You had better think twice before asking an Alabama deputy to protect you from "violence" and "oppression"

Officer Chris Blevins (left) and yours truly after Blevins had finished
"protecting my constitutional rights"

The shooting of Walter Scott in North Charleston, South Carolina, has taught us--among many unfortunate lessons--that law enforcement officers can have only the slightest acquaintance with the truth.

One of the most comprehensive articles we've seen on the subject is from Daily Kos, titled "Breaking down 5 lies of Officer Michael Slager in the shooting death of Walter Scott."

I know from personal experience that Michael Slager hardly is the only liar among those who wear uniforms and badges--who can come at citizens with all sorts of weaponry.

Take, for example, Chris Blevins, the Shelby County, Alabama, deputy who entered my home on October 23, 2013, (without showing a warrant, stating he had a warrant, or stating his purpose for being there) and proceeded to knock me to a concrete floor three times and spray mace in my face. This was all over a purely civil matter--an alleged contempt of court involving a preliminary injunction that violated more than 200 years of First Amendment law.

There was not the slightest hint of a criminal allegation against me, but my encounter with Officer Blevins--inside my own home--left me with a swollen eye, a puffy face, and bruises, cuts and abrasions all over my arms, legs, and back. For good measure, Officer Jason Valenti threatened to break my arms while helping Blevins put handcuffs on me.

To summarize, Chris Blevins helped throw me in jail for five months, violating fundamental law that predates the end of the Revolutionary War. But guess who appears in a new video that promotes the Shelby County Sheriff's Office and its "Code of Ethics"? Yep, our guy Chris Blevins is front and center in a video that almost certainly was filmed in response to a string of police-misconduct cases that started last summer with the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

Blevins is the third "performer" in the video (which can be seen at the link near the end of this post), and with a look of utmost seriousness on his face, he touts his commitment to protect:

. . . the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder. And respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality, and justice.

The words that come from Blevins' mouth in the video would be laughable if they weren't so absurd. In fact, I would even laugh at them if I had not been on on the receiving end of his efforts to "protect" me.

What's the truth? Blevins applied oppression and intimidation; he did not protect me from them. Blevins brought violence and disorder to my previously peaceful life. Blevins joined an effort to take away my liberty and deprive me of equality and justice.

Chris Blevins, it seems clear, is cut from the same cloth as Michael Slager. They both lie to such an extent that they probably can no longer even recognize the truth.

Want proof? I would invite you look at the side-by-side photos of Blevins and me at the top of this post. My photo is evidence of what can happen to you when someone like Chris Blevins tries to "protect your constitutional rights."


Code of Ethics video for the Shelby County Sheriff's Office

Alabama GOPer Rob Riley never has denied under oath the allegations that led to his defamation lawsuit

Rob Riley

Alabama attorney and Republican operative Rob Riley never has denied under oath the allegations that prompted him and lobbyist Liberty Duke to file a defamation lawsuit against me, my wife, and the Legal Schnauzer blog, a review of court records shows.

Duke filed an affidavit denying the allegations, but a check of court records in Shelby County, Alabama, shows Riley did not file a similar affidavit. In fact, the record indicates Riley never made a sworn statement denying the allegations.

(Note: I remain under a permanent injunction, issued by retired Circuit Judge Claud Neilson, and that prevents me from providing specifics here about the allegations. The injunction is unlawful and not supported by facts because the information in question never was found to be defamatory at trial. That's because there was no trial. To make life a bit simpler, I will abide by Neilson's order. Anyone not familiar with specifics in the case can check out a New York Times story on the subject. Also, Liberty Duke's affidavit can be read at the end of this post, and it addresses the specifics.)

Speaking of the Times article, it states that both Riley and Duke denied the allegations in my reporting. But reporter Campbell Robertson doesn't bother to state that only Duke filed a sworn statement on the matter; Riley never did.

The Times is not alone in making this omission. A number of news outlets made the same mistake, including some whose reporting otherwise was excellent. Al.com, the largest news organization in the state, also reported that Riley denied the allegations--without noting that his denials never were under oath. A few Web sites reported that Riley and Duke filed affidavits, but that is not true--the court record shows no Riley affidavit was filed.

Bill Swatek

Reporting on the case was difficult because Riley and Duke sought an order for the file to be sealed, and Neilson granted it. That meant the public was in the dark about the case for several months before the seal was lifted--after the ACLU and others pointed out it was contrary to Alabama law. My wife and I never were lawfully served with the complaint, so even we did not know much about the case--and we were parties to it.

Why would Liberty Duke file an affidavit, while Rob Riley did not? Does it have something to do with Riley's status as a lawyer, while Duke is a mere lobbyist? To help answer that question, we turn to the ugly history of our old "friend," William E. Swatek, who surely stands as one of the sleaziest lawyers in Alabama history.

In the course of an employment case involving a former Pelham police officer, opposing counsel caught Swatek surreptitiously tape recording them during a break in depositions. Swatek stated under oath in a bar investigation that the recording was his client's idea, and he knew nothing about it. The actual recording produced evidence that showed Swatek was lying, that he actually had planted the recorder and determined how best to use it. Swatek faced a criminal trial on perjury charges and was acquitted--even though a transcript from the recording showed he clearly was guilty. (You can view the transcript at the end of this post.)

Swatek had his law license suspended for 60 days, but the acquittal on a felony criminal charge allowed him to avoid disbarment.

The bottom line? A lawyer, such as Rob Riley, can face serious repercussions for lying under oath--including the loss of his license to practice law. For a regular citizen, such as lobbyist Liberty Duke, the potential repercussions are much less severe. In fact, as we noted in an earlier post, perjury almost certainly is the easiest crime to get away with in the United States. It hardly ever is investigated, perpetrators are extremely unlikely to face prosecution, and we suspect the conviction of a regular citizen is likely to produce little in the way of serious punishment.

