Paul Alan Levy, lawyer who works for Ralph Nader's nonprofit, helps violate my attorney-client confidentiality and proves to be a monumental asshole

Paul Alan Levy
(From rcfp.org)

Less than 24 hours after my release from jail in March 2014, I began to see signs that Birmingham lawyer David Gespass had violated attorney-client confidentiality -- and stabbed me in the back, in the process.

On March 27, 2014, the day after my release the previous evening, I sent an e-mail to Paul Alan Levy, a lawyer with Public Citizen, a D.C.-based nonprofit founded by Ralph Nader, with the stated purpose of helping regular citizens fight injustice brought by the wealthy and the powerful. It took only a few minutes for Levy to prove to me that he didn't stand for anything upon which Nader had built the organization. Here was my introductory e-mail to Levy, which I thought was lucid and well stated for someone who had just spent five months unlawfully incarcerated in the Shelby County Jail:

Mr. Levy:

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

I would appreciate any insights or guidance you can offer.

Best regards,

Roger Shuler

I thought I showed Levy plenty of respect. Did he return the favor? Not exactly, although he did take only 21 minutes to respond:

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

In any event, we don’t handle defamation cases on the merits at the trial court level, so perhaps it depends what representation you are seeking.

As I noted in our previous post in this series, Levy came across as one of the biggest assholes I've ever encountered. You can see how I reached that conclusion. His "I have heard from others you were also too pigheaded to accept sound advice" was particularly interesting. He seemed to be referring to legal advice, and the only person who had given me legal advice regarding my incarceration was David Gespass.

Levy was not done being an ass. Here is how our conversation continued, with a response from me:

Thanks for your response. I don't think some of your assertions are correct, but I appreciate you getting back with me.

I decided I probably was showing Levy way more respect than he deserved, so I followed up:

Paul:

A few thoughts come to mind that might be worth making:

* My wife and I never were served with the temporary restraining order, and a lawyer who has seen the file indicated to me the record shows that. It's hard for me to know because the record was sealed until well after my arrest.

* We received notice of the preliminary injunction hearing barely 24 hours before it was to be held. That is insufficient notice under Alabama law, which contemplates notice that allows for calling of witnesses, introduction of evidence, etc.

* I challenged service, which seemed to be the first order of business considering that we received papers during a dubious traffic stop. I was arrested before receiving an order on the motion to quash and before having an opportunity to address the preliminary injunction.

* I assume you are referring to advice I received while in jail, just a few days after being arrested, beaten, and maced in my own home. I hope you can appreciate that meeting with an attorney under such circumstances is difficult. It also was difficult for the attorney. The file was sealed, so he had virtually nothing to review and had to go to the other side to get court papers. Everyone who has seriously looked at the case, from all political sides, seems to agree that the preliminary injunction is unconstitutional, so I was having to seek advice while unlawfully incarcerated. Imagine if Ms. Perez had been hauled into jail, and you'd had to meet with her under those circumstances. It probably would have complicated things for both of you. In my case, I think it's more a matter of being traumatized than being pigheaded.

* Finally, all the evidence I've seen indicates I was arrested on an unsigned warrant. It appears such a warrant is "utterly void" under Alabama law. From Kelley v. State, 316 So. 2d 233 (1975):

Often rules relating to arrest warrants parallel those applying to searches and vice versa. Significantly unsigned arrest warrants have been held void. Oates v. Bullock, 136 Ala. 537, 33 So. 835 (warrant utterly void).

Again, I shouldn't have been having to discuss complex, constitutional issues with a lawyer while incarcerated. It makes for a very uneven playing field. Hope you will find these thoughts worth considering.

Best regards, 

Roger

How did Levy respond to that? With absolute silence. You will notice, however, that he did not deny he was referring to legal advice I received in jail, which could only have come from David Gespass. Levy appeared to be acknowledging that my right to client-confidentiality had been violated.

That was the end of that exchange, but Paul Alan Levy and I were not finished with each other. I had occasion to communicate with him one other time -- and he proved to be as big an asshole the second time as he was the first time.


(To be continued)

Robert Bentley's claim that Paul Bryant Jr. was "using" him suggests the Crimson Tide football boss was connected to the scandal that brought down a governor

Paul Bryant Jr.
(From Bloomberg Markets)

An oblique reference to Paul Bryant Jr. in an impeachment report indicates the businessman and University of Alabama sports honcho might have been connected to the sex/money scandal that brought down Gov. Robert Bentley.

Bryant was a major financial backer when the Tuscaloosa-based Bentley ran for governor. But the relationship must have soured because a recently released impeachment report quotes Bentley as saying Bryant was among several power brokers who were "using" him. Others included in the quote were Clay Ryan, vice president for governmental affairs and special counsel at the University of Alabama, and Bill O'Connor, a political consultant and former president of the Business Council of Alabama (BCA) who became a Bentley insider, with close ties to Chief of Staff Seth Hammett.

Bentley's comment about Bryant is buried on page 86 of the impeachment report, and to my knowledge, has received no attention in the press. (The full report is embedded at the end of this post.)

The comment came after Bentley had dispatched Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA) chief Spencer Collier to meet with the governor's scheduler, Linda Adams, to find out what she might know about tape recordings of a steamy conversation between Bentley and his adviser/mistress Rebekah Caldwell Mason. The meeting with Collier left Adams shaken, and Bentley brought it up with her in a subsequent meeting. From the report:

About a week later, on routine business in Governor Bentley’s office, Governor Bentley asked Adams if Collier had come to see her on election night. She replied: “Yes, sir, he did, and I don’t appreciate it.” Governor Bentley said: “I sent him.” Adams asked Governor Bentley: “Do you not trust me?” Governor Bentley replied: “Oh, no, no, no Linda, it’s nothing like that.” Adams says that Governor Bentley told her that his family was turning against him and that Paul Bryant, Clay Ryan, and Bill O’Connor were “using” him. Adams ended the conversation by telling Governor Bentley, “Governor, there are a lot of people using you.”

The governor is telling a key aide that two top-of-the-food-chain officials from the University of Alabama and a former president of the BCA are "using" him. How could those individuals "use" the governor? Were they using him for their personal benefit, for the benefit of the university and certain business interests? Did their "use" of Bentley involve Rebekah Caldwell Mason?

O'Connor reportedly told security chief Wendell Ray Lewis, ""We created Rebekah, but it wasn't to sleep with the Governor."

Who exactly is "we," and why did they create Rebekah Mason? That is one of many questions lingering over the Bentley scandal, even after he is gone from office.

Special Counsel Jack Sharman's Final Report by jafranklin-1 on Scribd

John Archibald uses Rachel Maddow platform to perpetuate myth he broke "Luv Guv" Bentley story, producing LOL moments for Peter B. and me

John Archibald, discussing the Bentley scandal on MSNBC

What are the chances a print journalist would go on national television and admit he did not break a story he has been given credit for breaking? That is one of several questions related to the resignation of Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley that San Francisco-based radio host Peter B. Collins and I discussed in an interview last week.

Our questions ran from the probing to the absurd, and Collins and I decided the above question fell into the latter category. In fact, we were thinking along the same lines, and when that realization hit, it presented an LOL moment for both of us.

On a serious matter, Collins proved prescient about the direction any post-Bentley investigation might take. In fact, he essentially predicted the "no probable cause" finding on the "Luv Guv's" adviser and mistress Rebekah Caldwell Mason, two days before it happened.

At the heart of our journalism discussion was al.com columnist John Archibald, who had appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show the night before and accepted credit for breaking the Bentley-scandal story -- which, of course, we broke here at Legal Schnauzer. This is not the first time this has happened on the Maddow Show, as she has been by far the most prominent journalist to shine a regular spotlight on the state of "affairs" in the Bentley administration.

To my knowledge, Archibald never has appeared on the show and said, "I broke the Bentley/Mason "Luv Guv" story." (Perhaps that's because he knows he didn't.) But he never corrects Maddow when she gives him credit for breaking it and heaps praise on both him and his ethically challenged "news organization." That led to the following exchange between Peter B. Collins and me.

Peter B. Collins (PBC) -- Maddow gave John Archibald full credit. Archibald himself didn't bother to say, "Well, you know, there was a blogger . . . "

Legal Schnauzer (LS) -- laughing . . . I can't help laughing because I thought of this same scenario.

PB -- Go ahead and laugh all you want, you deserve it. Here's Archibald being treated like a Pulitzer Prize nominee, and he doesn't have the good judgment and generosity to say, "Well, some other people broke the story, and I'm riding on their coattails."

LS -- I've imagined that same scenario -- and knew he wouldn't do it, wouldn't have the integrity to correct Rachel on the air and say, "I have reported on it, but I didn't break it, and my organization didn't break it, and for seven months we tried to squelch it. He said [my story] was "smoke" and "no fire, no facts, no proof." That's what's really galling. He not only didn't break it, he was seven months behind the curve . . .

PB -- And he was carrying water for Bentley!

As for Peter B's ability to foretell the future, consider this comment, made two days before the "no probable cause " finding on Rebekah Caldwell Mason:

PB -- My guess is . . . the way these things typically roll, now that [Bentley] has resigned, they will put it in a steamer trunk and bury it. There is no appetite to go further.

Talk about nailing it. Here are some other highlights from our discussion, where we either nailed it, missed it, or tried to act like we knew what we were talking about:


About Heather Hannah and her role as a hero in the Bentley scandal

LS -- For your listeners who might be football fans, she's the niece of John Hannah, who played for the New England Patriots and many consider to be the best football player to come out of the University of Alabama. . . . Bentley was attacking a member of what might be called "The First Family of Alabama football." Shows how stupid Bentley was. She's a very young woman, but she stood up to [the governor] and is a real hero in this.

On similarities between Heather Hannah's experiences and those of my wife, Carol, and me

LS -- As we read about Heather Hannah's experience, it was like having flashbacks. Bentley was trying to have her arrested, and we were arrested. She had vandalism at her home, which we had in the midst of our problems with the neighbor who has a criminal record. She had a rock thrown through her window, and we had a metal measuring tape thrown through ours. She had death threats written on her car, and we had death threats. 

I thought, "My God, this sounds a lot like what we went through. The big picture is the misuse of law enforcement. This young woman did not do anything like a crime. They were trying to get her on a criminal eavesdropping statute, but Dianne Bentley was the one who placed the recording device. And she had every right to do that, as co-owner of the property. You can put an eavesdropping device in your own home.

On the roaming eyes of Southern "Christians," and how the "Luv Guv" Scandal was broken

LS -- These people, it's like they eat hypocrisy for breakfast. [Bentley] and his wife had been married for 50 years, and that's how the whole story started; she filed for divorce.  . . . I talk about breaking the story, but to be honest, it wasn't a great act of shoe-leather journalism on my part. The minute Mrs. Bentley filed the divorce complaint, I had people -- who I knew were knowledgeable on politics -- calling me. All I had to do was sit there and listen. The story came to me more than the other way around. 

Peter B. Collins

 PB -- Was it like fishing on a trout farm, Roger?

LS --  Yes! I put a worm on my hook, and next thing I know, I started reeling them in. If I did anything right in all of this, these people knew they could call me, and I would listen and take it seriously. You call al.com with a story about a Republican, and they just stick it in the desk drawer.

On my reporting about the Ashley Madison scam, and how it relates to the "Luv Guv" scandal

LS -- "I was astonished when reporting on the Ashley Madison story, how many familiar names I saw . . . "That guy's head of a bank" or "That guy's head of an engineering company. I tracked it down because I know the zip codes -- and the areas of town called Over the Mountain in Birmingham, where people with money and who vote Republican tend to live. 

"It's very two-faced. One of the first things Bentley did, on his Inauguration Day, was to say, "If you haven't been saved by Jesus, you aren't my brother, and I want to be your brother -- something outrageously stupid like that. Everybody thought, "He's a harmless grandpa, how much harm can he do?" Grandpa has impure thoughts, as it turns out."

On the price paid for reporting on conservative corruption in Alabama

LS -- I broke the Bentley story on August 31, 2015, and nine days later -- we were living here in Springfield, Missouri, by that time because our house basically had been stolen in Alabama due to a wrongful foreclosure, and we wound up here, where I grew up -- but nine days after I broke the story, we were the subjects of a terrifying eviction that was unlawful. Carol had her arm snapped like a twig, and deputies pointed an assault rifle at my head. You wonder, when that happened so close together, if the Bentley team had something to do with it. It's been reported in several places that Bentley used state and federal criminal databases to look up dirt on me. . . . That's an example of the blow back you can get. These Republicans in the South, it's a lot like organized crime. 

On possible criminal exposure for Rebekah Mason -- despite the "no probable cause"  finding

LS -- Usually, prosecutors cut a deal with the lower-level person to get them to testify against a person higher up the food chain. In this case, it seems to be working in reverse. I don't know what will happen with [Mason] or other underlings. But in a real justice system -- which Alabama does not have -- she would have significant legal exposure.

On a personal level, if someone on their behalf targeted Carol and me, we are going to be looking at a lawsuit. And they already are facing several lawsuits.

The big issue with this plea deal is they didn't respond to investigative requests. Hardly any e-mails or text messages were turned over. In the digital world, that's where many crimes now are revealed. They've gotten away with a cover up, so far. 

On the racism and classism that drive postmodern political corruption

LS -- We live in a country right now where if you are white and conservative, you get away with stuff. If you are white or black and liberal, watch out. The whole 14th Amendment stuff about equal protection and due process becomes a joke. That's been the theme of my blog for 10 years. 

Federal judge orders Justice Department to turn over documents in Siegelman prosecution, but with provisions that could extend an 11-year cover-up

Joseph Siegelman
(From wiat.com)

A federal judge has ordered the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to turn over documents related to the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. This could be a step forward in a decade-long effort to reveal government misconduct in perhaps the most notorious political prosecution in United States history. But the inclusion of two two-word foreign phrases in court documents, could mean it will turn out to be a hoax -- another in a long line of government efforts to hide from the public what actually happened in the Siegelman case.

U.S. District Judge Madeline Haikala (Northern District of Alabama) issued an order on March 31, 2017, for the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) to turn over the requested documents, many of which apparently involve the alleged recusal of former U.S. Attorney Leura Canary in the Siegelman case. OPR gave notice on April 10 that it had submitted the requested information.

That sounds encouraging. Joseph Siegelman, the former governor's son, submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in June 2015, only to receive stonewalling from OPR. In January 2016, Joseph Siegelman filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Alabama, leading to Haikala's order that OPR turn over the requested documents -- and OPR's notice that it had, in fact, turned them over.

What happens next? If Haikala and OPR act with integrity -- and those are big "ifs" -- it could generate one of the biggest bombshells in the history of the American justice system. It could show how Siegelman was railroaded, and who exactly was behind the scheme. It could show that the DOJ is more of a crime-producing organization than a crime-fighting outfit. It could threaten the careers of numerous lawyers, prosecutors, and political figures.

But caveats are planted within the case, which is styled Joseph Siegelman v. United States Department of Justice, et al. According to the case docket, Haikala's ruling calls for an in camera review of the OPR documents. In camera is Latin for "in the chamber," meaning the documents will be reviewed in private, with the press and public excluded. It could mean the OPR documents, no matter how much corruption they reveal, could never see the light of day.

In OPR's notice of April 10, it refers to "Submission of Ex Parte, In Camera Material." Ex Parte is Latin for "from the party," and generally refers to a decision that is made with only one party to the controversy present. Does that mean the government is seeking to keep Joseph Siegelman and his attorneys locked out of any document review? Is this some kind of "double-secret probation"? Is this a form of blatant "bad faith" from the government? Given the government's conduct in the Siegelman matter, the answer probably is yes.

In another form of "trust me" justice, the public might be forced to assume OPR actually turned over all relevant documents. In theory, OPR lawyers could be subject to serious sanctions for withholding any documents. But could they, in reality, hold back the most damning documents and get away with it? Considering the behavior of judges and prosecutors throughout the Siegelman matter, the answer clearly is "yes."

Those who have followed the Siegelman case know we have been down this road before. U.S. Magistrate Charles S. Coody (Middle District of Alabama) wrote in a June 2012 order that he had reviewed documents requested by Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy and found "no exculpatory matter" that would "further their claims." Lawyers for Siegelman and Scrushy later filed documents showing Coody never even ordered the requested documents -- and he certainly never reviewed them. In other words, Coody lied -- probably to cover up for federal prosecutors.

The road to seeking government documents has been long and winding in the Siegelman case. It started with a FOIA request in 2006, a FOIA lawsuit in 2009, and years of stonewalling by both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administration.

Are these documents sensitive? Well, the government has covered them up for 11 years, when both Republicans and Democrats controlled the White House. That has led to the current Joseph Siegelman lawsuit, with OPR supposedly turning over the documents and Haikala supposedly set to act with integrity while reviewing them outside of public view.

Madeline Haikala

Is there any reason to trust this process, to believe it will be carried out honestly? It will require a form of blind trust. Nothing in the history of the Siegelman case suggests our justice system is capable of handling this matter with integrity.

It all comes down to this: Can Judge Madeline Haikala be trusted? She is an Obama appointee, but given his dismal record on justice issues, that provides little grounds for hope.

We do not have access to the full case file, but these words from Joseph Siegelman's complaint are . . . well, we'll let you make the call. Here is what Joseph Siegelman asked for in his original complaint:

Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court (1) issue an injunction ordering Defendant to disclose the requested documents, (2) provide for the expeditious processing of this action, (3) award Plaintiff reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs incurred by Plaintiff in this action, exclusive of pro bono services rendered, and (4) order any other relief this court deems just and proper.

You will notice that Joseph Siegelman did not ask for an in camera review.  He asked for the requested documents to be disclosed, for "expeditious processing" of the case, and for attorney fees and litigation costs, plus any other proper relief.

Here is another key point: Joseph Siegelman included a jury demand in his complaint. We are not experts on FOIA law, but the jury demand indicates all, or many, of these issues lawfully could be determined by a jury. That suggests Siegelman is seeking transparency, while OPR probably wants no part of a jury.

We see no indication that Siegelman wants the process kept from view of the public or press, to be decided behind closed doors by a one-woman censor/judge. The in camera angle apparently entered the picture at the government's insistence -- and with Haikala's approval -- during consideration of multiple summary-judgment motions.

The potentially monumental repercussions of this case cannot be overstated. It threatens the careers of numerous legal and political figures. It could turn the DOJ upside down, bringing extensive review and much-need changes for a corroded system that is badly broken. Depending on statute-of-limitations issues, it could lead to criminal sanctions and perhaps millions of dollars in civil damages.

Our experience has been that federal judges are driven to protect the status quo. They benefit from a system that is in stasis, and they tend to rule with self-interest in mind. But if Madeline Haikala proves to have iron-clad integrity and the "stones" to invite transparency, justice might finally be on the horizon in the Siegelman case -- and the DOJ could be set for a shake-up of historic proportions.

Finding of "no probable cause" against Rebekah Mason suggests ethics commission is part of scheme to oust Bentley but keep greater wrongdoing under cover

Rebekah Caldwell Mason

The Alabama Ethics Commission has found "no probable cause" that Rebekah Caldwell Mason, adviser and mistress to former Gov. Robert Bentley, violated state ethics laws. The decision adds to the growing body of evidence that the process leading to Bentley's resignation on Monday was a sham -- "fix" would be another fitting word -- designed only to remove an embarrassing governor from office, but provide no justice for the citizens of Alabama.

The commission's inexplicable finding suggests the Bentley/Mason sex scandal is far worse than the public knows, and it likely involves far more powerful individuals than the public realizes. The finding also indicates there is hard evidence of criminal actions by Bentley, Mason, and others, but the commission doesn't have the stomach to look into it. Specifically, the commission appears to be participating in a cover-up to protect a Republican Party brand that has been riddled by corruption in the past couple of years.

State Auditor Jim Zeigler filed an ethics complaint against Mason on March 25, 2016, and received notice of the "no probable cause" finding in a letter dated Wednesday (April 12, 2017) from Thomas Allbritton, executive director of the ethics commission. One wonders how Allbritton wrote that letter with a straight face.

Here's how al.com described Zeigler's complaint in an article published roughly one year ago:

Zeigler said he filed a report with the state Ethics Commission to determine "whether Gov. Bentley and Mason are using state property in furtherance of their personal relationship, and if they have used their position to interfere with an attorney general's investigation."

In his report to State Ethics Commission Executive Director Thomas Albritton, Zeigler cited the audiotape in saying that it was "apparent that Mrs. Mason and Gov. Bentley have been using state property and resources in furtherance of their personal relationship." He was referring to the governor mentioning that "Wanda's desk" would have to be moved down the hall.

Zeigler also alleged that Mason was violating the law because she has never registered as a lobbyist -- which he claims should have been done if she's being paid by a third party and not the state. If she was considered a state official, Zeigler contended, then Mason would be violating the law by receiving private funds.

As was recently reported at the Montgomery Advertiser, "Under state law, the Alabama Ethics Commission acts as a grand jury when a public official faces accusations of breaking the state's ethics law. The commission cannot press charges but can find probable cause and refer cases to the Alabama attorney general or a district attorney -- usually the one in Montgomery County -- for prosecution. Testimony and deliberations take place in private, but votes are public."

An old joke in legal circles is that a "grand jury could indict a ham sandwich." In other words, the bar for probable cause is extremely low, as Bentley attorney William Athanas stated after the ethics commission found probable cause on four counts against his client:

"It’s a finding of probable cause, which is one of the lowest legal standards we apply in these cases," he said. "We certainly disagree there was evidence to support a probable cause finding. We definitely disagree there was enough evidence to support a finding beyond a cause of reasonable doubt."

