Missouri's Castle Doctrine Law shines new light on bogus allegations that I threatened to shoot any deputies who might barge into our home for eviction

(From ammoland.com)

I've never yearned to own a firearm, so "Castle Doctrine" laws -- which allow for the use of force to protect the home -- never have held much fascination for me. But that has changed since I learned that the Castle Doctrine Law in Missouri, where we now reside, has an impact on false allegations that have been made against me.

We recently showed that my wife, Carol: (A) Did not assault a law enforcement officer, a misdemeanor charge that she still faces; and (B) Even if she had used force, it would have been lawful under Missouri's Castle Doctrine Law. Of course, it would have been impossible for Carol to apply much force, given that a deputy broke her arm so severely that it required trauma surgery for repair. But the public is supposed to believe she was the assaulter, not the victim of an assault?

Now, we've learned that the same law shines new light on the myth that, roughly one week before our unlawful eviction on Sept. 9, 2015, I placed a 911 call and threatened to shoot any cop who attempted to evict us. I never made such a threat, or placed such a call, and discovery in our upcoming federal lawsuit will prove that. Research on Missouri's Castle Doctrine Law, however, indicates such a threat -- under the circumstances -- would have been lawful.

I've never been quite sure how the 911-call myth came to fruition. I first heard about it in an e-mail from my brother-lawyer, David Shuler, who lives here in Springfield, Missouri. He wrote that a deputy named Scott Harrison had informed him that a dispatcher reported such a call from me. I responded to David, in no uncertain terms, that I had never called 911 in my life -- and I certainly had not issued a threat to anyone, much less cops, via 911.

The 911 myth might have its genesis with a one-time "friend," who shall remain nameless, for now. About the same time of David's e-mail, this "friend" visited our duplex apartment, uninvited, and tried to convince us to leave because the landlord had sent us a notice to vacate. I informed Mr. "Friend" that the landlord was violating the terms of our lease, and we intended to fight the attempted eviction.

Mr. "Friend" began to berate Carol and me, saying we had made all sorts of "bad decisions" that led to my unlawful incarceration in Alabama and foreclosure on our Birmingham home. As he stood up and started to stomp out, I said, "Why don't you sit down and tell us what 'bad decisions' we've made."

I don't remember the conversation from there word for word, but I believe the only "bad decision" he could come up with was my refusal to accept the offer of an unspecified "other" job after my termination as an editor at UAB.

Of course, he failed to mention a few things: (1) I never had an offer in writing; (2) I never was told where at UAB I would be working; (3) I never was told who my boss would be; (4) I never was told why I was being forced to leave my position when a UAB grievance committee had found that I should not have been fired; (5) I never was told why I was being forced to leave my position when the HR director admitted my supervisor had butchered the situation and "would be dealt with." (The supervisor, I've been told, was forced to retire.); (6) When I asked to see a copy of the grievance hearing's written report, the request was denied; (7) Along with the job shuffle, I would have to accept two written warnings in my file, and UAB policy calls for automatic termination after three written warnings; (8) When I asked what the two written warnings were for, the HR director said the committee decided they were in "lieu of termination"; (9) When I asked what UAB policy allowed a grievance committee to find an employee had been wrongfully terminated but still should receive two written warnings, the HR director was stumped. When I again asked to see the committee's written report, the request was denied; (10) When I told the HR director, "It sounds like you are trying to set me up to be fired all over again," she didn't deny it. When I said, "If I wore the wrong color of socks to work one day, I could be fired," she didn't deny that either. In fact, she said, "That would be up to your new supervisor."

I firmly informed Mr. "Friend" that he did not know squat about what had happened at UAB. I also told him he didn't know squat about Missouri eviction law -- that the eviction unlawfully had been scheduled inside a 10-day window when no such action could be taken, and we intended to file a notice of appeal, which would put a stay of execution on the eviction.

As I recall, he said that we were going to be evicted anyway, and I informed him that anyone who unlawfully attempted to break into our home would be wise to think twice about that. Is that a radical thought? I imagine 99 percent of homeowners and renters in the US of A would say the same thing, although many probably would say it in much stronger terms than I did.

Mr. "Friend" has admitted that he passed along this "threat" to someone, probably my brother and possibly my health-care provider. As a result, Mr. "Friend" might soon have at least a couple of legal issues to deal with: (1) The conversation in question took place in our home, where Carol and I had an "expectation of privacy." The "friend's" actions might constitute invasion of privacy, and to the extent that his words to others were false, that might constitute defamation; (2) A person's relationship with a health-care provider, and his medical records, are protected by several layers of privacy laws. If Mr. "Friend" stepped into that minefield, he was most unwise.

But here is the key point: If I had used physical force -- even deadly force -- against those I reasonably believed were unlawfully entering my home, that would have been legal under Missouri's Castle Doctrine. And it makes no exception for invading cops.

Under Mr. "Friend's" apparent scenario, which likely is filled with falsehoods, I made a "threat" to do something that is 100 percent legal, even encouraged, under Missouri law. I pledged, in so many words, to protect my "castle" from unlawful intruders. Does that make me a criminal? Nope, it makes me a good Missourian.

Did Mr. "Friend" have grounds to report me to anyone for threatening to engage in lawful activity? No, he did not. And that is one of several reasons he might be needing to "lawyer up" in the near future.

No one should be surprised at Jeff Sessions' role in Trump's firing of James Comey; Sessions has a history of using such underhanded tactics in Alabama

James Comey
(From businessinsider.com)

Many Americans were stunned yesterday at news that President Donald Trump had fired FBI Director James Comey. Many were further stunned upon learning that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recommended the firing to Trump.

The disbelief likely was driven by two overriding factors: (1) Trump's firing of Comey smacks of Richard Nixon's Watergate-era firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox. That became known as "The Saturday Night Massacre," led to the release of White House tapes, and hastened Nixon's exit from the presidency. History tells us this might be the strongest indicator yet that Trump is headed for a fall; (2) Sessions had announced his recusal on all matters connected to the Trump-Russian investigation, which Comey was heading. (Note: Sessions also had recused himself from any matters related to the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation, and Comey's clumsy handling of that matter is the reason a Sessions deputy gave for the firing.) So how did Sessions think it was his duty to recommend Comey be fired?

This kind of behavior is not new for Jeff Sessions, and it dates to his time as U.S. attorney and attorney general in Alabama. Sessions has a history of taking underhanded steps to remove people he sees as threats. Knowing that history might help the public better understand how yesterday's drama came to unfold.

Perhaps the best example of Sessions' back-stabbing tendencies came in a mid-1990s case styled USX v. Tieco. The case started with USX (United States Steel) alleging that Tieco had engaged in a fraudulent billing scheme, with Tieco allegedly providing kickbacks to compromised USX employees. Tieco responded with a counterclaim, alleging civil-rights violations, conspiracy, and other wrongs. From an opinion in the matter:

[Tieco has] also filed a counterclaim against the plaintiffs, the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, and two others in the Office of the Attorney General ("AG"). In their counterclaim, the defendants allege civil rights violations and conspiracy . . . , violations of § 36-25-8 of the Code of Alabama of 1975 (regarding non-disclosure of confidential information by a public official) . . . , intentional interference with business relationships, negligence, wantonness, conversion, and conspiracy.

The attorney general in question was Jeff Sessions. The gist of Tieco's allegations against Sessions and others in his office involve a search warrant for the company's business records. From the court opinion:

The seizure by the AG's office included virtually all of the business records of these two defendants, as well as some of the records of another corporation, House of Threads, Inc.

Some of the records seized by the AG's office were later turned over to USX. After USX received these records, it filed this lawsuit in December 1995.

If that smells funny to you, Tieco executives had the same reaction. Here was the state's AG seizing the company's business records and then turning them over to USX so that firm could sue Tieco. No wonder Tieco included Sessions and others from the AG's office in its counterclaim.

The opinion referenced above was written by U.W. Clemon, the first black federal judge in Alabama history and a noted civil-rights lawyer before President Jimmy Carter nominated him to the federal bench. Sessions must have sensed he was in serious trouble because he took underhanded steps to get Clemon removed from the case. Here's how we explained it in a previous post:

At the time, a relatively new law firm had formed in Birmingham called Lehr Middlebrooks Price and Proctor. The last name in that lineup stood for R. David Proctor, now a federal judge handling our cases. The third name stood for Terry Price, who just happened to be Judge Clemon's nephew (the middle son of the judge's oldest sister).

Did Sessions and his chief investigator, Edward F. McFadden, hire Lehr Middlebrooks to defend them to create a conflict that would force Clemon off the case?

The answer to that question almost certainly is yes. In fact, hiring Terry Price and his firm to get Judge Clemon off cases -- supposedly to be replaced by a white, conservative, business-friendly judge -- became almost a sport in the Birmingham legal community. In fact, it became so blatant that The Wall Street Journal reported on the subject. From that article:

Court rulings say it's a breach of ethics to hire a lawyer "solely or primarily for the purpose of disqualifying the judge." Though deciphering motive is usually difficult, lawyers found to have engaged in such practices could face professional disciplinary proceedings.

So, courts found that hiring a certain lawyer to force Judge Clemon off cases was grossly unethical. And Jeff Sessions helped pioneer the use of that tactic -- as did current U.S. Judge R. David Proctor. Is it any surprise that Sessions now finds himself at the heart of the KremlinGate scandal?

At the heart of Sessions' actions in the Comey firing -- and in USX v. Tieco -- is stunning dishonesty and disregard for the rule of law. Consider that a letter from the Department of Justice, pushing for Comey's firing, cited his mishandling of the Clinton e-mail investigation. Trump and Sessions previously had praised Comey's conduct of that matter, so we are supposed to believe they now are using it to justify firing Comey.

It's hard to see how anyone with three functioning brain cells would fall for that one. The New York Times certainly isn't. From its editorial page yesterday:

The explanation for this shocking move — that Mr. Comey’s bungling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server violated longstanding Justice Department policy and profoundly damaged public trust in the agency — is impossible to take at face value. Certainly Mr. Comey deserves all the criticism heaped upon him for his repeated missteps in that case, but just as certainly, that’s not the reason Mr. Trump fired him.

Mr. Trump had nothing but praise for Mr. Comey when, in the final days of the presidential campaign, he informed Congress that the bureau was reopening the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails. “He brought back his reputation,” Mr. Trump said at the time. “It took a lot of guts.”

Of course, if Mr. Trump truly believed, as he said in his letter of dismissal, that Mr. Comey had undermined “public trust and confidence” in the agency, he could just as well have fired him on his first day in office.

The Times then gets to the heart of the matter:

Mr. Comey was fired because he was leading an active investigation that could bring down a president. Though compromised by his own poor judgment, Mr. Comey’s agency has been pursuing ties between the Russian government and Mr. Trump and his associates, with potentially ruinous consequences for the administration.

With congressional Republicans continuing to resist any serious investigation, Mr. Comey’s inquiry was the only aggressive effort to get to the bottom of Russia’s ties to the Trump campaign. So far, the scandal has engulfed Paul Manafort, one of Mr. Trump’s campaign managers; Roger Stone, a longtime confidant; Carter Page, one of the campaign’s early foreign-policy advisers; Michael Flynn, who was forced out as national security adviser; and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who recused himself in March from the Russia inquiry after failing to disclose during his confirmation hearings that he had met twice during the campaign with the Russian ambassador to the United States.

There is that name again -- Jeff Sessions. His actions in the firing of James Comey probably will go down as one of the most corrupt acts in U.S. history. If so, it won't be a surprise to those of us in Alabama, who have seen him get away with underhanded actions for decades. Perhaps he's finally gone a "bridge too far."

Mika and "Morning Joe" are getting married, but photo surfaces of Lori Klausutis and draws reminders to a dark moment in Joe Scarborough's history

Lori Klausutis
(From reddit.com)

The engagement of Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski is the hot celebrity-media story of the moment. But a related story -- the unearthing of a photograph of Lori Klausutis -- might prove to be of much greater significance.

Who is Lori Klausutis, and how does she connect to the co-stars of MSNBC's Morning Joe?  Klausutis was the 28-year-old staff member who was found dead in Scarborough's office in summer 2001, when he was a Republican Congressman from Florida. Klausutis' death was classified as accidental, the result of an undiagnosed heart defect that caused her to fall and hit her head on a desk. But we have researched a number of articles that have been written, and evidence strongly suggests that Lori Klausutis' death was not an accident.

The story largely was ignored by the national press -- "covered up" might be a better term -- and that is a major reason no photograph of Klausutis could be found on the Web, until recently.

It's not clear how the photograph surfaced, but it appears to have come from a post at reddit.com, possibly via a yearbook at the University of Georgia, where Klausuitis (then Lori Bolterstein) went to college. The reddit post is titled "My name is Lori Klausutis -- I was an Intern for Joe Scarborough but I was found dead in his office and nobody remembers."

Ironically, the post is based largely on a piece we published in September 2012 -- "Autopsy in Joe Scarborough Country Leaves Out Key Detail About the Mysterious Death of Lori Klausutis." From our post:

The autopsy of Lori Klausutis makes no reference to a time of death. That raises new questions about an investigation that started when the 28-year-old woman's body was found in the office of then U.S. Representative Joe Scarborough in summer 2001.

Accidental death was the official finding in the Klausutis case, with a cardiac arrhythmia causing her to fall and hit her head on a desk. But the recent discovery of human remains at a storage unit in Pensacola, Florida, casts doubt on that ruling. That's because the storage unit was rented by Dr. Michael Berkland, the man who conducted the Klausutis autopsy 11 years earlier.

Berkland now faces a felony charge of improper storage of hazardous waste, and the grisly nature of the discovery calls his competence--and perhaps his sanity--into question.

Was the Lori Klausutis autopsy conducted in a professional manner? Was foul play prematurely ruled out? Should the investigation be reopened, perhaps with renewed scrutiny for Scarborough and others who might have had access to his office at the time?

Why does time of death matter in a case like this? From our post:

Many Morning Joe viewers probably have forgotten, or never knew, that the body of a female aide once was found in Scarborough's Congressional office. Investigators quickly saw that a blow to the head, delivered accidentally or intentionally, was involved in Lori Klausutis' death. So it's hard to figure why the autopsy makes no reference to time of death. . . .


Why is that a key omission? Consider this from an online document titled "Determining Time of Death (TOD)":

Why is it important to know the time of death?

•TOD can set the time of murder

•Eliminate or suggest suspects

•Confirm or disprove alibis

Why did Berkland not include this critical detail? It's not as if his report does not provide plenty of other details. He tells us that Klausutis was wearing a white thong on the day of her death. (Page 7.) He tells us that she had a "shaved genital region." (Page 8.) But no time of death?

Mika Brzezinski is a big girl, and she does not need our advice. But I would not want to be in her shoes. Is she about to marry a murderer? We don't know that, but we do know that Lori Klausutis' death almost certainly was not an accident -- and there is no sign that anyone with the slightest bit of competence has investigated her death.

Joe and Mika
(From salon.com)

If Joe Scarborough did not kill Klausutis, the odds are strong that he knows who did. That would make "Morning Joe" an accomplice. Also, we know this about Scarborough:

* He's from the southeast Alabama/northwest Florida area, which we have called America's "Corridor of Corruption";

* He went to the University of Alabama, which might be the sleaziest campus in the country, driven by its infamous "Machine" politics;

* He is best buds with Rob "Uday" Riley, who might be the nastiest political snake ever created. And if Rob doesn't hold that title, his father, Bob Riley, almost certainly does;

* Alabama was a beset with a series of peculiar political deaths during Bob Riley's time as governor. There is much evidence to suggest the Rileys see murder as a possible solution to a political problem. And Joe Scarborough once pushed Bob Riley as a presidential candidate?

Makes you wonder.

Having insulted me and lied to me, Public Citizen's Paul Alan Levy tried to use my blog to tout his own work against the sleazy Web site Public Defender

Paul Alan Levy
(From rcfp.org)

How did I cross paths again with Paul Alan Levy after the Public Citizen lawyer had proven he was a detestable, disrespectful, lying asshole? Well, Levy actually had the gall to use Legal Schnauzer to promote his work in a case involving an outfit called Public Defender. After Levy earlier had insulted me repeatedly, and shown he did not remotely care that I had spent five months in jail "for blogging" in Alabama, I was none too please to realize he was trying to use my blog to promote himself.

Public Defender is a "reputation management" company that claims it can have unflattering posts about CEOs and the like removed from the Web -- even if the posts are 100 percent accurate and never have been found in court to be false or defamatory. On its Web site, Public Defender cited Legal Schnauzer as a big, bad blog against whom it could protect helpless elites. I wrote a post about Public Defender, including evidence that suggests the company is a sham.

That apparently is something upon which Paul Alan Levy and I can agree. At 4 p.m. on October 11, 2016, Levy sent a comment to Legal Schnauzer, touting his work against Public Defender. One day earlier, I had heard from Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who had co-authored a Washington Post article with Levy about their work related to Public Defender. Volokh is author of The Volokh Conspiracy, which once was one of the nations' most widely read legal blogs before moving to a new platform at The Washington Post in 2014.

Volokh was touting his recent article with Levy, apparently welcoming any coverage I might provide at Legal Schnauzer. Best I can tell, Volokh is a highly regarded scholar and probably a dandy fellow; I don't mean to diss him by putting him in the same boat with Paul Alan Levy. I think Levy is in a boat all his own when it comes to being a prick and a jackass. And did I mention he's a liar?

Here's how I responded to Levy regarding his blatant effort to use my blog to feather his own nest -- after treating me with utter disdain. This is from an e-mail I sent on October 11, 2016:

Mr. Levy:

I have heard from both you and Mr. Volokh, in various forms, over the past two days re: Profile Defenders (PD) and Richart Ruddie. I gather you are responding to my recent report about Public Defenders essentially using my blog, Legal Schnauzer, to help advertise their "services."

While I share your concerns about Profile Defenders, a previous encounter with you gives me pause. Alabama deputies beat me up inside my own home (with no apparent warrant), doused me with pepper spray, and threw me in jail for five months over the very issue present in the PD story -- the use of unlawful preliminary injunctions to silence free speech and a free press.

Here is what I wrote to you on 3/27/14, the day after I was released from jail: For some reason, I was under the impression that Public Citizen actually cared about the sort of abuse I had suffered.

"Mr. Levy:
I am a journalist/blogger in Alabama, and I was released from jail yesterday after being incarcerated for five months because of a preliminary injunction in a defamation case. It's all very similar to Dietz v. Perez, and I thought it might be of interest to you. I need legal representation and wanted to see if we could talk. My case has been widely covered in the NY Times, Al Jazeera, Huffington Post and many other news outlets, and even right-wing commenters seem to acknowledge that the injunction without a trial (in fact, without any discovery at all) is wildly unconstitutional. I would appreciate any insights or guidance you can offer.

Best regards,

Roger Shuler"


Don't know how I could have been any more courteous to you, but this is the response I received later that day: 

"From what you say, you must be the guy who was enjoined and simply refused to comply with the injunction, and, from what I have heard from others, you were also too pigheaded to accept sound advice. Not a very attractive client for pro bono work!"


At the time, I was amazed that someone in your position could be so rude and thoughtless to someone who had just been released from a wrongful incarceration over First Amendment issues that you claim to champion. In fact, it made me wonder what Public Citizen really is all about -- if it is mostly for show, not attacking injustice.

Imagine my surprise to discover today that you had left a comment at my blog to more or less promote the recent article Mr. Volokh and you wrote on the PD case at The Washington Post.

That takes some audacity on your part, given the way you've treated me in the past, showing that you don't really give a flip about victims of injustice related to the First Amendment -- especially if they have been victimized by members of America's "legal tribe." I guess if I had gotten blow back from a review at Yelp, you would have jumped right on it. But a journalist beaten and incarcerated, on behalf of corrupt lawyers, because of an unlawful injunction in a defamation case? Nah, we don't care about that.

In your communication to me in 2014, you came across as one of the biggest jerks I've ever encountered, almost making light or sport of what had been done to me.

You are welcome to respond or explain yourself in any way that you care to, but I'm having a hard time figuring why I should want to have anything to do with you or your organization.

In a case of "a tiger does not change his stripes," here is how Levy responded:

I stand by what I said to you two and a half years ago.

You came to me on March 27, 2014, seeking free legal representation after having defied an injunction because you thought it was wrongfully issued, which you are simply not entitled to do. As it happened, I had previously been in touch with another First Amendment litigator who thought you difficult to work with and impervious to sound legal advice. Wholly apart from the fact that the legal representation you were seeking fell outside the normal limits of what sort of case we take on (as I explained to you in a part of my email that you have omitted here) I also concluded that it would not be a sound use of Public Citizen’s very scarce resources to represent you. I gave you a direct response that was not sugar coated. Perhaps you are not used to that.

Well, by golly, we learn that in LevyWorld, being an asshole is just another form of "being direct." What a convenient excuse that is. And notice in the highlighted section that Levy provides more evidence that he and some other lawyer (David Gespass, of Birmingham?) had trampled my right to attorney-client confidentiality.

Realizing that Levy was an even larger steaming pile of feces than I thought possible, I responded thusly:

No, I'm fine with directness. My problem is with jerks and phonies like you. I am, however, used to liars, which you seem to be since I have seen cases where you and Public Citizen represented individuals prior to appellate stage. Your Web site says, "Our attorneys litigate cases at all levels of the federal and state court systems." Is that a lie? That doesn't apply to cases of alleged defamation?

For sure, you are lying about me. I didn't "defy" an injunction, I challenged service on it and was waiting on a ruling when brown shirts entered our home and hauled me to jail. (I suppose you think it's fine for a cop to serve court papers during a bogus traffic stop, and such chicanery should not be challenged?) An Alabama lawyer who reviewed the file said we never were summoned to court in the first place, and that a preliminary injunction was issued before we even were served. (See letter at link below.)

Here's the truth: You jump on easy cases involving Yelp and such, but if lawyers are behind abuse of free speech, you have no interest in the case and essentially engage in a cover up. Corrupt lawyers like Rob Riley and Christina Crow caused me to be incarcerated, and you are their protector -- screw the First Amendment. You and Public Citizen are dishonest to the core -- and I see you still are a rude, thoughtless twit.

Here are a few questions for you:

(1) Who was the First Amendment litigator who told you I was difficult to work with? What specific examples did he give? Did he tell you this via phone, email? If by email, would you please send me a copy of the communication? Did you make any effort to get my side of the story, or you just take one lawyer's word for it.

(2) To what sound legal advice was I supposedly impervious? Please share some examples?

David Gespass letter (Also embedded at end of post)

No wonder so many people despise lawyers.

First, I corrected Levy on a few key points, noting that a lawyer who reviewed the file (Gespass) acknowledged we never had been summoned to court or lawfully served. I then challenged Levy to identify the "First Amendment litigator" who had trashed me and to describe the supposedly sound advice to which I was "impervious." Boxed into a corner, Levy apparently decided he didn't want to sass me anymore. His reply:

I have no interest in engaging in further dialogue with you about this.

I saw that as an opportunity to have the last word, so I let him have it again:

No, I'm sure you don't. But you want to use my blog to help promote your worthless activities at Public Citizen, and you strongly suggest that a First Amendment lawyer defamed me. If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't want to "further the dialogue" either. But you and PC may be hearing from me again real soon. Insulting victims of injustice and helping corrupt lawyers cover up their crimes, that's what Public Citizen is all about. Ralph Nader must be very proud. Should be fun to pull the mask off his bogus "advocacy group."

By the way, I thought of another lie from you. I never asked you for "free legal representation." I had no idea how PC conducted its fee arrangements.

This should be your motto: "Public Citizen: We might advocate for you if your case is easy and doesn't involve much effort on our part. But if your First Amendment rights have been abused by a pack of thieving lawyers and a hideously corrupt judge . . . well you are on your own, Bub. Our No. 1 goal is to protect the legal tribe at all costs. If they caused your problems, we will lie about you, insult you, help defame you, and blame you Our strategy in such cases is to 'blame the victim.' That's what Naderism has come to mean."

Did I mention that Levy is a lying sack of shit? Well, we have more evidence of that in an upcoming post.


(To be continued)

"Atticus v. The Architect," documentary about the political prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman, premieres Wednesday night at the Alabama Theatre

(From documentary.org)

A documentary about the political prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman will premiere tomorrow night at the Alabama Theatre in Birmingham.

Atticus v. The Architect: The Political Assassination of Don Siegelman will begin at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday (5/10/17). Doors open at 6:30 p.m., and the full event runs until 10 p.m. (The film's trailer is embedded at the end of this post.)

The film, directed by Steve Wimberly, was three years in the making and includes interviews with many of the central players in the Siegelman case. From a press release about the premiere:

The film exposes the dark underbelly of political corruption that led to what legal experts call the malicious prosecution and wrongful conviction of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. Insiders, both Republicans and Democrats alike, have come together to tell the world about this horrible injustice, and reveal the overwhelming evidence of judicial misconduct that has remained hidden from the public for far too long.

We have published several hundred posts here at Legal Schnauzer, far more reports than any other news outlet. We also have provided more details about judicial misconduct in the case, including a five-part series titled "The Cheating of Don Siegelman."

Considerable evidence points to Karl Rove, "the architect" of George W. Bush's political ascension, as the driving force behind the Siegelman prosecution. The documentary reportedly includes an interview with GOP felon Jack Abramoff, who describes the reasons Republicans were determined to take down Siegelman, a rare Democrat who maintained political clout in the conservative South. The motivation, according to the Abramoff interview, largely involved Indian gaming money.

The documentary reportedly shines unflattering light on a number of prominent Alabama political and legal figures, including Bill Canary, Leura Canary, Bob Riley, Rob Riley, and Alice Martin.

As we have reported multiple times, Siegelman and Scrushy were convicted of a "crime" that does not exist under U.S. law.  That is one of the reasons many legal analysts consider the Siegelman case the most egregious political prosecution in U.S. history. Several of those experts are interviewed in the documentary:

The prosecutor that indicted Siegelman for bribery was married to the campaign manager of Siegelman’s opponent in an upcoming election. Prosecutors were allowed to get away with a staggering degree of prosecutorial misconduct. Siegelman political foe, Mark Fuller, was selected to preside over the trial, and has since been forced off the bench for ethics violations.

The judicial abuse and malfeasance ran so deep, that for the first time in American history, 113 former States Attorneys General from both parties united together to protest the deliberate injustice that was directed at Don Siegelman.

Tickets for the premiere are available through Ticketmaster or at the Alabama Theatre box office, which opens at 6 p.m. on Wednesday.


Atticus v. The Architect Trailer from Peppertree Films LLC on Vimeo.

Source points to Richard Allen, of Montgomery's Capell Howard law firm, as likely fixer for federal judge Bill Pryor's gay-pornography crisis with badpuppy.com

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Our collection of Judge Bill Pryor's gay-porn photos grows to four, raising levels of titillation and questions about his fitness to serve on the federal bench

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

New reports suggest U.S. Sen. Luther Strange might soon replace "Luv Guv" Bentley as Alabama's most embarrassingly and sickeningly corrupt politician

Luther Strange and Robert Bentley
(From usnews.com)

Former Gov. Robert Bentley, who resigned in disgrace less than one month ago, probably stands as the most corrupt politician in Alabama -- for now. But two reports yesterday suggest U.S. Sen. Luther Strange (R-AL) might soon be challenging Bentley for that distinction.

First came an article that used the word "stinks" to describe a Jefferson County prosecution that Strange launched while still Alabama attorney general. Then came news that Strange might have violated campaign-finance laws, which could be a felony with a punishment of up to 20 years in prison. Yikes!

Both reports come from Alabama Political Reporter (APR), which suggests once again that the non-traditional press is much more likely than the mainstream media (MSM) to provide hard-hitting analysis and meaningful investigative reporting.

APR columnist Josh Moon focused on the "perjury" case brought against duly elected Jeffco district attorney Charles Todd Henderson. The title of Moon's article is "Something stinks in Jeffco DA indictment."

It's not hard to figure out what stinks about the Henderson case. He had the audacity last November to defeat incumbent Brandon Falls, who had been hand-picked for the position by former governor Bob Riley. One of Falls' duties likely was to protect Riley Inc.'s dubious activities, especially those involving son Rob "Uday" Riley, daughter Minda Riley Campbell, and son-in-law Rob Campbell -- who happens to be a partner at Bradley Arant, the Birmingham law firm that Bob Riley showered with millions of taxpayer dollars during his time as governor.

When Falls hit the exits and Henderson was set to take over, it became clear that a real DA might scrutinize the Rileys. Next thing you know, a Bradley Arant product (Strange) was indicting Henderson for perjury related to his role as guardian ad litem in a divorce case. That has kept Henderson from taking office, so far, and Moon notes that the case against him would have to improve to be thin.

Charles Todd Henderson, the county’s first Democratic DA in decades, was indicted by the Alabama Attorney General’s Office four days before taking office and blocked from becoming the new DA.

His alleged crime: Perjury.

Odd, right?

Well, it gets even weirder. And a whole lot more complicated.

But let’s lay this thing out so you have all the facts.

The facts are as follows:

Henderson served as the guardian ad litem for a child in a divorce case. He landed that role, which basically involves making sure the craziness of the parents’ divorce doesn’t harm the child, after being asked by the mother of the child.

That woman, Yareima Akl, and Henderson knew one another – she had done work on his campaign for DA – and she requested that Henderson serve as guardian ad litem. He accepted and ended up working for approximately five months, January 2016 through May 2016.

He was removed by the judge following complaints from Akl’s soon-to-be-former husband. Those complaints centered mainly on Akl’s work on Henderson’s campaign – a fact that Henderson never denied – and what the former husband felt was a lack of therapy progress.

How weak is the case against Henderson? As Moon shows, it's thinner than cheap toilet paper:

In July of 2016, Henderson, who is single, struck up a relationship with Akl, who was on her way to being single.

In hindsight, it wasn’t the best move. But it’s also not illegal or improper.

Henderson hadn’t served as the GAL in nearly two months. He wasn’t representing anyone in the case.

And yet, this perfectly legal, no-issues-at-all act is supposed to be what Henderson lied about.

This insignificant thing is keeping a duly elected district attorney from taking office.

And it gets worse.

How worse does it get? Moon provides the answer by showing he knows a thing or two about the law -- something you almost never see from an MSM journalist. Virginia Meigs, the husband's attorney, asked Henderson under oath if he had spent the night at Yareima Akl’s apartment while she was campaigning for him. Henderson answered no, and it's unclear if that response was truthful. But this is clear: Judge Patricia Stephens called a recess, and there were no more questions about sleepovers. Here's why:

That was primarily because Stephens told Meigs that the purpose of the hearing was to determine parental custody, and she instructed Meigs to keep her questions to matters involving the child.

That’s important for another reason – a big reason.

You don’t commit perjury by simply lying under oath in court. The lies you tell have to be material to the issue at hand.

In other words, in a murder case, you lies have to be told in an effort to wrongly influence the court about whether the murder took place.

And in a child custody hearing, if Henderson lied, those lies would have to be aimed at intentionally swaying the court on the custody issue.

Meigs never asked if the child was present when Henderson stayed the night. And Stephens even said she didn’t care about the relationship between Akl and Henderson if the child wasn’t involved.

So, why is the AG’s office all wrapped up in a petty divorce case – the sort of case in which law enforcement never intervenes?

The answer to that question is clear -- at least to me. The Rileys did not want a potentially unfriendly DA in Jefferson County, and Luther Strange was willing to be their water boy by bringing a bogus case against Henderson.

Charles Todd Henderson
(From wvtm13.com)

If we had a real justice system, Strange would go to prison for bringing the indictment against Henderson. That's not likely to happen, but he could wind up in prison for other reasons. As Bill and Susan Britt report in an article titled "SOS: Senator Strange, this may be a problem," Big Lutha has campaign-finance issues, and they could be serious. From the report:

Recently appointed Senator Luther Strange, only a few months into his new job, has potentially committed two major campaign finance violations, according to Secretary of State John Merrill.

Campaign finance records show that Strange transferred campaign contributions between his US Senate campaign account and his Alabama Attorney General account, outside of the legal window. The contributions also exceeded the legal limit on account transfers.

Each of the violations could be prosecuted as felony offenses if the State Ethics Commission takes up the case and refers charges. Former Gov. Robert Bentley faced possible felony charges for a similar transfer that took place outside of the legal time frame.

Strange transferred $1,418.27 from his U.S. Senate campaign to his state campaign, exceeding the $1,000 limit. The transfer also came outside a 120-day post-election window allowed by state law. As a former AG, you'd think Strange might know a thing or two about Alabama's campaign finance laws. But you might be wrong, and such ignorance could cost Strange dearly. The Britts write:

According to Strange’s FCPA and his FEC filing, he exceeded the $1000.00 limit by $418.27. Each violation could be prosecuted as a felony. Violation of the 120-day rule is a Class B Felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

The $1000.00 statute is a Class C felony which carries up to 10 years behind bars. Transactions show that Strange for Senate “reimbursed” Alabamians for Luther Strange as reported on both the FCPA Report (Receipts from other sources) and his Senate report.

Asked about the transfers by The Alabama Political Reporter, Merrill responded to a request for comment.

“That is not a permissible expense and it exceeds the amount that could be given even if it were within the correct time frame,” Merill said of the transfers. “There are two violations there.”

Many Alabamians were outraged when Strange reached an apparent quid pro quo with Bentley to be appointed to a Senate seat vacated when Jeff Sessions became Trump attorney general. Wouldn't it be ironic if Big Lutha's power grab helped cause him to wind up in the slammer?

Briarwood Presbyterian Church wants its own police force, but its racist heritage is ever present, even when taking on black opponents on the football field

(From theroot.com)

How ugly can white privilege get in the Age of Trump? When it morphs into white arrogance and sheer rudeness, as it did last fall at Briarwood Christian School in Birmingham, the answer is "real darned ugly."

The school is part of Briarwood Presbyterian Church (PCA), the large suburban congregation that has decided in recent years that it needs its own police force for "protection." The truth is that Briarwood wants to "manage" news coverage of any future drug busts at the school, like the one that made it into the press in 2015. Those kinds of events tend to make white, suburban parents keep tuition dollars in their pockets -- or, Dear God, send their kids to public schools, for which they already are paying via tax dollars.

Ironically, our personal travelogue through legal hell involves Briarwood. It started with an under-the-table real-estate deal that allowed the school's football coach (and our former neighbor), Fred Yancey to live for free on school property, leaving us with a career criminal named Mike McGarity for our next-door neighbor. McGarity works at a reputable company (Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama), but his bullying, threatening tendencies -- well illustrated in his extensive criminal record -- have turned our lives upside down. One can only wonder how someone with at least eight criminal convictions in his background could get a job at a place like BC/BS, which supposedly is required to have heightened security procedures because it deals in mega doses of federal tax dollars. Perhaps Koko Mackin, the company's PR mouthpiece, knows about such lapses, but has been instructed to keep her mouth shut about them.

On the legal front, many of the most loathsome characters in our Legal Schnauzer story -- state judge Mike Joiner, federal judge R. David Proctor, attorney Bill Swatek -- attend Briarwood, have sent kids to Briarwood, or both. Proctor, who helped Jeff Sessions (now Trump's attorney general) get a black federal judge removed from a problematic case in the 1990s, is cheating us at this moment -- in "The Jail Case" and "The House Case," both on appeal before the Eleventh Circuit.

You might think Briarwoodians would feel a little chastened after the flock's offspring were proven to have feet of clay, like the heathens in public schools, when it comes to illegal drugs. But you would be wrong. A recent article by Michael Harriot at theroot.com suggests students at Briarwood double downed on arrogance when it became apparent that Donald Trump -- perhaps the most unGodly man ever to run for president -- had a chance to lead Republicans back to the White House.

In an article titled "The Racist, Homophobic History of an Ala. Church Gunning for Its Own Police Force," Harriot does a splendid job of laying out the considerable baggage in Briarwood's past. He also focuses on an event last September that shows white "Christian" youngsters -- apparently with the support of teachers, administrators, and parents -- being jaw-droppingly rude to black guests in their midst.

Before a football game last September against predominantly black Fairfield High School (and by "predominantly," I mean "pretty much entirely"), Briarwood students prepared a goalpost sign through which their team was to enter the stadium. The sign read: "Make American Great Again: Trump the Tigers."

Briarwood, which has been rumored for years to recruit players due to its "private school" status, won the game, 27-0. But the sign makes me wish Fairfield had mopped the field with some spoiled white asses. It looks like U.S. Judge R. David Proctor comes by his racism honestly. Michael Harriot shows that such thinKKKing is woven into the fabric at Briarwood:

The church is presented as an all-American house of worship, but at its roots, Briarwood Presbyterian has right-wing, fringe beliefs that border on frightening.

Briarwood Presbyterian is a member of the Presbyterian Church in America. When you research the history of the PCA, you find that almost every source says that the main impetus for the church’s split from the greater Presbyterian organization was the Northern churches’ willingness to integrate, as explained by the Colorado Springs Gazette:

"When the denomination called for open churches that did not bar blacks . . . this was seen as a sign that the denomination was departing from true Christianity. For segregationist Presbyterians in Mississippi and elsewhere, any moderate stance on integration was a sign that liberalism was taking over the church.

"In response, segregationist Presbyterians began leaving the denomination. Some left officially. Others started movements [within] the denomination. They openly defied the denomination by refusing to allow blacks to worship in their churches or by firing pastors who wanted to do so."

These events, Harriot quickly points out, do not date to yesteryear. And they raise this question: Should these people be trusted with their own armed forces?

So those churches banded together to form the PCA. While this might sound like a pre-Civil War origin story, this did not take place in the antebellum South—this was 1973. And where did those churches meet to form this union of segregationist places of worship? PCA’s website proudly explains its history:

"In December 1973, delegates, representing some 260 congregations with a combined communicant membership of over 41,000 that had left the PCUS, gathered at Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, Alabama, and organized the National Presbyterian Church, which later became the Presbyterian Church in America."

Yes, the home place of a sect of fundamentalist segregationists is about to get its own army.

Yep, "fundamentalist segregationists" started Briarwood. And the 2016 football season provided evidence that such "thinking" remains central to the church/school's culture. It even goes straight to the top, according to Harriot:

Harry Reeder, the Briarwood Presbyterian pastor, is as problematic as the place of worship. He is a longtime advocate for the Confederate flag and speaks at ceremonies for neo-Confederate groups like the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Although religious organizations are prohibited from taking political stances, Reeder often shills for the Republican Party, as he did in his recent broadcast “Mike Pence Places a Hedge Around His Marriage.”

He also finds time to repudiate everything Obama, which he did April 6 in this broadcast from the church’s radio station: “Unmasking, Leaking, Lying, Obama’s Watergate?” A drug raid at the church’s high school in 2015 is still shrouded in mystery.

The notion of Briarwood having its own police force raises all sorts of troubling questions, and Harriot lays them out in the open:

A church official explains the church’s need for a police force by telling reporters, “After the shooting at Sandy Hook and in the wake of similar assaults at churches and schools, Briarwood recognized the need to provide qualified first responders to coordinate with local law enforcement.” The Root examined records at Birmingham’s 911 call center and scoured the archives of local news agencies and could find no emergency calls or precedent for any type of violence at Briarwood that would warrant a police force. The school does not need permission to hire armed guards or a security team, so what is really behind this bill?

Harry Reeder (center)
(From rootsweb.ancestry.com)

If the bill becomes law, does that give the church its own municipal code of conduct? Will the church’s laws be enforced by officers? Are they subject to anti-discrimination laws? If Briarwood’s students are found with drugs on campus, do the church cops get to handle it themselves? Is the school’s small minority of black students safe? Can they banish LGBTQ teachers, students or parishioners? Should the taxpayers of Alabama be responsible for training a church’s private security force? If so, are they subject to the federal and state anti-discrimination hiring practices?

If the state of Alabama gives Briarwood its own police force, it will no longer be a church. It will be a white, fundamentalist, Christian armed compound with its own army, right next to one of the blackest, most defiant cities in America.

What could go wrong?

As we have learned from personal experience, folks connected to Briarwood tend to lie -- a lot, as in whoppers. If they are judges, they violate black-letter law -- and constitutional basics -- with impunity.

Consider the notion that Briarwood's desire for a police force is tied to the Sandy Hook shooting. The mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, happened in 2012. Briarwood's desire for its own police force became known after the school's drug bust in 2015.

Should Briarwood be trusted with a heavily armed police force? Not in a million years. As Michael Harriot says, "What could go wrong?"

Federal judge Bill Pryor's history in gay-pornography, like a ghost that won't go away, rears its head again with the emergence of nudie photograph No. 4

Bill Pryor No. 1, with special guest
Donald Trump
(From Metro Weekly)

Bill Pryor, the fiercely anti-LGBT federal judge who almost became Donald Trump's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), has a gay-porn past that keeps on giving.

We broke the story in September 2013 of Pryor's appearance at badpuppy.com, a Cocoa, Florida-based site that has grown to become a "super store" of gay-porn images. Less than one week after the story broke, and became somewhat of a viral Web sensation, deputies from Shelby County, Alabama, started making regular appearances (in twos and threes, with multiple vehicles) on our property. Less than a month after that, Deputy Chris Blevins entered our basement garage (without showing a warrant, stating he had a warrant, or stating his purpose for being on the premises) and beat me up, doused me with pepper spray, and hauled me to the Shelby County Jail for a five-month stay.

That's the price you pay for reporting accurately and forcefully about judicial and political corruption -- most of it Republican based -- in a Deep Red state. And you thought the First Amendment protected your rights to free speech and a free press.

I unearthed gay-porn photo No. 1 and broke the original story with old-fashioned, shoe-leather journalism. But the story has not ended there. We are blessed with a bunch of dedicated and sharp-eyed readers, and they have found other nudie photos of Pryor, part of a gallery that reportedly included eight to 12 images.

Bill Pryor No. 2

Readers helped us publish gay-porn photo No. 2 on March 22, 2017. That's the one featuring a youthful Pryor, then an undergraduate at Northeast Louisiana University (now the University of Louisiana Monroe, ULM), straddling a block of wood -- he's got wood, get it?

Photo No. 3, again dug up by enterprising readers, ran on April 5, 2017. It featured Pryor holding what we thought was a gourd, with a male face drawn on it. This seemed to mark a major step forward in artistic expression for the future federal judge. A helpful reader informed us that Pryor actually was holding a coconut, not a gourd. (See, I told you we had smart readers.)

Now, Legal Schnauzer readers have struck again, helping ensure that gay-porn photo No. 4 would land in our laps. (Isn't teamwork fun?) I never dreamed that we would wind up with a full, or almost full, gallery to Bill Pryor's nudie oeuvre. But at the rate our readers are digging things up, I think we might just make it -- and it might not take too much longer.

(Note: Redacted versions of photos 1-3 are published within this post. Links to NSFW versions of the photos, plus an amusing meme about Trump's one-time infatuation with Pryor, are at the end of this post.)

Photo No. 4 has appeared at three tumblr sites, that we know of: (Warning: All three links contain explicit images.)

* Oldies But Hotties!

* Vintage Gay

* Who's a Big Boy?

Our plans are to run photo No. 4 later this week. While this story undeniably has titillating qualities -- or perhaps "prickly qualities" would be a more accurate term -- there is serious junk going on beneath the surface. (He said "junk" . . . uh huh . . . uh huh.)

Multiple press reports during the 2016 presidential campaign indicated Pryor was the favorite to be Trump's choice for SCOTUS. Those reports picked up steam when U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), long a champion of Pryor's career (perhaps because of the pair's deeply personal attachment), became the first major political figure to jump on the Trump Train -- eventually being named attorney general and lying during his confirmation hearings about meetings with a Russian ambassador.

Bill Pryor No. 3, with special guest
"Mr. Coconut"

Why did Pryor's SCOTUS hopes sink into the depths, with the seat eventually going to Neil Gorsuch, of Colorado? We addressed that issue in a recent post, titled "Did Legal Schnauzer reporting on his nude photos at the badpuppy.com gay-pornography Web site cost Alabama's Bill Pryor a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court?" From that post:

Alabama federal judge Bill Pryor came in no better than third last night in the race to become Donald Trump's first (and, hopefully, only) nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. That was quite a fall for a candidate who widely was considered the front-runner just a few weeks ago. And that raises this question: Did our reporting here at Legal Schnauzer about Pryor's ties to 1990s gay pornography cost him a lifetime appointment on the nation's highest court?

I don't know the answer to that question, and I admit that even raising it sounds like I'm tooting my own horn. (Perhaps that's because I am tooting my own horn.) But a number of intelligent people I like and admire -- a doctor, a retired lawyer, my wife -- have told me in recent days they thought Pryor's fading prospects were directly related to our reports about his nudie photos that appeared at badpuppy.com in the 1990s. The hypocrisy, my friends and loved ones said, of an ardently anti-gay rights judge appearing at a gay-porn Web site (in photos taken during his college days in the 1980s), would be too much for the Trump administration to stomach.

Here's more:

The conventional wisdom holds that Pryor's star fell because Team Trump was concerned his controversial statements about abortion rights, gay rights, privacy, and other hot-button cultural issues would make it difficult to get him confirmed. That might be the case, but such a scenario suggests reasonable, rational, and deliberate thought -- and we've seen no sign that exists in the Trump White House.

So, did Legal Schnauzer cause Pryor's downfall? (Hah! Sorry, couldn't contain myself.) Well, my friends and loved ones say they've seen signs that our reports about Pryor's BadPuppy days have made their way into conservative circles. And that, they say, spelled doom for Pryor, especially in the homophobic environment of the modern GOP.

For now, we don't know for sure what caused Pryor's slide, even though Jeff Sessions surely was whispering sweet nothings about his "boy toy" into the head Cheeto's ears. Heck, Pryor might even be resurrected for a future SCOTUS seat if Trump and Sessions can avoid being indicted long enough.

But here's the key point: At the rate our readers are digging up gay-porn photos of Pryor, we might have a full set before long. You can't say much positive about the Trump administration in its first 100 days, but there is this: The "Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight" does appear to be somewhat Web savvy. Mr. Orange himself is the diabolical prince of Twitter, so it's hard to imagine that word of Pryor's adventures in homo-erotica have not reached 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue -- assuming Trump is ever there.

Will our readers ensure that Bill Pryor's judicial career goes into a deep, quiet slumber? Looks to me like they are well on their way.

From The Sword

Bill Pryor No. 1 (NSFW)


Bill Pryor No. 2 (NSFW)


Bill Pryor No. 3 (NSFW)