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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that a coincidence? We doubt it.

Bentley FCPA Summary 1A 2015 by John Gunn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Riley 

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

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

Butts 

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

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

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

Lembke

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

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

Steve Feaga

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Charlie Brown would say, "Good grief."

Grimes Letter to Holder by Roger Shuler

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danielle and Glen Rollins
(From Forbes)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike Hubbard
(From USA Today)

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

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

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

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

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

* Will Judge Walker approve the Motion to Withdraw?

* If he does, who will represent Hubbard?

* Will the trial be delayed once again?

* Can Hubbard afford to hire another attorney?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. Mark White
(From al.com)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will they prove right about that?

Gov. Robert Bentley's affair with Rebekah Caldwell Mason might start costing Alabama taxpayers big bucks--and a public-corruption trial could be looming

Robert Bentley and Rebekah Caldwell Mason

Is Governor Robert Bentley's extramarital affair with aide Rebekah Caldwell Mason about to start hitting Alabama taxpayers in the pocketbook? Are national press and political organizations about to start paying attention? Is Bentley determined to prove that House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn), by comparison, is a noble public servant? Could Bentley and Mason be heading down the same highway Hubbard is following--the one that leads to "Indictment City"?

The answer to all four questions appears to be yes, and if that holds up, 2016 could find Montgomery awash in even more corruption than usual.

The Bentley/Mason affair, which ended the governor's 50-year marriage to First Lady Dianne Bentley, took on new dimensions recently when State Auditor Jim Zeigler alleged the governor is renovating the state's dilapidated Gulf Coast mansion only because he lost ownership of two personal beach homes in the divorce. From a report at al.com:

Zeigler, who has publicly criticized the governor on numerous policy issues this year, claims the governor is taking advantage of state money to build a personal home after he lost ownership of his personal beach homes in his September divorce.

"The governor now has a personal need for a Gulf place, so only now is he restoring the governor's mansion at the gulf," Zeigler wrote in a statement.

The two-story, 7,500-square-foot gubernatorial mansion in Baldwin County is receiving a face lift – estimated at $1.5 million to $1.8 million – after sitting boarded up since Hurricane Danny in 1997.

Bentley countered by saying funds from the BP oil-spill settlement will be used to cover costs of the renovation, that no taxpayer funds will be used. But didn't the BP funds go into state coffers? Doesn't that mean state dollars are, in fact, being used to renovate the gulf mansion? Couldn't a reasonable citizen say, "This money should be used for a more important purpose"? And isn't the timing of the renovation, coming so soon after Bentley's divorce settlement, more than a little curious?

Such questions are starting to reach beyond the borders of Alabama. James DeVinnie wrote a scorching article at occupydemocrats.com, titled "Alabama Governor Robbed Citizens Of Millions In Oil Spill Money To Rebuild Beachfront Mansion." Ouch, that headline stings--and the story itself does not let up. Writes DeVinnie:

Showing a reckless disregard for the needs of his state’s people in favor of corporate bosses and his own fancy, Alabama’s Republican governor Robert Bentley is renovating an abandoned 7,500 square-foot governor’s mansion with money left over from 2010 BP oil spill settlement. An estimated $1.5 to $1.8 million of grants from the settlement in the Deepwater Horizon spill will be used to cover the costs of refurbishment. Such a blatant pillaging of funds intended to serve the public good for extravagant private use is downright shameful, especially given that the local communities, industry, and environment along Alabama’s Gulf Coast continue to suffer the effects of the enormous oil spill.

The mansion in question, located on the beachfront in Gulf Shores, AL, was built in the era of famed racist governor George Wallace, and served as a secondary governor’s residence until it was damaged by Hurricane Danny in 1997 and subsequently abandoned. Bentley has claimed that his decision to renovate the property has nothing to do with the fact that he recently lost two nearby beachfront properties in a messy divorce. That divorce was the result of widely credible rumors of an affair between Bentley – who hypocritically couches his opposition to abortion and gay marriage as a belief in “family values” – and one of his staffers.

We must quibble with DeVinnie's characterization of the divorce as "the result of widely credible rumors of an affair." In fact, we broke the story of an affair, based on information from multiple knowledgeable sources--and other state news outlets picked up on it. In other words, the story grew from journalism, not rumors.

Other than that, DeVinnie appropriately nails Bentley for what might be called "gross gubernatorial negligence":

The fact that almost two million dollars of funds meant to serve the people of Alabama affected by corporate negligence are instead going to fund more trickle-down extravagance for the elite has justifiably aroused the ire of many Alabamians, especially as it comes on the heels of the state’s dubious decision in 2013 to use BP settlement money meant for environmental cleanup to build an $85 million hotel and conference center on a state beach property.

For example, in October, the state shut down 30 DMV offices, all in rural majority-black areas, and after an enormous backlash agreed to keep them open only one day per year. The NAACP is suing the state for the closures – which were rationalized by Bentley as a response to the budget crisis – arguing that they serve to suppress the votes of blacks by limiting access to state-issued voter ID cards that are necessary to vote in the state following last year’s gutting of the Voting Rights Act. In another move this year, some 15 Alabama state parks are facing closure due to the budget crisis, and lawmakers are considering serious cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and other social services to shore up Montgomery’s finances.

As for Mike Hubbard, he is facing a 23-count indictment alleging he used his public office for private gain. If Zeigler's allegations are on target, it appears Bentley used public funds for private gain--or at least for personal enjoyment. Is the governor, once seen as a distinguished man of medicine, much different from the money grubbing Hubbard? It doesn't look like it.

Cooper Shattuck

What does the future hold for Bentley--and Mason? The possibilities could be grim. Birmingham attorney Donald Watkins is preparing a report for the U.S. Department of Justice on Bentley's alleged criminal actions while in office. From reading Watkins' posts on his Facebook page, it appears much of the report will focus on the Alabama Council for Excellence in Government (ACEGOV), which former Bentley legal adviser Cooper Shattuck started before leaving in February 2015 to become general counsel for the University of Alabama System.

Here is how we reported on Shattuck and others behind the shadowy ACEGOV:

Shattuck oversees a staff of 21 lawyers who serve the three UA campuses--in Tuscaloosa, Birmingham, and Huntsville. Joining him as board members for ACEGOV are R.B. Walker, assistant to the executive vice president at Alabama Power, and Marquita Davis, a former state finance director under Bentley and current executive director of the Jefferson County Committee for Economic Opportunity.

Shattuck helps complete a powerful trifecta--University of Alabama, Alabama Power, Poarch Creeks--that, our sources say, helped funnel money to Rebekah Caldwell Mason. How much did ACEGOV pay Mason, and what services did she perform? Was she paid mainly to stay quiet about her affair with Governor Bentley?

Could the answers to those questions help lead to criminal charges against Mason, Bentley, and perhaps others?

Watkins apparently is thinking along the same lines, and he used the term "slush fund" to help describe ACEGOV:

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

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

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

If federal investigators wind up on Bentley's trail, they will have plenty of rocks to look under. The governor's actions with the Gulf Coast mansion might provide just one more slimy rock.

Prosecutor Steve Feaga reportedly once pushed for false testimony in the Siegelman case, and now he tries to convince public that convictions were legitimate

Steve Feaga
(From al.com)

A lead prosecutor in the Don Siegelman trial, who reportedly pushed for false or coerced testimony behind the scenes during the investigation, now is perpetuating falsehoods about the case in a public forum.

Stephen Feaga, a former federal prosecutor who now is listed by the Alabama State Bar as working for the Alabama Securities Commission, made a number of dubious statements in an op-ed piece for the Montgomery Advertiser, dated December 24, 2015, and titled "Siegelman column riddled with inaccuracies."

Feaga was responding to a December 18 Josh Moon piece titled "End the embarrassment and pardon Don Siegelman."

It's little wonder the Moon piece caused consternation for Feaga. Moon might be the first mainstream Alabama journalist to look critically at the prosecution's handling of the Siegelman case. Moon might be the first member of the state's MSM (mainstream media) to question the prosecution's version of the facts--and Judge Mark Fuller's application of the law. Moon probably is the first Alabama MSMer to flatly state that Siegelman--and by extension, codefendant Richard Scrushy--were guilty of no crimes.

Moon's column starts with forceful directness and never lets up; this is one columnist who is not into pulling punches:

It doesn't matter why Don Siegelman is in solitary confinement at a Louisiana federal prison.

It doesn't matter because Don Siegelman shouldn't be in prison at all.

Why this absolute travesty has been allowed to continue – and make no mistake, it is both Democrats and Republicans who have allowed it – is a mystery to me and to a number of attorneys and legal scholars from across the country.

It is an embarrassment to the justice system.

It is an embarrassment to the state.

And it should be an embarrassment to every citizen.

Feaga must have spewed Wheaties all over his breakfast nook when reading that. One can imagine him screaming: "We used to have damned reporters cowering in our corner. What in the hell happened?"

Josh Moon
(From Montgomery Advertiser)

Moon obviously is not buying the prosecution's story or the legal conclusions that Judge Fuller reached--before Fuller was forced off the bench following his August 2014 arrest for allegedly beating his wife in an Atlanta hotel room. According to published reports Fuller was staring down the barrel at impeachment before announcing his resignation in May 2015.

Why would Josh Moon reject the story Steve Feaga has been selling for almost a decade? There are plenty of reasons, but this might be the most important: In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Montgomery-based Justice Department whistleblower Tamarah Grimes outlined egregious misconduct by key members of the prosecution team--including U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, Acting U.S. Attorney Louis Franklin, and Feaga. From the Grimes letter to Holder:

Mr. Feaga instructed the investigators how to approach the cooperating witnesses on a particular subject and specified what he needed the witness to say in order to support his prosecutorial theory. For instance, Mr. Feaga would say, "See if you can get him to say it like this . . . , " "Ask him if he is comfortable saying it like this . . . ," or "I need him to say it like this . . . ." The investigators would return from meeting with the cooperating witnesses to report to Mr. Feaga, who would send the investigators back with new instructions.

The process became so absurd--and so blatantly unlawful--that some members of the prosecution could only joke about it. Writes Grimes:

I recall one of the investigators, FBI agent Keith Baker, commented on the conduct by saying, "There is truth, there are facts, and then there are "Feaga facts."

With his December 24 op-ed piece in the Montgomery Advertiser, we know that Steve Feaga still is pushing "Feaga facts." Instead of trying to shove "Feaga facts" down the throats of investigators who reported to him, Feaga now is pushing them on the public.

Should the public buy it? Absolutely not. And we will show you why in an upcoming post.


(To be continued)

Joe Scarborough lectures Donald Trump on a free press, but "Morning Joe" has supported thugs in Alabama who are almost as bad as Vladimir Putin

MSNBC talking head Joe Scarborough made headlines the other day by pretending to stand up for a free press while taking offense at Donald Trump's positive statements about Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Did most viewers know that Scarborough was pulling a con during the interview, which can be seen in the video above? It seems unlikely, so we are here to help shine light on the subject.

Scarborough, a University of Alabama graduate, took exception during an interview to Trump's chummy assessment of Putin. Putting on his best schoolmarm face, Scarborough tried to set Trump straight about ugliness in Putin's past. "He kills journalists who don't agree with him," "Morning Joe" said.

But here's what Scarborough did not say: From 2002-10, he consistently trumpeted Alabama Republican Governor Bob Riley and his son, Birmingham lawyer Rob Riley. Scarborough and Rob Riley are BFFs from their days together on the UA campus in Tuscaloosa. Never mind that during his father's tenure, Rob Riley essentially was to Alabama what Uday Hussein was to Iraq--except Uday probably had more respect for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I'm not aware of "Riley Inc." killing any journalists in Alabama. But they've caused journalists "who don't agree" with them to be cheated out of their jobs--and they've even had journalists unlawfully arrested and incarcerated for up to five months. How do I know? I'm one of the journalists to incur their wrath--and I've lost my job (my wife also has lost her job), and I've been thrown in jail because of it.

Does Joe Scarborough care when journalists are treated this way in Alabama? Heck, no. When Bob Riley visited the Morning Joe show in early 2011, Scarborough openly touted him as a possible presidential candidate. (Gag . . . cough . . . gag . . . ) In fact, Scarborough gushed so much over the corrupt former governor--with Uday, I mean Rob, waiting in the wings--it almost seemed the host was going to perform a sex act on Bob Riley at any moment.

Should the public take it seriously when Joe Scarborough tries to portray himself as a champion of a free press? Absolutely not. His ties to the Riley family are proof that he has little or no respect for the First Amendment.

For his part, Donald Trump (never at a loss for words) fired back that there is no proof Putin has killed journalists. We have a feeling "the Donald" is a bit off track about that, but there definitely is proof that the Riley family has caused journalists to be imprisoned--and they did it contrary to 230 years of First Amendment law.

As for "Morning Joe," he probably would be wise to keep his mouth shut about those who might murder someone who causes them alarm. After all, many questions remain unanswered about the 2001 death of 28-year-old Lori Klausutis, who was an aide to Scarborough when he served as a U.S. Congressman from north Florida.

Klausutis' body was found in Scarborough's Fort Walton Beach Office, and the Congressman decided to scuttle his political career not long after her death. The autopsy and death investigation were filled with holes, and the death never has been adequately explained.

The whole disturbing story has been so cloaked that one seemingly cannot find a photo of Lori Klausutis on the Web.

The bottom line? Joe Scarborough has no business attempting to lecture Donald Trump, or anyone else, about a free press. And Scarborough's hypocrisy is grotesque when he points to Vladimir Putin as a powerful individual who has people killed.

Maybe if Scarborough held a press conference to answer any and all questions about the death of Lori Klausutis, he might regain some standing on such subjects. Maybe if Scarborough denounced the hideous actions of Bob and Rob Riley in Alabama, he would regain some stature regarding a free press.

For now, Scarborough should keep his yap shut on topics where his own hands appear to be anything but clean.

Missouri man files excessive-force lawsuit after Kansas City police officers punch him repeatedly during arrest

A Missouri man has filed an excessive-force lawsuit after a dash-cam video showed Kansas City police officers punching him multiple times during an arrest.

The beating of Manuel Palacio, starkly portrayed in the video above, is the closest thing we've seen to the brutality against my wife Carol during an unlawful eviction--which also happened in Missouri, in Springfield, at the hands of deputies from the Greene County Sheriff's Department. That's not the only ironic twist with this story. Missouri also was home to an August 2014 police shooting--killing Michael Brown in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson--that touched off a string of misconduct cases across the country.

Palacio was wanted in a case of armed robbery and wound up pleading guilty to theft; he's now serving a five-year prison term. But the video shows he did not resist officers and complied with their commands.

Tom Porto, Palacio's attorney, said his client was not armed. Officers Shannon Hansen, Jacob Harris and Todd Hall punched, kicked, and spit on Palacio, taunting him with numerous verbal threats, Porto said. Release of the dash-cam video has sparked a criminal investigation Here's how the Web site copblock.org describes the actions of police:

The dash cam starts with officers bumping Palacio, who was walking down the street, with their cruiser. One of the officers jumped out of the cruiser with his gun drawn and orders Palacio to the ground. After he complies, the officers pile on top of him and one of the officers punches Palacio three times in the head.

Throughout the entire arrest Palacio maintains he didn’t do anything, still the officers physically abuse and verbally berate him. Most of what they say is so depraved that it makes you wonder if these are public servants or members of a violent street gang.One of the officers, either Harris or Todd repeats over and over again “You’re bought and paid for, you’re done dude.”

Officer Hansen then threatens to give his family’s information to the victim.

"You’re not only going to get an ass whooping from us, but you’re getting it from him,” Hansen said, while pointing to the robbery victim’s father, who was also on scene. “I’m giving him your address, your mom’s fucking address and everybody’s address that you know and I hope his family comes over and takes a fucking ball bat to your fucking head.”

Another of the officers threatened to send Palacio to the hospital if he didn’t stop talking.

"You sit there and you don’t open your fucking mouth, you understand? Otherwise, you are going to the hospital."

Brian Sumner, writing at CopBlock, was mystified by the officers' behavior:

I’m not entirely sure what these cops were so angry about, it wasn’t like Palacio had victimized them personally. In fact, their behavior should raise questions about the effectiveness of police as mediators. They didn’t even ask for Manual’s ID before pointing guns, shouting orders, and becoming physical.

The video shows Palacio did everything the cops say you’re supposed to if you want to survive a police interaction.

He didn’t call them pigs or cuss them out. He followed all of their orders. He never reached for his waistband or made aggressive movements. He did not resist them in any way, shape or form. He remained calm regardless of their assault. Regardless of his compliance, the officers beat and abused Palacio. The lawsuit claims Palacio suffered head and back injuries, as well as emotional distress, as a result of the attack.

While the video above reminds me of what I saw cops do to Carol during an unlawful eviction in Greene County on September 9, there are a number of differences between the two cases:

* Palacio was a suspect in a crime, to which he eventually pled guilty, while Carol was not connected to criminality in any way. She was trying to retrieve our cat's litter box--and she had been given permission to enter the apartment to gather our personal belongings--when at least three cops surrounded her and slammed her to the ground.

Lawyer Tom Porto

* Police apparently had lawful grounds to be seeking Palacio. They had no lawful grounds to even be at our rented property. The eviction was unlawfully scheduled inside a 10-day window when such actions are not allowed--and it was automatically stayed when we filed a Notice of Appeal the day before, notifying attorneys for all parties involved.

* Palacio clearly was roughed up, but it appears that he came away from the encounter relatively intact. Carol's left arm was shattered when one cop yanked on her arms in a backward and upward direction. She was handcuffed behind her back, placed in a squad car, and driven to the Greene County Jail after Sheriff Jim Arnott (who inexplicably was on the scene) falsely claimed she had assaulted an officer. Arnott, or someone under his direction, apparently decided such a charge wouldn't make much sense once X-rays showed that Carol's arm had been broken, and both arms were bruised to the point of being purple, almost black in some places.

Carol's injuries were so severe that they required trauma surgery, plus eight weeks of intensive physical therapy, with the likelihood that her arm will return to only 75 percent of its normal use, at best. On top of that, cops burst into our residence and pointed multiple weapons at us, including at least one assault rifle.

One similarity between the two cases would almost be comical if it had not been part of gross police misconduct. Officers in the Palacio case are quoted as saying, "You’re bought and paid for, you’re done dude.”

The officer who broke Carol's arm had a habit of saying almost the same thing, to both of us. Whenever either one of us said anything--often to someone else, not him--this one guy would say, "You're done, you're done." He was almost like one of those artificial clowns who pops up from a jack in the box and says the same phrase over and over.

Where will the civil and criminal cases wind up in the Palacio matter? It's too early to say, but we can say for sure that Greene County deputies deserve similar scrutiny for their abusive actions against Carol and me.

Louisiana pastor who killed himself in the wake of Ashley Madison hack had a history of emotional problems, his wife says in new report about fallout

John and Christi Gibson
(From theblaze.com)

A Louisiana pastor who committed suicide after his name appeared in data at the Ashley Madison extramarital-affair Web site had a history of emotional problems, his wife says in a recent report about fallout from the highly publicized hack.

John Gibson, a teacher at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, killed himself on or about August 24, roughly six days after his name appeared on a list of Ashley Madison (AM) customers released by a hacking group called Impact Team. A number of suicides, including two in Canada, have been linked to the AM hack, but reporting has been murky on most of the cases. The death of John Gibson marks by far the most widely and solidly reported suicide tied to Ashley Madison revelations.

In an article published last week, fusion.net reporter Kristen V. Brown wrote that Gibson had suffered from a number of addiction problems for years--some of them apparently related to sex. Gibson's wife, Christi, says her husband died, not from the hack, but from a life that had become shrouded in secrecy and false appearances. From the Fusion article:

Christi Gibson lost her husband, a New Orleans pastor, after his name was released in the leak. John Gibson had long struggled with sex addiction and depression. She only discovered her husband’s presence on the site upon reading the note she found along with his body. In it, he confessed his feelings of deep shame and remorse.

After her husband’s suicide, Gibson agreed to interviews with nearly every media outlet that called. She was on a mission to prevent secrets from having the power to destroy people’s lives. If her husband had been honest, she reasoned, he would probably still be alive.

“My life was shattered by secrecy and lies — not by the hack,” she wrote me via e-mail.

In her view, the problem isn’t so much that hackers unleashed stores of sensitive information, but that any of us keep secrets from one another in the first place.

Christi Gibson provided more details in an interview with The Washington Post:

For 25 of their almost 30 years of marriage, Gibson and her husband struggled with his sex addiction. She knew that he struggled and had relapsed over and over again. She did not know that he had used Ashley Madison until she read his suicide note, however. In it, her husband talked about his depression and his deep remorse and shame over having his name be among those found in the adultery Web site’s database.

“He struggled with addiction and with depression and those were two things that he couldn’t — as much as he was willing to help other people and do for other people — he couldn’t conceive that somebody would help him and do it for him in that kind of situation,” Christi said. “The shame of this really was just more than what he could take.”

Christi Gibson has become an outspoken advocate for truth in relationships. It was her husband's secrecy, more than the hack, that led to his death, she says. From the Post article:

As a minister and a professor at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, the possibility that his secret life might have been exposed in the leak was simply too much.

And it was for that reason that Gibson and her children decided to go public with their family’s once-private shame and tragedy.

“The shame is in the secrecy and the hiddenness and the lie of this,” Gibson said. “Ashley Madison doesn’t advertise, ‘Hey come have an affair and let’s make it public.’ The whole idea, the allure of a site like this, is the anonymity and the darkness and the hiddenness of it.

“We believe that there’s freedom in the truth,” she added. “If we can speak out and say ‘find a safe person and talk to them, get help with what you’re going through,’ then it doesn’t make our pain go away, but it redeems it.”

Gibson's ties to the church probably made it more difficult for him to work through his struggles with addiction:

“I think what happens to someone who is a minister is that they start thinking of themselves as having to be perfect,” Gibson said. “They start believing that in order for them to help others, in order for them to lead others and minister to others, they have to be flawless themselves.

“It’s wrong thinking,” she added. “Every single story in the Bible of a leader or someone that God really used is a story of someone who is really flawed.”

So, could she have forgiven him?

“I think,” she said, pausing for a moment. “And I hope that John and I would have been able to work through this together had he come to me and said, ‘I’ve done this. I’m so sorry. Can we work through this together?’ I’ll never know because he didn’t let me do that.

“I don’t want to get out here and say, ‘Oh yeah, I could have forgiven it,’ and make myself look like a person who can do anything, because I don’t know,” she added. “I hope and pray that I would have been able to forgive because in the past, God’s given me the grace to be able to do that.”