Top Aide To AG Luther Strange Might Be Using "Secret" To Derail Alabama Corruption Probe

Luther Strange and wife, Melissa in a campaign ad

The chief of staff to Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange is trying to derail a corruption probe of House Speaker Mike Hubbard, former Governor Bob Riley and his children, and more, according to a new report at the Alabama Political Reporter. 

Bill Britt reports that Chief of Staff Kevin Turner is leading an in-house plot to have chief prosecutor Matt Hart removed from the case. Turner, who used to be at the Bradley Arant law firm in Birmingham, is holding a secret over Strange's head as leverage to get Hart off the case, Britt reports.

A secret involving Luther Strange? What on earth could that be? Perhaps we will know shortly, but for now, we have this from Bill Britt:

Sources from both within and outside of the Attorney General’s Office have confirmed that Luther Strange’s Chief Deputy, Kevin Turner, is orchestrating a plot to remove chief prosecutor Matt Hart from the Lee Country Grand Jury investigation. In this latest effort, it is said that Turner has devised a plan whereby a “personnel compliant” has been lodged against Hart.

“He is trying to poison Hart’s relationship with Luther,” said one individual with knowledge of the inter-working of the Attorney General’s Office.

According to two individuals closely aligned with the AG’s office—who wish to remain nameless—the complaint against Hart has been filed with Charla G. Doucet, Chief of the Attorney General’s administrative division. This bogus complaint is the first step in an administrative process to have Hart reassigned or fired from his position as Chief of the white collar crimes division.

The latest internal coup against Hart is believed to be the result of political pressure from Hubbard, along with former Gov. Bob Riley.

Britt writes that Bob Riley is in full damage control over information that has led investigators to his children, Minda Riley Campbell and Rob Riley. Britt outlines Minda Riley Campbell's ties to Hubbard's business and political interests. Multiple reports have linked Rob Riley to Poarch Creek Indian gaming funds that were funneled to the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC). Even GOP insiders suggest that transaction was unlawful, and the case has made national news, with coverage from Bill Moyers. The brewing scandal also shows signs of derailing Republican Ed Gillespie's run for a U.S. Senate seat in Virginia, all because of Gillespie's strong ties to the RSLC and Indian gaming money.

As for the secret that Kevin Turner is holding over Luther Strange, here is what Britt writes about that:

Inside the Attorney General’s Office, the effort to sabotage the Grand Jury, by eliminating Hart, is thought to be the work of Strange’s closest ally, Turner.

The seemingly unbreakable bond between Strange and Turner is rumored to be based on more scandalous motives, and not mere loyalty. As Strange’s driver and body man during the 2010 campaign for AG, there is speculation that Turner holds a dirty secret over his boss' head. Whatever the reason may be for Strange’s particular loyalty to Turner, there are more than a few questions raised by Turner’s recent actions against Hart.

Hmmm, Kevin Turner's dirty secret apparently originated with Luther Strange's 2010 campaign for AG? Who was involved in that campaign, at the top level? What could the secret possibly be?

We seem to recall that the job of chief counsel and principal advisor to Strange originally was slated for someone else, but she was forced to step aside--and more or less the same job went to . . . Kevin Turner.

What's going on here? I would say Bill Britt is sniffing into a potentially explosive story.

Prominent Lawyer Calls For Maximum Sentence If U.S. Judge Mark Fuller Is Found Guilty Of Battery

What is one of the rarest sounds on earth? It's a lawyer speaking candidly about even the most corrupt of judges. Such is the grip that judges hold over lawyers--judges have the power to ruin legal careers--that you will almost never hear a lawyer admit that a judge ruled unlawfully in a particular case, and it almost had to be intentional.

Donald Watkins, however, is a different bird in the legal firmament. He has made so much money in various ventures that he apparently feels free to blister most anyone, including U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller (Middle District of Alabama).

Fuller faces a misdemeanor battery charge in the wake of an incident involving his wife at an Atlanta hotel room. If found guilty, Fuller could face up to a year in jail. And Watkins is calling for the judge, if convicted, to receive the maximum sentence. After all, Watkins states in an open letter released late last week, that is the kind of harsh punishment Fuller has handed down in his own courtroom for years. From the Watkins letter:

"Fuller has earned a reputation as a hardcore 'law and order' judge for the harsh sentences he imposes in criminal cases. He is a firm believer in handing down maximum sentences in criminal cases," Watkins wrote.

"... If Fuller is found guilty, we request that the Court sentence him to the maximum one-year jail time allowed under Georgia law for a misdemeanor. As I mentioned earlier, Judge Fuller believes in handing down maximum criminal sentences. I am sure he would want nothing less in his own case."

With that, Watkins was just getting warmed up. Other key points from the letter:

In the letter, Watkins said:

• Fuller does not give defendants a fair trial in his courtroom "We are asking that you give Fuller something he never affords criminal defendants in his courtroom — a fair trial, the letter says.

• That he expects others to attempt to improperly affect the verdict. "Expect his friends in the judiciary to attempt to influence the outcome of his case," Watkins writes.

• And that the judge is biased against women and people of color: "Defendant Fuller is used to receiving special treatment in Alabama. He is part of the oligarchy of white men who run the State of Alabama. Fuller has absolutely no respect for women (or people of color)."

Watkins not only blasts Fuller, he questions the integrity of the judiciary at large. I never thought I would live to see the day when a lawyer would lay it on the line like that about judges. But then, Donald Watkins long has been known for pulling surprises.

Nice to see he has not lost his touch.

Could Judge Mark Fuller Face Impeachment For Making False Statements To Police In Assault Case?

Mark Fuller

Evidence made public so far strongly suggests that U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller (Middle District of Alabama) lied to police officers about his actions in an alleged domestic assault against his wife at an Atlanta hotel room. Now, a judicial-ethics expert says judges can be impeached if found guilty of making false statements.

Russell E. Carparelli, executive director of the American Judicature Society at Vanderbilt University, told the Associated Press that Fuller will continue to be paid while the U.S. 11th Circuit investigates the incident. Carparelli then spelled out the usual disciplinary process for a federal judge:

The federal judicial code of conduct says a judge "should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved."

The code doesn't spell out disciplinary actions in cases where a judge is arrested on misdemeanor charges.

Following an investigation and review by the circuit judicial council, he said, a judge found to have violated judicial conduct rules could be reprimanded or censured or asked to retire. Ultimately, a circuit could recommend the impeachment of a judge who refuses to quit.

Impeachment is generally reserved for judges who make false statements, take bribes or do other things to corrupt the judiciary, not those involved in domestic altercations, Carparelli said.

"Typically this type of thing would not go there," he said.

Is Carparelli contradicting himself? Yes. Is he trying to protect Fuller? Probably. Is he not familiar with all of the facts made public about the case? Our guess is that he probably is not.

News reports have stated that Fuller told police he "just pushed" his wife and was acting only to defend himself. But a recording of Kelli Gregg Fuller's 911 call seems to tell a different story. On the call, Kelli Fuller can be heard telling emergency dispatchers that she was being beaten and needed an ambulance. That indicates Mark Fuller did more than just defend himself. The tape suggests he was beating his wife, and it sounds like that's what is going on in the background of the 911 call. Kelli Fuller's injuries, as described in press reports (cuts on her mouth and forehead) indicate she had been struck.

In his overall statement to AP, Russell Carparelli seems to be downplaying Fuller's actions, writing it off as a mere "domestic altercation." But in Carparelli's own words, making false statements can cost a federal judge his job. And Mark Fuller appears to have made false statements to police, which can be a felony under Georgia law.

Will the 11th circuit take Fuller's actions seriously or try to sweep them under the judicial carpet?

Could Federal Judge Face A Felony Charge Because Of Statements To Police About Assault On His Wife?

Mark Fuller

U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller (Middle District of Alabama) saw his cases removed yesterday. But that might soon be the least of Fuller's worries in the wake of charges that he assaulted his wife in an Atlanta hotel room.

Evidence made public so far strongly suggests that Fuller lied to law-enforcement officers who responded to a call about a disturbance at the Ritz Carlton on Peachtree Street in downtown Atlanta. Our research shows that making false statements to a police officer can be a felony in Georgia.

On top of that, a prominent Alabama attorney and whistleblower is calling on the Obama administration to use the Fuller case as an example in its campaign for zero tolerance in domestic-violence cases. Dana Jill Simpson, who has a law practice in Rainsville, Alabama, testified before Congress about the apparent political prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman--a case over which Fuller presided. In an article at OpEd News earlier this week, Simpson calls on the White House to make an example of Fuller. From the Simpson article:

Every October President Obama and Vice President Biden speak out against domestic violence and proclaim that they stand for "zero tolerance" regarding this crime. Their speeches often feature the statistic that one in three women in America are impacted by domestic violence. VP Biden, in his first year in office, announced long-time advocate Lynn Rosenthal would be the White House advisor on violence against women, a newly created position because, Biden claimed, his office and the President genuinely believe in zero tolerance for domestic violence. President Obama called on executive heads of federal agencies in 2012 to create policies against domestic violence in their workplaces. In the following years President Obama has signed further laws to protect women who are victims of domestic violence.

This October President Obama and Vice President Biden will be faced with a challenge to the seriousness of their commitment to zero tolerance for domestic violence. They are now confronted by a sitting federal judge in Alabama named Mark Fuller who has been arrested for battery against his wife in the "ritzy" Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Atlanta Georgia. Fuller has been quoted in the press on the day of his release stating that he "just pushed" his wife (Kelli Gregg Fuller) to the ground and was defending himself from an attack by her, triggered by her concerns over his possible infidelity.

On a recording of Kelli Fuller's 911 call, she can be heard telling emergency dispatchers that she was being beaten and needed an ambulance. That indicates Mark Fuller did more than just defend himself. The tape suggests he was beating his wife, and it sounds like that's what is going on in the background of the 911 call.

How do we know that Fuller could face a felony for making a false statement to police? Consider the case of a Cherokee, Georgia, school-board member named Kelly Marlow. From an Atlanta Journal-Constitution article about the Marlow case:

The Cherokee Tribune reports Cherokee school board member Kelly Marlow was found guilty tonight of the felony charge of making false statements to police about school chief Frank Petruzielo to police. Under Georgia law, that felony conviction means Marlow will immediately be suspended from her elected post as a school board member.

A jury also found her political adviser Robert Trim and Cherokee GOP Secretary Barbara Knowles guilty of lying to police.

The trio was indicted in October after they had charged that Petruzielo tried to run them down with his car after a school board meeting last June. They were charged with lying to the Canton Police Department.

Three public officials faced felony charges for lying to police? Should Mark Fuller face the same fate?

Confrontation About Extramarital Affair With Law Clerk Sparked Assault Charges Against Alabama U.S. Judge Mark Fuller

U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller

An alleged assault at an Atlanta Hotel began after the wife of U.S. Judge Mark Fuller (Middle District of Alabama) accused him of having an extramarital affair with his law clerk, according to a report at the Web site decaturish.com.

The incident happened at the Ritz Carlton on Peachtree Street. Mark Fuller was charged with battery, and decaturish.com cites an Atlanta Police Department report that indicates alcohol was a factor:

According to the report released by APD, the judge’s wife answered the door in tears. She had cuts on her mouth and forehead.

“Immediately upon entering the room, there was a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the room,” the officer noted.

He found Fuller lying in bed. There was broken glass next to the night stand and strands of hair on the floor next to the bed. Fuller’s wife told police officers that the assault followed an argument about “issues in their marriage.” The wife explained that she accused Fuller of having an affair with his law clerk. She said Fuller pulled her hair, threw her to the ground and kicked her. She told police that Fuller dragged her around the room and struck her in the mouth several times with his hands.

When police asked Fuller how his wife got her injuries, he told them that his wife attacked him after their argument about marital infidelity. He told officers he was in bed watching CNN and she came into the room making accusations. Fuller said his wife threw a glass at him. Fuller said he grabbed his wife’s hair “to defend himself.”

“When asked about the lacerations on her mouth, Mr. Fuller stated that he just threw her to the ground and that was it,” the report says.

Police later discovered blood in the bathroom on the tub. Fuller did not have any marks or bruises, the officer noted. After medical personnel arrived, they noted additional bruises on his wife’s legs.

Fuller faced allegations of domestic abuse, extramarital affairs, and substance abuse during a 2012 divorce from his first wife, Lisa Boyd Fuller.

Fuller was granted bond on the new charges at an arraignment this morning in Atlanta.

Alabama Federal Judge Who Was Charged With Assaulting Wife Has Faced Charges Of Domestic Abuse In The Past

U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller

Quite a few Americans probably were shocked to learn that a federal judge from Alabama was arrested over the weekend on charges of assaulting his wife in an Atlanta hotel room. But to those who have closely followed the career of U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller (Middle District of Alabama), the charges are not a surprise.

During a 2012 divorce from his first wife, Fuller faced allegations of domestic abuse, extramarital affairs, driving under the influence, abuse of prescription medications, and more. Why is that not well known among the public? Here is the likely reason: Lisa Boyd Fuller filed for divorce on May 10, 2012, and her complaint and interrogatories quickly found their way into the Alabama press. The complaint was fairly mild, but the interrogatories raised all sorts of unsavory issues about the judge. Mark Fuller's lawyer then requested that the file be sealed, and an Alabama state judge granted the request, even though divorce records generally are considered public records.

Fuller is best known for presiding over the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. A number of legal experts have stated that Fuller's dubious rulings and failure to handle an apparently tainted jury caused two innocent men to spend time in prison. (Scrushy has served his term; Siegelman remains in federal prison at Oakdale, LA.) Some ethics experts have started that conflicts of interest should have precluded Fuller from ever taking a spot on the federal bench. As an owner in Colorado-based Doss Aviation, Fuller has earned significant sums from U.S. government contracts. When he presides as a federal judge in a criminal matter, one of the parties is the United States Government. That was the case in the Siegelman/Scrushy matter, and defendants argued that Fuller was hardly an impartial arbiter, as required by law. Fuller, however, refused to step down from the case.

Andrew Kreig, of the Justice-Integrity Project, has an excellent overview of the court-related controversies that have swirled around Fuller since his appointment to the federal bench by George W. Bush in 2002.

For now, Fuller is the headlines for problems on the domestic front. And this is not the first time those issues have been in the news--although the Alabama state judiciary mostly covered them up the first time by sealing court records.

Perhaps most disturbing in the divorce case were signs that Fuller has abused drugs, perhaps for years. Lisa Boyd Fuller's lawyer produced a document suggesting Fuller obtained prescription drugs from at least six difference pharmacies. This is from one of our 2012 posts on the subject:

The divorce complaint filed against U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller raises a number of troubling issues. But drug addiction might be No. 1 on the list.

Lisa Boyd Fuller's complaint includes no shortage of titillating issues, including extramarital affairs and domestic abuse. But those go primarily to Mark Fuller's character outside the courtroom. Drug addiction, however, goes to Fuller's fitness to serve on the federal bench.

It also raises these troubling questions: Has Fuller's mind been clouded by illicit drug use while serving as a judge? Have civil cases been unlawfully decided because the judge was more or less high? Have some citizens, including former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, been wrongfully sent to federal prison in part because Mark Fuller was on uppers, downers, painkillers, mind numbers--or some combination of them all.

Requests for admissions in the divorce case give an idea of the serious issues  that were on Lisa Boyd Fuller's mind. Here is a sample, broken into four categories, from one of our 2012 posts:

Extramarital Affairs

1. Admit or deny that you have had an extramarital affair with a person or persons during the course of your marriage to the Plaintiff.

2. Admit or deny that you are continuing to have an extramarital affair.

3. Admit or deny that you have stayed overnight and had sexual intercourse with a person or persons other than your spouse during the course of your marriage.

4. Admit or deny that you have had sexual intercourse with a person or persons other than your spouse during the course of your marriage.

5. Admit or deny that you have admitted to your spouse that you have had sexual intercourse with a person or persons other than your spouse during the course of your marriage.

As you can see, Lisa Fuller and her attorney, Floyd Minor, are not pussyfooting around. On to category No. 2:

Driving Under the Influence


7. Admit or deny that you have driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol during the course of your marriage.

8. Admit or deny that you have driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and with one or more of your children in the vehicle as passengers, during the course of your marriage.

Domestic Abuse


12. Admit or deny that you have cursed your spouse or directed abusive language to your spouse.

13. Admit or deny that you have hit, kicked, struck, or otherwise physically abused your spouse during the course of your marriage.

14. Admit or deny that you have hit, kicked, struck, or otherwise physically abused your children during the course of your marriage to Plaintiff.

Drug addiction


16. Admit or deny that you are addicted to prescription medication.

For now, the key questions seem to be Nos. 13 and 14. They suggest that Fuller "hit, kicked, struck, or otherwise physically abused" his spouse and children during his first marriage. Thanks to a 2012 seal that likely was unlawful, the public never learned Mark Fuller's answers to those and other questions.

Here we are in 2014, with a report that Fuller has assaulted his second wife.

Should we be surprised? No. Should this man be on the federal bench.?

We will leave that question for our readers to decide.

Will Mike Hubbard and Bob Riley Be Indicted In Indian Gaming Probe--And Where Is Rob Riley's Name In The Lee County Investigation?

Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard and former Governor Bob Riley are expected to be indicted by a Lee County grand jury for their alleged roles in a scheme to funnel Indian gaming money to an organization designed to fight legalized private gaming in Alabama, a source tells Legal Schnauzer.

That raises many intriguing questions, including this one: Where is Rob Riley's name in the equation? All of the original reports about the $100,000 transfer from the Poarch Creek Indians to Citizens for a Better Alabama mentioned the former governor's son prominently.

Bill Britt, publisher of the Alabama Political Reporter, has led the way on coverage of the Lee County investigation. But his article in today's issue makes no mention of Rob Riley's role in the questionable transaction. A memo on the deal, which politico.com leaked, also appears to make no mention of Rob Riley.

That is odd because an October 2012 Montgomery Advertiser article, which broke the story, had Rob Riley's name front and center.

This is from an October 23, 2012, Legal Schnauzer post titled "Rob Riley Helped Funnel Indian Gambling Money To Organization That Opposed Non-Indian Gaming."

The son of former Governor Bob Riley was the middle man in a transaction that funneled Indian gambling money toward a campaign to fight non-Indian gaming facilities in Alabama, according to a report yesterday in the Montgomery Advertiser.

Rob Riley, a Homewood attorney, received notification from the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) that it had contributed $100,000 to Citizens for a Better Alabama on June 10, 2010. Records show that the RSLC received a $100,000 check that same day from the Poarch Band of Creek Indians.

This is from an article we posted the next day, based on information from public records and published reports:

Prominent Alabama Republicans this week said they did not know that funds used to fight non-Indian gaming in the state came from Indian gambling sources. A check of public records shows the Republicans almost certainly were lying.

A $100,000 check that went to an Alabama anti-gambling organization in 2010 originated with the Poarch Band of Creek Indians and was funneled through the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), according to a report in the Montgomery Advertiser. The same article showed that Indian gambling money, via the RSLC, played a prominent role in the Republican takeover of the Alabama Legislature in 2010.

Three key Republicans connected to the story--Homewood attorney Rob Riley, conservative lawyer and activist A. Eric Johnston, and House Speaker Mike Hubbard--said they had no idea the RSLC took money from gambling sources. But a simple check of public documents on the Web shows the GOP trio either was lying or was stunningly out of touch.

The Alabama denials are even more hard to swallow in light of recent reports that two Las Vegas casino moguls--Steve Wynn, of Wynn Resorts, and Sherman Adelson, of the Las Vegas Sands, gave more than $625,000 to the RSLC in recent months. Another report shows that Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, of Las Vegas, has given $165,299 to the RSLC.

How unbelievable were the statements from Rob Riley, Eric Johnston, and Mike Hubbard? We spelled that out, again citing public records:

We are supposed to believe that Riley, Johnston, and Hubbard were utterly in the dark about RSLC's ties to gaming? It's not a new development, by the way.

Records at campaignmoney.com show that RSLC received $15,000 from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians in 2003, followed by a $25,000 donation in 2005. Jack Abramoff, a former GOP lobbyist and now confessed felon, represented the Choctaws at the time. In 2006, the RSLC received $100,000 from Harrah's Casino Hotels.

We learned about this after a Web search lasting about five minutes. But Riley, Johnston, and Hubbard are not capable of learning about RSLC's ties to gaming that go back roughly 10 years? These guys can't afford Internet service?

The RSLC was founded in 2002, and we know it took gaming money in 2003. That means RSLC's roots have been fertilized with gambling cash pretty much from the outset. But GOP insiders in Alabama don't know that?

Again, why has Rob Riley's name been left out of recent reports when original articles showed he was in the middle of a smelly deal that sent Indian gambling money to an organization that vowed to fight non-Indian gambling?

Alabamians, and all citizens who care about honest government, should be asking that question? They also should be asking this question: Where in the world is the Obama Justice Department, when this case appears to involve serious federal issues?

Incident Report Indicates Warrant Was Unsigned In The Arrest Of Legal Schnauzer Publisher

The incident report in my arrest indicates the warrant was unsigned, and that comes on top of courtroom evidence suggesting there was no warrant at all.

What does all of this mean? We still are researching the issue, but we have found Alabama law stating that an unsigned warrant is "utterly void." That suggests my arrest and the resulting five-month incarceration in the Shelby County Jail might have been conducted outside the law.

Alabama incident reports include a notation that certain parts of the report are considered officer work product and "may not be public information." We therefore are not publishing the entire report, but a copy was made available for my defense at the resisting-arrest trial, and I learned the following:

At the bottom of the second page on the report is section No. 208. The section says "Warrant Signed," with boxes for "yes" and "no." The box for "no" is checked.

Our research indicates this is not a minor detail. Long-standing Alabama law has held that an unsigned warrant is "utterly void," and we will be taking a closer look at that law in upcoming posts.

Alabama Court Case From 1994 Finds That Preliminary Injunction Was Prior Restraint On Free Speech

A grisly Alabama murder from 1984 led to publication of a book that sparked a classic prior restraint lawsuit. The Alabama Supreme Court, in a 1994 ruling, cited the state constitution in ruling that attempts to suppress publication amounted to an unlawful prior restraint.

The take-home lesson? Efforts to impose prior restrictions on speech run afoul of both the U.S. Constitution and its First Amendment--plus the Alabama Constitution. That means the preliminary injunction that led to my incarceration was unlawful on multiple levels.

The case in question is styled Doe v. Roe, 638 So. 2d 826 (1994), and the high-court ruling came 10 years after a murder that gave rise to a book. Here is background from the Doe opinion:

In 1984, the natural mother of Roe's adoptive children was murdered by their natural father. The man dismembered his wife's body and buried it under a fish pond in the back yard of the family's home. When her body was discovered approximately three years later, the event and the resulting trial received much publicity. The children's natural father was convicted and is now serving a life sentence in the penitentiary.

After the children's natural father was arrested for the murder of their mother, they remained in the custody of relatives for more than a year. Later, they were adopted by John Roe and his wife, who lived in another area of the state. The children moved to the home of their adoptive parents about a month before the trial of their natural father, and since that time they have been undergoing counseling to enable them to lead normal lives.

Doe wrote a novel based upon the events of the murder. She contacted various commercial publishers, but none was interested in publishing her book. She then invested her own money in publishing the book. She had approximately 1,000 copies printed in hopes that she could distribute the book herself. Roe learned of Doe's plan to distribute this book. As next friend of his minor adoptive children, Roe filed a complaint for an injunction against the distribution of the book.

The trial court granted a preliminary injunction, as it did in my case. But it did not hold up in Doe, and that finding helps explain why there never should have been in injunction in my case. From the Doe opinion:

Although Doe raises several issues on appeal, the dispositive question is whether the injunction violated Article I, § 4, of the Constitution of the State of Alabama. According to Article I, § 4, "no law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press; and any person may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty." The trial court held that a prior restraint was necessary because, it felt, the distribution of the book would injure the children by invading their right to privacy. We do not agree that Doe's right to freedom of speech as guaranteed by the constitution is overcome by the privacy interests raised in this case.

Alabama might not be thought of as a progressive state, but those are powerful words in support of free speech--showing that are free-speech traditions have been supported both by those on the left and the right.

Alabama Case from 1909 Provides Strong Warning Against "Censorship In Advance" On Free Speech

A 1909 court case uses strong language to decry "censorship in advance" on matters of free speech. Was the case decided in a coastal state that has become known for its liberal traditions? Nope, it was decided right here in Alabama, in a federal court.

Our thanks to the Popehat blog for unearthing Citizens’ Light, Heat and Power Co. v. Montgomery Light and Water, 171 F. 553 (1909). After reading the key finding in Citizens' Light, one can only wonder how Circuit Judge Claud Neilson issued a preliminary injunction in a defamation case, leading to my incarceration in 2013/2014. That remains a head scratcher, but the words from Citizen's Light leave little doubt that I never should have been subject to an injunction, with resulting contempt and incarceration. 

Popehat sets the stage by explaining that equitable remedies, such as an injunction, are improper in defamation cases:

An injunction is an equitable tradition because it is only supposed to be imposed when legal remedies — like monetary damages — are unavailable or inadequate. American courts have long held that equity will not enjoin defamation — that courts may not issue an injunction to prohibit someone from committing libel or slander because the victim can always sue for damages.

With that as an introduction, let's consider these powerful words from the 1909 Citizens' Light case.Note it's key finding in the first sentence: that an injunction imposed by a single judge in the equity setting amounts to censorship:

Neither a court of equity, nor any other department of government, can set up a censorship in advance over such matters, and prevent a person from exercising this constitutional right. He has the right to publish, if he chooses to take the consequences. After he has spoken or written falsely, the criminal law can punish him, and the civil courts amerce him in damages. That such redress may not be adequate in all cases, and in some cannot be, is quite apparent; but the remedies named are all that the Constitution permits any court to employ against slanders upon a man’s credit and business standing. The court cannot go outside of the Constitution, or hold that to be an inadequate remedy which the Constitution has declared to be the sole remedy. The wrongs and injury, which often occur from lack of preventive means to suppress slander, are parts of the price which the people, by their organic law, have declared it is better to pay, than to encounter the evils which might result if the courts were allowed to take the alleged slanderer or libeler by the throat, in advance. Citizens’ Light, Heat and Power Co. v. Montgomery Light and Water, 171 F. 553 (1909)