Montgomery lawyer Tommy Gallion, in "Shadow Government, Southern Style" unmasks Alabama's Cabal for repeatedly trashing freedom of the press

Who became so unnerved by Tommy Gallion's book on Alabama political corruption that he (or they) tried to sabotage it by causing a statement to be included on the copyright page of the second edition that the book is a work of fiction? We don't have an answer to that one yet, but Gallion has written a letter to Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon Publishing, in an effort to solve the mystery. We do know, however, what is in Part Three, which was added to the book for the second edition. It focuses largely on victims of what Gallion calls the "Alabama Cabal." Did something about Part Three help spark the act of sabotage? With the title "Reign of Terror," Gallion obviously is serious about the subject matter. Here is part of his work from Part Three:

From Shadow Government, Southern Style, including Part Three ("Reign of Terror") (2020), by Thomas T. Gallion III; available from Amazon and Kindle eBooks:

PART THREE 

REIGN OF TERROR

CHAPTER SEVEN: The Cabal's Raping of Freedom of the Press

VICTIMS OF THE CABAL . . . 

1. Bob Martin

2. Russ and Dee Fine

3. Richard Scrushy (former CEO of HealthSouth and non-press target)

 

“Our liberty depends on freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

-- Thomas Jefferson 

Although I’m often angry with the press, it is the only source to checkmate corrupt politicians. As I
stated earlier, I always wanted to be an investigative journalist and now in the last quarter of the game
of life, I am attempting to do some of that with this book. Perhaps it is my way of fulfilling my bucket list and giving the finger to these corrupt politicians. Perhaps I should be wary, especially where the Rileys are concerned: They put one journalist in jail for five months without bail on an alleged misdemeanor for writing about a member of the their family. This chapter will further scare the Hell out of people who crossed the Rileys. Bob Riley and Rob Riley are as ruthless as Jesse and Frank James, as far as punishing their enemies.

I will start with Bob Martin, one of the finest editors I have ever known. He retired in 2017 as owner and publisher of The Montgomery Independent, a widely read weekly newspaper in Alabama. Martin caught onto Riley’s Indian Casino scam and his attempt to put Milton McGregor out of business while
destroying Tuskegee. Riley, using corrupt FBI agents, tapped Martin’s phone and had the FBI call and
inform him that they had done so. This was nothing but scare tactics to stop Martin from exposing Riley. Martin, the son of a Methodist preacher, remained undaunted and continued to expose the Riley-related corruption.

The Rileys even went after a popular talk-show host and his wife, who exposed the Rileys' blatant
corruption. Russ Fine, PhD, MSPH, and his wife broadcast their conservative talk show out of Birmingham. The Fines are devout Jews and enjoy nationwide respect. Russ, a brilliant individual, is a
graduate of Southern Illinois University, the University of Missouri Medical Center, and the University of Oklahoma Medical Center. Then he became ICRC Director Emeritus Professor of Medicine at the UAB School of Medicine, and Professor of Health Care Organization and Policy at the UAB School of Public Health. His honors are so voluminous that we don’t have room to print them here. Russ and his wife started revealing the Rileys’ corruption and the Rileys tried to get Russ fired from the UAB Medical School. Russ was a tenured professor and too valuable to UAB for them to bow down to the Rileys’pugilistic attempt. However, the Rileys did succeed in having the Fines’ talk show removed from the air.

An investigative reporter, Sandy Frost, on October 11, 2006, published the following: “On Monday,
September 25, two veteran Birmingham, Alabama, radio talk show hosts, Russ and Dee Fine, were fired an hour before their program was scheduled to end, in large part because Alabama Governor Bob Riley is a member of a secret society that is still governed by documents forbidding membership to negroes or other inferior races. Governor Riley was invested with the Rank and Decoration of Knight Commander of the Court of Honor on May 9, 2005, in a private ceremony at the Governor’s Manson ... a reception was held in the Governor’s Mansion, presumably at taxpayer expense.” 

After finding this article by Sandy Frost, I became more curious about this Masonic Lodge to which Riley belonged, and I discovered that they disallowed membership to blacks and other minorities. I am of the opinion that everyone has a right to associate with whomever they so desire, but it did not end there. The blacks have a separate nationwide Masonic Lodge system called Prince Hall Masonic Lodge. This lodge tried for years to be recognized by the nationwide Masonic organizations. That has happened over the years but denied in Alabama and a few other Southern states. It was only when Riley was in his last year as governor and on his way out the door that the Prince Hall Masons were recognized in Alabama and Riley’s Ashville, Alabama, lodge.

The question remains: Did Riley use various brothers in the Alabama lodges to infiltrate juries and influence judges? So far, I have found one such instance in the Richard Scrushy jury during his first trial in Birmingham. All jurors except one had voted for acquittal. This one juror would not back down, and after several days of being sequestered, the jury returned for the final day. Scrushy and his wife, who are both devout Christians, had prayed all night. As the bus carrying the jurors pulled into the courthouse parking lot, the Masonic juror became violently ill and regurgitated repeatedly. He was excused from the jury. In less than one hour, the jury came back and found Richard Scrushy not guilty on all counts. The Lord worked in a most mysterious way that time!

Masons do a great deal of good nationwide. My father, grandfather, and many other members of my
family were Masons. However, when you put a man such as Bob Riley in a position of high authority,
you can expect that he will use his affiliations for his own selfish and political reasons. I am of the
opinion that Riley used several of his Masonic brothers to help in his ploy to convict Siegelman and
Scrushy. As I will cover later, I know he did so in trying to convict Scrushy in his trial in federal court in Birmingham.

I want all the Jewish readers to remember Hitler. The Rileys, rather than gas Dr. Fine, tried to destroy
his and his wife’s careers. They wanted to shut them down and take them off the air. 

Alabama Judge Tamara Harris Johnson dismisses $75-million lawsuit against Balch Bingham -- but did she get it right and will it hold up on appeal?

David Roberson and family

An Alabama judge, who failed to rule for more than a year on motions in a $75-million lawsuit involving a former Drummond Company executive and his wife, has finally taken action in the case. After all that time, you might expect that Jefferson County Circuit Judge Tamara Harris Johnson surely would get her rulings correct. But she wound up getting it wrong on one of the most basic and straightforward principles of Alabama law -- the standard for reviewing a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.

To top it off, Johnson still hasn't completed her backlog of work on the case. Drummond has had a Motion to Dismiss on file since April 2018, but Johnson is yet to rule on that. Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Compel with the Alabama Supreme Court, seeking a ruling that would force Johnson to do her job.

In their complaint, David and Anna Roberson allege Mr. Roberson relied on false or incomplete information from two lawyers -- Joel Gilbert, of Balch Bingham, and Blake Andrews, in-house counsel for Drummond -- essentially making him the fall guy and leading to his conviction in the North Birmingham Superfund bribery scandal. As a result, David Roberson lost his job, and the Robersons lost their house and many of their possessions. The Roberson conviction currently is under appeal.

During a recent hearing via telephone conference, lawyers for defendants Balch and Drummond argued that Roberson received legal advice from Gilbert and Andrews, meaning the lawsuit is governed by the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act (ALSLA), Code of Alabama 6-5-572, and its tight (and confusing) two-year statute of limitations. Under the ALSLA, Balch and Drummond argued, the Robersons filed their claim too late, meaning it was time--barred per the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Judge Johnson apparently bought that argument and granted Balch's Motions to Dismiss. A Notice of Appeal has been filed with the Alabama Supreme Court, and it's unclear when Johnson might rule on Drummond's motion.

Burt Newsome, attorney for the Robersons, argued that David Roberson's interactions with Gilbert and Andrews did not involve legal advice or the provision of legal services, meaning their complaint should not fall under the ALSLA and is not time-barred.

At oral argument, Balch attorney Andy Campbell urged Johnson to strictly follow the statutory language of the ALSLA. Here are some of its key definitions and provisions:

(1) LEGAL SERVICE LIABILITY ACTION.  Any action against a legal service provider in which it is alleged that some injury or damage was caused in whole or in part by the legal service provider's violation of the standard of care applicable to a legal service provider.  A legal service liability action embraces all claims for injuries or damages or wrongful death whether in contract or in tort and whether based on an intentional or unintentional act or omission. A legal services liability action embraces any form of action in which a litigant may seek legal redress for a wrong or an injury and every legal theory of recovery, whether common law or statutory, available to a litigant in a court in the State of Alabama now or in the future.

(2) LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER.  Anyone licensed to practice law by the State of Alabama or engaged in the practice of law in the State of Alabama. The term legal service provider includes professional corporations, associations, and partnerships and the members of such professional corporations, associations, and partnerships and the persons, firms, or corporations either employed by or performing work or services for the benefit of such professional corporations, associations, and partnerships including, without limitation, law clerks, legal assistants, legal secretaries, investigators, paralegals, and couriers.

Burt Newsome

As licensed attorneys, Campbell argued, Gilbert and Andrews meet the definition of "legal service provider," and  the lawsuit over their alleged wrongs constitute a "legal service liability action," invoking the ALSLA and its statute of limitations, which could stick a dagger in the Robersons' claims.

Newsome, on the Robersons' behalf, argued that this is "an ordinary fraud case," not a legal-malpractice case -- and the dissemination of false, deceptive, or incomplete information does not constitute the provision of legal services.

We already know how most of this played out in the trial court, after a long delay. But how should it have played out, as a matter of law, and how should it play out on appeal?

(To be continued)

Tommy Gallion's book on Alabama political corruption must be striking nerves because second edition somehow includes insert that labels it a work of fiction

 

The second edition of Montgomery lawyer Tommy Gallion's book about Alabama political corruption inexplicably contains a statement on the copyright page that the book is a work of fiction, and Gallion states in a letter (dated 10/16/20) to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos that it almost had to be a deliberate act of sabotage and demands corrective action.

U.S. Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) comes under heavy criticism in the book, and Gallion's letter suggests that Jones, or someone connected to him, might be tied to the change.

The first edition of Shadow Government, Southern Style: Political Corruption from D.C. to Dixie, released by Amazon Publishing, contained a correct statement on the copyright page, near the front of the book, and it reads : "The characters and events portrayed in this book are true, based on personal knowledge, memory, and research of the author."

For the second edition, which includes Part Three, the statement says, "The characters and events portrayed in this book are fictitious. Any similarities to real persons, living or dead, is coincidental and not intended by the author.

How did the change happen? That remains unclear, but Gallion seems determined to find out. He writes to Bezos:

I spent eight years researching the material for this book. Since the book came out in the marketplace several months ago, it has done very well. Amazon has awarded it five stars. I selected Amazon Publishing to publish my book because of its alleged good reputation in the publishing field.

After the first edition was published, I received information that caused me to write a revised second edition. This revised edition was published several days ago. The first edition contained an introduction and Part One and Part Two. The second edition contains Part Three and a revised Table of Contents, which is the subject of this letter. Otherwise, the second edition was to be identical to the first edition. My editor sent the second edition to Amazon Publishing with only the above changes.

Yesterday, my phone rang off the hook with people who were confused as to the blatant and illegal changes to the book, without the permission of either my editor or me.    

This change had to be deliberate as shown above. This specious and malicious act destroyed not only the book, but my reputation and credibility that can never be repaired.

I have appeared on talk shows and am appearing before the Montgomey Lion's Club on Friday regarding the book. I have a book signing in Fairhope, Alabama, at the oldest bookstore in Alabama, to a sold-out crowd on Saturday.

My book has uncovered some of the most corrupt political prosecutions in the history of our country. The book discusses well-known politicians, both Republican and Democratic, such as former Democrat U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, his client Karl Rove, U.S. Senator Doug Jones, and many others.

Could this lead to legal action? Gallion's letter suggests the answer is yes. He writes to Bezos:

In order to mitigate my damages, I respectfully request you or someone in your organization do the following:

(1) Immediately send out the correct copyright information to every person who has bought the second edition for Amazon;

(2) Forward to me the name and contact information for the person at Amazon Publishing that made this unauthorized change to my boook;

(3) Please give any information of anyone mentioned in my book that contacted you or anyone at the Amazon organization or The Washington Post, which you own, about this book.

(4) Provide executed sworn affidavits from you and the head of Amazon Publishing attesting that both of you have no relationship of any nature with the people mentioned in my book; and 

(5) The affidavits should include you personally, any Amazon Company employee. and any Political Action Groups ("PACs") that have contributed to the election of U.S. Senator Doug Jones, directly and/or indirectly. 

I suggest you have Amazon's attorney look at the violations of copyrights contained in "Counter-notification under 17 USC Sec. 512(q)(3) referred to as DMAC." I have talked to several people in the publishing area, and all have said that this unauthorized change of my book had to be deliberate based on the facts stated above.

Your immediate response will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Thomas T. Gallion III

Amy Coney Barrett says one thing about discrimination during Senate confirmation hearings, but her record from the bench says something else

Amy Coney Barrett

 

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett probably is best known for her conservative stances on religion and abortion rights. But her rulings on matters of alleged discrimination perhaps should be particularly troubling for many Americans, according to a watchdog group called Accountable.us.

As Barrett went through a second day of confirmation hearings yesterday, she made a statement that is wildly at odds with her record. From the Accountable report:

During [yesterday's] Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett said she thinks “discrimination is abhorrent.” But a new report released this week by government watchdog Accountable.US reveals that Barrett sided with parties accused of discrimination in a sweeping 85 percent of cases, and sided with workers in just 8 percent of cases, in her time on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

“Barrett said she thinks discrimination is abhorrent, but her record tells a different story. Siding with those accused of discrimination 85 percent of the time shows that Barrett is no friend to workers, nor to those seeking redress for bigotry and harm they have experienced,” said Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US.

“As workers languish without an additional relief package, the Senate is jamming through a plainly anti-worker nominee for a lifetime appointment on the high court. The Senate’s warped priorities as millions of Americans continue to suffer have never been on more obvious display.”

Accountable peovides examples of Barrett's handiwork:

Among these cases are the following egregious examples:

• United States EEOC vs. AutoZone Inc., AutoZoners, LLC: Amy Coney Barrett voted against rehearing a ruling on racial segregation that the Seventh Circuit chief judge said legalized the “separate but equal” doctrine.
   
• Taylor-Reeves v. Marketstaff, Inc.: Amy Coney Barrett voted to uphold the ruling in favor of the company because “‘requesting leave for strep throat’ is not a statutorily protected activity.”
   
• Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc.: Amy Coney Barrett said a woman with cognitive impairments could not sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act after she was terminated for responding to a parent who mocked her memory issues.

Read more of Accountable.US’s analysis of Amy Coney Barrett’s decisions in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals against workers and victims of discrimination here.

Tommy Gallion shines a spotlight on victims of Alabama's political Cabal and those who have suffered during its long-running Reign of Terror

 

Montgomery attorney Tommy Gallion has discovered that writing a book about Alabama corruption can be a never-ending project. Gallion published Shadow Government, Southern Style: A Saga of Political Corruption from DC to Dixie in May 2020. He immediately started hearing from witnesses to additional corruption, convincing him that the book would need to be updated. Those updates now are available in a second edition of Shadow Government, which features Part Three, titled "Reign of Terror." It includes . . . well, we'll let Gallion tell it:

From Shadow Government, Southern Style, including Part Three ("Reign of Terror") (2020), by Thomas T. Gallion III; available from Amazon and Kindle eBooks:

PART THREE 

REIGN OF TERROR

CHAPTER ONE: 2002 - 2011

“Freedom is what you do with what has been done to you.”
-- Jean-Paul Satre

After I published the original edition of my book in May 2020, I received many calls from individuals who had read it, and provided additional information sufficient to compel me to publish a second edition with Part Three. I tried to recall many of my personal experiences and allow the softly lit sepia of my memory do the work, but I failed. If the reader thinks I uncovered shocking revelations in the original edition, please stay tuned. With that first edition, I spent years researching my material to ensure the accuracy of the content; similarly, I have now spent many months verifying these latest scandalous facts by rechecking my sources, and by consulting reliable news articles and individuals who were victims of The Cabal’s gangster tactics. Instead of using machine guns, The Cabal used illegal police and prosecutorial powers to imprison innocent people, and they attempted to do so with even more. They even went so far as to attempt to put an innocent journalist in jail for revealing the truth about the political corruption taking place in Alabama and DC. The Cabal’s idea of first-amendment rights under our Constitution was akin to Hitler’s: If a journalist disagreed with the Nazi Party, he or she could wind up in a concentration camp. If you disagreed with Alabama’s Riley family, they would either put you in jail or destroy your career. The Rileys and their henchmen make Vlad the Impaler and his band of terrorists look like Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.

In Part Two, I revealed the members of The Cabal; I will now add two more members I recently
discovered: US Senator Doug Jones and former Governor Don Siegelman’s assistant, Nick Bailey.What
Doug Jones and his friend Rob Riley did to Siegelman and Richard Scrushy, the former CEO and founder of only the second Fortune 500 company in Alabama, HealthSouth, will bring you to your knees. This Reign of Terror began with Karl Rove and Congressman Bob Riley in their warped ploy to elect Riley governor and unseat Siegelman in 2002. You might recall my statement in Part Two about my refusal to attend a meeting organized by my lifelong friend Winton Blount III, with Karl Rove. This Reign of Terror, unlike the one that occurred in France during the French Revolution, lasted only eight years. This was the genesis of eight years that destroyed many innocent lives and made the Riley family extremely wealthy. One of the most hideous events was the corruption in the Justice Department and FBI agents Reign of Terror. The Cabal spread their evil disease like a band of syphilitic strumpets screwing every taxpayer and the Alabama schoolchildren’s education. In this parody of a famous play, film, and Broadway musical, we have The Best Little Whorehouses in Alabama and Washington, and it’s time to pull back the bed sheets and play political show-and-tell.

(To be continued)

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer could be setting the stage to have criminal charges brought against Trump for solicitation of violence against state officials

Gretchen Whitmer

 

The right-wing militia plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer probably was a shocker to many Americans, But our "lawyer source," who we quote periodically on legal matters that are national in scope, essentially foresaw such an event six months ago. He also saw the potential legal headaches Donald Trump could attract for inciting such an event. News reports in recent days, our source says, suggest Whitmer is setting the stage to have criminal charges brought against Trump -- and, under the law, she has grounds to do it.

How did our source essentially see this coming? Let's turn to our post of April 21, 2020, with the title "Trump's words of defiance to protesters flaunt federal and state laws, sending a peculiar anti-government message from someone who heads the government": 

Donald Trump's recent Tweets, exhorting his followers to "liberate" themselves from state-sanctioned stay-at-home orders during the coronavirus outbreak, likely violate federal law, according to a former official with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Trump's actions also could violate state laws that criminalize defiance of lawfully issued state orders, a lawyer source tells Legal Schnauzer. That especially might be the case in Virginia, where Trump's Tweet included a reference to protesters' "Second Amendment rights," which could be construed as an incitement to violence.

While Trump clearly is playing dangerous games with the law, he also may be playing a wildly flawed political equation, according to New York Times columnist Maggie Haberman, in a piece titled "Trump, Head of Government, Leans Into Anti-Government Message."

As for lawlessness emanating from the White House, Mary McCord addressed that in an op-ed at The Washington Post. McCord is legal director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and a visiting professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. She was acting U.S. assistant attorney general for national security from 2016 to 2017. From the McCord op-ed:

"President Trump incited insurrection Friday against the duly elected governors of the states of Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia. Just a day after issuing guidance for re-opening America that clearly deferred decision-making to state officials — as it must under our Constitutional order — the president undercut his own guidance by calling for criminal acts against the governors for not opening fast enough."

 

Our source then provided legal details behind McCord's words:

Our lawyer source provides details about state insurrection laws, especially from the Code of Virginia, and notes that states are not precluded from prosecuting a sitting president. Writes our source:

It is obvious Trump's tweets to protesters to "liberate" themselves from the "siege" the state governors have ordered was intended by Trump to encourage and incite those protesters (his base) to intimidate state governors. After all, wasn't intimidation of public officials the purpose of the so-called "Brooks Brothers Riot" in Florida in 2000?

You may find it interesting that the Criminal Code of Virginia has several applicable criminal provisions, including mob crime laws and criminal solicitation statutes. Also, the Criminal Code of Virginia defines a criminal "act of terrorism" as an act of violence with the intent to either "intimidate a civilian population at large" or to "influence the conduct or activities of a government, including . . . a state . . . through intimidation." Crim. Code of Va., Section 18.2-46.4. Trump's tweet was not violence; but the message Trump tweeted clearly suggested that Trump was encouraging protesters to act as a mob of public assembly and intimidate state officials to withdraw state orders issued to protect lives and public health. Therefore, if protesters, especially those known to revere Trump, end up forming a mob and engaging in any violence whatsoever, it is absolutely clear that Trump could be criminally prosecuted in Virginia for his public communications (tweets) in which he sought to command, entreat, or otherwise persuade persons to intimidate their state governments and state public officials and to resist execution of lawful state-government orders. If protesters followed Trump's encouragement and assembled, fomented riot, and/ or killed anyone, then Trump could be criminally prosecuted for criminal solicitation to incite riot, unlawful assembly, treason, and terrorism.

Virginia also criminalizes inciting a riot or unlawful assembly.

Finally, Virginia also criminalizes and calls it "treason" for a person to (1) solicit or encourage others to wage war against the Commonwealth of Virginia (e.g., insurrection or riot); or (2) solicit or encourage others to resist the execution of the laws of Virginia under color of its authority. See Crim. Code of Va., sections 18.2-29 and 18.2-481(1) and (5).

        The full language from the relevant Virginia law can be found at Title 18.2, Code of             Virginia.

          What kind of signals is Whitmer sending? Well, it's clear that she is unhappy about a plot that                  likely put her life, and the lives her colleagues, at risk. Consider this op-ed from Whitmer in                 The  Washington Post:        

When I addressed the people of Michigan on Thursday to comment on the unprecedented terrorism, conspiracy and weapons charges against 13 men, some of whom were preparing to kidnap and possibly kill me, I said, “Hatred, bigotry and violence have no place in the great state of Michigan.” I meant it. But just moments later, President Trump’s campaign adviser, Jason Miller, appeared on national television accusing me of fostering hatred.

I’m not going to waste my time arguing with the president. But I will always hold him accountable. Because when our leaders speak, their words carry weight.

When our leaders encourage domestic terrorists, they legitimize their actions. When they stoke and contribute to hate speech, they are complicit. And when a sitting president stands on a national stage refusing to condemn white supremacists and hate groups, as President Trump did when he told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” during the first presidential debate, he is complicit. Hate groups heard the president’s words not as a rebuke, but as a rallying cry. As a call to action.

What does our source think of Whitmer's words? He thinks she's mad as hell -- and serious -- and she still has reason to be concerned about her safety:

I believe Whitmer is setting the stage so it's no surprise in about six months, after things cool down, when Mich. officials file charges against Trump for criminal solicitation and criminal encouragement of treason and violence against the State of Michigan and its public officials.

Did contract dispute between Drummond Company and Norfolk Southern play a role in the head-on vehicle crash that seriously injured Burt Newsome?

 

Burt Newsome crash scene

The head-on vehicle crash that nearly killed Birmingham attorney Burt Newsome remains shrouded in mystery, so how does one go about trying to unravel the unknown? One possibility, at least for starters, is to look for connections between and among entities that are Newsome's recent courtroom adversaries (Drummond Company, Balch Bingham, Alabama Power) and an entity that is known to have a tie to the crash itself (Norfolk Southern).

Our initial research reveals one such connection, and it is curious, to say the least. The connection is between Drummond and Norfolk Southern, which probably should not be a surprise, given that Drummond produces coal and Norfolk Southern hauls freight, such as coal, around the country.

Published reports indicate the companies have done business for years, but the relationship has turned sour due to a breach-of-ontract lawsuit over the volume of coal to be transported to power plants around the Southeast. The case originated in the U.S. Western District of Virginia (Roanoke), with a jury finding that Norfolk Southern will have to refund almost all of $35 million in fees and penalties that Drummond has paid it. The case now is set to be heard before the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (Richmond), after a lengthy delay for post-trial motions. From a report by Angela Coker at the Birmingham Business Journal (BBJ):

A jury has sided with Drummond Coal Sales Inc. in a lawsuit the company filed against Norfolk Southern Railway (NYSE: NSC)

Drummond Coal, a subsidiary of Drummond Co. Inc. – one of Alabama’s largest manufacturers – entered into a shipping contract with Norfolk Southern Railway providing for rates to 23 specified coal-fired power plants from Shipyard River Terminal owned by Kinder Morgan in Charleston, South Carolina.

The nine-person jury determined NS broke the contract about six months after it was signed and, in a declaratory judgement, relieved Drummond of paying in excess of $40 million still owed on the contract and determined NS will have to refund Drummond all or virtually all of the $35 million it has paid since 2010. . . .

How did the contract go awry? Here is how BBJ described the jury's findings:

The jury found NS broke its contract with Drummond about six months after it was signed by entering into separate contractual dealings that devalued Drummond’s contract. During discovery, Drummond obtained NS’s confidential contracts with the utilities that own the plants and learned the terms of those contracts either required the utilities to use their own shipping contract or else pay liquidated damages, making Drummond’s contract worthless, and/or gave financial incentives to the utilities to purchase coal other than Drummond’s.

Norfolk Southern has claimed this was a case of buyer's remorse and that Drummond knew the risks, according to industry publication RT&S.

The contract contained guaranteed minimum volumes that, if not met, required Drummond to pay liquidated damages, and between 2010 and 2014, Drummond paid NS over $35 million in liquidated damages. The liquidated damages escalated each year, but over the term were between $7 million and $8 million. Other than a few shipments in 2010, Drummond has not shipped a single ton on the contract between 2011 and present.

How could this connect to the Newsome crash? The answer to that question remains murky, but we know this:

* Newsome has filed a $75 million lawsuit against Drummond on behalf of former executive David Roberson;

* Norfolk Southern, at the moment, is on the hook to Drummond for about $35 million;

* The driver of the SUV that hit Newsome, in a crash that shows signs of being staged, works at the Irondale, AL, office of Norfolk Southern.

How does all of this add up? Well, some key pieces to the puzzle remain outstanding. But the search for those pieces is ongoing.

Norfolk Southern

Alabama State Bar denied "permission" for Bham-area lawyer Greg Morris to get involved in my federal lawsuit re: "being jailed for blogging" in Shelby County

Tripp Vickers

 

A representative of the Alabama State Bar told a Birmingham-area lawyer not to get involved in my federal lawsuit over being unlawfully "arrested for blogging" ("The Jail Case") in Shelby County. 

Greg Morris, of Fultondale, agreed to attend a Rule 26 meeting (for scheduling of discovery) on our behalf and was rewarded by having U.S. District Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins berate him in front of a room full of lawyers. Morris,on his own initiative, wrote an affidavit to explain his purpose for attending the meeting. While preparing the affidavit, Morris had a question that he thought someone in the State Bar's Office of General Counsel needed to address.

Instead of getting his question answered, Morris was told to stay out of my case. Perplexed and understandably taken aback, Morris passed along to me what the bar official said -- and I was not happy about it. Is it the purpose of the Alabama State Bar to tell a lawyer not to get involved in a specific case? I doubt it. Why would a bar official make such a statement regarding my case; does this happen regularly  in other cases? Greg Morris is a veteran attorney, with about 25 years of experience, and based on his reaction, I'd say the answer is no. Was I deprived of my right to counsel? Yes. Has the Alabama State Bar ensured that my right to counsel would be trampled in other cases? I think it probably has. Has it even communicated with federal judges to make sure I got the short end of the stick in U.S. courts? I'm having fewer and fewer doubts about that. For example, was Hopkins so mad at Morris because the bar told her that no one was expected to appear on my behalf, so she lost it when Morris appeared unexpectedly?

 How exactly did Morris' communications with the bar official go? Here is how Morris described it to me:

The State Bar tells me, "Do not use [the affidavit], it may just make your matters worse.

[The Bar official] said, "If they want you, the judge will call you or compel you.

I said I feel strongly about all I've written; he said, "You'd better not go. Now I'm not telling you to change anything in the affidavit; if the judge wants to hear from you, she will call you in.

How baffled was Morris? His words  tell the story:

I don't know what they are going to do to you, Roger. I can't imagine why they have such a hard-on. But the bar is telling me, "Greg, do not get any further involved -- you're not helping yourself and you're probably not helping Mr. Shuler."

I have to follow what the bar tells me to do. I wouldn't tell you this otherwise. I feel badly. 

[The Bar says], "Tell Roger no, no you don't have permission, you stay away from that, if the judge wants to hear from you, she'll let you know."

 

A lawyer has to receive permission from the State Bar to get involved in a case? That's news to me, and the whole experience apparently left Morris dazed and confused.

The State Bar, as a professional ethics group, is the lawyer's lawyer. My lawyer basically says, "Unless the judge asks you, stay out of it." He says no.

Why are they doing this? Why you?

 As for Judge Hopkins , she was acting like a rabid wolverine. Said Morris:

After she lambasted me, blistered me pretty good, she was so pissed off . . . I don't understand.

 I have these words from Morris, and more, in a word-for-word format.

By the way,who was the Bar official with whom Morris conversed? That is unclear because Morris does not remember his name.

 Douglas McElvy was acting general counsel at the time, and I asked him to investigate the matter. (The full-time general counsel now is Roman Shaul.) I see no sign that an investigation took place, although I've left a message with Morris to see if the Bar followed up with him. I've received no response so far

The Office of General Counsel consists of Tripp Vickers, Mark Moody, and Jeremy McIntire. McElvy told me that an inquiry such as Morris' almost certainly would go to him or Vickers -- and it did not go to him.

So, did Tripp Vickers tell Morris to stay out of my case? That's the best information we have at the moment.

Trump-appointed judge David Stras administered gross cheat job on police-shooting lawsuit, but William Acker's "railroading" in my UAB case was even worse

William M. Acker Jr.

David Stras, the Trump-appointed federal judge who unlawfully forced a finding of immunity for a Kansas City police officer who fatally shot an unarmed black man -- Ryan Stokes -- in the back, is an unmasked crook with a robe. But Stras' opinion in N.S. v. Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners (8th Cir., 2019) reveals that he actually is not as bad as a federal judge with whom I have come face to face in the Northern District of Alabama.

We are talking about William M. Acker Jr. (now deceased), the Reagan appointee who administered a monumental cheat job in my First Amendment/wrongful termination lawsuit against UAB (University of Alabama System Board of Trustees), where I had worked for 20 years. Evidence clearly shows I was targeted because of my reporting on the Don Siegelman case at this blog, but Acker took steps to ensure the case was decided with no facts in the record. (I'm not kidding).

David Stras

The U.S. Supreme Court, apparently anticipating that rogue judges like Acker would trample summary-judgment procedure, came up with a term for such an action; they called it a "railroad job."

Stras clearly conducted a "railroad job" in the Stokes case, so how could Acker be worse than that? Let's revisit  a key section of the N.S. opinion that Stras authored:

Some evidence supports [Officer William] Thompson's account. The police discovered a handgun on the driver's seat of the car, which could mean that Stokes was armed when he entered the parking lot but then tossed the gun into the car. And witnesses who saw Stokes running said that he appeared to be "holding up his pants as he ran," which is arguably consistent with Thompson's perception that Stokes was holding a gun. Finally, Thompson's partner claims to have heard Thompson order Stokes to "get on the ground."

