former Biltmore Hotel building in Atlanta.

Before the interview could take place, Hastings was killed when his car exploded, with the engine blown some sixty feet from the wreckage on a Los Angeles street. Were individuals connected to Endgame and the U.S.Chamber--fearing possible exposure in government-sponsored wrongdoing--involved in Michael Hastings' death?

We don't have a solid answer to that question? But a report last week from Alabama attorney Jill Simpson and election-integrity specialist Jim March presents perhaps the most disturbing revelations yet about Endgame and similar private security firms. The report, dated June 24, 2013, is titled "Black Hat Versus White Hat: The Other Side of the Snowden/Hastings/Barrett Brown Cases."

Here is how March summarizes the report in a piece at OpEd News:

This is a look into the world of the private contractors that work in alliance with the official US intelligence community and appear to be state-sanctioned to commit crimes. We focus on one of these shady contractors, Endgame--an Atlanta GA corporation that both Barrett Brown and Michael Hastings were looking at. We show who they are, what they do, what their founders did before, who funds them and who they are connected to. We even filmed and photographed their building and lobby.

Simpson is best known as a former Republican operative who became a whistleblower in the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. March is on the board of directors of blackboxvoting.org and is a former board member for the Southern Arizona chapter of the ACLU.

They note the ominous meanings behind the term "Endgame" and provide background on the firm's early days. Information about the people behind Endgame can be found here, at the company's Web site:

The final moves in a chess game are called the “endgame.” It has come to the attention of American whistleblowers and election integrity specialists that the CIA, NSA and White House have designed the ultimate final “endgame” for the free world as we know it--with a group of computer “security specialists.” 

One key component of this is a corporate office called Endgame, based in Atlanta, Georgia, (at the old Biltmore Hotel building, 817 W. Peachtree NW suite 770). This company is a spin-off from the major intelligence source X-Force that was founded originally by Chris Klaus whose career dates to at least 1994 when he founded Internet Security Systems, a private “white hat” counter-hacker group. 

The X-Force was a team of elite cyber-security specialists who operated within ISS in an Atlanta office and made daily reports to the intelligence community and White House about Internet security and malicious software threats. They were allegedly defensive in nature, at least when they started out, and protective of US security. One of their members was Christopher Rouland who was a famous hacker who got caught attacking the Pentagon’s systems by US Airforce cyber-cop Jim Christy who gave him a “break” so long as he would work from then forward as a “white hat” cybersleuth for the US government.

What about the terms "white hat" and "black hat"? Simpson and March explain:

“White hat” in this context means defensive Internet security--fighting the “black hat” attackers. We write this in part to show that Rouland and his company Endgame have in fact gone back to “black hat” with the approval of the Federal government, doing (and facilitating for others) the sorts of attacks that the Pentagon, the NSA and the like don’t want their fingers found in.

Firms who engage in such activities apparently are not anxious to receive publicity. March went undercover to provide insight into the environment surrounding Endgame, and his work can be viewed in a video at the end of this post. 

The Atlanta Biltmore

No one has done more to shine unwanted attention on Endgame than Barrett Brown. His role in the story began with the February 2011 hack of the private intelligence company HBGary. From a report at The Nation, titled "The Strange Case of Barrett Brown," by reporter Peter Ludlow:

The HBGary hack may have been designed to humiliate the company, but it had the collateral effect of dropping a gold mine of information into Brown’s lap. . . . 

The data dump from the HBGary hack was so vast that no one person could sort through it alone. So Brown decided to crowdsource the effort. He created a wiki page, called it ProjectPM, and invited other investigative journalists to join in. Under Brown’s leadership, the initiative began to slowly untangle a web of connections between the US government, corporations, lobbyists and a shadowy group of private military and information security consultants. 

One connection was between Bank of America and the Chamber of Commerce. WikiLeaks had claimed to possess a large cache of documents belonging to Bank of America. Concerned about this, Bank of America approached the United States Department of Justice. The DOJ directed it to the law and lobbying firm Hunton and Williams, which does legal work for Wells Fargo and General Dynamics and also lobbies for Koch Industries, Americans for Affordable Climate Policy, Gas Processors Association, Entergy among many other firms. . . . 

In November 2010, Hunton and Williams organized a number of private intelligence, technology development and security contractors—HBGary, plus Palantir Technologies, Berico Technologies and, according to Brown, a secretive corporation with the ominous name Endgame Systems—to form “Team Themis”—‘themis’ being a Greek word meaning “divine law.” Its main objective was to discredit critics of the Chamber of Commerce, like Chamber Watch, using such tactics as creating a “false document, perhaps highlighting periodical financial information,” giving it to a progressive group opposing the Chamber, and then subsequently exposing the document as a fake to “prove that US Chamber Watch cannot be trusted with information and/or tell the truth.”

The  bottom line? Barrett Brown helped expose Endgame's role in a disinformation campaign that was designed to protect the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Michael Hastings was set to interview Brown, and that almost certainly would have yielded damaging information about both Endgame and the U.S. Chamber.

Before that interview took place, Michael Hastings' car exploded.

Does Endgame welcome scrutiny about its activities? The following video helps answer that question: