Spencer Collier files motion seeking information about contributors to the ACEGOV "girlfriend fund" for former Alabama Gov. Robert "Luv Guv" Bentley

Robert Bentley and Rebekah Caldwell Mason

A wrongful-termination lawsuit from the former head of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA) seeks information about donors to a fund that Robert "Luv Guv" Bentley allegedly used to pay his mistress, according to a report today at Alabama Political Reporter (APR).

Bentley's  extramarital relationship with senior adviser Rebekah Caldwell Mason led to his resignation as governor in April 2017. Spencer Collier's lawsuit recently produced deposition testimony in which Bentley acknowledged discussing criminal investigations of myself and Donald Watkins, the two online journalists who wrote extensively about the Mason scandal for roughly seven months before the mainstream media took serious notice. Bentley also claimed in the deposition that his fondling of Mason in state facilities did not constitute inappropriate workplace behavior.

Collier's legal team, led by Montgomery attorney Kenneth Mendelsohn, now has filed a motion to compel, seeking to force Bentley to produce documents about donors to the nonprofit Alabama Council for Excellence in Government (ACEGOV), which is alleged to have been a slush fund for paying Mason. (The motion to compel is embedded at the end of this post.) Collier specifically seeks information about donations that were intended to affect the criminal prosecution of former House Speaker Mike Hubbard. From the APR article by Bill Britt:

A motion to compel disgraced former Gov. Robert Bentley to provide donors and contributions to the political nonprofit that paid his girlfriend was filed in Montgomery Circuit Court on Monday in the wrongful terminations suit brought by former Alabama Law Enforcement Agency Secretary Spencer Collier.

Collier is seeking information on donations to ACEGOV a 501(c)(4) set-up to promote Bentley’s political agenda by then-General Counsel Cooper Shattuck in February 2015.

One prominent question is whether donations to ACEGOV were intended to influence the state’s felony case against Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard.

Collier was fired from his position at ALEA after he refused to lie to prosecutors in the Hubbard case as Bentley had ordered him to do.

Collier's firing, reports Britt, grew from the efforts of Hubbard attorney Lance Bell to arrange for Montgomery lawyer and radio host Baron Coleman to file a complaint, accusing prosecutor Matt Hart of leaking grand-jury information. (An affidavit about Bell's actions, from current ALEA secretary Hal Taylor, is embedded at the end of this post.) Hubbard trial judge Jacob Walker III dismissed the Coleman complaint, but Collier says Bentley fired him largely for writing an affidavit stating that Hart was not under ALEA investigation because of the Coleman document. From the motion to compel:

Unbeknownst to Collier at the time but confirmed by Bentley in his deposition, Bentley and his staff had been meeting with Hubbard’s lawyers, legislators who were friends of Hubbard and individuals identified in Hubbard’s indictment to discuss Bentley removing Assistant AG Hart from the Hubbard case or appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the AGO. Contrary to what we all learned in 6th grade Civics Class about Separation of Power, Bentley seriously considered trying to use his Office to remove Hart from the Hubbard case. It was only later that someone advised Bentley that he did not have that power.

This likely is the strongest statement to date about coordination between Hubbard's team and Bentley's office during the criminal trial. That coordination, and related financial transactions, might have played a central role in Collier's termination. Bentley stated in his deposition that Homewood attorney Rob Riley was among several Republicans pressuring the governor to intervene in the Hubbard case. Bill Britt provides more background:

Among ACEGOV expenditures was a payment of $2,500 per month plus expenses to Bentley’s paramour, Rebekah Caldwell Mason’s, company, RCM Communications, Inc., who is also a defendant in Collier’s lawsuit. Bentley testified that Mason was also being paid through his 2014 Campaign, even two years after the election.

In Montgomery, ACEGOV was widely known as the “girlfriend fund,” because it was used to pay Bentley’s former special advisor, Mason.

“The fact that a portion of these contributions were used by ACEGOV to pay Bentley’s girlfriend, a co-defendant in this case, is clearly relevant to this case,” states Collier’s motion. “The requested information goes directly to the pattern and practice claims, the potential bias between Bentley and Mason and punitive damages.”

Collier argues he is entitled to know if any money funneled to Mason through ACEGOV came from Hubbard supporters, which would go to Bentley’s motive to destroy him.

In essence, it’s believed that ACEGOV was a honey hole to curry favors with Bentley who then may have acted to benefit donors.

Missouri's Billy Long is among House GOPers who could get caught in insider-trading scandal that already has drawn indictment for Chris Collins, of New York

Billy Long

The Congressman from our current home district is among five Republicans who might become ensnared in an insider-trading scandal that broke last week.

U.S. Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) was indicted last Wednesday and already is ensnared. U.S. Rep. Billy Long (R-MO), who has represented Missouri's 7th Congressional district since 2011, purchased the stock in question, worked closely with Collins to advance its cause, and could wind up in deep doo-doo as a result.

At least four other House Republicans -- Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, John Abney Culberson and Mike Conaway of Texas, and Doug Lamborn of Colorado -- invested in Innate Immunotherapeutics, an obscure Australian biotech company that was working on a possible treatment for multiple sclerosis. When a key drug trial failed, Collins (an Innate board member) received early word and notified his son and other family members, and phone records showed they offloaded their shares to avoid $768,000 in losses.

Collins announced Saturday that he is ending his bid for re-election. What about the other Innate stockholders in Congress? None are known to be under investigation, and some still own the stock. Long, however, joined with Collins to take legislative action that apparently was designed to help enrich both of them. From an article at The Daily Beast:

Collins, who denies any criminal wrongdoing, isn’t the only one who risks being wrapped up in controversy surrounding the company.

As The Daily Beast reported last year, Collins authored four bills that would likely have benefited the company. Two of them, separate versions of the same bill introduced in the 114th and 115th Congresses, had just one co-sponsor: Rep. Billy Long (R-MO), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, which has oversight over the Food and Drug Administration. While no one has accused him of any legal wrongdoing, Long also held stock in Innate. Long signed on to both pieces of legislation the day they were introduced. The first was filed in December 2016, and didn’t make it out of subcommittee before the session ended.

Then in January, Long bought between $15,000 and $50,000 in Innate stock, apparently as part of a Fidelity retirement account. In July, Collins once again introduced his bill, which would have expedited FDA approvals for treatments such as Innate’s, and Long was once again an immediate co-sponsor.

Long’s office didn’t respond to questions about whether his Innate holdings might constitute a conflict of interest. A spokesperson would only say that the congressman “did not learn of Innate Immunotherapeutics through a colleague, but rather when it became a daily topic on the nightly news in January of 2017,” a timeline that suggests that Long, not a financial brokerage, made the decision to purchase Innate stock.

Collins was the first sitting member of Congress to endorse Donald Trump's presidential campaign, and Democrats likely will see the Collins indictment as an opportunity to push GOP corruption as an issue in the 2018 midterm elections:

Democrats see an opportunity to revive the "culture of corruption" message that helped them win the House in 2006. Nancy Pelosi repeated almost the identical talking points [last week] that she used 12 years ago to link GOP candidates to Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, and Mark Foley.

"The charges against Congressman Collins show the rampant culture of corruption and self-enrichment among Republicans in Washington today," said Pelosi, who could become speaker again. "The American people deserve better than the GOP's corruption, cronyism and incompetence."

A Web site called showmeprogress.com already is blasting Billy Long on his home turf, 
referring to him as a "charter member of the Party of Corruption":

When GOP Rep. Billy Long (R-7) first ran for Congress there were whispers that, in today’s parlance, he was more than familiar with the swamp that his idol, Donald Trump – evidently facetiously – promised to drain. With the arrest of New York GOP Rep. Chris Collins for insider trading, the swamp gas miasma around Long has thickened. Collins has been stripped of his position on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and he is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee. The question is why isn’t Rep. Long under similar investigation – or maybe he is and we just don’t know about it?

Long’s staff is of course denying that Long had any insider info from his colleague Collins with whom he coordinated to pass legislation that would enhance both their financial bottom lines . . .

Certainly, we know that Rep. Long is inclined to go easy when it comes to forestalling corrupt behavior, as would befit a guy with a reputation for being on the make. Remember Long’s 2017 vote to gut the Cardin-Lugar anti-corruption rule, “a major bipartisan law that helps safeguard trillions of dollars of payments to the U.S. and governments around the world.”

However, given that most GOPers in the House voted the same way, – the party of corruption perhaps? – I’m not holding my breath and would recommend that you also refrain to do so if you expect to see Long perp-walked out of Congress. The law got Collins fair and square, looks like Long may weasel out – and his fellow GOPers will probably be just fine with that -particularly those who may be equally guilty of conspiring with Collins to line their personal pockets.

West Virginia Supreme Court gets dragged into the light for exhibiting the kind of brazen sleaze and dishonesty that infests many American courts

Justices of the West Virginia Supreme Court: Loughry (R),
Walker (R), Davis (D), Workman (D)

Update at 11:20 p.m.: The West Virginia House of Delegates has voted to impeach all four justices on the state's Supreme Court. Impeached were Allen Loughery (Republican), Robin Jean Davis (Democrat), Margaret Workman (Democrat), and Beth Walker (Republican). Republicans control the West Virginia House of Delegates.



Headline: West Virginia House panel votes to impeach entire state Supreme Court


When I read the above Yahoo! headline, my first thought was, "This has to be from The Onion. No way it could be real." In fact, the headline seemed so out of left field that it made me LOL.

Is it possible for a state high court to be so corrupt that the whole bunch deserves to be tossed out of office? After 11 years of writing this blog about judicial chicanery, I know the answer is, "Yes, absolutely." Is it likely that any authoritative body would hold such a high court accountable." Sadly, the answer to that question is "Absolutely not."

Stunningly, it turns out, the West Virginia story is real. In fact the state House of Delegates meets today to consider articles of impeachment the judiciary committee already has adopted. If the full House approves the articles, the state Senate will conduct a trial.

This could be a rare step forward for justice in a country where too many courts are permeated with crookedness, dishonesty, and an utter lack of transparency. Legal Schnauzer is one of the few news sites that devotes serious journalism to the unlawful acts of corrupt judges, and we have been attacked relentlessly -- even thrown in jail -- for it.

I see only one downside to the events in West Virginia: The justices are in deep doo-doo for essentially being thieves. I would prefer they be held accountable for the kind of bogus rulings too many American courts routinely produce -- and far greater legal minds than mine agree that is a problem.

What's at the heart of the West Virginia story? The judiciary committee has charged justices with "maladministration, corruption, incompetency, neglect of duty in certain high crimes and misdemeanors." That sounds serious. Here are details, from a report at Talking Points Memo (TPM):

The West Virginia House of Delegates is taking the extraordinary step of considering the impeachment of the entire state Supreme Court in a scandal over $3.2 million in office renovations.

The Republican-led House was meeting Monday to discuss 14 articles and make recommendations for the four remaining justices. Any articles approved by the House would be tried by the Senate.

Suspended Justice Allen Loughry is under federal indictment and named in eight impeachment articles, including allegations he lied about taking home a $42,000 antique desk and a $32,000 suede leather couch. Other articles involve upgrades of the offices of justices Margaret Workman, Robin Davis and Beth Walker.

The fifth justice, Menis Ketchum, retired and agreed to plead guilty to a federal wire fraud count involving the personal use of state-owned vehicles and fuel cards.

Were these grifters also issuing bogus opinions? I'd say you can count on it. Will they be held accountable for that? Don't hold your breath. Such an inquiry would require a lot of work, and it's unlikely West Virginia legislators want to devote that much effort to the scandal.

That's unfortunate because stealing is bad, but the issuance of crooked rulings is, by far, the No. 1 way judges cheat the public, at every level -- municipal, state, and federal. I'm not the only one who thinks so. Consider these words from a 1989 speech by the late Monroe Freedman, a Hofstra University law professor who was considered the father of legal ethics as a subject for academic study:

"Frankly, I have had more than enough of judicial opinions that bear no relationship whatsoever to the cases that have been filed and argued before the judges. I am talking about judicial opinions that falsify the facts of the cases that have been argued, judicial opinions that make disingenuous use or omission of material authorities, judicial opinions that cover up these things with no-publication and no-citation rules.”

-- Monroe H. Freedman, founder of legal ethics

If Monroe Freedman knew the situation was dire in 1989, imagine how bad it is today -- almost 30 years later.

We applaud the West Virginia legislators for taking action against thieving judges. The lawmakers could do the entire country a huge favor by going beyond that to examine the crooked rulings these "justices" likely were churning out.

Doug Jones' bid to overthrow Alabama Democratic Party leadership flops, indicating progressives are leery of his alliances with dirty, rotten Republicans

If U.S. Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) ever had any coattails, their expiration date already must have passed.

Jones pushed for Montgomery attorney and lobbyist Peck Fox as chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party, but the executive committee on Saturday stuck with incumbent Nancy Worley. Is that a signal party leaders do not trust Jones? Do they see his upset win over Roy Moore in a 2017 special election for Jeff Sessions' old seat as a fluke, driven largely by a Republican-inspired dirty-tricks campaign? Are they uncomfortable with Jones' longstanding ties to some of the GOP's creepiest scoundrels -- including Rob Riley, Bill Canary, Karl Rove, Bill Pryor, and Jeff Sessions himself? Are they troubled that Jones is likely to vote for Trump U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, while working behind the scenes to defeat Democratic attorney general candidate Joseph Siegelman?

