Missouri lawyer David Shuler refuses to answer questions about my nephew's DUI case, suggesting David did a lousy job of defending a family member

Blake Shuler

Missouri lawyer David Shuler (my brother) has refused to answer questions about his handling of a case in Clever, MO, that left my nephew with a criminal record he does not deserve, under the law.

Perhaps David's reticence is understandable because the record indicates he did a piss-poor job of representing a member of his own family.

Cops pulled over Blake Shuler after allegedly observing his vehicle cross the center line a couple of times. An incident report shows that Blake failed three field-sobriety tests and was arrested on suspicion of driving while impaired. Blake agreed to take a breathalyzer test at Clever City Hall, and that came back negative for alcohol. At that point, Blake had proven to be innocent of the charge against him, and he and his passenger should have been allowed to depart, by law. But a second officer -- while Blake was at City Hall -- conducted a search of the vehicle, apparently without consent. That turned up marijuana and paraphernalia, and Blake wound up facing drug-related charges.

Probably wanting to keep the whole incident from his parents, Blake decided to plead guilty without legal representation. Somehow, David Shuler (my lawyer/brother) got involved and managed to get the guilty plea withdrawn, but Blake still wound up with a guilty plea of "peace disturbance," even though the record shows he did not disturb the peace in any way. (Blake's parents are Paul and Gaye Ann Shuler, my brother and sister-in-law, of Willard, MO; Paul is a radiology tech at Mercy Hospital Springfield, while Gaye Ann works at O'Reilly Auto Parts.)

It's undisputed that Blake proved he was innocent of driving under the influence of alcohol. As for the possibility that Blake was "driving while high," well, the cops apparently did not test for that. Perhaps their small-town department did not have ready access to the necessary tests, but it seems likely they could have arranged such testing via the Christian County Sheriff's Office. But they didn't, so alcohol was the only issue, and Blake's breath test came back negative for that.

The obvious question, then: What in the hell were the Clever cops doing searching the vehicle? The answer is: "They shouldn't have been." Here's the relevant law, from a previous post:

The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) found in Rodriguez v. U.S. (2015) that "a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures. A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a ticket for the violation."

The Rodriguez court goes on to hold that extension of the stop beyond its traffic-violation purpose is lawful only if officers have a "reasonable suspicion" that additional criminal activity is associated with the vehicle. From the opinion: 

"We granted certiorari to resolve a division among lower courts on the question whether police routinely may extend an otherwise-completed traffic stop, absent reasonable suspicion, in order to conduct a dog sniff. . . . [W]ithout additional reasonable suspicion, the officer must allow the seized person to depart once the purpose of the stop has concluded.”

The dog sniff in Rodriguez produced more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, and the driver was charged with intent to distribute. But SCOTUS found the purpose of the stop involved an officer's observation that Rodriguez had driven on the shoulder of the road. Did the officers have reasonable suspicion of any other criminal activity, beyond the traffic violation? In other words, was there any reason to suspect there were drugs in the vehicle, justifying extension of the stop and a search of the vehicle via a dog sniff?

SCOTUS noted that the district court found "the dog sniff in this case was not independently supported by individualized suspicion" and vacated the Eight Circuit's judgment, sending the case back to lower courts for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. In essence, SCOTUS found that Rodriguez and his passenger should have been allowed to depart once the traffic warning was written.

The incident report in Blake's case shows there was no "individualized suspicion" of anything improper beyond the traffic incident. Officers apparently did not see or smell anything that made them suspect drugs might be present. In other words, they had no grounds to search the vehicle -- and that means the search was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Incident report is embedded at the end of this post.)

David Shuler

Why didn't Blake's lawyer challenge the search, to help ensure his client didn't walk away with a criminal record he should not have? To put it simply, why didn't David Shuler fight for his client, a member of his own family? We put that question, and others, to David and received this response:

I am sorry, but I am not able to give you any information.

