Clarence Thomas' SCOTUS seat might be getting hot, with #MeToo on his tail, plus evidence he helps create culture of corruption in Southeast federal courts

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

Charles Todd Henderson, who should be Jefferson Co. district attorney, lands in jail, based on evidence that falls way short of "beyond a reasonable doubt"

Charles Todd Henderson

Just when you think Alabama courts can't get more corrupt, along comes the prosecution of Charles Todd Henderson.

Henderson, a Democrat, was elected as Jefferson County district attorney in November 2016. No one seriously disputes that he won the election fair and square. But two problems lurked beneath the surface: (1) Henderson had the audacity to defeat Republican incumbent Brandon Falls, the favored son of the crooked Riley political machine; (2) After winning, Henderson publicly stated that he intended to make public-corruption cases a top priority during his term as DA. That sounded like he had the Rileys in his cross hairs.

Three weeks later, Attorney General Luther Strange -- a Riley acolyte -- indicted Henderson for perjury related to his role as guardian ad litem in a divorce case. Prosecutors did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt -- not even close -- but Henderson was convicted, largely thanks to actions by Sibley Reynolds, one of the state's most corrupt judges who was specially appointed to hear the case. In fact, Reynolds clearly violated courtroom procedure, which should guarantee the Henderson conviction is overturned. But that assumes the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has integrity, and one never can make such an assumption about an Alabama court.

Henderson received a six-month sentence late last week, and he spent a few days in the Jefferson County Jail, pending an appeal bond. Records indicate he has been released, even though his photo still appears at the jail Web site.

We've written multiple posts to show the Henderson indictment was bogus, and the trial produced a wildly wrongheaded result. (See here, here, and here.) We've also shown that coverage in the Alabama press has been wretched -- inaccurate, incomplete, one-sided -- about as bad as "journalism" can get.

For now, let's focus on one element of the case -- and our examination of this issue will show the whole proceeding was a sham. The case revolves around Henderson's role as guardian ad litem in a divorce case involving Yareima Akl, who had worked on Henderson's campaign. Here is how we set the stage in an Oct. 24, 2017 post:

How bogus were the charges against Henderson, and how unjust is his conviction? Well, a transcript from a hearing in the Akl divorce case shows Henderson was not asked about a romantic relationship with Ms. Akl? A private investigator's report that supposedly showed Henderson had "spent the night" at Ms. Akl's apartment did nothing of the sort. And based on press reports of the trial, no witness presented a shred of evidence that Henderson swore falsely in the divorce hearing; in fact, most witnesses reportedly testified to issues that had zero relevance to the perjury charge.

Upon what was the perjury charge based? A transcript of the hearing shows the following exchange between Henderson and Virginia Meigs, attorney for Charbel Akl, who was Ms. Akl's husband:

Q Okay. Now, since she has been campaigning for you, has there been a time where you have spent the night at her apartment?

A No.

Q No?

A No.

It has been widely reported that Henderson's conviction was based on a question about a "romantic" or "adulterous" relationship with Ms. Akl, and his answer of "no." But as you can see above, he was asked if he had "spent the night" at Ms. Akl's apartment. He never was asked about a relationship -- romantic, adulterous, or otherwise.

So when Henderson answered "no" about having "spent the night" at Ms. Akl's apartment, was that answer false, amounting to perjury? The prosecution certainly did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. First, a private investigator's surveillance report included huge gaps -- four hours, five hours, 15 hours, 19 hours -- when the PI had no clue about Henderson's whereabouts.

Let's examine the PI's evidence against Henderson:

Let's consider the private-investigator's report that reportedly was entered as evidence. (A summary of the surveillance report, prepared by J. Hammock of Comprehensive Investigative Group, can be viewed here.) In a synopsis on page 2, the PI states, "I find activities consistent with an extra-marital relationship between Yareima Akl and Charles Todd Henderson." Does evidence in the report support that finding, beyond a reasonable doubt? Not even close.

The best the prosecution could do was a statement that found "activities consistent with an extramarital relationship"? That's supposed to meet the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Don't make me laugh.

Imagine this scenario: A bank has been robbed, and Security Chief Fred Overlook is called to testify about his analysis of surveillance tapes that supposedly show the defendant, one Herman Bloakes, robbing the bank. Here is the exchange between Chief Overlook and Mr. Bloakes' defense attorney, Billem Bythehour:

Bythehour: So, Mr. Overlook, what does your analysis of the tapes show?

Overlook: I find activities consistent with Mr. Bloakes, your client, robbing the bank?

Bythehour: Did you see Mr. Bloakes using a weapon for a "stick-up"?

Overlook: No.

Bythehour: Did you see him confronting a teller or other bank official to demand money?

Overlook: No.

Bythehour: Did you see him grab cash or anything else of value and leave the bank?

Overlook: No.

Bythehour: So did my client actually rob the bank?

Overlook: I have no idea. But his actions were consistent with robbing a bank.

As you probably can tell, the Bloakes scenario is my version of a joke -- and some might consider it a pretty bad joke. But it's no more of a joke than was the Charles Todd Henderson case.

Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens is accused of "slut-shaming" and use of racist attacks, as his lover's ex-husband testifies in Missouri House investigation

Eric Greitens

Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens was accused of resorting to sexist and racist attacks to fight off a sex scandal, as his lover's ex-husband testified before an investigative committee of the Missouri House of Representatives.

The committee has been assigned to look into blackmail allegations against Greitens, and his lover's ex-husband testified behind closed doors on Friday. Al Watkins, attorney for the ex-husband, said Greitens has resorted to underhanded attacks on his lover and St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, who has brought a felony invasion-of-privacy charge against the governor. From a report at krcgtv.com:

In an email announcing his press conference Friday, attorney Al Watkins, who represents the ex-husband, said he would "respond to the slut-shaming and demonizing the mother of his client's children, racially charged negative characterizations of the Circuit Attorney, and allegations of intimidation and threatening of witnesses involved in the current single criminal felony charge pending against Governor Greitens."

A motion filed Thursday by Greitens' attorneys said there's reason to believe that prosecutors enticed reluctant witnesses to testify by offering leniency or warning of possible charges or adverse actions against the witnesses if they did not.

Greitens is accused of taking a picture of his mistress while she was in a state of undress during an encounter in the spring of 2015 and threatening to distribute it if she spoke of their affair.

As for the ex-husband's testimony, the Columbia Missourian reports:

The ex-husband of a woman who had an extramarital affair with Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens testified for an hour and a half Friday before a House committee doing its own investigation into the indicted governor, the man's lawyer said.

Attorney Al Watkins told the Associated Press that the man was asked to confirm that his ex-wife had described to him her interaction with Greitens, that he had recorded their conversation and hadn't altered it before turning the recording over to investigators. . . .

Watkins said the questions posed by the committee to the ex-husband made it clear that the woman had already testified. "It is very clear that the committee is well versed in the underlying allegations such that one is left with the impression that they are not learning anything for the first time," Watkins said.

Watkins' description of the ex-husband's testimony offered a rare glimpse of the House investigatory committee's work. A committee finding critical of Greitens could lead to impeachment proceedings against him.

Does Missouri Public Defender Patty Poe deserve credit for getting jail time off the table in Carol's case? Evidence suggests the answer is a resounding no

Patty Poe

Several readers have argued in recent weeks that we should be grateful to Missouri public defender Patty Poe because, before bailing out on Carol's case, she got the possibility of jail time removed from the table. If we seem less-than-grateful for that, here are two reasons: (1) The whole case should have been booted about 10 months ago if Poe had done her job, filing pre-trial motions focusing on the case's myriad weaknesses based on constitutional problems and defective charging documents; (2) We have not been privy to possible behind-the-scenes coordination between Poe's office and that of prosecutor Nicholas Jain, but we do have evidence that suggests Carol herself had more to do with jail time being booted off the table than did Patty Poe.

Our last in-person meeting with Poe was on Monday, Oct. 30., and Poe's statements in that meeting left us concerned enough that Carol followed up with an email two days later on Nov. 1.  Carol focused on matters of law that are highly relevant to her case, especially about the unlawfulness of the eviction that led to Greene County, Missouri, deputies breaking her arm. She started with this:

Patty:

This is Carol. As a brief followup to our meeting on Monday, Roger and I have found information that says a judgment in Missouri does not become final for 30 days.

We also found a law firm's landlord/tenant Web site for Missouri that says, "Any judgment, other than a default judgment, becomes final after thirty (30) days."

This seems to be another sign that someone jumped the gun on our eviction.


Carol

Here's how Poe responded:

If you send me those citations, I'd be happy to take a look.

Poe might soon have regretted making that statement because Carol dropped a payload on her, making clear and accurate citations to law that shredded bogus legal arguments Poe had been feeding us for weeks . . . months. From Carol, with links to the actual law:

(1) The part about a judgment becoming final in 30 days is at Missouri Supreme Court Rule 81.05:

https://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/ClerkHandbooksP2RulesOnly.nsf/c0c6ffa99df4993f86256ba50057dcb8/cbbbf728942570b186256ca6005215aa 

(2) The part about that rule's impact on an eviction is at p. 6 (of 7) at the following Web page, from a law firm that handles evictions in MO and KS:

http://www.mokslaw.com/wp-content/aa_resources/FAQ_MISSOURI_EVICTIONS.pdf 

(3) While we're at it, we also found RSMo 535.020, which states a landlord must make a demand for rent before seeking eviction.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/chapters/chapText535.html

Cowherd never made a demand for rent. Here is the notice that was attached to our door, telling us to get out and saying nothing about a rent demand -- and that's because our rent always was timely paid. Cowherd had no rent and possession case, but they filed one anyway -- even though their own notice shows we weren't late on rent, and they made no demand for rent: 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1GXKJS567CoMXBnNHUwSGdacmc/view?usp=sharing

(4) Finally, you might check the date on the notice to vacate above. It is July 2, 2015, demanding we vacate by July 31. Missouri law holds that tenant must be given full one month's notice -- and our lease said the same thing. In fact, the lease said we were to be given notice on the 1st of the month, and that obviously didn't happen.

http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=441.060&bid=24345&hl=

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1GXKJS567CoUDJ4WG14WmJ6em8/view?usp=sharing

These are four more grounds upon which our eviction was unlawful, bringing the total to about 12 -- meaning Cowherd had no grounds to evict us, Lowther [Cowherd's attorney, Gerald] had no grounds to seek eviction, and cops had no grounds to be on our property at all.

These citations to law show that our eviction was wildly unlawful, and under a U.S. Supreme Court case styled Mapp v. Ohio (U.S., 1961),  all evidence must be suppressed -- gutting the state's case and leaving it with . . . nothing. Poe, however, was not finished trying to con us. She responded with this:

Whether or not the eviction was unlawful is not a defense. I attached a case that spells out that it doesn't matter if the officer was performing his duties in a lawful manner consistent with the constitution at the time of assault. As we discussed on Monday, I may discuss the eviction proceedings at trial to help the judge understand Carol's state of mind at the time, or why she would be mistaken in believing that the person at her door wasn't a police officer because she thought the eviction was stayed.

The case Poe cited was State v. Summers, 43 S.W. 3d 323 (2001) For weeks, Poe's mantra had been: "The fact the cops acted unlawfully is not a defense." Carol was ready to lower the boom on that malarkey, but first, she shredded State v. Summers:

I was charged under 565.083. State v. Summers is all about 565.081 and is even referenced at that specific statute (but not at 565.083).

Also, Summers is supported by a reference to 575.150, which involves constitutionality of an officer's actions in making an arrest. In my case, the officers were not there to arrest me. I had done nothing to be arrested for -- and the officer statements reflect that. They were there for an eviction, for which there was zero legal basis. That means Roger and I are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and all evidence must be suppressed.