Liberty Duke

Did someone convince Liberty Duke that it was worth the risk for her to file a false affidavit in my case? Did Rob Riley fail to file a similar affidavit out of fear it could wind up leaving his law career in a shambles?

I will let readers come to their own conclusions about those questions. But this much is clear: The well-publicized "denials" in the Riley/Duke lawsuit are not all that strong, especially when you consider that the central character--Rob Riley--never denied the allegations under oath.

Liberty Duke Affidavit by Roger Shuler

Swatek Perjury Transcript by Roger Shuler

Will Poarch Creeks pay Mike Hubbard's legal expenses if he helps pave the way for exclusive gaming rights?

Mike Hubbard

The Poarch Creek Indians apparently have reached a deal to pay legal expenses for Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn) in exchange for his opposition to a bill that would end the tribe's virtual monopoly on gaming in the state, according to a political-newsletter report.

Inside Alabama Politics (IAP) also reports that a television show hosted by Montgomery-based journalist Bill Britt has been forced to change stations and time slots, apparently because Hubbard has warned potential advertisers to steer clear of the show.

Could Hubbard face legal repercussions for such actions? Well, if a quid pro quo ("something for something") deal is proven with the Poarch Creeks, it almost certainly would amount to a violation of federal bribery laws. Hubbard already faces a 23-count indictment for alleged violations of state ethics laws, hence the need for someone to pay escalating legal bills.

If Hubbard is proven to have scared away advertisers on Voice of Alabama Politics, Britt likely would have a strong civil case for tortious interference, which could result in significant damages. Britt has been perhaps Hubbard's most dogged and consistent critic, writing dozens of investigative pieces at Alabama Political Reporter about Hubbard's apparent inclination to use his political office for personal gain.

Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh has sponsored a bill that would address the state's budget shortfall by creating a lottery and casino gaming at several dog tracks. Have the Poarch Creeks promised to pay Hubbard for assurances that the Marsh bill does not pass in the House. If such a corrupt deal is proven, Hubbard's legal woes might just be starting. Reports IAP:

It’s widely rumored on Goat Hill that Hubbard has already negotiated a secret deal with PCI which would allow the tribe to continue its gambling monopoly in Alabama. That should come as no surprise, since Hubbard has long-standing financial ties to PCI. Another rumor circulating this week was the PCI have offered to pay Hubbard’s legal defense bill, for assurances Marsh’s bill doesn’t pass the House.

It was widely reported after the 2010 election cycle by publications such as Politico, the Birmingham News, AL.com and The Montgomery Independent that $550,000 in campaign contributions from PCI were laundered through the Republican State Leadership Committee in Washington into political action committees in Alabama controlled by Hubbard.

A corrupt deal with the Poarch Creeks could help cost Hubbard his freedom, which already is on shaky ground. A scheme to interfere with Bill Britt's business relationships could cost Hubbard big bucks. Reports IAP:

The political commentary show, Voice of Alabama Politics, has moved from its Sunday morning time on ABC, to Sunday evening on Alabama Cable Network.

“Speaker Hubbard has used his considerable political influence to warn people off of advertising on our show because he wants to muzzle anyone who will report or speak about his leadership,” host Bill Britt told his viewers this week.

The V can now be seen every Sunday at 6:30 PM on Charter Cable channel 80 as well as every Sunday morning on YouTube.

Hubbard's connections to the Poarch Creeks also are a part of this story, according to IAP:

Britt, a constant critic of Speaker Mike Hubbard, when asked by IAP if it was his understanding Hubbard directed the Poarch Creek Indians to stop advertising on The V, he responded, “that is what I was told as to why they pulled their advertising. Jim Barton (a principal with the lobbying firm Barton and Kinney LLC, who represent the PCI) delivered the message from Hubbard to the tribe is my understanding.”

Was Arrest In Legal Schnauzer Case "Presumptively Unreasonable" By U.S. Supreme Court Standard?

If Shelby County deputies arrested me inside my home without a warrant (or without a valid warrant)--and evidence we've seen so far suggests that was the case--they acted contrary to a landmark U.S. Supreme case on the subject of searches and seizures in private dwellings.

In the wake of unrest in Ferguson, Missouri; New York City; and other locales following the police-related deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner--plus the body-slamming assault on Indian grandfather Sureshbhai Patel in Madison, Alabama; the shooting of Walter Scott in South Carolina; and the unexplained death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore--citizens are questioning the actions of law-enforcement officials in public settings.

My experience shows that citizens also should take a critical look at officers when they are in a private setting--inside someone's home, perhaps yours.

We have addressed this issue several times in recent weeks. (See here and here.) But it is so important--especially in an age where law-enforcement officers seem to routinely violate the rights of citizens--that we would like to drive home a few more points.

Many Americans probably are familiar with language in the Fourth Amendment--that we are to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures." The nation's high court, in Payton v. New York 445 U.S. 573 (1980), found that warrantless entry into a private home automatically runs afoul of that notion. From the Payton opinion:

It is a "basic principle of Fourth Amendment law" that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. . . . It is one thing to seize without a warrant property resting in an open area or seizable by levy without an intrusion into privacy, and it is quite another thing to effect a warrantless seizure of property, even that owned by a corporation, situated on private premises to which access is not otherwise available for the seizing officer.

The court then turned its attention to situations where people, not things, are being seized:

As the late Judge Leventhal recognized, this distinction has equal force when the seizure of a person is involved. Writing on the constitutional issue now before us for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sitting en banc, Dorman v. United States, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 313, 435 F.2d 385 (1970), Judge Leventhal first noted the settled rule that warrantless arrests in public places are valid. He immediately recognized, however, that "a greater burden is placed . . . on officials who enter a home or dwelling without consent. Freedom from intrusion into the home or dwelling is the archetype of the privacy protection secured by the Fourth Amendment."

I was snatched from home, had pepper spray directed into my face, and hauled off for a five-month stay in jail (contrary to 200 years worth of First Amendment law) by an officer who never showed a warrant and never told me he had a warrant. To make matters even more dicey for law enforcement, prosecutor Tonya Willingham was ordered in court to turn over any warrants related to my case, and she said she didn't have any.

Tragically, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Sureshbhai Patel, Walter Scott, Freddie Gray, and others were not safe from police officers while in public places. I was "fortunate" to only be roughed up and not killed. But I was not safe from a police officer while I was inside my own home--and substantial evidence suggests Officer Chris Blevins had no lawful grounds to be there.

Alabama deputy Chris Blevins

It's undisputed that Judge Claud Neilson had no lawful grounds to issue the preliminary injunction that led to my arrest; such injunctions have been unlawful under First Amendment law that predates the end of the Revolutionary War.

We can't blame Officer Blevins for the actions of an incompetent or corrupt judge on the bench. But we can wonder why neither Officer Blevins nor Ms. Willingham could produce a warrant--when they had multiple opportunities to do so.

Blevins should know the findings in a landmark constitutional case such as Payton. And he certainly should know that Alabama statutory and case law prohibit an officer from entering a dwelling without stating his purpose for being there. (See Livingston v. Browder, 285 So. 2d 923, Ala. Civ. App., 1973). Video of my arrest, played in open court, shows that is exactly what Blevins did.

Blevins had every reason to know the constitutional protections of individuals inside their homes--and yet he plainly violated them.

Americans are right to be outraged by what happened in Ferguson, Missouri; New York City; Madison, Alabama; North Charleston, South Carolina; Baltimore; and so on. But they would be wrong to think that unlawful police force cannot be used against them. I know, for a fact, that it can be used against you--even when you are inside your own home.

We invite you take a look at the photo of Chris Blevins above. That's the face of police thuggery in Alabama.

Study indicates I am the only journalist in U.S. history to be jailed via an unlawful preliminary injunction

The Newseum Institute's First Amendment Center
at Vanderbilt University.

I apparently am the only journalist in American history to be incarcerated because of an unlawful preliminary injunction in a case of alleged defamation, according to an academic research study that we recently discovered.

Looked at another way, retired Alabama Circuit Judge Claud Neilson, who ordered my incarceration on the request of Republican political operatives Rob Riley and Liberty Duke, made the most grossly unlawful First Amendment ruling in our nation's history.

Looked at a third way, one might say that Rob Riley (an attorney) is the most ignorant lawyer on matters of free speech that our country ever has produced.

How extraordinary is all of this? I'm probably the only person in American history, journalist or non-journalist, to be incarcerated under such circumstances. And it happened in Alabama. That's certainly something in which our state can take pride. Perhaps the state needs a new motto--"Alabama: Nobody tramples constitutional rights like we do."

My incarceration, it turns out, is even more historic than I thought it was. For that discovery, we owe thanks to Gordon T. Belt, former library manager at the Newseum Institute's First Amendment Center, a nonpartisan think tank housed at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, and in Washington, D.C., Belt currently is director of public services for the Tennessee State Library and Archives and editor/publisher of a blog called The Posterity Project.

While at the First Amendment Center, Belt wrote an article titled "Jailed and subpoenaed journalists--a historical timeline." It shines new light on the unprecedented nature of my incarceration, and we will examine the article closely in a moment.

We already have shown that I am the only journalist since 1900 to be jailed because of a preliminary injunction that runs contrary to more than 200 years of First Amendment law. That post was based on a 2013 report from Fox News, which showed that only two journalists had been jailed from 1900 to 2006 on purely civil matters, and one of the cases involved a defamation claim that actress Judy Garland brought against a New York City gossip columnist. In both of those cases, reporters were jailed for failing to disclose sources during depositions.

My incarceration, which started on October 23, 2013, and ended on March 26, 2014 (155 days). is the only one in the 2000s involving civil matters. Adding me to the two journalists jailed over civil matters in the 1900s, that adds up to three such incarcerations in the past 115 years.

But my case becomes even more extraordinary when you consider it involved a preliminary injunction, which case law predating the end of the Revolutionary War shows is an unlawful prior restraint in a defamation case. That principle is most famously stated in a 1931 U.S. Supreme Court case styled Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).

Near is considered the "foundational case" on prior restraints in U.S. law, meaning most lawyers are intelligent enough not to bring cases that would run afoul of it--and most judges are competent enough not to issue rulings that run contrary to it. But in Rob Riley and Claud Neilson, I obviously was dealing with a pair of legal "scholars" who are too dense or too corrupt (or both) to bother abiding by one of the most famous cases in First Amendment jurisprudence.

Claud Neilson

Thanks to Gordon Belt, we now know that Riley and Neilson probably are the only lawyer/judge combo in U.S. history to cause a journalist to be incarcerated for "violating" a preliminary injunction that could not lawfully be granted in the first place. The University of Virginia's Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression recently "honored" Neilson with a Muzzles Award for his butchery of my case.

To make matters even more astounding, I never had a lawful opportunity to challenge the preliminary injunction. I was given less than 24 hours notice of a hearing on the matter, which is way short of the notice required by Alabama law. But contrary to numerous reports on my case, I did not ignore a court order; I filed a Motion to Quash service because Alabama deputy Mike DeHart handed me the complaint during a traffic stop that clearly violated the Fourth Amendment.

I was awaiting a ruling on that motion--and preparing to challenge the injunction as unconstitutional--when Deputy Chris Blevins entered our home, without showing a warrant or stating he had one, and arrested me. The arrest came only after Blevins had knocked me to a concrete floor three times and directed pepper spray into my face, violating state and federal law because he did not state his purpose for being on our property, never showed he had lawful authority for being there, and used excessive force to execute an arrest that was unlawful on its face.

As for Gordon Belt's article on jailed and subpoenaed journalists, it starts in 1735 and runs through 2006. The oldest case involves a German-immigrant publisher named John Peter Zenger, who defied a government order to reveal his sources for criticism of New York's Colonial Governor, William Cosby. One of the most recent cases involved reporting on the BALCO investigation, a federal probe of alleged steroid use by athletes, including former San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds.

Belt covers roughly 60 cases, over four centuries, and reports none like my case--none where a journalist was jailed because of a preliminary injunction in a defamation case, violating clear First Amendment precedent.

A defamation lawsuit, of course, does not have to involve a journalist. A regular citizen can file a lawsuit alleging that another regular citizen committed libel (written word) or slander (spoken word) against him. Has an American judge ever thrown a non-journalist citizen in the slammer for violating an unlawful preliminary injunction? In other words, has an American judge ever punished a non-journalist citizen with incarceration for publishing (either orally or in writing) material that had yet to be found defamatory at trial?

My research has not turned up such a case, and I find it unlikely that one exists. After all, most citizen v. citizen defamation cases probably involve material that was published in relative isolation. Since the non-journalist likely does not publish on a regular or ongoing basis, it's hard to imagine any judge punishing him without a trial on the merits. Since the lawful remedy for proven defamation is money damages, it's unlikely even the most incompetent judge would resort to the unlawful remedy of incarceration, without a trial.

Research indicates only one citizen in American history has been victimized by such a flagrantly unlawful ruling--and that citizen is me.

Does Poarch Creek plan to fix Alabama budget in exchange for gaming rights amount to bribery?

Wind Creek Casino in
Wetumpka, Alabama

The Poarch Band of Creek Indians has offered to fill Alabama's $250-million budget shortfall in exchange for exclusive gaming rights in the state.

If that sounds like a "something for something" deal--known under the law as a quid pro quo--that's because it probably is. If you recognize a quid pro quo as the central element in federal bribery laws, that's because it is.

Does that mean tribal officials and state legislators could be engaging in bribery if the Poarch Creek plan moves forward? Does that mean officials on both sides of the deal could find themselves facing prosecution and lengthy federal prison terms?

Our review of applicable statutes and case law indicate the likely answer to both questions is yes.

Like many Alabamians, our knowledge of federal bribery statutes grew from the 2006 prosecution of former governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, which ended with convictions that were wildly contrary to law. The issue took center stage again in 2011 with the federal bingo/vote-buying prosecution, which netted a handful of guilty pleas and zero convictions.

In both of those cases, the defendants mostly were Democrats, with Republicans pushing for convictions--when they weren't touting their own lofty ethical standards. Now, it's Republicans who are pushing various gaming initiatives as possible solutions to Alabama's budget woes.

Wouldn't it be ironic if Republicans--who for years have claimed to be morally opposed to gambling--wound up in the federal cross hairs over a proposal based on . . . gambling? It could happen because the Poarch Creek proposal, on its face, raises serious questions about bribery.

To be sure, federal bribery law is a complex topic, covered by three primary statutes and decades of case law designed to provide clarity on various elements of the crime. On top of that, federal statutes tend to be written in such a way that even experts have a hard time figuring out what they mean.

While the law is murky, we think it's clear that Creek officials and Alabama legislators could be walking into a brier patch--with no clear exit signs.

The applicable statute in this case probably would be 18 U.S.C. 666 (federal funds bribery), which was at the heart of the Siegelman prosecution. The guiding case law in that instance was McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991), which addresses bribery in the context of a campaign contribution.

Based on the limited information we have at the moment about the Poarch Creek proposal, campaign contributions do not appear to be in play. That means another case, Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992), likely would play a key role. An article on the 666 statute at Rutgers Law Review states that Evans is the primary case cited in instances that do not involve campaign contributions.

Evans revolved around a Georgia county commissioner who accepted $7,000 in cash from an undercover FBI agent posing as a real-estate developer who wanted land rezoned for a residential development. The commissioner was convicted of extortion under the Hobbs Act, and courts have found that the same principles apply to bribery cases under 666.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the convictions in Evans, stating (citations omitted):

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, as we must in light of the verdict . . . , we assume that the jury found that petitioner accepted the cash knowing that it was intended to ensure that he would vote in favor of the rezoning application and that he would try to persuade his fellow commissioners to do likewise. Thus, although petitioner did not initiate the transaction, his acceptance of the bribe constituted an implicit promise to use his official position to serve the interests of the bribegiver.

In affirming petitioner's conviction, the Court of Appeals noted that the instruction did not require the jury to find that petitioner had demanded or requested the money, or that he had conditioned the performance of any official act upon its receipt. . . . The Court of Appeals held, however, that "passive acceptance of a benefit by a public official is sufficient to form the basis of a Hobbs Act violation if the official knows that he is being offered the payment in exchange for a specific requested exercise of his official power. The official need not take any specific action to induce the offering of the benefit."

Once the high court established that a public official need not initiate the transaction, it then shined additional light on the elements of bribery:

We reject petitioner's criticism of the instruction, and conclude that it satisfies the quid pro quo requirement of [McCormick], because the offense is completed at the time when the public official receives a payment in return for his agreement to perform specific official acts; fulfillment of the quid pro quo is not an element of the offense. We also reject petitioner's contention that an affirmative step is an element of the offense of extortion "under color of official right" and need be included in the instruction. As we explained above, our construction of the statute is informed by the common-law tradition from which the term of art was drawn and understood. We hold today that the Government need only show that a public official has obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts.

Evans teaches three key points: (1) A public official need not initiate the questionable transaction; (2) The bribery offense is completed when the official receives payment in exchange for his agreement to perform specific official acts; and (3) The prosecution need only show that the official received payment to which he was not entitled, and he knew the payment was made in return for official acts.

Much remains unknown about the Poarch Creek proposal. But published reports indicate the following:

* Poarch Creek officials, unhappy with a plan that would expand gaming at non-Indian facilities, initiated discussions with unknown legislators;

* Tribe officials made it clear they could cover the state-budget deficit of about $250 million;

* Tribe officials want exclusive gaming rights in exchange for the $250 million.

Does that mean multiple parties are going down for bribery? It's much too early to say that. For one thing, we see no signs that a payment has been made, so a possible offense likely has not been completed. For another, the Obama administration has such a dismal record on justice issues that it's questionable whether the DOJ would bat an eye at even a blatant case of bribery in Alabama.

But this much seems clear: Based on a clear reading of Evans, and published reports about the Poarch Creek proposal, parties on both sides are playing with fire--and the evidence of potential bribery already appears to be stronger than was present in the Siegelman and bingo cases.

Walter Scott vs. Ted Rollins: Is race a factor in courts' handling of child-support cases in the Deep South?

The shooting of Walter Scott in South Carolina

Should black Americans feel confident that they can go to court and receive the "equal protection under the law" that the Fourteenth Amendment supposedly guarantees them? Let's look at two child-support cases in South Carolina--one involving a black man, the other involving a white man--and you will see that the answer is a resounding no.

The black man is Walter Scott, of North Charleston, South Carolina. That's the same Walter Scott who was unarmed and fleeing when a police officer fatally shot him in the back on April 4. The white man is Ted Rollins, of Greenville, South Carolina. He is the former CEO of Campus Crest Communities, a company that received roughly $1 billion in support from Wall Street investors before Rollins was forced out last November as the company stock floundered amid signs of mismanagement.

Rollins belongs to one of the nation's wealthiest families, the folks behind Atlanta-based Rollins Inc., the umbrella company for Orkin Pest Control and other highly profitable enterprises.

Where does child support enter the picture? According to published reports, Scott was behind on child-support payments when Officer Michael Slager stopped his vehicle in traffic because of an inoperable brake light. Family members say Scott probably ran because he feared Slager would conduct a records check, see the child-support arrearage, and take him to jail. Here is how one report described Scott's likely state of mind when Slager pulled him over:

[Scott] had been arrested multiple times in the past on contempt-of-court charges stemming from child-support obligations he had missed, and he knew all too well the criminal repercussions he was facing: arrest; a few rushed minutes in court, at best, without a lawyer and without the presumption of innocence (because it would be a civil proceeding); jail time; and another mark against him on his permanent record.

How much was Walter Scott behind on child support? Accounts vary, but Associated Press reported that he was behind by at least $7,500, although no bench warrant was set for his arrest. NBC reported that Scott owed $18,104, and a bench warrant had been issued in January 2013.

Whichever set of numbers you go with, Walter Scott was a paragon of fatherly virtue compared to Ted Rollins. In December 2011, we wrote a post titled "Ted Rollins, CEO of Campus Crest Communities, is a deadbeat dad." That's because Rollins had been almost three years behind on payments to his ex wife, Birmingham resident Sherry Carroll Rollins, and their daughters--Sarah and Emma Rollins.

Court documents and interviews with Sherry Rollins indicate Ted Rollins still is behind by a six-figure sum, and we see no sign that ever will be paid. We also see no sign that a South Carolina court, which ordered the payments, will make Ted Rollins pay.

How far behind was Ted Rollins in his court-ordered payments? That question is not easy to answer because Rollins v. Rollins has a convoluted and unsavory history, with Ted Rollins receiving one unlawful favor after another. In 2001, Sherry Rollins initiated divorce proceedings in Greenville, South Carolina, where the family lived; adultery was among the grounds cited in her divorce complaint.

Ted Rollins, former CEO of
Campus Crest Communities

Jurisdiction was established in South Carolina, and the case was litigated there for three years, with Ted Rollins ordered to pay the mortgage and insurance on the martial home for Ms. Rollins and the children to live. When Ted Rollins failed to make the house-related payments, Ms. Rollins and the children were forced out of their home and fled to Alabama, where she had family.

Ted Rollins then proceeded to sue Sherry Rollins for divorce in Shelby County, Alabama, and Judge D. Al Crowson took the case, even though black-letter law (see Wesson v. Wesson, 628 So. 2d 953, Ala. Civ. App., 1993) says that cannot happen when lawful jurisdiction has been established elsewhere.

Here is what court records, from two states, show about Ted Rollins' arrearage on child support, alimony, and attorney fees:

* In February 2002, a South Carolina court ordered Ted Rollins to pay $4,500 a month during the pendency of the divorce case;

* A contempt order issued in October 2002, found that Ted Rollins was behind in court-ordered payments by $70,410--$50,000 in attorney fees and $20,410 in family support.

* From the date of the contempt order to the final order of divorce in Alabama (on July 18, 2005), was 33 months. If you multiply $4,500 over 33 months, you find that Ted Rollins owed $148,500. When you add the $70,140 arrearage that apparently never was paid, you get a total of $218,910.

* After she and her children were forced to flee to Alabama, Sherry Rollins states that she received a $100,000 payment from the state of South Carolina. Why that figure? She has no idea.

* What about the remaining $118,910 that a South Carolina court ordered Ted Rollins to pay? Court records show it has never been paid, suggesting Ted Rollins still is a deadbeat dad, to the tune of more than $100,000.

Let's return to our comparison of Walter Scott and Ted Rollins. Scott apparently owed somewhere between $7,500 and $18,140 in child support. He had been arrested and sent to jail multiple times--three times, according to this report--on contempt-of-court charges for failure to pay child support.

For the purposes of this post, let's pick a mid-range on the Scott numbers and assume he owed $12,820. After being under a contempt order for almost three years, Ted Rollins owed $218,910. That is roughly 17 times the amount Scott owed.

Was Ted Rollins jailed multiple times for failure to pay child support? No. In fact, we see no record that Rollins was jailed even once for failure to make court-ordered payments over a 33-month period. Public records indicate Rollins still owes more than $118,000. Is anyone going to make him pay it or send him to jail if he doesn't? We see no sign of it.

Did Walter Scott have reason to be fearful about what likely would happen to him the day Officer Slager pulled him over? An article titled "Why was Walter Scott running?" provides insight:

Not only did Scott's own experience suggest that arrest and jail time can result from child-support debt, but the statistics tell us the likelihood is high that a black, working-class man like him would get thrown in jail for such a reason.

In South Carolina, at least one in eight people in jail are there on contempt-of-court charges related to late or unpaid child-support orders. Nationally, as many as 50,000 parents may be in jail on those charges, though the exact number is uncertain, mainly because "contempt of court" is a general charge that does not only apply to child support cases. The best available data suggest that a majority of these jailed parents are black fathers.

"On top of all the other things that go through your head as a black man in an encounter with a police officer," says Jacquelyn Boggess, the Co-Director of the Center for Family Policy and Practice and an expert on child support, "you have to be thinking about your child support debt, because that's one of the big reasons that black men spend time in jail."

Ted Rollins owed roughly 17 times what Walter Scott owed in payments related to child support--and the orders came from the same state, South Carolina. (You can view the contempt order for Rollins at the end of this post.) Public records indicate Rollins still owes more than $118,000 in such payments, and no one seems interested in making him pay it.

Is Ted Rollins worried about being pulled over for a broken brake light? Is Ted Rollins worried that a police officer will tase him? Is Ted Rollins concerned, in the least, that he will land in jail for failure to pay child support? Does Ted Rollins stay awake at night, worried that a cop will fatally shoot him in the back?

We can't read Ted Rollins' mind, but our guess is that the answer to all of those questions is no.

Does Rollins plan to pay the six-figure sum he apparently still owes? The answer to that question also appears to be no.

Were Walter Scott and Ted Rollins treated equally under the law? We think you can reach your own conclusions on that question. It isn't a close call.

Ted Rollins Contempt Order by Roger Shuler

Matt Pitt trial hides nasty story of racism and bullying from Alabama's Paul Bryant Jr. and Bob Riley factions

Matt Pit

The trial of youth evangelist Matt Pitt is behind us--and it ended, appropriately, with a finding of not guilty. One is left asking: Why did prosecutors in Jefferson County, Alabama, bring such a weak case at all.

We have the answer to that question, and it means "the rest of the story" on the Pitt trial is not behind us. In fact, sources tell Legal Schnauzer, the Matt Pitt trial was not about the law at all--it was clear from the outset that he did not impersonate a peace officer. But Pitt did anger powerful elitist forces in Alabama by resisting their efforts to more or less take over The Basement ministry he founded. That largely is the reason Pitt has been beset by legal problems for most of the past two years.

We also now have added evidence that these thuggish forces will subvert the "justice system" to attack those who refuse to do their bidding. That's exactly what happened to Matt Pitt, that's the ugly story behind his prosecution.

Who makes up these forces? They are individuals aligned with University of Alabama trustee Paul Bryant Jr. and former Governor Bob Riley. They appear to have race-based attitudes that are right out of the 1930s. And when someone fails to abide their demands, they quickly turn into bullies. Anyone familiar with how the Bryant and Riley factions tend to operate should not be surprised by any of this.

Why would Bryant Jr. and Riley try to wrest control of The Basement ministry from its founder? We have a theory on that, and we will touch on it in a moment.

First, let's return to our post from yesterday, showing that Tuscaloosa-based Bryant Bank (of which Bryant Jr. is chairman) has a dismal record when it comes to providing mortgage loans to Alabama's large black population. As for Riley, he has longstanding ties to the Grand Lodge of Free and  Accepted Masons of Alabama, a secret society that--at last report--was governed by documents that forbid membership to "negroes or other inferior races."

Former Birmingham radio hosts Russ and Dee Fine were fired from their on-air gig not long after reporting on Riley's ties to a Masons sect that appears to have racist origins. The axing of Russ and Dee Fine does not surprise me, given that overwhelming evidence indicates Riley acolytes caused me to be fired at UAB for reporting on this blog about the unlawful acts of wife-beating federal judge Mark Fuller in the Don Siegelman case.

(Ironically, Russ Fine also works at UAB, as a tenured professor of medicine. Because of the safety net tenure provides, Fine was safe in his full-time job. That meant the Rileys could only cheat him out of his part-time radio gig.)

Many Alabamians undoubtedly remember Bob Riley's Mafioso-like threat to anyone who might "get too close to the families," a performance that was caught on video in 2010. (See video at the end of this post.)

Bob Riley

Matt Pitt certainly knows what it's like to run afoul of the Bryant and Riley thugs. As we reported in a post last week, just as the Pitt case was going to a jury:

Pitt's troubles with law enforcement began when he refused to do the bidding of conservative political/corporate forces who wanted to use his ministry (The Basement) for their own purposes, sources tell Legal Schnauzer. Those forces allegedly include former Governor Bob Riley and University of Alabama trustee Paul Bryant Jr. Our sources say Pitt never would have been prosecuted if he had allowed his ministry to be used for the political and financial interests of others. They also say Pitt has made enemies from his desire to build a ministry that reaches across racial boundaries.


What about specifics? We provided them:

What led to Matt Pitt's legal problems? Our sources point to three key events:

(1) Political figures, apparently with ties to Riley and Bryant, encouraged Pitt to use The Basement to endorse a slate of white, conservative political candidates;

(2) Business figures encouraged Pitt to do the ministry's banking with Bryant Bank;

(3) Pitt and a few associates were invited to attend a University of Alabama football game and sit in Bryant's private box. During the game, a Bryant crony was heard to say, after looking out over the packed stadium, "Can you imagine this many people pay us to watch n-----s beat up on each other?"

Pitt rebuffed the first two entreaties and was so disgusted by No. 3 that he decided to have nothing to do with Paul Bryant Jr. or his bank.

Before long, Pitt was in trouble with the law because of an honorary sheriff's badge that he never asked for--Jefferson County Sheriff Mike Hale, an ally of Rob Riley (the former governor's son), gave it to him.

Imagine being a devoted University of Alabama football fan and going to Bryant-Denny Stadium to sit in the regular seats and watch your beloved Crimson Tide play. Then, imagine that up in Paul Bryant Jr.'s box, one of his cronies is making a statement like this:

Can you imagine this many people pay us to watch n-----s beat up on each other?

Would that make you want to vomit, at least a little bit? Would you want to vomit a bit more when you learn that Bryant Bank pretty much excludes blacks from its lending practices? Would Bob Riley's ties to a racist secret society--and his threatening words in the video below--make you want to vomit in projectile fashion?

Paul Bryant Jr.

Why would individuals connected to Bryant and Riley want to take advantage of The Basement, which has been described as "the fastest growing youth movement in the country"--at least until Alabama law enforcement started throwing Pitt in jail and bringing bogus impersonation charges at him? The answer to that question, I suspect, can be found by checking out the roster of judges in the Jefferson County Courthouse.

While Republicans have come to dominate statewide offices in Alabama, that does not apply in the state's largest metropolitan area. Democrats have dominated Jeffco judicial races lately, and those Democrats increasingly have dark skin. In fact, the presiding judge in the county, Houston Brown, is black. In recent years, a number of well-funded Republicans, with support from elite law firms, have lost to relatively unknown black, Democratic challengers.

That probably displeases Bryant, and it almost certainly displeases Riley--whose son heads up the white suburban Riley Jackson law firm, and whose son-in-law is a partner at the corporate, right-leaning Bradley Arant. In the 2012 elections, the Riley Jackson firm provided financial support to white Republican Pat Thetford, who lost by about 17,000 votes to black Democrat Carole Smitherman. In fact, Democrats won every judicial race on the ballot--by margins ranging from roughly 5 percent to almost 14 percent. In other words, none of the races was particularly close, and judges in Alabama's most populous county increasingly have dark skin.

How can conservative forces fight such an unpleasant trend? Why, by intruding on Matt Pitt's ministry and trying to convince its thousands of potential young voters to support white, conservative candidates--even though Pitt has stated a number of times that he intends to build an inclusive ministry that crosses racial, denominational, and political boundaries.

Has Alabama come a long way from the days when Martin Luther King wrote his Letter From the Birmingham Jail? The answer is yes. With people like Bryant Jr. and Bob Riley still in positions of influence, does Alabama have a long way to go? The answer to that question also is yes.

How far does Alabama have to go? To help answer that question, we invite you to view the video of Bob Riley below, and then read Letter From the Birmingham Jail, below that. Are Bob Riley, and people like him, the ones to move Alabama forward--to help the state, and Birmingham, fulfill their  massive untapped potential? I think the answer, to most reasonably objective minds, will be clear.

MLK--Letter From Birmingham Jail

Alabama deputy Chris Blevins, who beat me up in my own home, is featured in video about "code of ethics"

Alabama Deputy Chris Blevins

The Alabama deputy who beat me up inside my own home, apparently without a warrant and without even stating his purpose for being there, is featured in a video touting his department's "ethics."

We're not making this up.

Chris Blevins, of the Shelby County Sheriff's Office, entered the garage underneath our house on October 23, 2013, and knocked me to a concrete floor three times and directed pepper spray into my face--all without showing a warrant, stating he had a warrant, or stating his purpose for being on our property. This all resulted from my alleged civil contempt, having nothing to with a crime.

The same Chris Blevins is featured in a "Code of Ethics" video, which was posted on April 8 at the department's Facebook page. The video can be viewed at the end of this post.

We already have shown that Blevins' actions inside our home run contrary to both state and federal law. We also have shown that the resisting-arrest complaint he brought against me is not supported by law or fact.

But now we have Chris Blevins, in living color, touting his commitment to ethical police work. We're guessing that the Shelby County department produced the video in response to the devastating publicity law enforcement has been receiving for a string of misconduct cases, beginning last summer with the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

That an Alabama sheriff's office would choose Chris Blevins to appear in a video about ethics . . . well, it would be comical if the issues involved weren't so serious. The inclusion of Blevins in the video also hints that law enforcement, at least in Alabama, still does not "get it" about the anger many citizens now feel toward rogue police officers. That anger has been on clear display in Baltimore over the past two days.

The Alabama video features several members of the Shelby County department reading sections of the Code of Ethics they supposedly live by. Blevins is the third "performer" in the video, and with a look of utmost seriousness on his face, he touts his commitment to protect:

. . . the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder. And respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality, and justice.

You can see Blevins' name, right there above his right shirt pocket. After making his solemn statement, Blevins knocks on a door. Given my experience with him, I expect him to knock down the door and wreak havoc on the inhabitants--all without the benefit of a warrant or a statement about his purpose for being there. That seems to be his way of expressing respect for  "liberty, equality, and justice."

To those who followed my arrest and incarceration--not to mention the recent shooting of Walter Scott in South Carolina and other incidents of "cops gone wild"--this might seem like a belated April Fool's post or something pulled from The Onion.

But it's for real, and you can check out Chris Blevins' straight-faced performance at the link below. Some of his colleagues in the video almost have smiles on their faces, as if they know the video is a crock, from beginning to end. But not Blevins--he appears to be deadly serious.

I doubt Blevins is capable of grasping the irony in his statement above. In my case, the public record shows I've been peaceful for all 58 years of my life--until Blevins unlawfully entered my home and interjected "violence and disorder," the very things he's supposed to protect me against.

How nutty is this video? You can check it out at the link below:


Code of Ethics video for Shelby County Sheriff's Office

Second member of AG's staff is forced out amid charges of conspiring to obstruct Mike Hubbard probe

Luther Strange

A second high-profile employee has been forced out of the Alabama Attorney Genera's Office amid allegations of trying to derail a grand-jury investigation of House Speaker Mike Hubbard.

Investigator Howard "Gene" Sisson has been terminated for allegedly conspiring with former Deputy AG Sonny Reagan to obstruct the Hubbard investigation, according to a report from Bill Britt at Alabama Political Reporter. Reagan was forced to step down last December for allegedly leaking grand-jury information.

Both Reagan and Sisson played major roles in the raids that closed non-Indian gaming facilities around the state, including VictoryLand in Macon County and Center Stage Alabama near Dothan. The Reagan and Sisson exits raise a number of troubling questions about both the gambling raids and the Hubbard investigation.

From Bill Britt's report about the latest member of AG Luther Strange's staff to be shown the door:

Howard “Gene” Sisson, an investigator with the Attorney General’s Office since 2007, has been removed from his position after it was believed he conspired with Reagan to produce false allegations against Special Prosecutions Division Chief Miles Mathew Hart. The Special Prosecutions Division is leading the felony prosecution of Speaker Mike Hubbard, (R-Auburn), who has been charged by the State with 23 felony counts of public corruption.

Sisson, who has worked closely with Reagan on gambling raids and prosecutions, was reportedly involved in a complex scheme to discredit Hart in an effort to allow Hubbard to escape justice, according to those with background knowledge.

If Sisson was involved in a "complex scheme," which also could be known as a "conspiracy," that indicates a number of other individuals were involved. Our first obvious question: Who are those individuals, and will law enforcement pursue them?

Britt hints at those who might have been involved with Reagan and Sisson:

. . . court documents show, that Reagan shared attorney’s with Rep. Barry Moore, who was accused of lying to the Hubbard Grand Jury and also shared an an attorney with Hubbard. Reagan shared attorney Bill Baxley who represented Moore, and Rob Riley who represented Hubbard all simultaneously. Rob Riley, son of former Gov. Bob Riley, also represented his father and sister, Minda Riley Campbell, before the Grand Jury investigation of Hubbard.

This matrix of overlapping attorneys seems to have allowed a free flow of secret information between Hubbard and individuals who have been named as material witnesses in the Hubbard indictments.

In what increasingly appears to be a desperate attempt to avoid a criminal trial, Hubbard has offered memos by Reagan, to show prosecutorial misconduct. Even though it has been revealed in court documents that Reagan was leaking Grand Jury information to Hubbard and the Riley’s as early as 2013.

Reagan and Sisson have been the fall guys so far, inside the AG's office, but it appears one or both of them were working with Baxley and Rob Riley on the outside. Reports Britt:

A personnel complaint filed by Reagan against Hart, is seen as a coordinated effort to paint Hart as a rogue prosecutor and perhaps show prosecutorial misconduct.

However, court records show that Baxley advised Reagan to write the report and later he had Moore subpoena the same report, in an effort to show untoward actions on Hart’s part. Here is a case of an attorney advising one client to make accusations against a prosecutor and the other to ask for the records to make the documents public in an effort to claim misconduct. . . .

Reagan's bogus complaint is believed to have been written with the assistance of Riley and/or Baxley.

This is an evolving story, with a lot of unknowns between the cracks. But a number of clear questions come to mind:

* Will VictoryLand and Center Stage Alabama have their property returned and be set for reopening, given that Reagan and Sisson have seen their credibility torn asunder? A ruling in Victoryland's forfeiture case was expected last November. The ruling now is roughly six months late, and one can only wonder why it takes so long to make a relatively uncomplicated decision, especially given that Reagan did not present a witness to counter Victoryland's expert testimony. Do efforts to obstruct justice lead to Alabama judges, including the justices of the Alabama Supreme Court?

* Will leaks and other efforts to hinder the Hubbard investigation lead to more than just terminations and forced resignations? These appear to be cases of obstruction that can be prosecuted under criminal law. Will that happen, and what agency (state, federal, both?) will lead the way?

* Will attention eventually shift from members of the AG's staff (Reagan and Sisson) to those with whom they apparently conspired on the outside? If the spotlight finally shines on Baxley and Rob Riley, does that mean two prominent members of the Alabama legal community will face criminal charges and possible disbarment?