Here are the questions I posed to David, via an e-mail sent on August 8:

David:

I have a few questions about the Blake Shuler case in Clever, MO:

(1) Did you challenge the search of Blake's vehicle? I haven't yet found case law directly on point, but it seems questionable that cops would take him to city hall and administer a breath test that proved he was innocent of driving while impaired -- but they proceeded to search his vehicle anyway, while he was gone and apparently didn't give consent. (Note: This question was posed before I found information about the Rodriguez case.) Police reports indicate Blake was proving his innocence on the "suspicion" of DUI charge, while they searched his vehicle and came up with drug material to charge him with something anyway. Smells funny from here. Seems to me the second cop jumped the gun by searching the vehicle. If he had waited a few minutes for the test results, he would have learned Blake was innocent of the charge and there was no probable cause to search. Why weren't Blake and his girlfriend sent on their way, with no charges?

(2) Did you challenge the field-sobriety tests? My understanding is these often are conducted improperly and get false results. The police report says Blake failed three tests, but it doesn't say what they were or what pointed to him failing them. It's sort of "trust me" police work, but police aren't the most trustworthy people around, as perhaps you are aware.

(3) The record indicates Blake pleaded guilty to "peace disturbance." Why? I see nothing in the reports that indicate he was loud, disrespectful, or disturbed the peace in any way.

I've read the record thoroughly, and it appears Blake was proven innocent of DUI, was the victim of a dubious search, and pled guilty to something he didn't do? Is that an accurate assessment of what happened?

Yes, that is an accurate assessment of what happened, and it shows David Shuler did a lousy job of representing his client. Blake Shuler proved his innoence on the alcohol charge, and the cops' own incident report shows he did not disturb the peace. But Blake wound up with a criminal record because his lawyer failed to challenge a clearly unconstitutional vehicle search.

If I were in David's shoes, I wouldn't want to answer questions about this case either.

Recent SCOTUS ruling indicates search of my nephew's vehicle in Clever, MO, was unlawful, but attorney David Shuler apparently failed to challenge it

Blake Shuler

A recent U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case proves the search of my nephew's vehicle in Clever, MO, was unconstitutional, but records indicate he has a criminal record because my lawyer-brother, David Shuler, apparently failed to challenge the search.

The case is Rodriguez v. United States (Sup. Ct., 2015), which involved a driver and his passenger who were stopped for a traffic violation -- driving on the shoulder of the highway. Instead of simply dealing with the traffic issue, a police officer conducted a dog-sniff search of the vehicle, which turned up methamphetamine. Rodriguez was hit with federal drug charges and a magistrate judge refused to suppress evidence from the search. Rodriguez entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced to five years in prison. On appeal, the case went to SCOTUS, which found the search violated the Fourth Amendment and vacated the judgment.

My nephew, Blake Shuler, went through a similar unlawful search (minus the dog sniff) in Clever, MO, but he wound up with a criminal record anyway -- for "peace disturbance." We will have more on the Rodriquez case shortly. But first, I would like to drive home why this case matters to me, and why it should matter to you.

I have a criminal record in Alabama for an offense -- resisting arrest -- that I did not commit and should not be on my record, for several reasons. One, it came as the result of an unlawful traffic stop. Two, it came as the result of an unlawful entry to our home -- without an apparent warrant, without the cop stating his purpose for being on our property, and with no allegation of a crime. (It involved an alleged contempt of court over a preliminary injunction in a defamation lawsuit, with such injunctions having been prohibited by more than 200 years of First Amendment law. In other words, the officer had no criminal issues to tend to at my home; it was a 100 percent civil matter.)

Both the traffic stop and the entry to our home of 25 years in Birmingham are violations of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Still, I wound up with a resisting arrest charge, even though Officer Chris Blevins admits in his incident report that I never initiated contact with him -- while he pushed me to the concrete floor in our basement three times, doused me with pepper spray, and one of his associates threatened to break my arms.

Bottom line: I know what it feels like to have a bogus criminal mark on my record, and it sucks. It makes you ask, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?" I didn't like it when it happened to me -- and we have two pending federal lawsuits in an effort to resolve the violation of civil rights -- and I don't like it now that cops concocted bogus "assault on a law enforcement officer" charges against my wife, Carol, in the wake of our unlawful eviction in Springfield, Missouri on Sept. 9, 2015. That also was the result of gross Fourth Amendment violations.

Records now suggest another member of my family, nephew Blake Shuler, also has a bogus criminal blotch on his record. Blake's issues started with a traffic stop in Clever, MO, for alleged DUI and involved a field-sobriety test that he supposedly failed -- followed by a breathalyzer test, which came back negative for alcohol. While Blake was proving his innocence of the alleged offense at Clever City Hall, a second officer who had been called to the scene, decided to conduct a search of Blake's vehicle, apparently without bothering to ask for consent. That turned up marijuana and drug paraphernalia, so police hit him with those charges -- even though he had proven innocent on the charge for which he was stopped.

Blake pleaded guilty to the drug-related charges, while representing himself. His lawyer-uncle, David Shuler (my brother) made an appearance in the case and got the drug-related guilty plea withdrawn. But Blake still wound up pleading guilty to "peace disturbance," even though there is nothing in the public record to suggest he disturbed the peace in any way. (Incident report is embedded at the end of this post.)

I was convicted of a bogus charge largely because I was dealing with a corrupt court system in Shelby County, AL -- but it didn't help that my resisting-arrest trial came while I already was unlawfully incarcerated in the defamation matter, and I had no opportunity to prepare a defense and no ability to hire a lawyer, even if a good one had been available. Blake had a lawyer, but his uncle David apparently was not willing to fight for him. David probably was interested mainly in catering to Clever Municipal Judge Matthew B. Owen (who is one of his Facebook friends) and placating the keystone cops who apparently populate the city's police department. It also is possible David didn't charge Blake anything, so he put forth minimal effort. If that's the case, our review suggests Blake got what he paid for -- nothing.

This much is clear: David doesn't want to answer questions about the case. We've given him multiple opportunities, and he has not responded to our queries.

At least three aspects of Blake's case were ripe for challenge from a competent lawyer. It appears David didn't challenge any of them one. We will look at two of the issues today and examine the third one (the most important one, by far) tomorrow.

(1) Field-sobriety tests -- The police narrative claims Blake was administered field-sobriety tests and failed three of them. But the report provides no details on what tests were administered, how they were administered, and how police determined that Blake failed them. That Blake allegedly failed the field tests but then passed the breathalyzer test raises all kinds of questions about how the field tests were conducted. But David Shuler apparently didn't bother to ask such questions. Blake was arrested based on the outcome of the field tests, but they are known for questionable reliability. From an article at the Web site for Ward and Associates, a St. Louis, MO, law firm:

Many times, police officers have inadequate training, and the field sobriety tests are not properly administered. The average police officer learned about the exercises/tests at the police academy, and has had no training since that time. The result is that the required testing conditions and scoring procedures are never learned, or they are forgotten or modified.

Police officers have also been known to create their own tests, such as having the subject recite the alphabet backwards, starting from the letter M, and then fail the subject because he or she could not do so. Having to recite the alphabet backwards is not a recognized field sobriety test in Missouri or anywhere else.

The research conducted by NHTSA attributing a likelihood of impairment assumed that the police officer properly administered, interpreted and scored the standardized field sobriety tests. If the officer does not properly administer the tests, NHTSA states that their “validity is compromised.” In such case, they should not have been relied on.

Were Blake Shuler's field tests reliable? It appears David Shuler didn't bother to find out.

David Shuler

(2) Peace disturbance -- Blake wound up pleading guilty to "peace disturbance," but the obvious question is, "Why?" Here is how the City of Clever Municipal Ordinances defines the offense:

Section 210.200. Peace Disturbance. A. A person commits the offense of peace disturbance if: 1. He/she unreasonably and knowingly disturbs or alarms another person or persons by: a. Loud noise; b. Offensive language addressed in a face-to-face manner to a specific individual and uttered under circumstances which are likely to produce an immediate violent response from a reasonable recipient; c. Threatening to commit a felonious act against any person under circumstances which are likely to cause a reasonable person to fear that such threat may be carried out; d. Fighting; or e. Creating a noxious and offensive odor. 2. He/she is in a public place or on private property of another without consent and purposely causes inconvenience to another person or persons by unreasonably and physically obstructing: a. Vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or b. The free ingress or egress to or from a public or private place.

The offense essentially involves making a loud noise, using offensive language, making a threat, or fighting. There is nothing in the police narrative to suggest Blake did any of those things. So why did David Shuler allow his nephew to plead guilty to something he didn't do?