The officer in Summers was called to the scene by a citizen, for an apparent criminal matter. Our situation was 100 percent civil -- and Debi Wade admits in her statement that officers had doubts about validity of the eviction, so she contacted an unnamed "counsel" in the sheriff's office, who told them to go ahead, contrary to law. We need to know the identify of said "counsel," and what he told Officer Wade. Whoever it was caused gross violations of our constitutional rights.

BTW, where does Rule 24.04 say a motion to dismiss is proper only for defects in information, cases of entrapment, etc.? I don't see it.

https://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/ClerkHandbooksP2RulesOnly.nsf/c0c6ffa99df4993f86256ba50057dcb8/b9db9823cbbd2b2a86256ca6005213de?OpenDocumentCarol

The only issue on appeal in Summers was whether the evidence was sufficient to convict for felony assault of a law-enforcement officer. Carol isn't charged with a felony; the officers in her case (in their own words) were not there to arrest her; and there has been no trial. so sufficiency of evidence is not remotely an issue for her.

Summers proved to be Poe's last gasp at her "that officers acted unlawfully is not a defense" spiel. And Carol was about to prove that Poe's efforts to "represent" her had been a sham -- and that's what would cause Poe to bail out.


(To be continued)

Three Republicans deal with legal fallout of sex scandals in one 24-hour news cycle, giving new meaning to the term GOP (Gross Old Perverts)

Utah Rep. Jon Stanard

Republicans put on quite a display of their "family values" recently, according to an article at the Wayne Madsen Report (WMR). In one 24-hour news cycle, three Republicans were hit with legal issues connected to sexual misconduct. And that did not include another GOPer's use of public funds to help pay for trysts with a prostitute -- in one of our most conservative states. That missed the list only because it came just before the infamous news cycle.

Gee, imagine how bad it would be if conservatives weren't so virtuous. Madsen dubbed them the GOP (Gross Old Perverts), and the phrase seems to fit. From the article at WMR:

Within a 24-hour news cycle, three top Republican officials in three states were mired in legal trouble stemming from sex scandals. One, Missouri Governor Eric Greitens, was arrested. Rhode Island State Senator Nicholas Kettle resigned as he faced certain expulsion from the body. In Louisiana, Secretary of State Tom Schedler was accused of sexual harassment and stalking.

These three latest sex scandals follow dozens of others that have abruptly ended the careers of Republican politicians in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures across the country. The party that claims to represent "family values" and "Judeo-Christian" ethics has been found to be the party of anti-gay closeted homosexuals, pedophiles, and those who engage in the "rough trade" of bondage and sadomasochism.

Madsen notes the "Party of Lincoln" has become the "Party of Marquis de Sade." Then, he provides plenty of evidence to back it up, starting with Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, who has been the subject of numerous posts here at Legal Schnauzer. (See here, here, here, and here.)

Governor Greitens was indicted by a St. Louis grand jury on February 22 for felony invasion of privacy. In 2015, before being elected governor, Greitens blackmailed a woman after he took a photograph of her in his basement while she was nude and blindfolded with her hands bound. Greitens threatened the woman that he would publicize the photo if she ever spoke about their affair. Greitens was scheduled to appear at the National Governors Association meeting in Washington, DC, where it was expected he would have ample opportunity for a photo op with Donald Trump, who is facing his own multiple accusations of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape.

Greitens, an ex-Navy SEAL, is Missouri's first Jewish governor and the Republican Jewish Coalition immediately came to Greitens's defense. The Israeli media began reporting on how Greitens's arrest was hard on the governor's wife Sheena and his two sons, Joshua and Jacob.

Tom Schedler, like Greitens, comes from a reliably red state:

Secretary of State Schedler is accused in a lawsuit of sexual harassing a female state employee for over ten years. Schedler is also accused of stalking the employee by going as far as buying a home across the street from her residence, sending her sex videotapes, and ordering state security employees to monitor her activities. Schedler also ordered state employees to run official state data searches on the woman's boyfriend and publicize the results.

Then, we have Nicholas Kettle, from blue-state territory:

State Senator Kettle resigned from the Rhode Island Senate a week after his arrest for twice extorting sexual favors from a male page in 2011, as well as engaging in video voyeurism by bartering nude photographs of his ex-girlfriend and a New Hampshire woman without their consent.

As for the Gross Old Pervert who fell outside the news cycle, that would be Utah Rep. Jon Stanard, who resigned his position on Feb. 6. From a Salt Lake City Tribune article on Feb. 8:

A British newspaper reported Thursday that Rep. Jon Stanard, R-St. George, resigned abruptly Tuesday after he met a Salt Lake City call girl twice for sex, and it released racy texts that it says he sent to her.

The Daily Mail of London said call girl Brie Taylor alleges Stanard paid her for sex during two business trips to Salt Lake City in 2017. Taylor asserts he paid her $250 for each of the one-hour sessions in June and August — on dates when the Legislature held interim meetings.

Stanard is married and voted for stricter laws against pornography. He also said on his website — which has since been deleted — “I am a strong advocate for conservative family values. I am pro life, as well as for traditional marriage.”

"Traditional marriage," in Stanard's world, apparently includes having a few prostitutes on the side. Here's more from the Trib:

Taylor alleges Stanard first approached her March 7, 2017 — near the end of last year’s general session of the Legislature.

He allegedly wrote: “Looking at your website. Can you meet?”

In a second text he added: ‘Would need to be tonight. Only in town a little. Anytime. Can do in or out. At hotel in downtown SL.”

They exchanged a string of messages but Taylor was unavailable because her 10-year-old son was sick.

He messaged her again the following month but she was again unavailable, and they met for the first time at the Fairfield Inn by Marriott Hotel in Downtown Salt Lake City on June 20.

Where did it go from there? The Trib tells us:

Taylor said: “I already knew who he was because I screen all my clients using a phone number service and I Googled him.

“He opened the door and he was very nice. He was a gentleman.

“We chatted just briefly and then I got changed out of what I was wearing into lingerie.

“Then the adult stuff started to happen.”

She said she had researched who he was online, and they talked about his work as a representative.

“He said he comes up to Salt Lake a lot and he would like to see me again. He said he never does this sort of stuff in St. George because it is really culturally strict down there.”

According to the newspaper, the escort of three years, who has appeared in porn films, says Stanard returned on a business trip that summer and they met at the same hotel on Aug. 22.

“He doesn’t drink so we didn’t do anything like that,” she said, “but during that session they were trying to pass medical marijuana so we talked about that.”

Those Republicans, always trying to mix business with pleasure. Stanard was so nailed that even his lawyer couldn't figure out a way to lie about it:

The Daily Mail said that Stanard’s attorney, Walter Bugden, told it, “Given the current climate in this country with misconduct allegations and the way things are happening in the media right now, there isn’t any explanation that my client could give that would overcome the shadow of these allegations.”

Madsen puts things in perspective of the long-running GOP "family values" charade -- and he notes that more scandals are brewing, involving Donald Trump and his supporters:

A sex scandal involving Kentucky Republican State Representative Dan Johnson -- who committed suicide last year after he was accused of sexually assaulting a 17-year old female teen in 2013 -- resulted in an 80-point swing to a Democrat in last week's special election to fill his vacant seat. Linda Belcher won handily over the GOP's Rebecca Johnson, the widow of the late representative. Trump won the district in 2016 with 72 percent of the vote.

In the past year, other GOP sex scandals involving underage sex saw prison sentences for former Kentucky state judge Tim Nolan and former Oklahoma State Senator Ralph Shortey for the sexual trafficking of minors. Shortey was also initially charged with possession of child pornography but that count was dropped in a plea deal with the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Both Nolan and Shortey were state-level officials of the Trump presidential campaign.

Sex scandals have also recently seen the end of other Republican political careers in Pennsylvania, Texas, Alabama, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, and Kentucky, which include the Speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives.

WMR continues to pursue leads in the 1994 child rape allegations against Trump and his friend, billionaire investment banker Jeffrey Epstein. We are also investigating a story concerning a suspicious death surrounding aberrant sexual behavior and a sitting pro-Trump member of the U.S. House.

Already under indictment for felony charges related to a sex scandal, Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens now faces questions about campaign-finance irregularities

Eric Greitens

Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, already under felony indictment for invasion of privacy related to an extramarital affair, now faces allegations of possible campaign-finance violations. Federal law prohibits use of nonprofits in political campaigns, but it appears Greitens might have violated that ban.

On top of that, St. Louis circuit attorney Kim Gardner has procured the services of Harvard law professor Ronald S. Sullivan to assist with the Greitens prosecution, and former FBI agent Anthony Box has been hired as chief investigator.

Reports in recent weeks indicate investigators are looking at more than just the Greitens sex scandal. A recent Associated Press report shows the probe extends to campaign-finance issues. From AP:

Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens used an email address for a veterans charity he founded to arrange political meetings as he prepared to launch his first bid for public office, despite a federal ban on nonprofits participating in political campaigns, according to records obtained by The Associated Press.

Greitens, who was on the board of directors of The Mission Continues at the time, sent meeting invitations from the charity's email address to three political consultants. He asked them to join him for a series of meetings over two days in January 2015 with more than a dozen state lawmakers, a lobbyist and an anti-abortion activist, according to copies of the emails obtained by the AP.

The emails indicate the meetings were hosted at the Jefferson City offices of two Republican consulting firms, less than a month before Greitens officially created a candidate exploratory committee. Participants at the meetings told the AP the topic of discussion was Greitens' impending candidacy.

How could this run afoul of the law? AP provides the details:

Federal tax law prohibits 501(c)(3) charities such as The Mission Continues from participating in any political campaign on behalf of a candidate for public office.

Greitens is facing an ongoing investigation by the St. Louis prosecutor's office after a grand jury indicted him . . .  on a felony invasion-of-privacy charge. The indictment alleges Greitens took a nonconsensual photo of a partially nude woman with whom he was having an affair in March 2015.

Some people interviewed by investigators say their questions have extended to Greitens' political activities.

Missouri Boys State, a leadership program sponsored by the American Legion since 1938, also was brought into political activities on Greitens' behalf, according to stltoday.com columnist Tony Messenger. Tom Dwyer, now a law student at Notre Dame, has seen signs of that:

In 1991, after his junior year at Parkway North High School, Greitens was a Boys Stater. Twenty years later, after graduating from Duke University with a degree in ethics, becoming a Rhodes Scholar and Navy SEAL and founding the nonprofit The Mission Continues, Greitens was a keynote speaker at Boys State.

That’s when Dwyer met the man who would become the first sitting governor in the state of Missouri to be indicted on a felony charge.

“While he was speaking, we were given a postcard to fill out and asked to list our email,” Dwyer told me. Now a law student at Notre Dame University, Dwyer contacted me after reading my . . .  column about a St. Louis area high school student who had ended up on Greitens' campaign email list after studying The Mission Continues and signing up to receive emails from the nonprofit organization.

The same thing happened to Dwyer.

After Boys State, Dwyer started getting emails from The Mission Continues. He was fine with that. He voluntarily gave his email to the organization after hearing Greitens speak. Then 2015 came, and Greitens kicked off what in retrospect might be a short political career.

“When he started running for governor, I kept getting campaign emails,” Dwyer said. He knew he hadn’t signed up to receive them. “I found it annoying. I thought it probably was a campaign violation. It was odd that I never gave him my email.”

Greitens political career, which once appeared to be headed for the White House, now seems to be sinking in quick sand. Writes Messenger:

How the Greitens campaign obtained an email contact list from the nonprofit he founded now appears to be part of two separate investigations. Last month, a grand jury empaneled by St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner indicted Greitens on a felony invasion of privacy charge alleging that he took a photo of his half-naked lover in March 2015 without her consent.

That grand jury investigation is continuing and according to published reports has interviewed at least one Greitens campaign worker who was involved in obtaining a donor list from The Mission Continues. Greitens already paid a $100 fine to the Missouri Ethics Commission over his campaign’s use of the donor list. Last week Attorney General Josh Hawley said he, too, is opening an investigation into the nonprofit.