Other evidence supports the family's account. No one besides Thompson observed Stokes with a gun, nor was any gun found on or near his body. The car's owner, who was Stokes's friend, claimed that the gun recovered from the car belonged to him and that it had been there all night. Moreover, some officers did not recall hearing Thompson shout anything during the encounter, and at least one officer thought Stokes was trying to surrender when Thompson shot him.

Notice the repeated references to evidence; that shows that trial-court judge Brian Wimes allowed for discovery before considering summary judgment based on police-immunity claims -- as he was required by law to do. Wimes denied summary judgment for Officer Thompson, but the Stras panel vacated that finding and essentially forced a ruling that found Thompson was immune from lawsuit.

We can give Stras a little credit for not trying to hide in  his opinion that facts had been entered into the record via discovery. What about Acker in my case against UAB? He allowed zero discovery -- meaning the case essentially was decided without facts -- violating U.S. Supreme Court and 11th Circuit precedent. Here is how we described Acker's handiwork in a June 2018 post:

How badly did Acker screw me on the UAB case? I've written several lengthy posts on that subject (see here, here, and here), but it boils down to this. He granted the university summary judgment, without discovery, in clear violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Eleventh Circuit precedent, as outlined in Snook v. Trust Company of Georgia, 859 F. 2d 865 (11th Cir., 1988). From Snook:

"This court has often noted that summary judgment should not be granted until the party opposing the motion has had an adequate opportunity for discovery. . . . The party opposing a motion for summary judgment has a right to challenge the affidavits and other factual materials submitted in support of the motion by conducting sufficient discovery so as to enable him to determine whether he can furnish opposing affidavits. . . . Generally summary judgment is inappropriate when the party opposing the motion has been unable to obtain responses to his discovery requests."

Law doesn't get much more direct and simple than that. I filed at least three motions to inform the court that discovery had not been conducted, and Acker admitted in open court that he was aware of that, and I was entitled to conduct discovery to counter UAB's motion for summary judgment.

We've reported on at least one of Acker's judicial colleagues in the Northern District of Alabama who knows the law on discovery and summary judgment and has applied it correctly multiple times. We've reported that Acker himself has correctly applied the law in multiple cases. He just didn't do it in my case, and that's probably because he knew political thugs had pressured UAB to unlawfully terminate me, and Acker chose to protect those thugs. Specifically, Acker likely was protecting GOP cretin Rob "Uday" Riley and his associates, who were the driving forces behind my cheat job at UAB. We recently have uncovered evidence that suggests the Alabama State Bar might have been involved, too.

For good measure, we recently reported on Sarah Palin's ongoing defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, where the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in so many words, confirmed that Acker cheated me raw on the UAB matter.

Acker did not just violate 11th Circuit precedent; he also pissed all over the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). From a case styled Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 US 317 (Supreme Court, 1986):

We think that the position taken by the majority of the Court of Appeals is inconsistent with the standard for summary judgment set forth in Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[4] Under Rule 56(c), summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." In our view, the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be "no genuine issue as to any material fact," since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. The moving party is "entitled to a judgment as a matter of law" because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof. "[T]h[e] standard [for granting summary judgment] mirrors the standard for a directed verdict under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) . . . ." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., ante, at 250.

As you can see, there must not only be discovery, but "adequate time" for discovery. In my UAB case, Acker ensured there was no time for discovery. SCOTUS, in Celotex, seemingly was able to look into the future and see that rogue judges like Acker would try to skirt the law:

Respondent commenced this action in September 1980, and petitioner's motion was filed in September 1981. The parties had conducted discovery, and no serious claim can be made that respondent was in any sense "railroaded" by a premature motion for summary judgment. Any potential problem with such premature motions can be adequately dealt with under Rule 56(f),[6] which allows a summary judgment motion to be denied, or the hearing on the motion to be continued, if the nonmoving party has not had an opportunity to make full discovery.

Do I have no choice but to sit back and accept Acker's screw job, which the University of Alabama Office of Counsel facilitated with its silence? Do Mrs. Schnauzer and I have to accept multiple screw jobs we have experienced jointly in other federal cases? Not necessarily, as I wrote in a September 2019 post about the wrongful foreclosure on our home of 25 years in Birmingham:

If this were a case of incompetence in the 11th Circuit, that would be alarming enough. But this involves intentional cheating, which probably rises to the level of fraud on the court. And that, by law, should give us grounds to reopen "The House Case," along with all of the other federal matters -- including our employment cases against UAB and Infinity Insurance -- where we were intentionally cheated due to fraud on the court.

My initial research indicates a ruling grounded in fraud on the court can be attacked as void at any time, with no deadline for seeking justice. The con artists at UAB probably think my employment matter is way in the past, over and done with. They might be wrong about that. 

 

Ryan Stokes and his daughter

 

A partner at Balch Bingham law firm was an advocate for George Wallace's "stand in the schoolhouse door," blocking black students at the University of Alabama

George Wallace: Stand in the Schoolhouse door.