The answer to all of those questions might be yes, according to retired Alabama attorney (and prominent whistle blower/opposition researcher) Jill Simpson. Insiders on both sides of the aisle are aware that Jones is a back stabber, with zero sense of loyalty -- given that he left multiple knives between the shoulder blades of former Democratic governor Don Siegelman. Simpson says. From her Facebook post over the weekend:

I am not a fan of Nancy Worley because I don't think she speaks out enough on wrongdoing of Republicans in our state, but I am way more not a fan of Jones, as progressive folks know he won his seat promising all kinds of bad deals to the Republicans. . . . We need a good young progressive Democrat to run the state party, and neither choice really looked good here, as I don't think it a wise idea to hand the party over to Doug Jones, who plays both sides and is too close to the corrupt Alabama Gang. It appears the Democrats have let it be known their dissatisfaction with him after this vote. I feel for the folks who had to pick which way to go, as neither was a great choice. I might add I think it would be a real mistake to let Doug and his DINO [Democrat In Name Only] bunch take over as Nancy Worley is way more progressive than Doug.

Worley had the support of Joe Reed, vice chair for minority affairs, and that was enough to overcome Jones' candidate, Peck Fox. The intrigue might just be starting, says Simpson:

The good news is it appears the Joe Reed/ Nancy Worley bunch see the true colors of Doug Jones, as he is behind the plan to overthrow their leadership -- and he did it in a very sneaky way, just like he screwed the Siegelman bunch. The Alabama Resistance has been entertained, hearing all about Jones' overthrow attempt from folks who watched Doug and Rob Riley try to take over the Democrats. We had wondered at the Resistance how long it was going to take for DNC folks to figure that out. I suspect next we will see the Jones bunch attempt to bring criminal charges against Worley,  as he wants control of the party, and we know he plays pretty dirty. Also, I suspect Nancy's bunch might try to get rid of him next election, as they see he is way too close to the Republicans.

Simpson says Jones' behind-the-scenes "yapping" to then Alabama attorney general Bill Pryor helped launch the Don Siegelman political prosecution and did inestimable harm to the state's Democratic Party. Could Saturday's failed takeover attempt prompt Jones to become a Republican? Simpson says that would not surprise her:

Doug's yapping to Pryor and taking Siegelman out killed the Democratic party in Alabama for nearly 16 years, so in no way do I believe he should be in charge of that party. As a reward for all Doug did to Don Siegelman, the Republicans supported Doug running as a conservative DINO for Senate, but I suspect before long, one of the sides is going to have serious buyer's remorse. 

My hope is that Doug feels enough Democratic pressure that he does not vote for Trump's far-right SCOTUS candidate, Brett Kavanaugh. But I suspect he may very well try to use Saturday's event as a reason to switch parties and vote for Kavanaugh. If he does not, I doubt he gets re-elected. But Republicans tell me they know the tricks he and Rob Riley pulled on Don Siegelman and don't want him in their party, as they could never 100 percent trust him; they know how disloyal he is. 

This is really entertaining to all of us on the left, who see Doug Jones clearly as a man motivated by his greed and desire to be powerful, at the expense of folks like Don Siegelman. We think Jones might finally have been caught in his deceit.

Former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens sought cash and influence from Russia and other foreign interests, in part through U.S. Rep Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)

Eric Greitens

Have Russian interests been involved in abuse that has been directed at my wife, Carol, and me for 10-plus years? Carol and I are relatively small fry, so the question might seem absurd at first glance. But we know Russians tried to influence public opinion in the Philando Castille case in Minnesota, where deadly police force had the potential to spark racial unrest. We also know public officials in our former home state, Alabama, have been dallying with Russian interests for years; the most recent example involving U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), who led a Republican delegation to Russia with the apparent purpose of sparking Arctic drilling and possible meddling in 2018 midterm elections.

Now, we've learned that our current "home state," Missouri, has been led by a governor who sought Russian cash and influence. We're talking about Eric Greitens, who resigned in May amid a whirlwind of scandals.

First, it's a matter of public record that one strong Greitens supporter is Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott, who orchestrated an unlawful eviction that ended with deputies breaking Carol's arm and bringing bogus criminal charges against HER, the victim of police brutality. And how is this for curious timing? Greitens was inaugurated on Jan. 9, 2017, and Carol was arrested for "assault on a law enforcement officer" on Jan. 30, 2017. A Greitens appointee, Greene County Judge Jerry Harmison, found Carol guilty even though the deputy "victim" admitted in an incident report (and on the stand, at trial) that she did not commit the offense -- that he caused physical contact with her, not the other way around.

Hmmm, almost sounds like Arnott was waiting for a signal from his favorite governor before moving forward with a baseless arrest. And sounds like Harmison handled the case corruptly to help provide cover for Arnott.

Did Arnott's "favorite governor" have ties to Russians and other foreign interests? The answer is "without a doubt."

One of Greitens' many scandals involved his efforts to seek campaign donations from foreigners. That, of course, is illegal, but it did not stop Greitens. From an article at the Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune:

During the first months of 2015, Gov. Eric Greitens actively sought donations from foreigners for his campaign — contributions that would be illegal under federal law — according to testimony given to a legislative committee.

Michael Hafner, a political consultant who worked for Greitens from January through March 2015, testified that the campaign team was working with people Greitens met while studying at Oxford University in the late 1990s.

“It was a road that I was never comfortable going down because I know in the American political system, foreign contributions are not allowed in American political races,” Hafner said in an interview Thursday. “I don’t know what happened after I left.”

The testimony raises troubling questions about whether the proliferation of “dark money” groups — political organizations that don’t disclose donors — has allowed illegal foreign money into U.S. politics, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said during a visit to Columbia.

Did Greitens attempt to have specific ties to Russia? Yes, indeed, via U.S. Rep Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), who has been described as a favorite of Russian President Vladimir Putin. From an article at the Kansas City Star, again focusing on former Greitens consultant, Michael Hafner:

Michael Hafner, a longtime GOP consultant who worked on Greitens’ campaign early on, told lawmakers that the governor directed him to “have conversations with donors who intended to raise significant amounts of money and … conceal the identity of those donors.”

Hafner said that at the governor’s urging, he spoke with Monu Joseph, a California-based venture capitalist who wanted to discuss how to bundle donations and conceal the identity of donors by funneling them through LLCs, according to a transcript of Hafner’s March testimony to a special House committee.

During the campaign, Greitens touted his commitment to transparency and blasted candidates who relied on support from political action committees to obscure their financial backers.