As for newcomers to the prosecution team, stltoday.com reports:

Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner has brought in Harvard Law School professor Ronald S. Sullivan to join the prosecution team in the invasion of privacy case against Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens.

Gardner filed a motion Monday to have Sullivan, who is licensed to practice law in Washington, D.C., and Georgia to join the prosecution. Circuit Judge Rex Burlison approved Gardner's request.

According to Sullivan's Harvard Law biography, he is the university's first appointed African-American faculty dean and a "theorist in the areas of criminal law, criminal procedure, trial practice and techniques, legal ethics and race theory." His bio says he also helped develop a conviction review team for Brooklyn's prosecutor in 2014 and found more than 10 wrongful convictions.

Past clients of Sullivan include the family of 18-year-old Michael Brown who was fatally shot by a Ferguson police officer in 2014, former New England Patriot Aaron Hernandez whose murder conviction was vacated after Hernandez killed himself in prison and Usaamah Abdullah Rahim, a terrorism suspect killed by police in Boston in 2015.

Details of what Gardner's office might be paying Sullivan were not immediately available Monday. The state-mandated cost paid by Gardner's office to file a motion for an out-of-state attorney is $410, court records say.

Gardner also hired former FBI agent Anthony Box as the office's chief investigator. He will not lead the investigation into Greitens but will help with it, spokeswoman Susan Ryan said.

What does Box bring to the table? Here is some insight:

Box "will be responsible for increasing the investigative skills of current staff, serve as a primary contact and coordinate activities with various law enforcement agencies including the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and the FBI."

Box, 49, a native of Chicago, has more than 20 years of investigative experience, including nine years at the FBI in St. Louis from 1996 2005, he said. He also was a general counsel for two Department of Defense agencies. He will lead a team of about 30 investigators.

U.S. Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) is accused of campaign-finance irregularities, perhaps fallout from an alliance with Rob Riley and his history of FEC violations

Doug Jones

An alliance with some of Alabama's creepiest Republicans might already be coming back to bite U.S. Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) on the butt. A D.C.-based watchdog group yesterday filed a complaint, alleging that a pro-Jones super PAC violated campaign-finance laws. That's appropriate given that Jones has been in bed for years with at least one GOP operative who has a history of playing fast and loose with campaign-finance laws.

Yesterday's news tends to show Alabama opposition researcher and whistle blower Jill Simpson was remarkably prescient when she stated last October that Jones was resorting to the kind of underhanded campaign tactics widely associated with Republicans.

The campaign-finance complaint, filed by the Campaign Legal Center, focuses on the Highway 31 super PAC, which apparently was largely responsible for Jones' victory last December over Republican Roy Moore. From a report at al.com:

A nonpartisan campaign watchdog group filed a complaint Monday against a pro-Doug Jones super PAC for failing to disclose its donors before the special election.

The Campaign Legal Center is accusing the Highway 31 super PAC of engaging in a "secrecy scheme to spend $4.2 million in the race" to aid Jones, a spokesman for the center told AL.com.

Highway 31's sole report to the Federal Election Commission before the election said it spent $1.15 million but raised no money. The group, headquarted in Birmingham, claimed its vendors lent them the money on credit.

Two weeks after the Dec. 12 special election between Jones and Republican Roy Moore, Senate Majority PAC -- a Democratic super PAC based in D.C. -- told the Associated Press that it was Highway 31's main backer.

The Campaign Legal Center's complaint to the FEC accuses Highway 31 of not disclosing that fact and misrepresenting its donors.

If proven true, the allegations would suggest Jones has brought shame on the Democratic Party, which tends to hold the moral high ground over Republicans -- and that's not a hard thing to do. From al.com:

"Democrats talk the talk about supporting transparency in political money, but then national Democratic groups push aggressive new legal theories to undermine the transparency laws that are on the books," said Brendan Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform at the center. "Despite laws requiring that super PACs disclose their donors, Alabama voters went to the polls on election day without knowing who was backing Highway 31. This secrecy scheme cooked up by Highway 31 and its backers threatens to create a new disclosure loophole that will be exploited by billionaires and operatives supporting both parties, unless the FEC does its job and enforces our disclosure laws."

Perhaps this is what happens when you jump in bed with oily GOP operative Rob Riley. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) in 2008 fined Riley $10,000 for ethical violations related to campaign finance. From our post on the subject in 2010:

Rob Riley, the son of Alabama Governor Bob Riley, paid a $10,000 fine in 2008 for his role in a decade-old campaign-finance ethics case.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) announced the fine in a press release dated June 20, 2008. But we can find no record that the story was reported in any of Alabama's major newspapers.

Was the story covered up by Alabama's mainstream press, and if so, why? Riley was fined for his connections to Triad Management Services, a Republican consulting firm that apparently was engaged in money laundering.

Yep, the story proved too hot for Alabama's somnolent press, but The Washington Post took it on. From an article by reporter Derek Kravitz:

The case centered on a $3 million political advertising blitz aimed at bolstering Republican candidates in the closing weeks of the 1996 election, which was financed by donations from leading conservative contributors to a company called Triad Management Services.

Triad billed itself as a consulting firm devoted to keeping the Republican majority in Congress, according to promotional materials in 1995 and 1996. Carolyn S. Malenick, a noted Republican donor and former fundraiser for Oliver L. North's Freedom Alliance, operated the firm as its president and sole owner. Robert L. Cone, a former Pennsylvania executive of the Graco children's products company, was Triad's primary source of funding.

What was Triad's goal? Kravitz writes:

Donors' money went from Triad to two political action committees, Citizens for the Republic Education Fund and Citizens for Reform, which financed television and radio commercials and sent out mass mailings in what their officials have said was an effort to counter organized labor's efforts on behalf of Democrats, investigators said.

In other words, it was a money-laundering operation. And Rob Riley was in the middle of it, on behalf of his father, who then was running for a Congressional seat during the time period covered. Kravitz provides details about the offenders, including this one:

-- Robert Riley Jr., the son of Rep. Bob Riley (R-Ala.), and his father's campaign committee paid a $10,000 civil fine for making and accepting excessive contributions, but denied purposely flouting ethics laws.

Hah, typical Rob Riley -- couldn't tell the truth if it kicked him in the crotch. Jill Simpson has been unmasking Riley for a long time, and it's likely she's not surprised by the campaign-finance violations now lodged against Doug Jones. In fact, she more or less predicted something like this would happen, given Jones' tendency to plant his lips firmly on Rob Riley's ass -- and the asses of affiliated Republicans. Said Simpson, almost five months ago, about a Russia-based cyber attack against Jones' opponent, Roy Moore:

It appears Doug's Republican friends at the Canary and Riley camp thought they could dump a bunch of . . . Oleg Deripaska Russian spy bots on Moore's Web site and get away with it.

Well Roy has caught them and apparently reported those bots immediately. And the way he knew it was caused by Doug's sorry bunch is they had alerted the press within minutes of it happening. Everyone should watch closely as Doug Jones is not running the typical Democratic campaign in Alabama; even his ad says that he will work with Republicans to get stuff done. He does not say that about Democrats; in his ad, he specifically mentions working with Republicans.

[Jones] is the big Alabama Business Council and Chamber of Commerce candidate; they have let everyone know through the press in the past week they don't support Moore. Doug Jones is their swamp monster in the race, and both the religious right and the progressives know it -- and it is disgusting what a fast trick the Canary team has pulled on the true Democrats in Alabama, who ought to throw Canary and his gang out of Democratic headquarters. Doug has been the Riley-Canary pick all along.

The corrupt Riley-Canary bunch love Old Doug Jones, the so-called Democrat who in his ad says he will go to Washington to help Republicans get things done. Democrats in Alabama are nuts if they vote for this very corrupt Riley-Canary Democrat. Why do the Republicans like Jones so much? Because he helped them send our beloved Progressive Democratic Governor Don Siegelman to prison -- and helped them harass Milton McGregor, a person they see as an opponent to their big casino donor, the Poarch Creek Indians. And I might add Milton always funded Democrats when they were winning, but Republicans have tied him up in court messes.

With indicted Balch Bingham partner apparently still on payroll, and Luther Strange checking want ads, B'ham Superfund probe seems to be stuck in neutral

Luther Strange
(From Associated Press)

An attorney indicted in the North Birmingham Superfund scandal appears to still be on the payroll at a major downtown law firm, according to the Web site banbalch.com. Meanwhile, former U.S. Senator Luther Strange -- reportedly a central figure in the scandal -- is looking for a new gig in Washington, D.C.

A reasonable person might figure that Strange, Balch Bingham partner Joel Gilbert and others connected to the Superfund scam would be in a state of high anxiety. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Makes you wonder if Trump appointee, Jay Town (U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama), is pushing the case forward in a serious manner. Perhaps he has let it be known that white, conservative corporate and legal types will be provided a soft landing -- with the one black guy involved, former State Rep. Oliver Robinson, absorbing most of the punishment.

If Gilbert is quaking in his boots, he has a funny way of showing it. From banbalch.com:

Infuriating other attorneys at the once prestigious firm, FEC filings show that Joel I. Gilbert, the indicted Balch Bingham partner who allegedly funneled $360,000 in bribes to disgraced former Alabama State Representative Oliver Robinson, is still on the payroll at Balch Bingham as of December 30, 2017.

After being indicted on September 28, 2017, Gilbert donated, what appears to be four automatic payroll withdrawals, on October 16, 2017, November 16, 2017, December 22, 2017, and December 30, 2017, to Balch Bingham’s federal political action committee. The contributions total $388.42.

When Gilbert and Balch partner Steve McKinney were indicted in September, Balch issued a public statement saying, “…the charges allege actions that, if proven to be true, are contrary to the ethical values that guide our firm’s attorneys and staff. We take these issues very seriously. Both Mr. Gilbert and Mr. McKinney are on an indefinite leave of absence.”

If Balch really took these issues seriously, you might expect indicted partners to be fired, pronto. Instead, it seems they are on paid administrative leave. The firm doesn't seem to care much about ethics -- or appearances. From banbalch:

Why would any client of Balch want to be subsidizing these alleged bribery conspirators who allegedly suppressed African-Americans from having their toxic and contaminated property tested by the EPA?

While some observers believe that Balch could be preventing Gilbert from cooperating with federal prosecutors by keeping him on the payroll, others believe this magnifies the alleged hypocritical, unethical, and unscrupulous two-sided pattern of behavior at Balch.

As for Luther Strange, reports have him present when State Rep. John Roger was offered a bribe in the Superfund case. But if Strange is shivering with fright, he's not letting it keep him from angling for various jobs in Washington, D.C. From a report at Politico:

Voters sent Luther Strange back to Alabama last year, but the former senator is quietly plotting a return to Washington.

Strange, who had been appointed to the seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions but was defeated by Roy Moore in the Republican primary in September, has been on the hunt for a job in Washington over the past few weeks, according to three people familiar with his plans.

He’s been sounding out professional contacts and weighing whether he can get a job at a federal agency or set up his own consulting shop. Those close to him say he’s increasingly likely to land at a law firm, where he’ll split his time between Alabama and D.C.

Strange has been interviewing with several firms in Washington over the past couple of weeks, including Venable, according to two people familiar with the issue.

While he is not expected to land a job in the administration in the near future, some White House aides have nonetheless been eyeing him for a position, believing that, as a former senator and former Alabama attorney general, he’d have little difficulty getting confirmed.

It would figure that a half-way competent and tough-minded prosecutor would instill at least a little fear in those he has indicted, or should be investigating. If that's the case, Jay Town seems to be failing big time.

Grand jury in Troy, AL, lets cops off the hook in KeAndre Wilkerson beating, but a federal investigation still could heap severe punishment on officers

KeAndre Wilkerson

If you live in or near Alabama, that foul smell you are noticing likely comes from Troy, a town of about 20,000 in the southeast corner of the state. That's where a Pike County grand jury last week refused to indict four officers from the Troy Police Department in the brutal arrest of a local teen last December. The grand jury essentially found the officers acted within the law, and used reasonable force, in the arrest of 17-year-old KeAndre Wilkerson. We invite you to examine the above picture of Wilkerson, taken after his encounter with Troy cops, and ask yourself: "Did it really take four heavily armed cops to use that much force to subdue a juvenile?"

It's hard to see how a sentient being could answer yes to that question. But a Pike County grand jury, which reportedly took up the case last Wednesday and reached a decision early enough on Thursday for the outcome to make that day's news, found it's fine for cops to leave a suspect with a face swollen, bloody, and re-arranged to what appears to be Mike Tyson's specifications. The photo above suggests someone punched or kicked Wilkerson in the face -- probably more than once -- and it was enough to leave his left eye swollen shut.

Are we to believe it's actually fine for cops to inflict this kind of savagery on anyone while trying to make an arrest -- while they have a four-to-one advantage in numbers? We can hope the turnips on the Pike County grand jury will not have the final say in the matter. For one, a civil complaint -- led by Florida-based civil-rights lawyer Ben Crump and Dothan attorneys Dustin Fowler and Stephen Etheredge -- is in the works. Also, the officers might not be out of the woods criminally.

The U.S. Department of Justice is a wreck right now, under the "leadership" of Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions, but there remains the possibility of an federal civil-rights investigation. Federal charges could come under 18 U.S.C. 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law), and that statute can pack a wallop. From our post of 12/27/17:

As for federal charges, those would come under 18 U.S.C. 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law), and that could spell big trouble for the cops who beat Wilkerson. They could face up to 10 years in federal prison, and depending on the circumstances, punishment might become even more severe than that. The statute reads in part:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both . . .

Bodily injury obviously occurred in the Wilkerson case, but the possible punishment can go well beyond 10 years:

If a court finds the cops tried to kill Wilkerson -- and the photo above suggests that might have been the case -- the cops' problems grow exponentially. From the statute:

. . . and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

The Wilkerson case is difficult to analyze because the public knows so little about what happened. A report last week from wsfa.com provides insights:

According to police, officers saw Wilkerson walk from behind a closed downtown business just before midnight on Dec. 23. He then allegedly fled on foot as the officers got out of their vehicle to investigate. While being apprehended, police say Wilkerson refused to put his hands behind his back and reached for his waistband, as if reaching for a weapon. That prompted officers to use physical force to restrain him.

Question: Did Wilkerson actually have a gun? If so, why didn't officers shoot him, or take cover?

Here is more about what apparently caused the confrontation to become physical -- and brutal:

[DA Michael] Jackson said the video showed the officer trying to get the second handcuff on Wilkerson and when he refused to comply, the officer struck him several times. [Supernumerary DA Tommy] Smith said a number of witnesses addressed the jury, including some who saw the incident. Smith said based on all the evidence, witness interviews, and analysis, he is "satisfied" with the decision that was reached. 

Question: If an officer has trouble applying a second handcuff, that gives him and his colleagues the right to pound the suspect's face into mush? With a four-to-one advantage in numbers, they can't figure out a way to subdue the suspect without turning his face into hamburger?

The Troy Messenger adds to the confusion with this, which includes a statement from Troy Mayor Jason Reeves:

Reeves released a statement Thursday stating that a gag order has been made that prevents him from commenting further.

“Today it was announced that a Pike County grand jury determined that probable cause did not exist to charge Troy police officers with any offense related to the well-publicized arrest of a juvenile in December of 2017,” Reeves said. “The matter was independently investigated by the Alabama (State) Bureau of investigation and an outside, independent prosecutor appointed by the Attorney General, who presented the matter to the grand jury which heard the facts and reviewed the evidence and came to a decision.

“Because of a judicial order in the pending criminal case against the juvenile I can make no further statement or release any further information at this time. I appreciate the public’s patience as we continue through the judicial process.”

Question: So, there is a pending criminal case against Wilkerson? Was that why cops approached him? Is that why he ran?

Even if the answer to all of those questions is "yes," does that give cops the lawful right to inflict so much damage on Wilkerson that he winds up in a hospital?

With Harvey Weinstein, John Conyers, and others taking falls, #MeToo Movement now has U.S Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in its cross hairs

Clarence Thomas

Could the #MeToo Movement, which started last October following a string of highly publicized sexual-misconduct cases, bring down a U.S. Supreme Court justice? Specifically, could it topple Clarence Thomas, who was at the heart of perhaps the most notorious sexual-harassment case in history?

Two recent articles in the mainstream press suggest members of the #MeToo Movement have Thomas in their cross hairs. The momentum generated by a wave of misconduct -- from movie mogul Harvey Weinstein to Congressman John Conyers -- might make this an opportune time to revisit allegations that Thomas sexually harassed Anita Hill and others -- which turned his 1991 confirmation hearing into a firestorm.

Impeaching Thomas based on a re-examination of sexual-harassment allegations that surfaced roughly 27 years ago might be a long shot. But recent articles suggest a renewed look at Thomas' behavior could show that he lied to Congress -- and that is a crime, which could prove problematic for the most right-wing justice on the nation's high court.

As a side note, issues involving Clarence Thomas should have special resonance in the Southeast -- especially the states of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. On a personal note, I've seen signs of court-related misconduct that could be tied to Thomas and his supporters -- and, if proven, it could point to obstruction of justice and other crimes.

The most recent article about Thomas and the #MeToo Movement came from the Charlotte Observer on Feb. 22. Its focus is Angela Wright-Shannon, who was in Washington, D.C., in 1991 to testify against Thomas. Unlike Anita Hill, Wright-Shannon was not allowed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. From the Charlotte Observer:

Wright-Shannon was an assistant metro editor of the Observer and an aspiring columnist. She’d worked for Thomas at the EEOC. When somebody leaked an unpublished column that detailed her own experiences with him there, she was subpoenaed to testify.

She told Senate investigators at the time that Thomas pressured her for dates, asked her breast size and showed up at her apartment uninvited.