The statement about reasonable doubt is an effort to muddy the waters. That standard applies to juries in criminal trials, but it has no connection to the ethics commission, which must find only probable cause. There is enough probable cause against Mason to sink a battleship in Mobile Bay. That the commission could not find probable cause suggests it wasn't trying very hard.

A few issues to consider:

*  Our second report on the Bentley/Mason scandal showed the governor's campaign had spent more than $400,000 with a company owned by Mason, his mistress. Bentley hired Mason's husband, Jon, to a state position that had paid him more than $390,000. That doesn't constitute probable cause of an ethics or campaign-finance violation? We're to believe Rebekah Mason had no knowledge of how her husband landed his state job or took no actions to ensure that he filled the job? Don't make me laugh.

* In our third report on the scandal, we showed the Masons had received almost $1 million in government-related payments since the beginning of the Bentley administration in 2011. During a chunk of this time, Rebekah Mason was conducting an extramarital affair with Bentley -- and taking actions to keep it under wraps, according to published reports. No probable cause of unethical activity? Don't make me laugh.

*  According to multiple published reports, Bentley allowed Mason to serve as the state's "de facto" governor. And a report at USA Today showed that former Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA) chief Spencer Collier alleged both Bentley and Mason used state time and resources to pursue the affair. According to former spokesperson Jennifer Ardis, Mason's clout caused regular disruption of operations in the governor's office. "Nothing could be done in the office without Mason's sign-off," Ardis said. No probable cause? Don't make me laugh.

* A House Judiciary Report showed that Bentley, Mason, and others failed to turn over requested documents -- emails, texts, phone and financial records -- to investigators. They also failed to appear for interviews under oath. Did the Alabama Ethics Commission, deliberating in private, even seek such information? We've seen no evidence that it did. Again, no probable cause? Don't make me laugh.

* The Montgomery Advertiser yesterday reported as follows:

In a letter to State Auditor Jim Zeigler dated Wednesday, Ethics Commission Director Tom Albritton said the Ethics Commission did not find probable cause that Mason violated the Alabama Ethics Act.

Albritton’s letter did not specify the reasons why. It said the Ethics Commission received the results of the investigation April 5, the same day commissioners heard evidence against Bentley.

Did the commission conduct any independent investigation of Mason? It doesn't sound like it. Was the complaint against her completely intertwined with the Bentley case? The answer appears to be yes.

How sleazy is all this? It suggests the ethics commission itself needs to be investigated. Attorney Donald Watkins summed it up well at his Facebook page:

In the same April 5, 2017, Ethics Commission meeting that resulted in a referral of Bentley’s case to state prosecutors on four felony ethics violations, the Commission also dismissed the case against Rebekah Mason. According to investigators, they could not find any evidence that Mason had misused state property.

They did not look hard enough, if they looked at all. Rebekah Mason operated her public relations firm, RCM Communications, Inc., while working full-time as Bentley’s communications director. Rebekah also conducted RCM’s business from the governor’s office and used state resources to further her private business interests.

Also, Bentley made sure that Rebekah had unfettered access to state trooper transportation, the Governor’s mansion (at all times of the night), the state airplane, the Winton Blount mansion in Montgomery (which was donated to the state), and to any other state resource she needed to make herself fully available to the Governor for his personal and sexual pleasure. After all, Rebekah, in Bentley’s mind, was the real First Lady of Alabama.

Watkins goes on to use the "F word" to describe the ethics commission's actions:

The Commission's disposition of Rebekah’s case has the feel and smell of a political “fix”. Through back channels, Bentley apparently signaled that he would resign as governor if no charges were brought against Rebekah and if he could dispose of his felony violations by pleading guilty to two no-jail time misdemeanors. The state caved in and agreed. Bentley’s exit from the governorship played out Monday just as the governor had demanded.

This is why Robert Bentley was smiling in his mugshot. He hoodwinked them all. The only people who were not aware of: (a) the Ethics Commission’s accommodation “fix” of Rebekah’s case, (b) the prosecutor’s “sweetheart” plea deal with the governor, and (c) the “sellout” of the people’s right to the fair administration of justice, were the citizens of Alabama who are thirsty for tough law enforcement in public corruption cases. Once again, they got shafted in this debacle. Nobody gave a damn about their rights as crime victims.

As a practical matter, how does a commission find four felony counts against Bentley and none against Mason, his clear accomplice? Isn't that like indicting Clyde and letting Bonnie off the hook completely? Isn't that a sign of a commission that is wildly compromised, one the public should not trust?

Even progressive journalists, like Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC, can't get it right about how the "Luv Guv" Bentley story was broken

Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell
(From zimbio.com)

The sex and money scandal that brought down Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley this week was a train wreck of deceit. But the dishonesty and misinformation were not limited to political figures, both in and outside the Bentley Administration. It also includes the mainstream media (MSM), the kind of news outlets that involve newspaper chains and major television networks.

Andrew Kreig, a D.C.-based lawyer and journalist, takes the MSM to task for its coverage of the Bentley scandal, in a new column at the Justice-Integrity Project. The piece is titled "Alabama blogger, not mainstream media, exposed state house scandal."

We appreciate Kreig's recognition that the Bentley scandal broke here at Legal Schnauzer, not al.com or any other mainstream outlet. In fact, we broke the story almost seven months before the MSM hopped on the train, and during those intervening months, al.com reporters John Archibald, Chuck Dean (yes, he of Ashley Madison fame), and Leada Gore mostly tried to debunk the story and attack my reporting.

I'm never surprised when al.com -- a consortium of Alabama right-wing rags -- sinks to lazy, dishonest, or underhanded reporting. But it is disappointing when even progressive journalists, like Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC, can't get it right about the origins of the Bentley scandal.

I'm a fan of both Maddow and O'Donnell, and I appreciate that Maddow has been, by far, the most prominent journalist to cover the story; she has devoted segments to it on at least a half dozen occasions, giving it the kind of probing, insightful treatment her viewers have come to expect.

But she repeatedly has gotten it wrong about who broke the story. (Rachel, it was me, dammit!!!) On multiple occasions, she has credited al.com and John Archibald with breaking the story. That's not even close to being accurate; they tried to squelch the story and trash the reporter who did break it.

MSNBC took it a step further after her report Monday night, after Bentley had resigned. During the talky transition from one show to another, O'Donnell gave Maddow credit for being out front on the story, before everyone. (Cough . . . hack . . . snort!) Maddow did not say anything that indicated she disagreed with that assessment.

Andrew Kreig
(From avvo.com)

Andrew Kreig, however, knows O'Donnell's statement is bogus, and he laid the truth on the line:

Two cable news stars broadcast a repulsive but revealing display of self-promotion Aug. 10 when MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell credited fellow anchor Rachel Maddow for coverage prompting the resignation of Alabama's scandal-ridden governor earlier in the day. "You alone," he told her, covered the scandal.

But credit belongs not to the heavily promoted Maddow . . . but to the courageous Alabama blogger Roger Shuler. He has been financially ruined, beaten and jailed for his relentless investigations of top state officials, including the just-departed GOP Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley.

Shuler broke the story of the scandals arising from Bentley's affair with a highly paid state aide, Rebekah Mason Caldwell. . . . Shuler began with a column Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley engaged in extramarital affair that prompted First Lady's divorce complaint on Aug. 31, 2015. He followed with two more such columns over the next two days.

Kreig goes on describe the heavy price my wife, Carol, and I have paid for my progressive journalism in a Deep Red state -- and he shows that real journalism can start at the grassroots level, not necessarily in a New York-based newsroom or studio:

The story of his scoop is particularly apt now because of the awful price that Shuler and his wife Carol have paid for such work. Also, the mainstream media are waging a heavy-handed public relations campaign against bloggers, alternative media and those falling under the smear of "fake news" and "conspiracy theory."

This is the first of several columns we plan about those developments, which are prominent this week in part because of the annual annual announcement of Pulitzer Prizes. The Pulitzers were dominated as usual by winners from the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal in major categories. . . .

But there's much more to journalism than the big outlets. Grassroots practitioners like Shuler across the country do not and cannot spend their scarce income much on application fees to compete in such contests, even in the unlikely event their work would receive serious consideration from the corporate-controlled media that control such recognition.

So, we focus for now on the brave and largely unreported tale of how Shuler, an impoverished blogger in flight with his wife from autocratic Alabama judges managed to bring down his state's governor in the kind of mind-boggling sex, legal and financial scandal whose revelation has become commonplace recently in that state.

Kreig provides extensive details on how the story was broken -- and the environment in which it was broken: (Hint: It did not involve Rachel Maddow or John Archibald.)

Bentley's resignation means the leadership of all three branches of Alabama's state government has been ousted in less than a year because of scandal, including Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore (permanently suspended for refusing to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent on gay rights that conflict with his understanding of The Bible) and House Speaker Mike Hubbard, arguably the most powerful state official and convicted last June of 12 felonies involving massive graft. . . .

The irony is that Shuler gets virtually nothing for it — hardly any money and very little recognition, and probably many more legal hassles to come — whereas the MSNBC anchors are reported to receive multi-million-dollar annual salaries.

John Archibald discusses Bentley scandal on MSNBC
(From msnbc.com)

Neither Maddow nor O'Donnell did original reporting that broke this case as Shuler did. Nor do they risk anything by their commentary to a largely liberal audience, except the possibility of one day being phased out for new faces. The Shulers, by contrast, have long lived in Red State country, where threats of violence against liberals are a frequent occurrence, especially for them.

What's most important about this, however, is not who gets the credit for this particular story. The vital point instead should be greater public awareness that a healthy society depends on the different strengths that independent blogging and mainstream news bring to civic awareness.

Are Maddow and O'Donnell intentionally trying to deceive their viewers about the origins of the Bentley scandal? I don't think so. They are based in New York -- a long way from the heart of the story -- and they probably assume that any major story in Alabama must have been broken by one of the state's major news outlets. They probably have no idea that al.com -- known mainly for decades as The Birmingham News -- has long been little more than a GOP house organ, supporting the likes of knuckle-draggers like U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby and former U.S. Sen. (now Trump attorney general) Jeff Sessions.

Maddow certainly deserves credit for her coverage of the Bentley scandal, and I suspect both she and O'Donnell have their hearts in the right place. Any of their journalistic sins likely have been of omission, not commission.

As for genuine deceit, it has been present in other MSM quarters, and I discussed that -- and other Bentley-related issues -- earlier this week with one of the nation's most knowledgeable progressive radio hosts.

A post on that is coming right up.

Baldwin County real-estate agent Patti Austin is the mystery woman who flew on state airplane with Gov. Robert Bentley for Trump Inauguration in January

Patti Jackson Austin
(From facebook.com)

(Note: Our Facebook account apparently has been hacked, or Legal Schnauzer has been reported as "malicious content," meaning posts from the blog cannot be shared on Facebook. We are trying to get the matter resolved with Facebook, but we don't know how long that will take. For now, nothing from legalschnauzer.blogspot.com can be posted to Facebook because someone reported it as "unsafe." We aren't certain at this moment what has happened, but the timing suggests this post about Patti Jackson Austin is extremely sensitive, and associates of former Gov. Robert Bentley, who resigned Monday after admitting to criminal violations, sought to have it blocked.

(Update at 11:40 a.m. -- Our Facebook problems seem to have been resolved. A number of my wife's FB friends contacted Facebook to let them know the "unsafe content" message was in error. That might have done the trick. A big thank you to Facebook friends of Carol Tovich Shuler.)

Robert Bentley might be gone as Alabama's governor, but the stench from his corrupt administration remains. One mini-scandal that still is aflame involves an unnamed woman who accompanied Bentley on a state airplane to attend the Trump Inauguration back in January. Well, we have her name.

She is Patti Jackson Austin, a real-estate agent in Baldwin County. One Web site lists her with Keller Williams, specializing in the Daphne and Fairhope markets. Austin's LinkedIn page lists her with RE/MAX By the Bay in Fairhope. Our sources say she also works extensively in the Orange Beach and Point Clear markets.

Austin has five children, according to her bio at Keller Williams. This is part of her greeting to potential customers:

I'd like to welcome you in advance to the Alabama Gulf Coast! A little bit about me! I began my real estate career in Ocean Springs, MS in 2005 and worked with all types of buyers and sellers along the Gulf Coast and in Hattiesburg, MS. I grew up vacationing in Orange Beach, AL and had the pleasure of bringing all 5 of my children to vacation here as well! What an amazing experience for them. I have relocated to the Eastern Shore in Baldwin County, AL permanently and started my real estate career back in full swing with the Jason Will Real Estate Team.

The area is vibrant and beautiful from historic Mobile Bay to the sugar, white sands of Orange Beach. Baldwin County has so much to offer at all stages of life that it is world renowned and a destination that is highly coveted and constantly receiving praise and tourists!

Initial reports had an unnamed female guest accompanying Bentley to the Trump Inauguration, along with Rebekah Caldwell Mason (Bentley's adviser and mistress) and her husband, Jon Mason. It doesn't take much imagination to consider the potentially kinky elements of this arrangement -- especially when you consider that Austin and Rebekah Mason look quite a bit alike.

But the big issue has been this: Passengers on a state aircraft, by law, must be listed on the public manifest. So far, that hasn't been done, and Bentley's office has refused to provide the passenger list and hotel information for the trip to Washington, D.C. Inquiring minds want to know if there is some reason for keeping Patti Austin's name under wraps.

A January 27 report from al.com describes the legal issues at play:

State law requires the governor's office to provide flight logs records "for public inspection" with entries to include the dates of departure and return, the destination and purpose of the trip and a manifest of all passengers.

The manifests must be posted quarterly, "on the first working day of the second quarter following the quarter that is the subject of the report," according to Alabama law.

That means reports from January 2017 and the Trump inauguration could be held until June. That's what happened last year during scrutiny of Gov. Bentley's use of state aircraft in the months leading up to his admission he'd made inappropriate comments to then-adviser Rebekah Caldwell Mason. The records for those months were not released until the end of the second quarter - June - showing Mason accompanying the governor and his staff on three trips from January to March.

This seems like a relatively simple law to follow, so why is Bentley playing games with it? That is not clear. Rebekah and Jon Mason have said they will pay for their own expenses from the trip. Who is picking up the tab for Patti Austin's expenses? Has it been Alabama taxpayers so far? If so, will that change?

Rebekah Caldwell Mason

Bentley's "mystery woman" issue popped up in an April 7 al.com article, showing that Bentley had made 40 trips on the state plane in the previous quarter -- covering December, November, and October 2016. From that report:

Earlier this year, the Governor's Office declined to release a complete passenger list for those who traveled to Washington, D.C. with Bentley to attend President Donald Trump's inauguration. The manifest covering the Jan. 20 inauguration trip -- which included an unnamed guest of the governor's and Gov. Bentley's alleged mistress Rebekah Caldwell Mason and her husband Jon -- won't be posted until June. . . .

Use of the state plane by the governor -- even on personal matters -- isn't against the law. Alabama's Constitution stipulates that all property belonging to the state, "unless otherwise provided by law," is under control of the governor.

Use of the state plane doesn't come cheap, however.

A Cessna Citation CJ4, the type of plane leased by the state in 2015, can cost as much as $1,900 an hour to operate.

We sought comment from Patti Austin for this story, but she has not responded to our queries.

Report on "Luv Guv" Bentley might be "salacious," but plea deal that apparently did not require withheld documents to be produced is a bad deal for Alabama

Gov. Robert Bentley
(From Mickey Welsh, Montgomery Advertiser)

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley negotiated a plea deal yesterday that required him to resign, while dropping four possible felony counts to two misdemeanors. That's a bad deal for Alabama, but it's even worse when you consider one member of the House Judiciary Committee, Chris England, has declared his work is done. That means the hundreds (maybe thousands) of documents the Bentley administration withheld from investigators -- plus numerous sworn interviews that were not granted -- likely will not see the light of day. If that happens, the public will never know the full extent of misconduct, even criminality, that apparently permeated the Bentley Administration.

Legislative and law-enforcement types, by signing off on the plea deal, are sending this message to future miscreants in public office: "If you think you are in trouble, go ahead and cover up and stonewall -- and you likely will get away with it."

The House Special Counsel made it clear in his report that Bentley, his staff, and his associates failed to cooperate with the investigation in any meaningful way. Now, Bentley is being rewarded for his intransigence -- and his lack of respect for the legislature's oversight duties.

Here is one puzzling question: Why were officials in such a hurry to cut a deal with Bentley. Prosecutors and legislators clearly had the upper hand, so why agree so quickly to a deal -- much less one so outrageously favorable to Bentley? I can think of only one answer: The process was driven at every turn by Republicans, and they were concerned that a trial or impeachment proceeding would damage the party "brand," whatever is left of it in the wake of the Mark Fuller, Mike Hubbard, Roy Moore, and now Robert Bentley scandals.

If Team Bentley had been required to turn over responsive e-mails, text messages, phone records, and financial records, how many GOP big-hitters might have been implicated? Our guess is "a lot." And that might have been the No. 1 driver behind the quick plea deal.

This much is certain: No deal should even have been considered until Bentley and his office had turned over all of the documents sought by the House Special Counsel -- and all individuals sought for interviews had testified under oath. I rarely agree with al.com on anything, but their editorial on the matter was right on target:

Bentley pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges. But the stakes are too high for the pursuit of justice to stop here. This impeachment investigative report creates as many questions as it does answers.

It implicates many people in Montgomery beyond the governor. At times, it seems like everybody knew everything but nobody did anything.

Allegations were made in the report that many surrounding Bentley were complicit in the cover up.

They too should be held accountable for their actions. We know from the commission report Bentley, Mason and others refused to cooperate with the investigation. Subsequently, we still do not know the extent to which their alleged actions constitute criminal behavior. What more would we learn from their private messages and emails?

Birmingham attorney Eric L. Welch Guster, a legal analyst on cable news shows, was on the same page. Here is Guster, from Facebook:

LAW, POLITICAL PARTIES and RACE -- ALABAMA STYLE: Bentley got probation and his side piece got protected. That's how this works and has been this way for generations.

The GOP protected their own even in the face of sex, thievery, lies & nationwide embarrassment. Robert Bentley will remain free WITH A MISDEMEANOR while other politicians similarly situated received prison sentences and NEVER had an offer of probation. There was enough evidence on Bentley that a 13-year-old could take this case to trial and win. There was no need for a plea, except to protect him and his beloved boo-thang.

They claim justice is blind but we know better. It sees color, political party affiliation and the ties that bind them all together.

I am done with this foolery.

How blatant was the cover up in this matter? Here is a reminder: The Special Counsel's report makes it clear that The Bentley Bunch engaged in world-class stonewalling and foot-dragging. Reaching a plea deal -- without requiring that all documents be produced and interviews completed -- might mean that individuals who possibly engaged in criminal conduct could benefit from a cover up.

News outlets have described the impeachment report as "salacious," "lurid," and "damning." Imagine how bad it would look if the Bentley Administration actually had produced all of the documents and granted all the interviews investigators sought.

From the report: "Governor Bentley and the Office of the Governor did not meaningfully cooperate in the Committee’s investigation." That suggests Team Bentley likely caused the report to contain only a fraction of the misconduct that could have been revealed. A reader is left to wonder how many crimes remain under wraps because of the administration's determination to obfuscate. The report might be "salacious," but it's probably not nearly as salacious, or definitive, as it should be.

Was the Special Counsel amused by Team Bentley's determination to claim "privilege," squawk about "due process," and generally ignore, or fail to respond to, document requests and subpoenas? Not exactly. In fact, the report states that failure to cooperate with the investigation is a potential ground for impeachment. From the report:

Governor Bentley's failure to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation is potentially an independent ground for his impeachment. The Legislature is a coequal branch of government. The executive branch cannot ignore or treat in a cavalier fashion its constitutional duties, one of which is to participate fully and in good faith with the discharge of the Legislature’s constitutional duties. In this context, a “failure to cooperate” can either be direct – as in Governor Bentley’s refusal to respond to the authorized document requests of Special Counsel, to the Committee’s subpoena or for requests for testimony – or it can be indirect, as by using litigation tactics to delay and frustrate the Committee’s attempts to get the facts.

The Special Counsel provides nine examples of foot-dragging from Bentley and his staff or supporters:

(1) Governor Bentley asserted privilege in response to the subpoena

In his submissions to the Committee, Governor Bentley claimed that the Committee’s subpoena “attempts to subvert the attorney client privilege.” As counsel to the Office of the Governor has noted elsewhere, “public sector lawyers should keep in mind that they might someday be subpoenaed to testify about the substance of conversations with their clients.” Looking to the federal courts for guidance, in disputes arising from the Whitewater matter involving President and Mrs. Clinton, government lawyers were obliged to produce what might otherwise be reasonably construed as material protected by the attorney-client privilege.

(2) Blacked-out portions of documents produced.

A timeline created by Bentley and adviser/mistress Rebekah Caldwell Mason is "heavily and arbitrarily" blacked out. Text messages between Bentley and the ACEGov dark-money nonprofit are "almost entirely" blacked out. The same is true regarding certain e-mail communications with the press regarding Mason's compensation. One key e-mail from Bentley to Mason was redacted in its entirety. From the report:

Despite requests, Governor Bentley failed to provide the Committee with a log of redactions made to documents produced and failed to offer any justifications for the redactions.

(3) Cell phones, state phones, and “burner” phones.

Despite multiple witnesses stating that Governor Bentley has consistently used three cell phones, Governor Bentley provided no documents responsive to the Committee’s request for a list of his cell phones or mobile devices. . . . The Committee noted that the document labeled OTG009338 (Ex. 5-CC) is a cover page for a selection of text messages from a phone that is referred to as “Governor state phone.” At a minimum, Governor Bentley’s “state phone” was in the possession, custody or control of the Office of the Governor.

(4) Mason’s state email account.

Governor Bentley has similarly claimed that the Committee’s request for a copy of Rebekah Mason’s email account . . .  “seeks production of information that is outside of the possession, custody or control of the Office of the Governor.” However, the documents he produced to the Committee indicate that Rebekah Mason was in fact assigned a State email account. . . .

Rebekah Mason’s State email account is in the possession, custody or control of the Office of the Governor, and responsive emails should have been produced.

(5) Governor Bentley’s email accounts.

The Committee subpoenaed information related to the email accounts used by Governor Bentley. Governor Bentley objected that the request “seeks information outside the possession, custody or control of the Office of the Governor.” He continued: “As has been reported in the press, the Governor does not maintain a State of Alabama email address.”

Governor Bentley’s statement appears to be inconsistent with emails that were included in the documents produced. Those emails show that Governor Bentley routinely used his “comcast.net” email address to send and receive official State communications, including emails marked “Law Enforcement Sensitive.” This portion of the investigation is relevant to the Committee’s inquiry. As illustrated by the FBI investigation of former Secretary of State Clinton during the recent presidential campaign, the use by senior executive branch officials of private or undisclosed email accounts for official or sensitive information can raise significant concerns. Governor Bentley’s email accounts should have been identified and responsive emails produced.

(6) Visitor Logs to the Governor’s Mansion.

The Committee subpoenaed information related to Rebekah Mason’s visits to the Governor’s Mansion or to Wynfield Estates Governor Bentley objected that this request is “overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing.” However, a simple electronic search of the access logs for those facilities would easily yield the requested documents and information.

(7) Mason’s compensation information.

Governor Bentley provided invoices from RCM Communications, Inc. to Bentley for Governor, Inc. for only five months: January, February, and December 2015, and January and March 2016. Public records show that Bentley for Governor, Inc. paid Mason throughout 2015, after the campaign was over. In addition, Mason has stated publicly that she was paid by ACEGov in 2015. The Committee sought, without success, (1) the complete set of invoices for the period of time requested and (2) all other documents related to Mason’s compensation.

(8) Unedited State aircraft records.

Governor Bentley produced the publicly available “State Aircraft Usage” documents for January 2015 through August 2016. However, he has also produced a chain of internal emails . . . that indicates that members of Governor Bentley’s staff routinely review and amend “flight log records” before they are “post[ed] to the Governor’s website.” In fact, the documents labeled show after-the-fact red-line edits that were made to the State Aircraft Usage document for the Fourth Quarter of 2015 before it was made public. Such documents and communications were clearly comprehended by the Committee’s request but were not provided.

(9) Refusal to testify under oath.

On October 24, 2016, the Committee, through Special Counsel and pursuant to Amended Committee Rule 6, sent to the Office of the Governor notices for the transcribed testimony under oath of Governor Robert J. Bentley, Zach Lee, Wesley Helton and David Byrne. Despite follow-up requests, the noticed persons have declined to testify.

In the end, Team Bentley's stonewalling almost makes Richard Nixon and his staff of crooks look forthcoming by comparison. For now, the public is left to only guess at the misconduct, even criminality, that the Bentley Bunch has covered up.


Alabama House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Report, Including Exhibits

Impeachment report by Montgomery Advertiser on Scribd

Gov. Robert Bentley resigns after reaching plea deal, but will Alabama citizens ever see information that the governor and his aides kept out of public view?

Gov. Robert Bentley's mugshot
(From wkrg.com)

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley resigned from office this afternoon in a possible climax to a scandal that began with our reports at Legal Schnauzer about his extramarital affair with senior adviser Rebekah Caldwell Mason and its financial implications. (See here and here and here.) We use the term "possible climax" because evidence strongly suggests justice has not been done in this case.

Is Bentley's plea deal a good deal for Alabama citizens? The answer is absolutely not, and that's because it essentially says, "Cover up your crimes, and it's likely to benefit you." We will explain in a moment.

All three of the posts with links above -- the last one showing that Mason and her husband, Jon, had made almost $1 million during the Bentley Administration -- were published before any other news outlet (mainstream or otherwise) wrote about the Bentley/Mason scandal.

One could argue that a one-man blog -- one written by a journalist with more than 35 years of professional experience -- took down a state's most powerful politician. That point is important for a couple of reasons: (1) It's unclear if today's news ever would have happened without our reports from Aug. 31, and Sept. 1-2, 2015; (2) While al.com has wrongfully received credit for breaking the story at multiple national outlets (yes, you, Rachel Maddow and The Washington Post), the story actually has been an embarrassment for mainstream media (MSM); in fact, it's shown MSM reporters in Alabama too often are ethically compromised, reluctant to report aggressively and accurately on their conservative favorites.

Al.com reporters John Archibald and Chuck Dean spilled serious amounts of ink trashing me, claiming my posts offered only "smoke" and no "proof" -- and my blog had "dubious" credibility. Deep in the bowels of the House Judiciary Committee's Special Counsel Report are e-mails that suggest Dean more or less was working as a public-relations agent for Mason and the Bentley administration. (See p. 38, Exhibit 5-CC, bentleyinvestigation.com.)

Does that mean I'm a smarter, better journalist than the MSMers on the Alabama horizon? I will leave that question for others to answer. But this much is clear: I had better sources than they did, and I didn't have to answer to politically sensitive editors in a Deep Red state who might want the story squelched. My sources on this story were impeccable -- and they knew I would listen when they talked. Their need to remain anonymous has only grown as the Bentley story picked up steam, but I dearly wish I could give their names, so they could take a bow. If there are heroes in this, they are the ones. They have taken personal risks to provide a public service to a state they care about deeply.

My sources weren't the only ones who took risks. Nine days after I broke the Bentley/Mason story, my wife, Carol, and I were subject to an unlawful eviction in Greene County, Missouri (on Sept. 9, 2015). I had an assault rifle pointed at my head, Carol's left arm was shattered, and she likely sustained a concussion from having her head banged against a wall multiple times, and being body slammed butt-first to the ground before a deputy yanked on her limbs so violently that the bone in her left arm was snapped in two above the elbow. We know Carol's arm never will be the same, and we've seen signs of jumbled thinking that suggests her brain might never be the same either. And get this: Bogus criminal charges -- for trespass and assault on a law-enforcement officer -- were filed against her.

Are Bentley and Mason evil enough to be involved in something like that? Well, multiple reports have indicated Bentley unlawfully sought use of state and federal criminal data bases to target me (and attorney/Facebook journalist Donald Watkins) in retaliation for our reporting. Does that sound a bit like the intimidation campaign we now know Bentley conducted against Heather Hannah, a former assistant to First Lady Dianne Bentley? It sure as heck does.

From a journalism standpoint, this much is clear: Legal Schnauzer and Donald Watkins were way ahead of the pack on the Bentley/Mason story, during a seven-month time frame when the MSM did it's best to stamp out the fire. Numerous news outlets have reported that the scandal started in March 2016, when a tape of sexy talk between Bentley and Mason found its way to the press. But that is wrong. The scandal started with my initial reports in late August and early September of 2015 and took fire with two key series from Watkins -- "Forbidden Love" and "Executive Betrayal."

It's possible the sexy tape never appears if the mainstream press succeeds in trying to shush and discredit Watkins and me. It's also possible Bentley serves out his term as governor, without the work of two reporters who are not tied to the MSM and its usual accoutrements -- layers of editors, big-box advertisers, and political suck-ups.

As for the Bentley resignation plea deal, we still are trying to digest what it means. But a report at al.com includes this tweet from Chris England, a member of the House Judiciary Committee:

Due to Governor Bentley's resignation, the work of the impeachment committee is no longer needed. We are adjourned.

What? Who says your work no longer is needed? The Special Counsel's report makes clear that Bentley, his staffers, and associates failed to provide (or heavily redacted) key documents that were requested and subpoenaed. Dozens, likely hundreds, of e-mails, texts, phone records, and financial statements were not provided. And the Special Counsel made clear this, alone, was grounds for impeachment.

Team Bentley engaged in blatant stonewalling and cover-up, but England's words suggest they are going to get away with it. Is evidence of criminal acts included in all that material that was withheld from investigators. The answer likely is yes. But we know this absolutely: That material, produced on public time, with public resources, belongs to the public. It should be revealed to the public, and no deal should be finalized until all that information is turned over. If that information is not made public -- with under-oath interviews from subjects who skipped them the first time around -- Alabamians should pitch a collective fit.

Gov. Bentley's administration has failed, but his cover-up (so far) has succeeded. We will have more on this subject in a post tomorrow.

When Dianne Bentley set up recording device and announced she was going for a walk, it took "Luv Guv" 59 seconds to get on phone with Rebekah Mason

Heather Hannah
(From linkedin.com)

How crazy in lust was Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley at the height of his affair with senior adviser Rebekah Caldwell Mason? When Dianne Bentley -- then the state's first lady and the governor's wife of 50 years -- had set up a recording device and said she was going for a long walk on the beach, it took the "Luv Guv" 59 seconds to get on the phone with Mason. Fifty-nine seconds! His wife probably wasn't even off the property yet. That was in March 2014, and the rapid response time must be some sort of record for a 71-year-old (at the time) horn dog.

How crazy with fury was Gov. Bentley when he became convinced that one of the first lady's assistants, Heather Hannah, had helped generate a tape recording of the "Luv Guv" gushing about the joys of fondling Mason's breasts and groping her nether regions? He sought to have Hannah arrested, apparently never considering that Hannah was only an accomplice, in the broadest sense of the word. The one who came up with the idea for the taping, and actually pushed the "record" button, was . . . Dianne Bentley. That means: (a) No crime likely was involved; (b) If a crime was involved, it would mean arresting not only Hannah, but Bentley's own wife, the state's beloved and much-admired first lady.

Consider these headlines: "Alabama's horn dog governor has his faithful wife of 50 years arrested for gathering evidence about his affair with aide who has glorious breasts."

We're talking "cray, cray" here, and those are just two instances from the House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Impeachment Report that suggest the "Luv Guv" was operating in an "out there" state of mind. No wonder some family members thought he had dementia.

How was a recording device set up to catch Gov. Bentley in heated and lustful discussions with Mason about various parts of her apparently luscious anatomy. Here is background from the HJC report:

The recording came about through Ms. Bentley’s collaboration with her chief of staff Heather Hannah. Ms. Bentley had asked Hannah to help her make a recording that she could use to “catch” her husband and Mason in their affair. They had discussed various options, including ordering a miniature recording device over the Internet. That thought was dismissed, primarily due to concerns with having the device securely delivered to Ms. Bentley. Ultimately, Ms. Bentley came up with the idea to use her cell phone’s recording feature but asked Hannah to show her how to operate it.

Was "Operation Horn Dog" an immediate success? Not exactly. But when it worked, Mrs. Bentley hit a home run -- apparently with little or no help from Hannah:

Ms. Bentley made several efforts to capture Governor Bentley on the phone with Mason at the Mansion, but those efforts failed. The successful recordings were made during the Bentleys’ trip to their beach house in March 2014. Ms. Bentley captured the first of two recordings by turning on the phone’s recording device, placing it in her purse on the sofa, and then announcing to her husband that she was taking a long walk on the beach. Promptly upon her departure—within approximately 59 seconds—Governor Bentley was on the phone with Mason.

The conversation begins with discussions of the weather but quickly moves to capturing Governor Bentley agreeing to extended commentary by Mason. Of particular note, prior to the conversation becoming more intimate in nature, is an extensive discussion about moving Wanda Kelly’s desk and rearranging the office. About halfway through the conversation, Governor Bentley engages in the now infamous monologue about how much he enjoys feeling Mason’s breasts and their need to lock the door to his office when engaging in certain activities.

As for the notion of arresting Heather Hannah, Bentley absolutely was serious about that. From the report:

Shortly after the August 5 intervention, Governor Bentley told Secretary [Spencer] Collier that he believed Heather Hannah had been responsible for making the recordings. He ordered Collier to find out whether there were criminal statutes that applied to Hannah’s suspected activity. He told Collier to be prepared to arrest Hannah if the tapes were released publicly. Collier went to his ALEA counsel, Deputy Attorney General Jason Swann, gave him a factual hypothetical about covert recording, and asked him to research the law to determine the applicability of any criminal statutes to the hypothetical. Swann provided Collier with copies of the relevant eavesdropping statute and discussed the law with him. Sometime later, Collier confided to Swann that the research he had asked him to do related to Governor Bentley and said “we’re looking into it.”

Gov. Bentley and Collier had a conversation on the same topic with Scott Lee, an SBI special agent who had agreed to become an "on-call investigator" for Collier:

Governor Bentley and Secretary Collier told Lee that the person they suspected had planted the recording device was a young woman who had served as Dianne Bentley’s assistant. They suspected that the young woman, as well as members of Governor Bentley’s family, might be in possession of the tapes. They also mentioned that Collier had paid a visit to a woman about the tapes on the night of the election. Bentley and Collier wanted Lee’s opinions about opening an investigation into the matter. . . .

Dianne and Robert Bentley
(From wbrc.com)

Lee told Governor Bentley that possession of materials illegally obtained was a misdemeanor. Lee’s intent in the meeting, he says, was to communicate to Governor Bentley that Lee would not alter the investigation, once begun, if Lee determined that members of Governor Bentley’s family had committed crimes. . . .

After Lee told Bentley and Collier that he would insist on seeing any investigation through to its conclusions, he was not asked to proceed with the investigation.

Alabama's primary criminal eavesdropping statutes can be found at Code of Alabama 13A-11-31 and 13A-11-33. The following, from Sec. 33, might have been central to any investigation of Heather Hannah:

(a) A person commits the crime of installing an eavesdropping device if he intentionally installs or places a device in a private place with knowledge it is to be used for eavesdropping and without permission of the owner and any lessee or tenant or guest for hire of the private place.

We are not in a position at the moment to research case law on this subject. But the statutory language suggests that Dianne Bentley, as an owner of the "private place," had a lawful right to install an eavesdropping device on the premises. That suggests the recordings were captured lawfully, and Heather Hannah likely would not be subject to a charge of possessing illegally obtained materials.

Our assessment? The governor of a state should be smart enough to read the eavesdropping statute and realize there likely was no case against Heather Hannah. That Bentley was determined to seek an investigation anyway, should raise serious questions about his fitness for office.


Alabama House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Report, Including Exhibits

Impeachment report by Montgomery Advertiser on Scribd