Notice that Monu Joseph is based in California, and that puts him close to Dana Rohrabacher:

Hafner told the committee that he and Joseph specifically discussed raising money from foreign nationals, which would violate a federal law that prohibits campaigns from knowingly accepted money from foreign nationals. . . .

Lawmakers asked Hafner about a campaign document that showed Greitens would be traveling to Hong Kong during the exploratory phase of his campaign.

Dana Rohrabacher

The committee released a heavily redacted version of the document that shows that Greitens planned to to meet in Hong Kong with a person who had donated to his charity, The Mission Continues.

The person, whose name is redacted, pledged to donate $50,000 to the campaign.

The document, which includes a call sheet of charity donors, recommends asking Joseph for $15,000 during the campaign’s exploratory phase and notes that he has a connection to U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who has faced scrutiny because of his ties to Russia.

Rohrabacher's ties to Russia, amid the Robert Mueller investigation, reportedly have put his re-election at risk:

The Russia investigation has shown few signs of having an impact in this year’s congressional elections, but there’s a House race in Orange County, Calif., where Vladimir Putin looms large.

In fact, the congressman running for reelection there says he once arm wrestled the Russian president.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher easily stands out as one of the most pro-Russia voices in the Republican Party. During the 2016 campaign, Politico called him ‘Putin’s favorite congressman.’ The New York Times reported that Russia viewed him as an intelligence source, even giving him a Kremlin code name. Rohrabacher’s story about arm wrestling Putin involves a few rounds of drinks in the 1990s and settling an argument over who won the Cold War.

Members of Congress and those hoping to become members of Congress are generally more focused on bread and butter domestic issues — such as health care, the economy and the environment.

But Rohrabacher is different. Opponents on his left and right are leveraging his long-standing calls for closer relations with Russia as one of the primary issues in their campaign, now that Russian attempts to influence American politics are a flashpoint.

Rohrabacher won the Republican primary in June and will face Democrat Harley Rouda in November's general election. The Rohrabacher seat widely is seen as one Democrats could pick up in the House-- with Russia being a key issue.

How might all of this connect to Carol and me? That, of course, remains unclear. But this much is clear: We have practiced aggressive journalism in two states -- Alabama and Missouri -- where key politicos are known to have ties with Russia. And the Philando Castille case proves that Russian meddling is not limited to those with fame or political power.

Murky Alabama law on state immunity boils down to this -- sheriffs and deputies are protected for negligent acts, but not for acts of intentional wrongdoing

Chris Blevins

Alabama law on state immunity for sheriffs and deputies has a murky quality to it. But upon digging into the subject, you realize it boils down to two pretty clear concepts:

(1) Under Alabama's outdated and racist constitution of 1901, and subsequent case law, sheriffs and their "alter egos" (deputies), are immune from lawsuits for negligent acts;

(2) Immunity does not protect sheriffs and deputies for acts of intentional wrongdoing -- the kind alleged in our Jail Case.

Senior U.S. District Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins, who unlawfully dismissed our complaint in the Jail Case, apparently can't grasp those concepts -- even when they are melted down into a simple format, as we've done above. Actually, Hopkins probably can grasp the subject but she is so riddled with Richard Shelby/Jeff Sessions/George W. Bush corruption -- from buying her judicial seat via donations to those GOP scoundrels -- that she simply cannot apply the law properly.

To simplify things even further, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit issued a 2010 published opinion that states the current law on immunity for law-enforcement officers in Alabama -- in language that is about as clear as you ever will find. We have cited that law in our Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, plus two amendments to that motion, which currently are pending before Hopkins. We will see if she can get it right this time, although I don't advise anyone to hold his breath. (Hopkins dismissal order and our Rule 59 motion -- plus amendments -- are embedded at the end of this post.)

Case law outlining the two central points noted above goes back at least 30 to 50 years -- and probably much further. On point No. 1, this is from our Rule 59, Second Amendment:

On multiple occasions, the Alabama Supreme Court has held: “A sheriff is an employee of the State and, as such, is immune from suit, in his official capacity, for negligent performance of his statutory duties.” (See Alexander v. Hatfield, 652 So. 2d 1142, Ala., 1994 and Parker v. Amerson, 519 So. 2d 442, Ala., 1987.) The Shulers’ allegations go way beyond negligence to intentional violations of state, federal, and constitutional laws. The Shelby County sheriff officials have not, and cannot, show they are immune from such acts of malice, fraud, and bad faith – which are way beyond their authority, as described by Code of Alabama.

As for point No. 2 above, here is this from the Rule 59, Second Amendment (with lengthy citations omitted):

Further, the Alabama Supreme Court held in Spring Hill Lighting v. Square D. Co. Inc 662 So.2d 1141 (Ala. 1995): “Clearly, a state officer or employee is not protected by § 14 when he acts willfully, maliciously, illegally, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond his authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law." The court in Spring Hill Lighting went on to state: “Because this action can proceed only on allegations of intentional wrongdoing, the defendants are not protected by immunity.” The Shulers have alleged repeated acts of intentional wrongdoing, so the defendant officers are not protected by immunity.

So far, Hopkins essentially has found that it was A-OK for Deputy Chris Blevins to intentionally break into our home without a warrant, without stating his grounds for being there, shoving me to a concrete floor three times, dousing me with pepper spray, and hauling me off for a five-month incarceration -- without the slightest hint of a felony allegation, or any criminal allegation at all. That, of course, is preposterously contrary to the law cited above. Nothing that Blevins did was negligent; it was intentional in nature, so he and his cohorts are stripped of immunity's cloak.

Virginia Emerson Hopkins

By the way, I am opposed to immunity for sheriffs and deputies under any circumstances. The whole goofy notion is based in Sec. 14 of Alabama's antiquated constitution, and that is one of many reasons the state desperately needs constitutional reform, not to mention tax reform. If the state in November were to elect Democrat Walt Maddox as governor, that might push us toward a modern and fair constitution. But until something like that happens, we are left to deal with a constitution that holds Alabama back with every day that passes.

Perhaps the best statement of Alabama's current law is found in a case styled Phillips v. Thomas, 555 So. 2d 81 (Ala., 1989). From that case, with lengthy citations omitted (citations are included in court documents below):

This Court has recognized that a state officer or employee may not escape individual tort liability by "arguing that his mere status as a state official cloaks him with the state's constitutional immunity." Clearly, a state officer or employee is not protected by § 14 when he acts willfully, maliciously, illegally, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond his authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law.

What about the Eleventh Circuit case that provides the most recent and clear-cut statement on immunity for Alabama law-enforcement officers? We will examine that in an upcoming post.


(To be continued)

Federal Judge Madeline Haikala sprang into action on FOIA case on the same date Joseph Siegelman's run for attorney general hit the Alabama press -- hmmm

Joseph and Don Siegelman

Why did U.S. Judge Madeline Haikala sit on the Siegelman FOIA case for roughly 10 months before springing into action that brought the case to a close in February 2018? It's almost as if something happened in February that prompted Haikala to rip off three slap-dash rulings, ending with the case being dismissed in a fashion that almost certainly was contrary to law.

As it turns out, something did happen in February -- and if that caused Haikala to dismiss the FOIA case, it speaks to political payback and provides another example of hideous corruption in Alabama's federal courts.

Here is the really disturbing question: What if Haikala was taking signals from one or more "power brokers," someone who had an interest in making sure the truth about the Don Siegelman prosecution remains under wraps? What if the power broker was thinking ahead to concerns about the outcome of what likely will be the most bitterly contested race -- at least behind the scenes -- in Alabama's midterm elections of November 2018.

The peculiar handling and outcome of the FOIA case suggests something foul is in the air. And that almost always happens when politics and the federal judiciary intermingle in Alabama.

So, what happened in February that might have sparked action in the FOIA case? News broke on Feb. 9 that Joseph Siegelman had qualified with the Democratic Party to run as attorney general. Ironically, that's the same date Haikala -- after letting the matter lie dormant so long that many people probably forgot out it -- issued the first of three rulings that swept the case out the door, almost under cover of darkness. The docket shows Haikala's other rulings came on Feb. 23 and 28 -- and, boom, the FOIA case was gone, after many Alabamians likely had forgotten it ever arrived.

Joseph Siegelman brought the FOIA case, long before announcing his AG candidacy, seeking Department of Justice (DOJ) documents from his father's prosecution -- especially documents related to the dubious recusal of then U.S. attorney Leura Canary. Various attorneys connected to Don Siegelman had been seeking such documents, via FOIA, for roughly 12 years. The most recent effort, in the form of Joseph Siegelman's federal lawsuit, ended with the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) turning over requested documents -- but they were so heavily redacted due to claimed exemptions under FOIA -- as to be virtually useless.

Haikala did nothing to make OPR turn over information in a readable format. Was someone unhappy that Joseph Siegelman decided to run for attorney general? Were Haikala's hurried and nonsensical rulings on the FOIA matter a form of political payback? Was someone pulling the judge's strings, meaning Haikala is corrupt and accomplishing little other than to add to the sewer-like qualities of Alabama's justice system?

If the answer to that last one is yes, the power broker in question probably is named Doug Jones, as in the U.S. Senator who upset Roy Moore last December to claim Jeff Sessions' old seat. Consider the evidence we've already presented:

(1) Doug Jones is a "Democrat" (in name only) who once served as Don Siegelman's defense attorney, so a reasonable person might expect him to support Joseph Siegelman for AG. But that is not the case -- and Jones and Don Siegelman had a heated discussion on the issue in February, just before the senior Siegelman had emergency heart surgery. In fact, Don Siegelman's surgery was on Feb. 9, the same day his son qualified as an AG candidate and Madeline Haikala made her first ruling that would lead to dismissal of the FOIA case.

(2) Jones made it clear that he supported Bradley Arant lawyer Chris Christie, who was Joseph Siegelman's opponent in the Democratic primary. Another Christie supporter was Sirote Permutt lawyer Barry Ragsdale, who defended former federal judge Mark Fuller as he faced wife-beating charges. Fuller, of course, railroaded the Don Siegelman prosecution, causing the former governor and codefendant Richard Scrushy to unlawfully spend roughly six years each in prison.

(3) Alabama Democrats don't like to hear this, but evidence strongly suggests Doug Jones is more loyal to the Bob Riley wing of the Republican Party -- which includes such luminaries as Jeff Sessions; Bill Canary; Luther Strange; and Bob's oily son, Rob "Uday" Riley -- than he is to any Democratic causes. After all, Jones and Rob Riley teamed up on a federal HealthSouth lawsuit, which allowed them to take home a hefty chunk of $51 million in attorney fees. That probably is the No. 1 reason Jones could afford a Senate run.

(4) Could Joseph Siegelman, as Alabama AG, pose a threat to Doug Jones, Rob Riley, and their political allies? The answer is yes -- if the younger Siegelman is serious about cleaning up his home state, which badly needs cleansing. Doug Jones took a number of curious actions as Don Siegelman's defense lawyer -- including charging him $300,000 without even taking the case to trial. And Rob Riley played a central role in setting up the baseless Siegelman prosecution, which led to Bob Riley becoming two-term governor of Alabama -- with the help of Siegelman votes disappearing overnight in GOP stronghold Baldwin County, flipping the 2002 election.

(5) It's not clear how the Obama administration (Democrats) came to appoint a federal judge who clearly does not abide by Democratic principles, such as respect for the rule of law, due process, and equal protection. Doug Jones has touted his connections to Obama  VP Joe Biden, so perhaps Jones pushed for Haikala's nomination, even though she came from a conservative, pro-corporate law firm (Lightfoot Franklin), and like Jones himself, is more or less a Republican in disguise. Does Haikala owe here judicial seat to Doug Jones, and is that why he might have had her ear on the Siegelman FOIA matter?

Joseph Siegelman defeated Chris Christie in the June primary and is set to face incumbent Steve Marshall, who has the support of the state's white conservative elites -- and that group probably includes Doug Jones. A determined younger Siegelman in the AG's chair might lead to investigations that could expose the truth behind his father's prosecution -- and it could spell big trouble for Doug Jones, Rob Riley, and their allies.

Given the ugliness in Alabama politics over the past 25 years or so, this much is certain: Powerful white elites, both Republicans and Democrats, see Joseph Siegelman as a threat, and they will pull out all the stops to make sure he does not become the chief law-enforcement officer of Alabama. That includes the strong possibility that, if the race appears to be remotely close, it will be stolen for Steve Marshall, who is likely to protect the corrupt status quo.

If the Siegelmans are committed to a Joseph Siegelman victory, they had better develop a rock-solid plan to prevent election theft. Our bet is that they will definitely need it.

Judge Jerry Harmison's handling of Carol's sentence in "assault" case means she was (unlawfully) found guilty, but she is not "convicted" of any criminal offense

Jerry Harmison Jr.

My wife, Carol, unlawfully has been found guilty of "assault on a law enforcement officer" in Missouri, but she has not been convicted,  under state law. If that causes you to scratch your head, join the crowd.

It all flows from Judge Jerry Harmison Jr.'s decision to give Carol a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS), with two years of unsupervised probation and a $10 payment to a crime victims' fund. (Do you see irony in Carol being forced to pay into a crime victims' fund, when she was the victim here -- brutalized by Greene County deputies during an unlawful eviction in September 2015 and left with an arm broken so badly that it required trauma surgery and roughly six months of physical therapy?) The idea behind an SIS is that the case will be removed from the record if Carol abides by terms of her probation.

But Harmison's introduction of an SIS into the 21-month clown car of a case against Carol complicates matters. The case already includes the alleged "victim," Officer Jeremy Lynn, admitting both in a written incident report and on the stand at trial that he initiated physical contact with Carol by grabbing her as he burst into our apartment. That means Carol could not have committed the offense, as described under Missouri statute. Harmison's judgment includes Lynn's statement at trial, reflecting Carol's innocence, but this is a judge --appointed by Eric Greitens, the governor who was forced from office under a cloud of scandal -- who does not let facts and the law influence his thinking. (Judgment is embedded at the end of this post.) Harmison found Carol guilty while never once mentioning the definition of the offense, found at the controlling statute, RSMo 565.083.

What about those complications we mentioned? For one, there is no final judgment in Carol's case, which means there is nothing to appeal -- and since there is no punishment, beyond what amounts to a $10 fine, this case is pretty much a nothing-burger, a "brilliant" use of taxpayer resources. But now we learn Carol is not even convicted, which makes Harmison's actions look even more goofy.

That comes from a case styled Yale v. City of Independence 846 S.W. 2d 193 (1993) The holding:

The City contends that these repeated legislative efforts indicate that in all cases the term "conviction" should now include guilty pleas and findings of guilt regardless of the disposition of the case. We disagree. These statutes represent an awareness by the general assembly that the term "conviction," standing alone, does not include a plea or finding of guilt where imposition of sentence is suspended and that such a disposition is not one to which collateral consequences attach. These statutes apply only in certain specific instances. Had the legislature intended to define "conviction" to include the disposition of suspended imposition of sentence in all cases, it would have done so.

By "collateral consequences," the court appears to be referring to the small matter of punishment for those who violate terms of their probation. The Supreme Court of Missouri is saying such consequences do not "attach" when an SIS is involved. That means Carol is on probation, but she cannot lawfully be punished for violating it.

I told you this situation was goofy.

This outcome also throws a wrench into the apparent plans of Missouri law thugs to "preclude" Carol's upcoming federal civil-rights lawsuit, which also will include claims from yours truly. Preclusion in civil rights cases under 42 U.S.C.1983 can only apply to final state judgments -- and there has been no such judgment in Carol's case. Preclusion also can apply only where a party had a "full and fair" opportunity to litigate at the state level, with the party being convicted in the matter. Well, Carol had no opportunity (much less a "full and fair" one) to litigate many of the issues that will appear in our civil-rights case -- and Carol, as a matter of Missouri law, was not convicted, even though the court docket shows a guilty finding. No kidding. (See Motion for Acquittal and Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Judgment, which are embedded at the end of this post.)

The Yale case launched when a city firefighter, Ronald Yale, pleaded guilty to a felony charge and wound up losing his job because the city personnel manual authorized termination for "conviction" of a criminal offense. Yale appealed, arguing that his termination was unlawful because he received an SIS, and thus, was not convicted under state law. The Supreme Court of Missouri agreed with him. From the opinion:

Ronald Yale appeals an order of summary judgment dismissing his wrongful discharge action. We granted transfer to consider whether a plea of guilty to a felony charge followed by a disposition of "suspended imposition of sentence" constitutes a "conviction" under the City of Independence personnel manual, the provisions of which authorize termination of employees convicted of a felony. The judgment is reversed and remanded.

On November 4, 1988, Yale pleaded guilty to one count of sodomy, a class B felony. The court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Yale on probation for five years. Shortly thereafter, the City of Independence dismissed Yale without pay from his position as a firefighter, subject to further termination proceedings. The city personnel board, following a hearing, recommended that Yale's termination be upheld pursuant to the City's personnel manual, which authorized termination for the "conviction of a felony, criminal offense, or crime of moral turpitude." The manual did not define the term "conviction."

The high court found that a conviction does not include a case where an SIS is applied:

The precise issue of whether the disposition of suspended imposition of sentence constitutes a conviction apparently has never been addressed by this Court. This question has been discussed, however, in several appellate court decisions, most notably, Meyer v. Missouri Real Estate Comm'n, 238 Mo.App. 476, 183 S.W.2d 342 (1944). In that case, the Missouri Real Estate Commission sought to revoke the license of a broker who had pleaded nolo contendere to seven charges of embezzlement and who subsequently received a suspended imposition of sentence along with a three-year term of probation. The Meyer court noted that the term "conviction" is subject to more than one meaning depending upon the context in which it is used. . . .  For example, where the term is used in its common law sense to designate a particular stage of a criminal prosecution triable by a jury, the term "conviction" may merely include "the confession of the accused in open court, or the verdict returned against him by the jury."

However, when the term refers to a determination of guilt from a prior proceeding, and bears directly upon the status or rights of an individual in a subsequent case, there is a different meaning. In these situations in which collateral punitive consequences may attach, a "conviction" is not established, nor is a person deemed "convicted," unless it is shown that a judgment has been pronounced upon the verdict. 

The court found that, because of the SIS, no judgment was pronounced against Yale, and he therefore was not convicted. The same concept applies in Carol's case. The following passage from Yale has profound consequences for Carol's case:

It is well-settled that a suspended imposition of sentence is not a final judgment. State v. Lynch, 679 S.W.2d 858, 860 (Mo. banc 1984); Meyer, at 345. The word "sentence" in legal terms means "a judgment or final judgment." . . . Where imposition of sentence has been suspended, there can be no judgment.  See also State v. Bachman, 675 S.W.2d 41, 45 (Mo.App.1984).

Let that last highlighted sentence sink in. Not only is there no final judgment in Carol's case, there is no judgment at all. How does the scoreboard now read in State of Missouri v. Carol Tovich Shuler?

(1) The state got no final judgment;

(2) The state got no judgment at all;

(3) Carol is on probation, but she can't be punished for violating it;

(4) Carol's entire punishment amounts to a $10 fine, and that likely is not lawful;

(5) Carol was not convicted.

(6) The guilty finding against Carol, with no judgment and no conviction, can not preclude her federal civil-rights claims.

By my account, the state is trailing 0-6 on the scoreboard in this charade of a case.

The alert reader might check item No. 3 above and ask, "Is Carol's probation lawful? Is it valid if she can't be punished for violating it?"

Those are darned good questions, and our research led us to some stunning answers. Along the way, we dealt with a U.S. Supreme Court case that originated in Alabama. How's that for irony?


(To be continued)

Wife of Birmingham attorney Burt Newsome is targeted for vehicle smash and grab, days after guilty verdict against ex-Balch partner in Superfund case

Regina Newsome's vehicle after
being vandalized.

The wife of Birmingham attorney Burt Newsome recently was the victim of vandalism and theft from her vehicle while it was parked at a fitness center in Vestavia Hills, according to  a report at banbalch.com.

Regina Galiulina Newsome apparently was targeted while at Lifetime Fitness for a tennis lesson, according to her Facebook page. The incident, on July 30, came nine days after former Balch Bingham partner Joel Gilbert was convicted of bribery in the North Birmingham Superfund scandal. It also came after reports of a possible RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) lawsuit related to Balch's efforts to essentially steal Burt Newsome's lucrative collections practice and ruin his law business.

Was Regina Newsome targeted in an effort to intimidate her husband into forgoing a RICO lawsuit that could expose some prominent political figures -- including former U.S. Senators Jeff Sessions (now Trump attorney general) and Luther Strange, plus Strange's one-time mistress and  campaign manager, Jessica Medeiros Garrison?

Just yesterday, we learned from excellent reporting at Mother Jones, that Sessions and his office coordinated their attacks on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Superfund case, working more closely with Balch than was previously known. Does that mean Sessions, too, could be connected to the intimidation campaign against Burt Newsome and his wife? That certainly is a reasonable question to ask.

This all hits close to home because I was the victim of an even more outrageous intimidation effort. In fall 2013, I essentially was kidnapped from our Birmingham home -- deputies unlawfully broke into our home (without stating they had a warrant or showing a warrant) and beat me up and arrested me on a civil matter, with not even a whiff of a criminal allegation. It was related to my reporting on this blog about the "close relationship" of GOP politico Rob Riley and lobbyist Liberty Duke, so I essentially spent five months in the Shelby County Jail for blogging -- apparently the only U.S. journalist in history to be so targeted. The bogus arrest caused us to lose our home of 25 years to a wrongful foreclosure.

Ironically, both my arrest and the Regina Newsome smash and grab came as concerns about possible RICO cases against right-wing political figures were circulating in news accounts.

We have no doubt Strange and Garrison were involved in my arrest, plus the theft of our home, and we would not be surprised if Jeff Sessions and his protege, U.S. Judge Bill Pryor, also were involved. We have pending federal-court cases -- The Jail Case and The House Case -- in both matters.

Attacking someone's wife is not a new tactic for these thugs. Riley and Duke sued my wife, Carol, for defamation -- even though she had nothing to do with my blog at the time. Deputies tried to arrest Carol the same night they broke into our garage and arrested me -- and they made several more visits to our home, trying to arrest Carol, after I was in jail. Each of those efforts failed, and Carol remained free to contact the press and turn my arrest into a national story. 

What happened in the Regina Newsome vandalism/theft case? It's peculiar on several levels, as banbalch.com reports:

With a RICO civil suit on the horizon and the conviction of Balch and Bingham equity partner Joel I. Gilbert on six federal counts, maybe it was time to take a look at the matter again with fresh eyes.

Who knows.

Then yesterday, two thugs targeted the wife of Burt Newsome who had gone to her gym. Video surveillance of the incident shows the suspects driving around allegedly specifically looking for Newsome’s vehicle.

After seeing the actions by the thugs, law enforcement’s first question to Mrs. Newsome was, “Do you have any enemies?”

Signs abound that this was a planned, coordinated attack:

The suspects who were in a vehicle with no license plates sought out and then simply broke into and only Newsome’s vehicle. Highly unusual, the incident occurred in a parking row near the visible entrance of the fitness club, a rarity.

The thugs had not even looked in the car before busting the window out. Her purse was stolen, yet none of the credit cards were used or attempted to be used. Nothing else in the car (phone charger, etc.) was taken. The purse was hidden under the passenger seat.

What were these thugs looking for? Her mobile phone? Her personal information?

Or were they simply sending a message of intimidation or fear?

All that was missing was a horse’s head.

Notice the reference above to a looming RICO case. Is that the reason Regina Newsome was targeted? Based on personal experience, I'd say the answer is yes. Someone concocted a scheme in fall 2013 that made it look like I was pushing for a RICO lawsuit, on behalf of progressive activist Brett Kimberlin, against the right-wing National Bloggers Club, led by GOP and Karl Rove-affiliated felon Ali (Akbar) Alexander. It all grew from comments left at the Web site Breitbart Unmasked, by someone calling himself "RogerS."  Conventional wisdom in right-wing circles was that I was "RogerS," and this was just days before my arrest. In fact, I was not RogerS, and I had no involvement in the Kimberlin matter.

Burt and Regina Newsome

The Regina Newsome attack sounds like the work of organized criminals. Borrowing on reporting at banbalch.com, we've helped show that Luther Strange and Jessica Garrison have ties to the effort to undermine her husband's law practice. Quoting banbalch.com:

We have reached out to federal authorities and have asked them to investigate U.S. Senator Luther Strange’s involvement in alleged corruption and the trampling of the Civil Rights of Burt Newsome, a father of four young children who was wrongly targeted, falsely arrested, and defamed by one of Strange’s most ardent financial and political supporters, the embattled law firm Balch Bingham.

Strange has received tens of thousands of dollars from Balch Bingham or political action committees funded by Balch Bingham partners. Strange’s top political advisor and former campaign manager, Jessica Garrison, was “of counsel” at Balch until this past spring, a known revolving-door for political operatives.

What revolts us most is as Alabama Attorney General, Strange gave a helping-hand—just a year ago—to an alleged criminal conspiracy that trampled the Civil Rights of Burt Newsome, a father of four young children who was railroaded with a capital R.

According to court filings, Newsome, a small-town attorney in Alabama, was falsely arrested and defamed by the alleged co-conspirators including Balch Bingham which allegedly had a financial objective: to obtain Newsome’s lucrative banking collections business.

In April of 2014, the criminal case against Newsome collapsed and was eventually expunged from court records. But almost a year later after the expungement, in June of 2016, another judge, with allegedly no knowledge of the details of the case, reversed the expungement and opened the contents of a case that no longer existed, declaring that the previous judge (since retired) had erred.

Incredibly, Newsome was allegedly barred by court officials from filing a brief or petitioning the court at that time.

Raising eyebrows and expanding the web of possible collusion, two months later, in August of 2016, then-Attorney General Luther Strange filed a brief in support of the resurrected expungement, citing and regurgitating the order signed by the new judge.

Observers could not understand why his office would ever get involved in a matter like this, especially since the brief looked like a simple “cut and paste job.” The reason was Balch Bingham and other co-conspirators wanted to use the false criminal accusations in a civil case that the co-conspirators looked like they were losing against Newsome.

Someone on the Alabama legal/political scene has a habit of going rogue when they feel threatened by a RICO lawsuit. Evidence suggests they did it in my kidnapping and incarceration. I suspect some of the same people are responsible for the trashing of Regina Newsome's vehicle.

Lazy and corrupt officials with the Alabama State Bar apparently believe in conducting "investigations" where the victim of misconduct does all of the work

Tripp Vickers, at lectern

An official with the Alabama State Bar has promised to investigate allegations that a member of his staff interfered with our "Jail Case." What kind of investigation does Douglas McElvy, acting general counsel of the bar, have in mind? It's apparently the kind where I do all of the work.

The issue began when Fultondale attorney Greg Morris, who attempted to help us with a Rule 26 scheduling meeting, contacted the bar's Center for Professional Responsibility with a question related to our case. That office includes a general counsel (who now is Roman Shaul, taking over on a full-time basis for McElvy), plus three assistants -- Tripp Vickers, Jeremy McIntire, and Mark Moody. Morris was not certain with whom he spoke (his best guess was McIntire), but when I talked with McElvy via phone, he said any ethics question would almost certainly have gone to Vickers or McElvy himself.

Did McElvy seem to take the matter seriously? Not exactly, as I indicated in a May 29 post:

I recently called the state bar office and asked to speak to Jeremy McIntire, the individual a Birmingham-area attorney identified as making statements that strongly suggested the attorney should not get involved in our Jail Case and could even come to some form of harm if he remained engaged. The attorney was "75 to 80 percent sure" he spoke with McIntire, not one of the other two assistant general counsels -- Tripp Vickers or Mark Moody.

When I spoke with McIntire by phone, he denied having talked with the attorney. When I asked if he could check with Vickers or Moody, he declined to do so. When I asked why, he rudely informed me that it's "not my job."

I wound up speaking with Acting General Counsel Douglas McElvy, who immediately went into whitewash mode -- saying he found it almost impossible to believe that a member of his staff would interfere in a pending court case. I informed McElvy that I had the evidence in a word-for-word format, so he invited me to send a written complaint (which I did), and he promised to investigate.

I responded promptly with a written complaint to McElvy, and it was pretty much a summary of what I had told him on the phone. Here it is, dated May 21, 2018:

Mr. McElvy:

This is a followup to our phone conversation of early last week. I am a journalist and publisher of the Legal Schnauzer blog. I also am a litigant in two pending federal cases -- Roger Shuler, et al v. Jessica Garrison, et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-00695-VEH) and Roger Shuler, et al v. Liberty Duke, et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-00501-VEH).

I have a statement from Fultondale attorney Greg Morris that a member of your staff interfered in the Duke case, and evidence indicates similar interference took place in the Garrison case, plus 3-4 other federal matters over the past six to eight years. This interference apparently has taken the form of pressuring or persuading judges to rule against my wife, Carol, and/or me.

Morris was assisting me in the Duke matter and says he contacted a member of your staff with a question about an affidavit he was preparing. Morris said he was 75-80 percent certain he spoke with Jeremy McIntire. You stated in our phone conversation that Morris likely spoke to Tripp Vickers. For now, we will assume it was Vickers, and here are just a few of the statements that Morris attributes to your staff member (in Morris' voice):

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

* I said I feel strongly about all I've written, [but the bar said], "You'd better not go [with the affidavit]. If the judge wants to hear from you, she will call you in."

* [The bar said] Tell Roger, "No, no you don't have permission," You stay away from that, If the judge wants to hear from you, she'll let you know.

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

I have these statements, and more, in a word-for-word format from Mr. Morris. As you can see, they blatantly interfere with my right to counsel and my relationship with counsel. On an even more serious note, the apparent interference with judges points to obstruction of justice, misprision of a felony, wire fraud, honest-services fraud, and maybe more -- all pointing to RICO.

You asked for specifics, so that you could conduct an investigation of these matters, and I've provided specifics above. Your statements during our phone conversation suggest you are not likely to conduct a serious inquiry, so I am expecting a whitewash. If corruption continues in the above-styled cases, I will know it has been a whitewash.

As I stated in our phone conversation, I take this with the utmost seriousness. My constitutional rights -- and those of my wife -- have been trampled. I've long suspected back-channel interference with my court cases -- going back years before you joined the Alabama State Bar staff -- and Mr. Morris' statements now give me a good idea about the origins of that interference.

I believe criminal acts are involved here, and I intend to do everything in my power to make sure the appropriate parties are held accountable. You are welcome to investigate on your end, but I'm not going to be in waiting mode on my end. I intend to move forward on all appropriate fronts.

If you wish to notify me of your findings, I ask that you do so by 5 p.m. next Monday (5/28/18).


Regards,


Roger Shuler

I gave McElvy roughly one week to complete his investigation -- and I was flexible on that point -- which I thought was plenty of time, given that he only needed to interview three people in his own office. In fact, based on McElvy's own words, he likely only needed to interview one person, Tripp Vickers.

So, how did McElvy respond to my complaint? By essentially asking me to do his job for him, in an email dated May 29:

Mr. Shuler,

Thank you for your email. Please forward to me the statement from attorney Greg Morris which you quote in your email. Please also forward the evidence which you allege “suggests that the bars of Alabama and Missouri are colluding to be sure we are cheated in two states . . . ” You also reference other evidence that “interference took place in the Garrison case…” and other federal matters. Please forward all evidence you believe implicates the Alabama Bar in any misconduct. I am unaware of any such misconduct.

Douglas McElvy

Notice that McElvy was asking me for information -- on top of what I already had provided -- while giving no indication that he had questioned anyone on his end. I brought this to his attention.

Mr. McElvy:

I'm not sending you any statement that is covered by attorney-client privilege, and I'm not sending you any evidence that could be subject to civil or criminal proceedings later. I've given you an opportunity to investigate from your end, and that's up to you. Your statements to me by phone indicate you are not serious about investigating this matter, so you're not getting any further help from me. I've given you plenty to go on, and your email doesn't indicate you've even questioned anyone on the bar staff. I would suggest that's where your inquiry needs to start.

Have you questioned Mr. Vickers and Mr. McIntire and Mr. Moody? If you have, and they are honest, you should have all the information you need.

I received no reply from McElvy, so I followed up two days later, on May 31:

I take it you haven't found out who spoke with Greg Morris? It shouldn't be that hard. Have you even bothered to ask?

You want more assistance from me, but you haven't even found the most basic evidence that is right under your nose?

Again, I received no replay from McElvy, which means the bar has done nothing in two-plus months to address my concerns. The bar's directory indicates Roman Shaul has taken over as full-time counsel, so this issue now will land in his lap -- and Tripp Vickers' lap, since the current evidence suggests he's the one who took Greg Morris' call.

If the bar thinks it can stick its head in the sand, and this problem will go away . . . well, that's not going to happen.