Wright-Shannon has not forgotten her unpleasant experiences working under Thomas. She wrote a recent Huff Post op-ed piece titled, "Clarence Thomas Sexually Harassed Me. Yes, He Should Be Impeached." From the article:

It’s highly unlikely that Thomas will be impeached, but we can hope. The Me Too movement has underscored the depth and breadth of sexual harassment in our society. Finally, women are being heard and believed. Not only are women no longer willing to be silent, but men are being put on notice that their time is up.

We can hope that the Congressional balance of power shifts this election year, and that predators like Thomas, and even Trump, will be removed from power. Maybe it’s not just a pipe dream that two of the most powerful men in the country ― a Supreme Court justice and the president ― would have to answer for the many ways they have mistreated women.

Author Jill Abramson argues in a Feb. 18 New York Magazine article that it is time to talk seriously about impeachment for Thomas:

To my surprise, the notion of impeaching Thomas resurfaced during the 2016 campaign. In the thousands of emails made public during the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton, there was one curious document from her State Department files that caught my attention, though it went largely unremarked upon in the press. Labeled “Memo on Impeaching Clarence Thomas” and written by a close adviser, the former right-wing operative David Brock, in 2010, the seven-page document lays out the considerable evidence . . .  that Thomas lied to the Judiciary Committee when he categorically denied that he had discussed pornographic films or made sexual comments in the office to Hill or any other women who worked for him. When I recently interviewed Brock, he said that Clinton “wanted to be briefed” on the evidence that Thomas lied in order to be confirmed to his lifelong seat on the Court. He said he had no idea if a President Hillary Clinton would have backed an effort to unseat Thomas.

Anita Hill

Unsurprisingly, the volume of sexual-harassment disclosures across so many professions recently has helped surface new, previously undisclosed information about Thomas’s predilection for bringing porn talk into professional settings. Late last year, a Washington attorney, Karen Walker, emailed New York. She had worked at the Bureau of National Affairs at the time of Hill’s testimony and said that a then colleague, Nancy Montwieler, who covered the EEOC for BNA’s Daily Labor Report, confided that Thomas had also made weird, sexual comments to her, including describing porn and other things he found sexually enticing. Montwieler, who considered Thomas a valuable source and didn’t think he was coming on to her, had invited him to a black-tie Washington press dinner, where he also made off-color remarks.

After Anita Hill came forward, Walker told me, she pressed Montwieler about whether she planned to speak up, but Montwieler brushed her off and said no, “because he’s been my source.” During the weekend of the Hill-Thomas hearings in October 1991, Walker called Montwieler again, begging her to say something. “I told her that what she knew could have helped Anita Hill,” Walker told me, as Senate Republicans tried to label Hill a liar and erotomaniac. “But she wanted to protect her source and said that if I said anything, she’d deny the whole thing.”

Until the two recent articles, Thomas' name had largely remained underground amid a swirl of sexual-harassment revelations since last October. Writes Abramson:

Perhaps that is a reflection of the conservative movement’s reluctance, going back decades, to inspect the rot in its power structure, even as its pundits and leaders have faced allegations of sexual misconduct. (Liberals of the present era — possibly in contrast to those of, say, the Bill Clinton era — have been much more ready to cast out from power alleged offenders, like Al Franken.)

But that relative quiet about Justice Thomas was striking to me. After all, the Hill-Thomas conflagration was the first moment in American history when we collectively, truly grappled with sexual harassment. For my generation, it was the equivalent of the Hiss-Chambers case, a divisive national argument about whom to believe in a pitched political and ideological battle, this one with an overlay of sex and race. The situation has seemed un-reopenable, having been tried at the highest level and shut down with the narrow 1991 Senate vote to confirm Thomas, after hearings that focused largely on Hill.

But it’s well worth inspecting, in part as a case study, in how women’s voices were silenced at the time by both Republicans and Democrats and as an illustration of what’s changed — and hasn’t — in the past 27 years (or even the last year). After all, it’s difficult to imagine Democrats, not to mention the media, being so tentative about such claims against a nominated justice today. It’s also worth looking closely at, because, as Smith’s account and my reporting since indicates, Thomas’s inappropriate behavior — talking about porn in the office, commenting on the bodies of the women he worked with — was more wide-ranging than was apparent during the sensational Senate hearings, with their strange Coke-can details.

But, most of all, because Thomas, as a crucial vote on the Supreme Court, holds incredible power over women’s rights, workplace, reproductive, and otherwise. His worldview, with its consistent objectification of women, is the one that’s shaping the contours of what’s possible for women in America today, more than that of just about any man alive, save for his fellow justices.

Now that Thomas' name has surfaced in the press with connections to the #MeToo Movement, could he be in trouble? Abramson says the answer is yes -- largely because of what is supposed to be the sacrosanct notion of "honesty under oath," in the legal profession:

And given the evidence that’s come out in the years since, it’s also time to raise the possibility of impeachment. Not because he watched porn on his own time, of course. Not because he talked about it with a female colleague — although our understanding of the real workplace harm that kind of sexual harassment does to women has evolved dramatically in the years since, thanks in no small part to those very hearings. Nor is it even because he routinely violated the norms of good workplace behavior, in a way that seemed especially at odds with the elevated office he was seeking. It’s because of the lies he told, repeatedly and under oath, saying he had never talked to Hill about porn or to other women who worked with him about risqué subject matter.

Lying is, for lawyers, a cardinal sin. State disciplinary committees regularly institute proceedings against lawyers for knowingly lying in court, with punishments that can include disbarment. Since 1989, three federal judges have been impeached and forced from office for charges that include lying. The idea of someone so flagrantly telling untruths to ascend to the highest legal position in the U.S. remains shocking, in addition to its being illegal. (Thomas, through a spokesperson, declined to comment on a detailed list of queries.)

If Clarence Thomas is shown to have lied under oath to Congress -- a criminal act -- he could be forced from the bench. And there is precedent for such action. The #MeToo Movement could prove to be Clarence Thomas' worst nightmare.

As for Thomas' possible ties to courtroom corruption in the Southeast -- and evidence we've seen in our own cases that he contributes to a broken justice system in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida -- we will address that in an upcoming post.


(To be continued)