 

The late Schuyler Baker Sr., an early partner at the Balch Bingham law firm, was a principal advocate for segregationist Gov. George Wallace in his drive to block admittance to black students at the University of Alabama, court documents show. Is it any wonder Balch, with Schuyler A. Baker Jr. as partner and general counsel, would engage in a bribery scheme to discourage black residents in North Birmingham from having their property tested for toxins from corporate polluters?

Baker Sr.'s prominent role in trying to keep blacks out of the schoolhouse door at the University of Alabama is reflected in an opinion from a case styled United States v. George C. Wallace, 218 F. Supp. 290 (ND Alabama, 1963). The case caption shows Baker Sr. was in powerful company:

Robert F. Kennedy, Atty. Gen., Burke Marshall, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. John Barrett, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., and Macon L. Weaver, U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff.

J. Kirkman Jackson, Schuyler Baker and Reid Barnes, of Birmingham, Ala., and Thomas B. Hill, Jr., John Kohn and Hugh Maddox, Montgomery, Ala., for defendant.

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy led the way for the federal government, while Baker Sr. was front and center for George Wallace and the cause of segregation. At the heart of the case was the government's request for a temporary injunction regarding Wallace's vow to bar the entrance of any Negro who attempted to enroll at the University of Alabama. From the opinion of U.S. District Judge Seybourn H. Lynne:

The facts developed at the brief hearing before the court on June 3, 1963, when this action was submitted upon plaintiff's prayer for a temporary injunction, may be concisely stated to highlight the emerging legal questions.

On July 1, 1955, Judge H. H. Grooms entered an order of this court in the case of Lucy et al. v. Adams, D.C., 134 F.Supp. 235, permanently enjoining the Dean of Admissions of the University of Alabama from denying Negroes the right to enroll therein and pursue courses of study thereat solely on account of their race or color. In supplemental proceedings, upon application of Vivian J. Malone and certain other Negro citizens of Alabama, Judge Grooms, on May 16, 1963, entered an order determining that the court's order of July 1, 1955, was still in force and effect; that it was binding upon Hubert E. Mate, who succeeded William F. Adams as Dean of Admissions, and that Negroes with pending applications for enrollment in such University could apply to this court for enforcement of the order of July 1, 1955.

Thereafter, on May 21, 1963, Judge Grooms heard a motion filed on behalf of eleven members of the Board of Trustees of such University for leave to intervene in the case of Lucy et al. v. Adams, and to modify and suspend this court's order of July 1, 1955, as interpreted on May 16, 1963. In their motion, the members of the Board appearing therein represented to the court that Vivian J. Malone and David M. McGlathery, each a Negro citizen of the State of Alabama and an applicant for enrollment in the University, were qualified to be enrolled under the terms of the July 1, 1955, order, but requested that implementation be delayed because of the prevailing climate of racial unrest. On May 21, 1963, Judge Grooms allowed the intervention of such Trustees but denied their motion to modify and suspend the order of July 1, 1955.

How did Wallace react to Judge Grooms' order? With defiance:

The Honorable George C. Wallace, Governor of Alabama, referring to the May 21, 1963, order entered by Judge Grooms, has stated and reiterated publicly that he will be present to bar the entrance of any Negro who attempts to enroll in the University of Alabama. He has also pledged that law and order will be maintained.

Thoughtful people, if they can free themselves from tensions produced by established principles with which they violently disagree, must concede that the governor of a sovereign state has no authority to obstruct or prevent the execution of the lawful orders of a court of the United States. No legalistic formula is required to express the craving of honest, hard working, God fearing citizens for a moral order logically supported, an attitude long ago expressed when Coke informed King James that there was a law above the King.

In the final analysis, the concept of law and order, the very essence of a republican form of government, embraces the notion that when the judicial process of a state or federal court, acting within the sphere of its competence, has been exhausted and has resulted in a final judgment, all persons affected thereby are obliged to obey it.

 The court made clear that Wallace did not have the authority to ignore its orders:

More than three decades ago, Chief Justice Hughes, writing for a unanimous court, declared:

"* * * In particular, to the process of the federal court actually and properly engaged in examining and protecting an asserted federal right, the Governor interposed the obstruction of his will, subverting the federal authority. The assertion that such action can be taken as conclusive proof of its own necessity and must be accepted as in itself due process of law has no support in the decisions of this Court." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 402, 53 S. Ct. 190, 197, 77 L.Ed. 375 (1932). . . .

Too well settled in the law to admit of persuasive arguments to the contrary are the twin propositions that the courts of the United States have statutory authority under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651 as well as inherent power to enter such orders as may be necessary to effectuate their lawful decrees and to prevent interference with, and obstruction to, their implementation, and that the United States has standing to seek the injunctive relief for which it prays.

Judge Lynne ended with a plea for law and order, making it clear that Wallace and Baker Sr. were on the wrong side of history:

It clearly appears that unless an injunction is issued pending submission of this action on the prayer for final relief in a trial on the merits, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury resulting from obstruction to the lawful orders of this court and the consequent impairment of the judicial process of the United States.

May it be forgiven if this court makes use of the personal pronoun for the first time in a written opinion. I love the people of Alabama. I know that many of both races are troubled and, like Jonah of old are "angry even unto death" as the result of distortions of affairs within this State, practiced in the name of sensationalism. My prayer is that all of our people, in keeping with our finest traditions, will join in the resolution that law and order will be maintained, both in Tuscaloosa and in Huntsville.

 Here is "The Stand in the Schoolhouse Door," as recreated in the classic film Forrest Gump: