The death of Eagles guitarist Glenn Frey reminds us of the value of craftsmanship--in any endeavor

Glenn Frey

I am the son of a craftsman. My father, William Joe Shuler, made his living (and supported a wife and four kids) as a railroad worker and postal clerk. But his real gifts were as a repairman and a creator, especially with wood.

It's not a stretch to say my dad could fix most anything. I remember him taking an aged Dodge Rambler, which was dead on our driveway, and giving it years of new life. He also built extraordinary grandfather clocks--from scratch, as best I could tell. When he needed a place to put his clocks together, he built his own woodworking shop in our backyard.

I participated in the shop-building project, helping with the foundation, the framing, and the roofing. Until then, I thought hay hauling was the dirtiest, hardest job on the planet. My roofing experience convinced me that job, especially on a hot day, was just as brutal as hauling hay.

It's not that my father passed along his mechanical gifts to me. I had no idea how to build a woodworking shop; he had to show me how to do everything. And I wouldn't even know where to begin on building a grandfather clock.

But my dad did pass along an appreciation for craftsmanship. And I was reminded of that with news Monday about the death of Eagles guitarist, singer, and songwriter Glenn Frey, at age 67.

That's strange because my dad and Glenn Frey seemingly had nothing in common. Frey was the guy with long hair who co-wrote (with Jackson Browne) and sang "Take it Easy," the Eagles' first hit. My dad was a crewcut guy for almost all of his adult life.

I feel certain my dad had no clue who Glenn Frey and the Eagles were--even though their albums were featured regularly on the stereo turntable in my bedroom. I was born in 1956 and was old enough to appreciate quite a few bands from the '60s--the Beatles, Beach Boys, Dave Clark Five, Guess Who, Grass Roots, Three Dog Night, and Creedence Clearwater Revival. But I began to actually understand music (at least a little) in the '70s, And that decade belonged to the Eagles.

I came to consider "Take it Easy" as almost the perfect pop song. I loved the Eagles harmonies and their ability (thanks largely to Bernie Leadon's banjo and pedal steel) to merge country and rock. And when the Eagles added guitarists Don Felder and Joe Walsh to harden their sound, that led to the monster albums "One of These Nights" and "Hotel California," cementing the Eagles as a band for the ages.

The Eagles started as four guys (Frey, Leadon, drummer Don Henley, and bassist Randy Meisner) who were committed to democratic principles--with all four guys singing lead and having an equal say in band decisions. Frey and Henley quickly realized that wasn't going to work, so they gradually took over the band.

Henley, because of his soulful, raspy voice, a gift for lyrics, and an impressive solo career, became the band's best-known member. ("He could sing the New York City phone book and make it sound good," Felder once said.) Henley also became a stickler in the studio, meaning it could take years for the Eagles to produce a record. Bandmates called Henley "Sonic Bat" because of his ability to hear the slightest mistake in a song. (From that nickname, came another--"Guano," which is Spanish for bats--t.)

Even after launching solo smashes such as "Dirty Laundry," "Boys of Summer," and "End of the Innocence," Henley could identify the real leader of the Eagles. "The Eagles are Glenn's band," he said. "They always will be."

That's because Frey essentially was the band's "head coach." He co-wrote and sang the first hit, pretty much settled on the band's name, established the band's low-key concert style, handled personnel decisions (some of which led to painful exits) and developed themes for albums and many individual songs.

With the plaintive, haunting "Desperado," Frey and Henley established themselves as a songwriting team of the highest order. In essence, they became America's version of Lennon and McCartney.

How did Frey and Henley work? The Eagles best-known song, "Hotel California," provides a clue. The lyrics--"On a dark, desert highway, cool wind in my hair; warm smell of colitas rising up through the air; up ahead in the distance, I saw a shimmering light; my head grew heavy and my sight grew dim; I had to stop for the night"--came mostly from Henley. But Frey developed the song's theme--of a man driving through the desert, until he sees the lights of Los Angeles in the distance, and pulling into the mythical Hotel California as fatigue takes him.

Felder wrote the music for "Hotel California", and the song stands as one of the great collaborative pieces ever.

As the "MC" of Eagles concerts, and a primary spokesman in the press, Frey was quick with a quip. He could poke fun at his uber-serious songwriting partner--"Nobody can suck the fun out of a room like Don Henley." He also could poke fun at himself--"People think Jackson Browne and I wrote 'Take it Easy.' But Jackson pretty much had the song ready when he got stuck on the lyrics. I said, "How about, 'It's a girl, my Lord, in a flatbed Ford, slowing down to take a look at me"? Jackson said, 'Yeah, that's good.' And that's how I got a credit on the song; I wrote one line." (That quote is from the History of the Eagles documentary. I might not have it exactly right, but I'm pretty sure I've got the gist of it. I just know that I guffawed when I heard it."

Frey was ambitious and driven, and he could get nasty with bandmates who weren't of the same mindset or questioned his tactics. All three members who left the band--Leadon, Meisner, and Felder--departed in the wake of disputes with Frey. When the Eagles regrouped in 1994, after what Frey called a "14-year vacation," he (with some assistance from Henley) tried to rearrange the group's business structure so that the two of them would get bigger shares and Felder would be pushed aside as a partner. When Felder continued to ask questions about Manager Irving Azoff and the band's finances, Frey booted him out of the band--and years of nasty litigation ensued.

Felder probably wound up with a nice settlement, but he was forced out of a band for which his entrance marked an explosion in popularity--and he wrote the music for what would become the band's signature song. Was Frey driven by control, power, and greed? It looks that way to me--and I'm a big Frey fan. Frey and Henley should have been grateful for Felder's contributions to the band, and respectful of the role he had earned as partner. Instead, they (mainly Frey) strong-armed him out of the band.

Was Glenn Frey a driven leader who sought the best from those around him? Yes. Could he be a charming, insightful, and funny guy? Yes. Was he generally graceful and honorable under fire? Nope. Was he a musical genius? Based on his solo output, the answer probably is no. He was a very good, but not quite great, musician; any "genius" tag related to the Eagles belongs with Henley.

Was Frey a craftsman? Absolutely, and insight on that comes from Timothy B. Schmitt, who left Poco in 1977 to replace Meisner as the Eagles bassist. Poco was--and still is--a very good band, with a career that spanned more than six decades and produced hits like "Good Feeling to Know," "Keep on Tryin',""Rose of Cimarron," "Crazy Love," and "The Heart of the Night." But the band has never come close to the heights the Eagles reached.

Someone once asked Schmitt about the difference between the two bands, and he said, "There is a level of craftsmanship with the Eagles songs that we didn't have with Poco."

Who drove that craftsmanship? Don Henley certainly played a role, but the leader--the man who set the standards high--was Glenn Frey.

I, and millions of other fans, long will be grateful for what Glenn Frey brought to our lives. I think even my dad would have appreciated Frey's determination to get things right.

Frey is best known as the co-writer and/or lead singer on major singles, such as "Tequila Sunrise," "Already Gone," "Lyin' Eyes," "New Kid in Town," "Heartache Tonight," and (of course) "Take it Easy."

But he also took the lead on LP tracks that made all seven of the Eagles' studio albums such treasures. One of my favorites is a song from the band's third album, "On the Border," and it wasn't even written by a member of the Eagles. Tom Waits wrote "Ol' 55," but with Frey on lead vocals and piano--plus classic Eagles harmonies, it's a song that has stayed close to my heart for almost 45 years. Here are the Eagles performing "Ol' 55" live:

Mike Hubbard and Don Siegelman are alike? Al.com's John Archibald must be joking--and he contradicts his own words in a column from about a year ago

John Archibald

It probably was inevitable that a member of the Alabama mainstream media (MSM) would compare indicted House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn) with imprisoned former Democratic governor Don Siegelman? It was a cinch that the MSMer's analysis would be wildly off target. But we never dreamed he would contradict his own words from roughly a year ago.

The journalist in question is al.com's John Archibald, who wrote "Why Mike Hubbard is like Don Siegelman." Archibald is no stranger to shallow, nonsensical analysis, so it's not a surprise that he would tackle this subject and screw it up. But you would think he might at least remember his own words from February 2014, in a post titled "This country is about to have a throwdown over abusive cops and courts."

Archibald's Hubbard/Siegelman commentary is goofy from the outset because there are almost no similarities between the two politicians and their criminal cases:

* Hubbard was indicted while in office and has refused to step down from his post, even temporarily, despite pleas from members of his own party; Siegelman was not in office when he was indicted.

* Hubbard's indictment appears to be lawful--it was filed inside the relevant statute of limitations and cites language that matches that from the state ethics law upon which it is based; the federal government filed an indictment against Siegelman almost one full year after the statute of limitations had lapsed, and the former governor was convicted based on jury instructions that match neither the statutory nor case-law language. In essence, Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy were convicted of a "crime that does not exist."

* Hubbard was indicted by a state attorney general (Luther Strange) who is a member of his own party. Siegelman's indictment and prosecution were driven by members of the opposing party. Alabama attorney Jill Simpson swore in an affidavit, and testified under oath before Congress, that GOP operatives targeted Siegelman for political reasons--not because he had committed a crime.

Don Siegelman

I could go on and on about differences between Hubbard and Siegelman and their respective cases. But let's turn our attention to Archibald.

His main gripe seems to be that neither Hubbard nor Siegelman has admitted guilt. (I'm not a Mike Hubbard fan, but he hasn't even gone to trial, and he's entitled to plead not guilty and try to prove that in court. Under those circumstances, it would be nutty for him to admit fault.) Here is the key point Archibald seems to be making:

If we know one thing at all by now it is that Mike Hubbard will serve Mike Hubbard first. He will cling to the power he believes he rightfully claimed for himself from the Democrats and all the forces marshalled against him. He will hold to that power as long as he has fingernails to sink into it. Because he is just like every other politician who grabs hold and cannot let go.

He's just like those he ridiculed when he himself staked a claim to public service.

Like convicted Democratic former Gov. Don Siegelman.

They both refuse to acknowledge fault. They both refuse to accept responsibility. They point and blame, because they always used government as a way to service themselves privately instead of using it provide the public service they promised.

Archibald seems to be saying we have a justice system that always gets it right--that all prosecutors, lawyers, judges, and jurors are fair, honorable, serious, perceptive, and knowledgeable. This system, Archibald seems to assert, is infallible--and anyone who is indicted or found to be guilty under it has a duty to admit guilt.

That's a far cry from what Archibald wrote roughly one year ago. On that occasion, Archibald was understandably disturbed about the case of Sureshbhai Patel, a grandfather from India who was body slammed and partially paralyzed by Madison police officer Eric Parker. (We will be addressing the latest outrages in the Patel case soon.) Here is what Archibald wrote last February:

I've been asked a lot lately, in the wake of the gay marriage debate, what the next great civil or human rights battleground will be. And I think this is it.

Justice. And all that means.

It is the use of force by police. It is the fairness of justice for the rich and the poor alike. The battle is simmering now, in places like Ferguson and Madison, and more quietly in courts like those in Childersburg and Clanton, where the smallest of traffic offenses can lead to jail time for those who cannot pay immediately.

It was by far the most insightful piece I've seen from John Archibald, and I praised him for it publicly. Archibald correctly stated that our justice system is deeply flawed--and the law-enforcement and legal/judicial types who make it "hum" often have dubious motives.

So why should Don Siegelman admit guilt because of the findings from a court system that Archibald admits is a long way from infallible? Why should Mike Hubbard admit fault before he's even tried by such a system?

Mike Hubbard

Here is a question for John Archibald, and those who think like him: Imagine you received a letter from the IRS, claiming you owe $5.6 million in back taxes--due to profits from a car-dealership you opened three years ago. Imagine, however, that you've never opened a car dealership or any other sort of business--profitable or otherwise.

Do you just quietly take the IRS's word and start trying to figure out how you are going to pay $5.6 million--or maybe start thinking about what life will be like in federal prison? Or do you fight back--telling IRS officials they are wrong and offering proof that you do not owe back taxes?

Any rational person is going to fight back--realizing that our government entities can, and do, make mistakes.

But Don Siegelman and Mike Hubbard are supposed to just quietly take whatever the court system gives them? I don't buy it--and John Archibald's own words indicate he doesn't buy it either.

Remembering the schnauzer who inspired a blog about the fight for justice

Murphy and Carol appeared on a TV report about the Blessing of the Animals
on St. Francis of Assisi Day



Today marks the 12th anniversary of the death of Murphy Abigail Shuler, the beloved miniature schnauzer for whom this blog is named. Murphy died unexpectedly on her 11th birthday, and my wife, Carol and I still miss her like she passed yesterday.

Ironically, Murphy's death and birthday came on January 14, one day after Carol's birthday, January 13. You might say that, for us, all kinds of mixed emotions are wrapped up in those two dates on the calendar.

If something good comes from this blog--a more educated public about injustice, more awareness about our broken and dysfunctional court system, support for victims of court-related corruption--the credit for that should go to Murphy. Without her, I don't think I ever would have been inspired to write a blog.

How could a dog inspire a blog. I tried to put the answer to that question into words with a post back in October 2011:

I am convinced that the distinctive title is a major reason this blog has resonated with more people than I ever dreamed possible.

In fact, an individual who has been the subject of quite a few posts here recently told me, "You know, people ask me all the time about Legal Schnauzer. And I think that title is one reason. It seems to connect with people."

Needless to say, those words warmed my heart. That's because this blog never has been about the anger, frustration, and fear we've experienced at the hands of our broken justice system--although those certainly are key elements to the story. At the risk of becoming overly ethereal, Legal Schnauzer has been, for the missus and me, like a divine calling.

It really is inspired by Murphy Abigail Shuler, the miniature schnauzer who was a guiding light in our lives from the day we adopted her in March 1993 until her death on January 14, 2004. She was with us, literally, through the first four years of our trip through legal hell. She is with us, spiritually, today.

What did Murphy mean to us? I tried to address that in a post titled "Lessons from our pets":

I don't pretend to know the answer to weighty questions about our pets. But I know what my wife and I hope--and believe. A heaven without Murphy and our other animal friends would not seem, well, all that heavenly.

Have you ever wondered about the special senses animals have? For 11 years, I knew that Murphy could see and hear and smell things in a way that I could not. But I also suspect she could sense our Creator in a way that I could not.

Many times I wonder exactly what my mission is in this time and place. I hope I'm a fairly decent husband, son, and brother, and I like to think I'm considered a reliable employee and coworker. I hope a few people consider me a friend worth having.

Murphy and her mom at Gulf Shores, Alabama

But I think Murphy knew exactly what her mission in this life was. And I think she sensed that from a higher power every day. Without that kind of connection from above, I don't know how she could live with the faith and trust that she displayed on a daily basis.

We humans struggle to discern our missions. And even when we think we've found them, we are easily distracted, easily turned in other directions. My sense is that Murphy never veered from the path she was meant to be on.

Aside from all that heavy stuff, Murphy was just a ball to have around. She was a source of constant amusement and playfulness, so much so that we developed the habit of creating songs for her--as I tried to explain in a post titled "Songs for Murphy":

Maybe our favorite "Murphy Song," appropriately enough, came from a band whose roots are firmly planted in Tuskegee, Alabama. It was inspired by the Girl's solid little build. We've read that some miniature schnauzers weigh in the 10- to 12-pound range. But that wasn't our girl. She was 18 to 20 pounds of solid muscle. "Murph, you're built like a brick s--thouse," one of us said one day. That prompted us to try our version of this Commodores classic:

And so, while this day always brings sadness, it also brings a sense of thankfulness, joy, and hope. In that spirit, we share a song that will forever make us think of Murphy--and it never fails to make us smile:

Gov. Bentley's affair with aide Rebekah Caldwell Mason, plus his curious plans for beach mansion, draw national headlines from NY Times and Gawker

Gov. Robert Bentley and Rebekah
Caldwell Mason
(From HBTV.us)

Fallout from Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley's affair with aide Rebekah Caldwell Mason now is generating national headlines--and they aren't about the governor's supposed standing as a "family values" conservative.

Articles in The New York Times and Gawker focus on Bentley's plan to use funds from BP oil-spill grants to refurbish the state's beachfront mansion, which has been in a state of disrepair since being struck by Hurricane Danny in 1997. The articles particularly focus on allegations that Bentley is dipping into state coffers to fix the mansion because he lost his own beach properties in a divorce from First Lady Dianne Bentley, which ended a 50-year marriage among reports that the governor and Mason had become unusually close.

The Times article, titled "Alabama Governor’s Use of Oil Spill Funds for Mansion Draws Criticism" and written by Alan Blinder, was published on July 11. Gawker followed up yesterday with a piece by Jordan Sargent titled "Alabama Governor Will Take His Post-Divorce Blues to a State-Funded Beach House."

Blinder, of The Times, sets the stage with his report from Montgomery:

In a capital where almost anything can turn contentious, there has mostly been a consensus on a matter of housekeeping for close to two decades: A rehabilitation of a ramshackle governor’s mansion on the gulf coast would be political folly.

So when Gov. Robert Bentley’s office acknowledged last month that Mr. Bentley, a second-term Republican, was renovating the home with up to $1.8 million that BP gave the state after the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, it was something of a jolt, particularly because the property in Baldwin County is intended only as a retreat for governors.

Mr. Bentley, who cannot seek a third consecutive term, is making no apologies for the decision, which provoked debate about BP’s payouts after the spill; questions about what a state short of cash is doing supporting an executive escape; and testy posts on social media by the governor and the state auditor, a fellow Republican.

“If this were a house in the woods in North Alabama, nobody would think anything about it,” Mr. Bentley said in an interview last week. “It just sounds more elaborate when it’s on the beach. But it’s a state-owned property, and it is our responsibility to repair state-owned properties.”

The Republican auditor would be Jim Zeigler, who has made it a habit to raise thorny questions about Bentley's actions. Writes Blinder:

State officials, citing security concerns, have been reluctant to disclose details of the renovation. Many of the plans were contained in a handsome portfolio that architects presented to Mr. Bentley, who said he wanted the project completed in time for a Memorial Day event for veterans.

But the governor forcefully denied Mr. Zeigler’s assertion on Facebook that he sought upgrades to the property only after a divorce in which he lost two beach houses.

“We’ve been working on this for a long time. All right?” Mr. Bentley said with a trace of anger as he gestured toward the plans, which were dated Aug. 27. Mr. Bentley’s wife, Dianne, filed for divorce on Aug. 28; the couple had been separated since January, according to a court document. (The governor’s office disputed the separation date, which was included in Dianne Bentley’s divorce complaint, and said Monday that the couple lived together until late August.)

Mr. Bentley made a similar case on Twitter in December, when he said Mr. Zeigler was “lying” and complained about news outlets publishing the auditor’s allegations. Mr. Zeigler, for his part, stood by — and often repeated — his charge.

Gawker, with its motto "Today's Gossip is Tomorrow's News," takes an "in yo face" approach to the story. While The Times discreetly sidestepped any mention of an extramarital affair, Gawker's approach is much less delicate. After all, this is the Web site that reported before on the Bentley/Mason scandal with the headline: "Alabama Governor Robert Bentley Won't Say Whether He Fucked a Staffer."

Alabama beach mansion
(From rt.com)

Headlines don't come much more direct than that. Writes Sargent in his latest Gawker piece:

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley had a poor 2015, having divorced from his wife of 50 years in the midst of a widespread rumor that he’d had an affair with a key aide. Bentley has something to look forward to this year, though: a newly rebuilt beach house. But about that. . . .

The distastefulness of a state governor souping up a beach house via funds nominally dedicated to repairing a vital environmental region after a historically damaging disaster is obvious to everyone involved. . . .

But it is on the beach, and that specific detail has piqued the interest of one official close to the money: state auditor Jim Ziegler. Ziegler’s theory is that Bentley isn’t fixing the mansion because of a responsibility to the state or so that, as Bentley states, it can be used for events that will foster economic growth in Alabama. Instead, in a statement written before Christmas, Ziegler offered that Bentley’s interest in the mansion stems from the fact that the governor lost possession of two beach homes in the divorce from his wife.

Ouch! And the scorching words don't end there. Sargent sums up Bentley's mess thusly:

Bentley now has to refute not only that he’s immorally diverting money, but that he’s doing it for a deeply personal reason. The governor attempted to provide evidence contrary to Ziegler’s theory to the Times, saying that his office has been working on refurbishing the beach retreat for “a long time.” To that end he showed reporter Alan Blinder plans dated August 27. That date is especially curious because, as Blinder notes, Bentley’s wife filed for divorce one day later.

In a separate statement to AL.com, a Bentley spokesperson said that the governor recently purchased his own property on the same peninsula that houses the rundown governor’s mansion. Maybe that is so, but it doesn’t obscure an unchangeable fact as Bentley moves on from the twin loss of his previous beach homes: one plus one equals two.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas appeared poised to side with Siegelman in SCOTUS case that could have protected the right to trial by jury

Don Siegelman
(From Montgomery Advertiser)

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision yesterday not to hear the latest appeal in the Don Siegelman case, of course, is a blow to the former Alabama governor. But it's also a blow to a supposedly bedrock concept of our demorcracy--the right to a jury trial. That means yesterday's decision is a blow to all Americans, even those who've never heard of Don Siegelman and have no idea what his case is about.

Here is the central issue in the Siegelman appeal: May a court consider acquitted conduct to increase a sentence within the statutory range of the offense for which the defendant was convicted? That is precisely what U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller--who since has resigned from the bench in the wake of a wife-beating scandal--did in the Siegelman case. And it's a big reason Siegelman is not scheduled for release from federal prison until August 8, 2017.

To a considerable extent, he is being held now based on charges of which a jury acquitted him. A number of constitutional and legal groups have filed briefs in the case, arguing that such an outcome violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and violates the Right to Popular Sovereignty inherent in the U.S. Constitution.

Based on news reports about a similar 2014 case, two of the Supreme Court's most conservative justices--Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas--appeared ready to side with Siegelman, a Democrat. Liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who joined Scalia and Thomas in a 2014 dissent, also appeared ready to side with Siegelman.

If Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg voted to hear the Siegelman case--as seems likely--that means no other justice provided a fourth vote needed to hear the case. SCOTUS announced that Obama appointee Elena Kagan did not participate in deliberations because, as solicitor general, she had written a brief urging the high court to uphold the Siegelman convictions.

If this scenario played out behind the scenes, that means two liberal justices--Clinton appointee Stephen Breyer and Obama appointee Sonia Sotomayor--could have provided the fourth vote needed to hear the Siegelman case. But they apparently did not do it.

That raises this question: If Democrats are the party that champions constitutional rights, what kind of rights are Breyer and Sotomayor supporting--especially on an issue where even Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas see constitutional problems?

Here's another question--Hillary Clinton has powerful ties to both the Bill Clinton and Barack Obama administrations. What does this outcome say about her priorities regarding civil rights? Should she be pressed about this issue on the campaign trail? Could this cause Democrats who truly care about constitutional protections to support Bernie Sanders?

The 2014 case was styled Jones v. United States. Here's how the Stanford Daily summarized the facts and legal issues surrounding the case:

The case arose in Washington, D.C. Three men, Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston and Antwuan Ball, were charged with, among other things, running an “open-air” drug market — essentially a conspiracy to distribute large amounts of drugs. If convicted on that charge, the men would effectively be held liable for all of the drugs dealt by the entire “organization,” much more than any of the men had personally distributed. The jury, however, did not convict on the conspiracy charge, and instead merely found the men guilty of distributing the relatively small amount of drugs that each had personally dealt— between two and 11 grams of crack cocaine. . . .

Nevertheless, the judge accepted the government’s argument and sentenced the defendants as if they had conspired to distribute more than 500 grams of crack, even though they had been specifically acquitted of those charges. The defendants therefore received sentences varying from 15 years to almost 19 years, sentences nearly four times the length of the next highest sentences imposed for similar convictions.

How did that sit with Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg? Not well, as the Stanford Daily reports:

The Court, however, denied certiorari, but not without dissent. Justice Scalia published a vigorous dissent, insisting that it was time for the Court to put an end to this practice. First marshaling precedent, Justice Scalia explained that any fact that increases the penalty to which a defendant is exposed is essentially an element of a crime, and therefore must be proved to a jury, not a judge. The Court has also held that a substantively unreasonable sentence is unconstitutional and must be set aside. It follows, then, according to Justice Scalia, that “any fact necessary to prevent a sentence from being substantively unreasonable — thereby exposing the defendant to the longer sentence — is an element that must be either admitted by the defendant or found by the jury.” Because the defendants argued that their sentences were only reasonable if the conspiracy was considered relevant conduct that could increase the Guideline penalty, the Sixth Amendment was implicated. Justice Scalia then closed by insisting that the Court should have taken this opportunity to “put an end to the unbroken string of cases disregarding the Sixth Amendment.”

Justice Scalia was not alone in his dissent. In fact, criminal cases can often lead to unusual lineups of Justices, and this case was one such example. Joining Justice Scalia in his dissent from denial of certiorari were Justices Thomas and Ginsburg. Given just one more vote, then, the Court would have granted certiorari to resolve this important issue.

Dissents from denial of certiorari are rare, and no such dissents were forthcoming in the Siegelman case. But three justices, from a wide range of political perspectives, have already made it clear where they stand on the issue.

Antonin Scalia
(From Mother Jones)

That leaves us with Don Siegelman to voice his own dissent, writing on his Facebook page from the Federal Correctional Institute in Oakdale, Louisiana. Siegelman starts by quoting Bob Dylan:

"It is hard to believe we live in a country where justice is just a game.” Bob Dylan

"U.S. Citizens do not have a constitutional right not to be framed": The U.S. Solicitor General, January 4th, 2010, in an argument to the U.S. Supreme Court defending Iowa law enforcement in a civil suit by two men who spent 25 years in prison for a crime they didn't commit. They were intentionally framed.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court gives its stamp of approval to the practice of allowing judges to add years to a defendant's sentence for matters a jury found the defendant innocent!

We criticize North Korea, China and other countries for human rights violations while turning a blind eye to our own.

Today's U.S. Supreme Court decision is so extraordinarily shocking and is an example of America's democratic hypocrisies.

116 former state Attorneys General and The Constitution Project argued that a jury decision is final, that the U.S. Constitution gives the people, speaking through a jury, the final decision on guilt or innocence. The U.S. Supreme Court has thumbed its nose at justice."

Don E. Siegelman

Governor of Alabama, 1999-2003

Did issues tied to affair with Rebekah Caldwell Mason prompt Gov. Robert Bentley to spend $24,000 with Montgomery law firm known for criminal defense?

Gov. Robert Bentley and Rebekah
Caldwell Mason
(From HBTV.us)

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley in 2015 spent more than $24,000 in campaign funds with a Montgomery law firm noted for criminal-defense work. Were Bentley's payments to the Melton Espy and Williams firm driven by issues arising from his extramarital affair with aide Rebekah Caldwell Mason?

News of the affair broke on August 31, 2015, shortly after First Lady Dianne Bentley filed for a divorce that ended a 50-year marriage. Reports then showed that Robert Bentley's 2014 campaign paid more than $400,000 to Mason's company, RCM Communications, of Tuscaloosa--and Bentley had hired Mason's husband for a state position that paid more than $390,000 over a five-year period.

In short, public records showed that Rebekah Mason and her husband made more than $1 million during the Bentley administration. According to an al.com report about Bentley's latest campaign-finance report, another $76,000 went to Mason's company in 2015. (See campaign-finance report at the end of this post.)

Robert Bentley is not the only one, in the wake of his divorce, to hire a lawyer with a history of criminal-defense work. Rebekah Mason reportedly has hired Bobby Segall, of the Montgomery firm Copeland Franco.

The Alabama Council for Excellence in Government (ACEGOV) might be at the heart of the criminal concerns. Here's how we explained it in a post dated September 22, 2015:

What is the most likely source of criminal exposure for Mason and Bentley? Our sources say it is the Alabama Council for Excellent Government, also known as ACEGOV, a nonprofit organization with ties to three of the most powerful entities in the state--Alabama Power, the University of Alabama System, and the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, who have tried to arrange a monopoly on state gaming in exchange for assistance with the state budget crisis.

Where does ACEGOV get its money? The council is not terribly forthcoming with that information, but in a general sense, the funds reportedly come from Bentley's leftover campaign resources. More specifically, our sources say, the money comes mostly from Alabama Power and the Poarch Creeks--and a significant amount of it has been funneled to Governor Bentley's mistress, Rebekah Caldwell Mason.

Cooper Shattuck, a former legal adviser for Bentley, formed ACEGOV in February before moving on to become general counsel for the University of Alabama System.

Birmingham attorney Donald Watkins, via reporting on his Facebook page, shined additional light on ACEGOV, calling it a "slush fund" for Mason. Here is how Watkins described it:

For over a year, the governor seemed oblivious to the hurt and pain he had caused to Mrs. Bentley and his children by his love affair with Rebekah. Since he was re-elected last year, Bentley’s primary concern has been figuring out how best to use the financial resources of the state, along with leftover campaign funds and the financial resources of friendly political groups, to support his romantic lifestyle with Rebekah.

In February, Governor Bentley established the Alabama Council for Excellent Government, a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation. Bentley’s former legal advisor Cooper Shattuck formed the Council at Bentley’s request. The stated purpose of the organization is to “support Governor Bentley in his efforts to solve real problems and to make Alabama greater, stronger and more excellent for all the hardworking men and women who call this great state our home.” In reality, the Council is a slush fund that was set up to (a) fund Bentley’s love affair with Rebekah while concealing payments to her from the view of public oversight and accountability, and (b) stash money for life with Rebekah after the governor’s divorce from Mrs. Bentley.

Bentley funded the Council with excess campaign funds left over from his 2014 gubernatorial campaign. The Council has also received a $25,000 contribution this year from AEA and $20,000 from the Alabama Hospital Association.

Watkins posted those words on September 9, 2015. Bentley's latest campaign-finance report shows that on October 15, 2015, barely one month later, he paid $24,758 to the Melton Espy firm.

Is that a coincidence? We doubt it.

Bentley FCPA Summary 1A 2015 by John Gunn

Texas trooper is indicted as police perjury grabs headlines, perhaps even in Missouri, where child-porn charges hit sheriff's office that brutalized my wife

Brian Encinia's arrest of Sandra Bland
(From Slate)

The Texas state trooper who conducted a traffic stop that led to the death of black, female motorist Sandra Bland has been indicted for perjury, and the state has launched proceedings to fire him.

The indictment and termination of Brian Encinia comes as salon.com reports that police perjury threatens the criminal justice system across the nation. (Newsflash: Our justice system at all levels already is a mess, a problem President Barack Obama has ignored, and police perjury is an issue in both criminal and civil cases.)

Meanwhile, the Missouri sheriff's office that brutalized my wife, Carol, during an unlawful eviction and left her with a shattered left arm stands in an uncomfortable spotlight as one of its own deputies was indicted yesterday on federal child-pornography charges. Juan T. Jones, who had been a patrol officer with the Greene County Sheriff's Office since September 2013, was fired yesterday and charged with possession of child pornography.

Jones worked for Jim Arnott, the sheriff who stood about five feet away on September 9, 2015, as three of his deputies surrounded Carol Shuler, slammed her to the ground, and left her with heavy bruising, a possible concussion, and a shattered left arm.

Where does police dishonesty enter the picture in the Missouri case? Arnott immediately pointed at Carol and claimed she had "assaulted a police officer"--when, in fact, she was the victim of an assault. Arnott caused Carol to be falsely arrested and imprisoned, and she was released only when X-rays showed her arm was so badly broken that it would require trauma surgery. Our guess is that threw a bit of a wrench into Arnott's plan to bring bogus assaulting-an-officer charges.

Did Arnott, or someone under his command, file a false incident report that would amount to the kind of perjury that got Brian Encinia fired and indicted in Texas? Do the arrest and termination of Juan T. Jones, who is black, raise issues about possible racial discrimination in Arnott's department? We will examine those questions in upcoming posts.

Juan T. Jones: Arrested on child-pornography charges in
Greene County, Missouri
(From News-Leader)

Sandra Bland, meanwhile, might be receiving justice in death that she was denied in the last moments of her life. Bland was arrested on a misdemeanor charge after Encinia became sensitive when she refused to put our her cigarette during a traffic stop. Encinia forced her from the vehicle, and Bland spent three days in the Waller County jail before she was found dead from what has been ruled a suicide.

A Texas grand jury found yesterday that Encinia lied under oath in his report about the incident. From a report at Yahoo! News:

Encinia, who is white, pulled Bland over on July 10 for making an improper lane change near Prairie View A&M University, her alma mater, where she had just interviewed and accepted a job. Dashcam video from Encinia's patrol car shows that the traffic stop quickly became confrontational.

The video shows the trooper holding a stun gun and yelling, "I will light you up!" after Bland refuses to get out of her car. Bland eventually steps out of the vehicle, and Encinia orders her to the side of the road. The confrontation continues off-camera but is still audible.

How did perjury enter the picture? From the Yahoo! report:

Encinia's affidavit stated he "removed her from her vehicle to further conduct a safer traffic investigation," but grand jurors "found that statement to be false," said Shawn McDonald, one of five special prosecutors appointed to investigate.

The misdemeanor charge carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $4,000 fine. At least one protester called the misdemeanor charge a "slap in the face to the Bland family."

Jim Arnott answers questions at press conference about
child-porn charges against Officer Juan T. Jones
(From KY3)

Is it time the United States started taking police perjury seriously? According to a report at Salon, titled "Perjury USA: Rampant police lying taints criminal justice system nationwide," the answer is yes. From the report:

That Chicago police who witnessed Officer Jason Van Dyke kill Laquan McDonald in a hail of sixteen bullets may have lied to cover it up is a reminder that misplaced trust in law enforcement can lead to injustice. According to civil rights attorneys, the systemic police lying evidenced in Chicago is a nationwide problem.

“It has been shown repeatedly that police usually close ranks and form a narrative that immediately puts the police in the defensive to justify whatever force was used,” says Ezekial Edwards, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Criminal Law Reform Project.

Lies, he says, are told not just to cover up major events like a shooting but also to justify illegal searches in run-of-the-mill cases.

“If the facts are very helpful to a police officer, obviously they’re going to tell the truth. But if they’re not,” says Edwards, “a lot of the time you’ll be dealing with testimony that’s less than honest.”

This all hits close to home because Carol and I have seen considerable evidence that we are dealing with systemic police lying in Greene County, Missouri, which is home to Springfield, the state's third largest city.

Carol's case, plus the arrest and termination of Juan T. Jones, indicates the overwhelmingly white Greene County Sheriff's Office might have radically different standards for white officers and black officers. Should that merit a federal civil-rights investigation? Did someone commit perjury in Carol's case, much like what Brian Encinia is alleged to have done in Texas?

We will address those questions, and more, in upcoming posts.

"Feaga facts" helped send Don Siegelman to prison, and they still are being concocted in an effort to sell the public on a prosecution that remains a travesty

Don Siegelman and fellow federal inmate Charlie Cloud
after the former Alabama governor recently was
released from 57 days in solitary confinement.

During the investigation of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, prosecutor Steve Feaga reportedly became known to those behind the scenes for trying to create doctored or manufactured witness testimony. The process became so routine and blatant that one investigator called the results "Feaga facts."

"Feaga facts," of course, were not facts at all. They were the results of coaching and coercion from federal prosecutors,  who were determined to win convictions at any cost. Evidence strongly suggests that "Feaga facts" played a major role in sending Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy to federal prison for what we've called "a crime that doesn't exist."

Steve Feaga now has come out from behind closed doors with an op-ed piece in the Montgomery Advertiser that apparently is designed to shove "Feaga facts" down the public's collective throat. A Josh Moon column in the same newspaper, saying that Siegelman should be pardoned and never should have been imprisoned in the first place, caused Feaga to spring into action--all in an effort to justify a prosecution that Moon correctly calls a "travesty" and an "embarrassment."

Even more embarrassing is this: We learn that Feaga, who currently works for the Alabama Securities Commission (according to state-bar records), is as deceitful now as he was when he was trying to build a case against Siegelman and Scrushy. Let's take a few statements from his op-ed piece and stack them up against reality:

(1) Feaga Fact -- "Leura Canary inherited the Montgomery investigation of Siegelman from her predecessor and after a few months recused herself. She played no role in bringing the investigation or in any of the charging decisions. Nor did her husband Billy Canary or Karl Rove or Bob Riley. I know this to be so because I was present and had a lead role in these decisions. Nobody who was not a part of the prosecution team was involved in the process."

Reality --  (A) The Department of Justice's (DOJ) own actions suggest Leura Canary played more of a role in the Siegelman case than she has let on. Alabama attorney John Aaron, for almost 10 years, has sought documents about Canary's alleged recusal. Aaron has learned that more than 1,000 documents exist related to his request, but the DOJ has refused to turn over these supposedly public records. Has Leura Canary--or Steve Feaga, for that matter--ever encouraged the DOJ to release all such records related to the Siegelman case? Nope. Why not?

(B)  Retired U.S. Magistrate Charles S. Coody stated in public documents that he had reviewed the Canary documents in camera and found no material that would help Siegelman and Scrushy. The public later learned that Coody never ordered the Canary documents, so he could not possibly have reviewed them. Why would a federal judge lie about having reviewed the Canary documents?

(C) DOJ whistleblower Tamarah Grimes stated in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that Canary remained involved with the Siegelman case long after her announced recusal. (See full letter at the end of this post.) Patricia Snyder Watson, the district ethics officer and first assistant U.S. attorney at the time, was a frequent conduit of information to and from Canary about what became known in the office as "The Big Case," Grimes wrote:

Mrs. Canary publicly stated that she maintained a "firewall" between herself and The Big Case. In reality, there was no "firewall." Mrs. Canary maintained direct communication with the prosecution team, directed some actions in the case, and monitored the case through members of the prosecution team and Mrs. Watson.

Feaga tries to erect a number of "straw man" issues here, claiming Canary inherited the Siegelman case from her predecessor and that she played no role in bringing the investigation or making charging decisions. But all of those claims are beside the point. The issue is this: Did Leura Canary totally step away from the case, did she truly recuse herself, ensuring that Siegelman and Scrushy received an impartial prosecutor to which they are entitled under the law? The answer, based on Tamarah Grimes' statements, is no. Feaga surely knows this, but he is trying to con the public into believing otherwise.

(2) Feaga Fact -- "Mr. Moon repeats allegations from a so-called “Republican attorney” about Rove or the Justice Department targeting Siegelman for political reason. Mr. Moon does not report that all of the alleged participants have denied ever having such a conversation. Most critically, Mr. Moon fails to report that one of the people disputing the claims was a member of the defense team at the trial."

Reality -- The "participants" to whom Feaga refers are Birmingham attorneys Rob Riley and Matt Lembke, and retired Alabama Supreme Court Justice Terry Butts. Rainsville attorney Jill Simpson (Feaga's "so-called Republican attorney") stated in an affidavit, and in sworn testimony before Congress, that the three participated in a conference phone call in which Bill Canary said a plan was in place for a politically-motivated prosecution of Siegelman, and someone named "Karl" (apparently Karl Rove) was aware of the plan and approved of it.

Riley, Lembke, and Butts all filed affidavits with Congress in response to Simpson's statements. But none of the three ever has denied under oath that such a phone conversation took place. Instead, they used lawyerly "hedge" language to give the impression Simpson was mistaken or lying. But they never actually denied being part of such a conversation. Here are examples of hedge language from the affidavits:

Riley 

"I have no memory of being on a phone call . . ." 

"I do not believe a phone call occurred . . ."

Butts 

". . . nor do I recall, any conference call occurring with Ms. Simpson . . . "

"As I recall, none of us were ever outside each other's presence on that day . . . " 

"Again, I neither recall any such call, nor do I believe any such call/conversation . . . ever took place."

Lembke

"I do not recall the phone call that Ms. Simpson claims took place between her . . . "

"I do not believe that I was out of Justice Butts' and Rob Riley's presence for 11 consecutive minutes . . . "

Steve Feaga

There is a big difference between saying "I do not recall such a phone call" and "Such a phone call never took place." Riley, Butts, and Lembke state the former over and over. they never state the latter. Is Feaga trying to convince the public that Jill Simpson is a liar, a loon, or a nut? Without question. Is Feaga wrong about that--and is his version of events deeply flawed? Absolutely.


(3) Feaga Fact -- "Mr. Moon is also wrong about the jury instruction. He should read the record of the trial. Judge Fuller instructed the jury that an express quid pro quo was necessary, and every appellate court that has reviewed the case has said so."

Reality -- Feaga is wildly off target with this one. Both sides at trial agreed that the binding law comes from a case styled McCormick v. U.S., 500 U.S. 257 (1991). Here is how McCormick states the law--and what should be the jury instruction:

. . . only if “payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act, are they criminal.”

Here is Judge Mark Fuller's jury instruction in the Siegelman case. It's different from the McCormick finding; in fact, it's almost backward from the actual law, :

A Defendant does not commit a crime by giving something of value to a government official unless the Defendant and official agree that the official will take specific action in exchange for the thing of value.

What's wrong with Fuller's jury instruction? For one thing, it's not an accurate statement of the law. But here's the bigger point, as we stated in an earlier post:

Fuller's instruction, however, turned the law on its head, focusing on an action and not an agreement. The Eleventh Circuit has said Fuller's instruction was OK because it was in line with another case, Evans v. U.S., 504 U.S. 255 (1992). But Evans did not involve a campaign contribution, so it is not applicable to the Siegelman case; the alleged facts and legal issues in the two cases are radically different.

The Eleventh Circuit muddies the water further by stating that Siegelman's lawyers claim an agreement must be "express" (memorialized in writing, etc.) rather than "explicit." This appears to be a classic red herring because Siegelman's lawyers do not make that claim. They state, correctly, that McCormick is the guiding law for a bribery charge involving campaign contributions.

(4) Feaga Fact -- "Nick Bailey was one of several witnesses called at the trial to establish the express quid pro quo. He was cross-examined for three days at the trial by four capable attorneys. He did not retract his testimony during the trial and never has since. His testimony was supported by other testimony and other evidence. The trial jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, and every court to review their decision has opined that there was substantial and compelling evidence at trial to support the verdict."

Reality -- Feaga seems to have a selective memory about Nick Bailey. Here is how Tamarah Grimes, in her letter to AG Holder, described the prosecution's treatment of Bailey:

I particularly recall one meeting in which cooperating witness Nick Bailey was persuaded to recall something that he claimed he did not actually recollect. The matter concerned a meeting between Governor Siegelman and Richard Scrushy, a check and supposed conversation, which eventually led to the convictions in The Big Case. Mr. Bailey repeatedly said he did not know and he was not sure. The prosecutors coaxed and pressured Mr. Bailey to "remember" their version of alleged events. Mr. Bailey appeared apprehensive and hesitant to disappoint the prosecutors.

After reading that, the public is supposed to believe Nick Bailey told the unvarnished truth on the stand? It sounds like Nick Bailey took the stand in a state of utter confusion.

Finally, Feaga makes the preposterous claim that the public should believe in the verdict because the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it. In truth, the various three-judge panels on the Atlanta-based court botched the Siegelman case as badly as the trial court did--maybe even more so.

In fact, the Eleventh Circuit could not even get the simplest things right, as we explained in an August 2012 post:

The Siegelman case, by law, could not go to a jury--much less result in convictions. And yet, Scrushy already has served a six-year federal prison sentence, and Siegelman is due back in federal custody by September 11.

What is the one issue that should have doomed the prosecution's case before it ever reached a jury? It was the statute of limitations, and the facts and the law, show the case against Siegelman and Scrushy was brought almost one full year too late. So regardless of what one thinks about the testimony of key government witness Nick Bailey, the shaky jury instructions, the questionable juror behavior, the weak evidence on a quid pro quo ("something for something") agreement, and the myriad conflicts involving the judge and U.S. attorney . . . none of that should have been a factor.

Evidence at trial showed that the alleged acts constituting bribery took place in summer 1999, and the original indictment was issued in May 2005. That's almost six full years, even though the statute of limitations is five years. Failure to initiate the case within the applicable statute of limitations, under the law, is an absolute bar to a successful prosecution.

The statute of limitations issue was a matter of simple arithmetic, not much different from 2 + 2 = 4, and the U.S. Eleventh Circuit could not get it right. Steve Feaga wants the public to believe this august body is capable of conducting a semi-honest review of the Siegelman case?

As Charlie Brown would say, "Good grief."

Grimes Letter to Holder by Roger Shuler

Epic divorce case of Danielle and Glen Rollins has moved from sex addiction to attempted home invasions that were intended to have violent endings

A Fox News report about attempted home invasions at Danielle Rollins' home in Atlanta


We know from our series of posts about Birmingham resident Sherry Carroll Rollins that marrying into the mega-wealthy Rollins family and then trying to get divorced can be a harrowing experience--especially if you are a woman.

The folks behind Atlanta-based Rollins Inc., the parent company of Orkin Pest Control and other highly profitable enterprises, apparently are more than willing to play hardball when family assets are at stake. Atlanta author, socialite, and Southern Living contributor Danielle Rollins is the latest to learn just how dangerous the hardball can get.

We first reported on Danielle Rollins with an October 2012 post titled "Sex Addiction And Big Bucks Are At The Heart Of a Juicy Divorce Story In The Deep South." Danielle's husband, former Orkin president Glen Rollins, reportedly sought treatment--apparently without much success--at the same sex addiction clinic that treated Tiger Woods.

The sex addiction issue seems quaint compared to recent events in the Danielle/Glen story.

Danielle divorced Glen Rollins in 2013, but the case is ongoing as Danielle challenges her proceeds from the case and reportedly seeks a share of Glen's trust fund. Danielle also is suing her original lawyers in the divorce, who she claims (according to an article at dailyreportonline.com) "pressured her to sign a hastily prepared, handwritten settlement agreement that gave her some $15 million—but cut her out of millions more—and saw her and the couple's three children forced to vacate their Buckhead estate, Boxwood."

Is someone unhappy with Danielle's aggressive legal tactics, especially her pursuit of an equitable share of Glen's trust fund, reportedly valued at more than $1 billion? Recent evidence suggests the answer might be yes.

Danielle recently made national headlines when she and security personnel had to scare off a home invasion or attempted robbery at her Buckhead residence for the third time in one month. From a New York Daily News article:

"A security guard hired by Danielle Rollins, the Southern Living contributor the magazine calls “Atlanta’s preeminent hostess and tastemaker,” chased away men Rollins heard trying to break in Saturday night, she told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“I’m obviously rather freaked out and tired, but I’m not going to be scared out of my own house,” Rollins said.

How bad could the situation have gotten? A report from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution provides clues:

(Danielle) was unpacking the night after Christmas, after a holiday break, when someone tried to enter her home.

“The private security guard I hired after my last break-in three weeks ago, and probably for the rest of my life now after this, chased at least two men through a neighbor’s yard,” she said in a post to her Facebook page, which she granted the AJC permission to share. “They dropped a backpack containing items including but not limited to guns, mace and ties. The Atlanta Police Department responded immediately, blocking and securing the area, with helicopter and canine patrol. This is not a way to live.”

Atlanta Police Department officers recovered a cache of weapons including a stolen gun, duct tape, rubber gloves, binoculars and other items dropped by the suspects as they ran off. Officers were unable to chase down the suspects but recovered a black ski mask, glove and other items inside a backpack the suspects dropped.

Contents of the backpack included some disturbing evidence. Somebody was taking their assigned task seriously:

Inside the backpack were a “loaded Ruger SR9c 9mm (Serial #33380289) with a 10 round capacity magazine with 7 rounds loaded,” an Atlanta police report said. “A second magazine was located that had a 17-round capacity with 13 rounds loaded and a 9mm ammo box with 4 rounds left. The gun was checked on ACIC and it came back stolen from Sandy Springs Police Department (Case # 2015015698). The gun was taken in a burglary where the victim walked in on the suspect still inside his home.”

Also recovered: 3- particulate respirators. 1-Bushnell 16×32 binoculars, 1 small roll of Duct tape, 2- small Mace brand pepper sprays, 14- black rubber gloves, and 1-verizon blackberry (no battery or backing).”

Was someone planning a kidnapping, a murder, or both? It sure sounds like it.

How could a divorce case turn so ugly? For one thing, the Rollins family's net worth is an estimated $7.4 billion, according to a recent AJC report. (Our sources say that figure is way too low.) Also, ugliness is not new in Rollins divorces. During her divorce from Ted Rollins, Sherry Rollins said, several wheels on her vehicle mysteriously came off while she was driving--and a mechanic said all of the lug nuts had been loosened. Also, she awoke one morning to find a bloody, dead deer lying on her doorstep.

Danielle and Glen Rollins
(From Forbes)

What about money? In most states, divorce law calls for an equitable division of marital assets, which can be 50/50--or even higher in cases where marital misconduct was involved.

Was misconduct present in the Danielle and Glen Rollins marriage? The answer is yes, and some might call it misconduct of a gross nature. From an AJC report:

After their storybook beginning, Danielle discovered that Glen had begun consorting with prostitutes — by the time of their divorce, they numbered between 25 and 50, he has admitted in court.

That suggests Danielle Rollins might be entitled to more than a 50/50 split of assets, but the share she received in the settlement was nowhere near that. She and the couple's children even were forced to move out of the marital residence, which normally goes to a mother and children--although, as Sherry Rollins knows, that doesn't necessarily happen in a Rollins divorce.

In her case, Ted Rollins failed to make court-ordered payments on the family home, causing Ms. Rollins and the couple's daughters--Sarah and Emma--to flee to Alabama, where they had family members living. Ted Rollins then sued Ms. Rollins for divorce in Alabama, and Shelby County Judge D. Al Crowson issued a divorce decree, even though Ms. Rollins already had initiated divorce proceedings in South Carolina, where the family had lived, and the case had been litigated there for three years.

That can't lawfully be done, based on an Alabama case styled Wesson v. Wesson 628 So. 2d 953 (1993), which holds:

Once jurisdiction has attached in one court, that court has the exclusive right to continue its exercise of power until the completion of the case, and is only subject to appellate authority.

Al Crowson essentially stole the case from South Carolina, regardless of what the law says--and he proceeded to issue a final order that was wildly favorable to Ted Rollins. As Danielle Rollins is learning, strange things can happen in Rollins divorce cases.

What will happen next in the Danielle/Glen case, which is perhaps the messiest, high-profile divorce the South has seen in years. That's hard to say, but the case is making national news. Here is a report from Good Morning America:

Mike Hubbard's primary defense lawyers seek to withdraw from his criminal case; does it mean the Riley Machine has cut Hubbard off at the knees?

Mike Hubbard
(From USA Today)

The chief attorneys for indicted Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn) are seeking to withdraw from his criminal ethics case.

This turn of events, first reported by Alabama Political Reporter (APR) on New Year's Eve, is so stunning that it almost raises more questions than we can even formulate. But we will give it a shot.

As with much that appears underhanded or sleazy in Alabama politics, our attention immediately turns to the Riley political machine, headed by former Governor Bob Riley and largely run by his oily son, Birmingham attorney Rob Riley.

Hubbard faces 23 counts of ethics-law violations, with a trial date set for March 28, and the Rileys have been players from the case's earliest days. Rob Riley reportedly is Hubbard's attorney of record and helped line up the Birmingham firm White Arnold and Dowd to craft Hubbard's primary defense. Now, less than three months from the trial date, the White firm wants to bail out, per a Motion to Withdraw that can be read here.

Attorney J. Mark White filed the motion under seal, but Lee County Circuit Judge Jacob Walker III determined that most of the document would be a public filing. Here are just a few of the questions that quickly come boiling to the surface:

* Will Judge Walker approve the Motion to Withdraw?

* If he does, who will represent Hubbard?

* Will the trial be delayed once again?

* Can Hubbard afford to hire another attorney?

* What led the White firm to seek an exit strategy?

* Since documents show that Hubbard agreed to the attempted withdrawal, does that mean this is just another stalling tactic from the defense team?

Bill Britt, of ARP, shines light on some of those questions:

A defense attorney speaking on background said, “A lawyer leaving a case this high profile a couple of months before trial is odd. As a lawyer, there’s really only two reasons you would withdraw at this late stage, and you’d need both reasons to justify it in your mind. One, you think you’re going to lose. And, two, you’re not going to make any more money. If you’re not going to make any money off of a losing case, withdrawing may be the best route.”

For months, rumors have circulated in the legal community that Hubbard was hundreds of thousand of dollars in arrears on his legal fees. The cost of his representation so far has been estimated at around $1.7 million and counting. Money for Hubbard’s defense has primarily come from campaign donations and perhaps a legal defense fund. Hubbard used almost $400,000 in campaign contributions to pay White and his other lawyers.

(I love the quote above from Bill Britt's anonymous lawyer. It shows what many lawyers are all about--winning and making money, not necessarily in that order. Justice isn't even a consideration.)

White seemingly has done little to defend Hubbard, and mostly has heaped embarrassment on the Speaker. White took steps that led to the release of e-mails between Hubbard and Bob Riley. The Speaker came across as desperate for money and favors, even begging Riley for a job with the former governor's lobbying firm.

In a second set of e-mails, Hubbard told Riley that he needed to impress the Southeast Alabama Gas District (which was paying him $12,000 a month as a consultant) but was clueless about how to go about it. When Riley suggested one possible tactic, Hubbard almost spewed all over himself, according to an al.com report:

"That is a great plan! I will make it happen," Hubbard wrote. "I don't know what I'm doing, Governor, so I'm thankful for the guidance. I'd love to make a splash early."

In another e-mail. Hubbard dispensed with all pretense of dignity and made it clear he has an incurable man crush on Riley:

"I am thankful for my Risen Lord," he wrote to Riley. "Especially today. And also for you – my friend, mentor and role model."

As for who might be left to represent the Speaker, a document filed on his behalf last March lists R. Lance Bell, of Pell City, and Phillip E. Adams, of Opelika, as joining the White firm on the Hubbard defense team.

J. Mark White
(From al.com)

But who really has been pulling the strings? According to published reports, that would be Rob Riley. And we've reported that Rob Riley has been extremely nervous at times, especially when the Hubbard investigation showed signs of enveloping members of Team Riley. From a Legal Schnauzer post, dated December 16, 2014. The post is titled "Rob Riley appears to be in desperation mode as Lee County probe threatens the family political machine."

Members of Alabama's Riley Political Machine appear to be on the verge of panic as a state criminal investigation comes closer to focusing on their unsavory activities.

Birmingham attorney Rob Riley, son of former Governor Bob Riley, reportedly reached out to current Governor Robert Bentley and a sitting federal judge in an effort to derail the ongoing Lee County grand-jury investigation. Our research indicates the federal judge in question is Bill Pryor, who sits on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals but perhaps is best known for nude photographs that tie him to 1980s and '90s gay pornography, via the Web site badpuppy.com. . . .

We strongly suspect that Rob Riley and Pryor have collaborated on dubious activities before, including my unlawful arrest in October 2013. At least one investigative journalist has reported that Pryor essentially serves as a "fixer" for conservative interests represented by former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove. The journalist reports that Pryor's ties to gay porn are well known among Republican factions, and they use that knowledge to essentially blackmail him into making sure key cases turn out in their favor.

Would a sitting federal judge actually interfere with a state criminal probe? When you are talking about Bill Pryor, the answer probably is yes--and it's likely that Rob Riley knows that.

How does a greasy lawyer like Rob Riley operate? We provided insight on that issue in late 2014, with assistance from Bill Britt:

In an article released yesterday, titled "Is Conspiracy At Play To Thwart Justice in Hubbard Case?" Britt reports that Rob Riley and others are taking extraordinary steps to undermine the investigation. At the heart of the scheme is a game of legal musical chairs, with Rob Riley and Bill Baxley representing multiple clients in an apparent effort to use attorney-client privilege as a way to get inside information. Writes Britt:

"The public face of Hubbard’s legal team has been J. Mark White, but the attorney of record is, and has been, Rob Riley. This was confirmed by Riley’s office. It is believed that Riley is the one who suggested that White represent Hubbard and that Baxley defend (former State Sen. Barry) Moore."

Is the White firm's effort to withdraw part of a plan designed to leave Hubbard hanging by his fingertips off a cliff, like Wiley E. Coyote, as the trial date approaches? Is the plan designed to help the Rileys get off with a freebie, while Hubbard takes a long fall and crashes in a cloud of dust at the bottom of a canyon?

Will Mike Hubbard, as he twists in the wind, continue to see Bob Riley as his Lord and Savior . . . I mean, his mentor and role model? Or will Hubbard come to his senses at the 11th hour and realize the Rileys have been his enemies, not his friends, throughout this process?

Maybe it's time for Mike Hubbard to turn the tables and spill his guts about all the ugly Riley secrets he has kept under wraps. The Rileys are probably assuming that Hubbard will not be smart enough to figure this out--or bold enough to take action against them.

Will they prove right about that?