Again, David isn't answering questions, but we will show the questions posed to him in an upcoming post, after we take a closer look at Rodriguez v. U.S.


(Previously in this series)


Blake M. Shuler, my nephew, pleads guilty to possession of marijuana and paraphernalia . . . (6/29/17)


My nephew, Blake M. Shuler, faced a harsh lesson of American life . . . (7/26/17)



My nephew got legal help from Missouri lawyer David Shuler . . . (8/23/17)

My nephew got legal help from Missouri lawyer David Shuler with a drug-possession case, and the record suggests Blake got what he probably paid for -- nothing

Blake Shuler

Quite a few young people probably think, "It would be great to have an uncle who is a lawyer, so he could get me out of tight spots, and I wouldn't have to pay anything." Blake M. Shuler, my 25-year-old nephew who had a traffic- and drug-related encounter last year with police in Clever, Missouri, probably isn't among them. Public records indicate he should not be among them.

Blake has an uncle who is a lawyer -- my brother, David Shuler, of Springfield, Missouri. David stepped into the breach to provide representation after Blake pleaded guilty, on his own, to possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia after a highly questionable search of his vehicle.

According to court records, David wanted to get Blake's guilty plea withdrawn and the judgment set aside out of concern that the plea would have a negative effect on Blake's future employment prospects. David's plan worked, to an extent, because the court did dismiss Blake's guilty plea on the drug-related charges. But if part of the plan was to ensure that Blake did not come away with a criminal record . . . well, that didn't work so well.

Instead of a guilty plea for drug possession, Blake now has a guilty plea on his record for "peace disturbance" -- and the incident report in the case indicates Blake did not remotely disturb the peace. There is no indication that he was loud, rude, or disrespectful to the police or that he caused alarm to anyone else.

(Note: The incident report, plus David's Entry of Appearance and Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty, are embedded at the end of this post.)

It appears David negotiated with Municipal Judge Matthew B. Owen to get the plea down from drug possession to peace disturbance, perhaps thinking it's better to have the latter on your record than the former. But Blake winds up with a blotch on his record for something he did not do. Some potential employers might see this "peace disturbance" on Blake's record and think, "This guy must be a disrespectful, belligerent hothead, and we don't want anything to do with him."

Here is the big question about Blake's case, and it's one David apparently did not want to deal with: Did officers have lawful grounds to search Blake's vehicle? Officers stopped Blake after they observed him drive over the center line twice while in Clever city limits. An officer reported smelling alcohol on Blake, and Blake admitted to drinking one beer. The officer conducted field-sobriety tests, which Blake agreed to take, and claimed on the incident report that Blake failed three portions of the test.

Based on that, the officer placed Blake under arrest for "suspicion of driving while impaired." (Note: The incident report does not say under what statute Blake was arrested. Was it a state law, a municipal ordinance? We don't know. Did David try to find out? We don't know that either. He has chosen not to answer any of our questions.)

Blake was taken to city hall, where he was administered a breathalyzer test, which came back negative for alcohol. (Hark! Blake might be the first driver in history who actually told the truth about the "one beer" bit.) Blake was returned to his vehicle and his passenger/girlfriend Chelsea Cox, where the pair likely thought they would be sent on their way with no charges -- and perhaps an apology from cops for the inconvenience they had caused. (Snort! Cops don't apologize for anything do they? They certainly haven't apologized for breaking my wife Carol's arm during an unlawful eviction in September 2015. In fact, they've lied their asses off in various narratives to make it sound like Carol must have broken her own arm.)

Upon returning to his car, Blake got some disconcerting news -- the kind cops seem to specialize in delivering. A second cop had been called to the scene -- and while Blake was away proving his innocence on DUI -- Cop No. 2 took it upon himself to search the vehicle, apparently without consent. That search turned up the marijuana and paraphernalia, leading to the drug-related charges to which Blake pleaded guilty while representing himself.

David Shuler

My research has not turned up any case law that is exactly on point with the alleged facts in this case -- although I'm still researching it. But let's consider what happened: Blake was taken away from his vehicle, to city hall, where he proved that he was innocent of the charge for which he was arrested. While that was taking place, a newbie officer to the scene decided to search the car -- with Blake not present -- and found material that he believed to be marijuana and paraphernalia. leading to new charges. A skeptic might be tempted to say, "How convenient!"

Does that scenario smell funny to you? It sure smells funny to me. David Shuler, Blake's lawyer, apparently thought it smelled fine. I see no sign that David questioned either the field-sobriety tests -- which often are administered improperly and produce false results -- or the vehicle search. Those are the two key events that caused Blake's arrest, and David apparently did not question either one.

Why? David is part of the legal/law-enforcement tribe, and perhaps his main objective was to keep them happy -- even if it meant his client wound up with a criminal record he doesn't deserve. For the record, David and Clever Municipal Judge Matthew B. Owen are Facebook friends. What does that tell us? We're not certain, but it suggests Judge Owen did David a favor by withdrawing the drug-related guilty plea, and David did the judge a favor by not making noise about a search that likely was unlawful, violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Perhaps David charged Blake nothing -- or very little -- and decided, "I don't have much invested in this case, so I'm not going to put in much work." If his nephew gets a bogus criminal conviction on his record -- for something he did not do -- well, so be it.

The record is clear that there were grounds to challenge the field-sobriety tests and the vehicle search -- but David Shuler apparently did neither, and he has shown no inclination to respond to our questions on the subject.


(To be continued)

My nephew, Blake M. Shuler, faced a harsh lesson of American life: Driving erratically, with a chemical substance on board, is a good way to get arrested -- even if it's part of a dubious search in tiny Clever, MO

Blake M. Shuler

How did my nephew, Blake M. Shuler, manage to get in trouble with the law, in the tiny burg of Clever, Missouri (pop., 2,400; and it seems smaller than that)? The answer reminds me of perhaps the No. 1 lesson I drew from my unlawful five-month incarceration in Shelby County, Alabama.

Blake's story, however, has a twist, suggesting he might have been the target of an unlawful -- and not so clever search -- in Clever, MO. (Feel free to groan; it's a bad joke.)

What about my own lesson from life behind bars? Well, inmates have a lot of time on their hands, so they tend to sit around and ask each other, "Why are you in here?" My answer -- that I was "arrested for blogging" -- never failed to bring howls of laughter. "Oh, you're the blogger guy," a newbie invariably would say. "I've already heard about you. You're famous." I never knew I was all that funny, or famous, until I went to jail.

Time and again, inmates would answer the "Why are you in here?" question with a story that had at least two components: (1) They were driving, or riding in, a vehicle that somehow attracted the attention of cops; (2) Somebody had a "chemical substance"  in the vehicle, and cops found it when they searched the car.

That usually drew this response from me: "Well, did the cops have grounds under the Fourth Amendment to search the vehicle?" (I'm a law geek, even in jail.) That usually put looks of "Hell if I know" on the faces of assembled inmates. Their attitude tended to be: "The cops searched my vehicle, whether they had a right or not, and now I'm in here, so what difference does it make?" Good point. Even inmates -- maybe especially inmates -- understand that our rights are being eroded, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it in many jurisdictions.

What, you're going to find a lawyer to fight for your rights? Hah, don't make me laugh. Heck, I was arrested for blogging, which only violated more than 200 years of First Amendment law, and I couldn't find a lawyer to fight for me.

Anyway, Blake M. Shuler ran afoul of the law because of the two factors noted above. This is from a Clever PD (not be confused with a clever PD) incident report: (The report is embedded at the end of this post; BTW, my apologies for using the same bad joke twice.)

On 3/17/2016 at approximately 2330 hours I, Officer Thompson (DSN 1803) was patrolling south bound on State Highway P when I observed the white Toyota Avalon driving in front of my patrol car cross the yellow line of the Highway on two separate occasions. I activated my emergency lights and sounded my siren to perform a traffic stop. The Avalon stopped south of Highway 14, on Highway P.

I exited my patrol car and made contact with the driver, Blake Shuler, and the front-seat passenger, Chelsea Cox. Upon contacting the occupants of the Avalon, I smelled the odor of what, based on my training and experience, to be consumed alcohol. I informed Shuler the reason for the stop and asked if he had been drinking. He said, yes, one beer. I asked what they were doing out tonight. He said we have been downtown and I am dropping my girlfriend off. I told the occupants to stay in the vehicle and I would return.

When reading this, my first reaction was, "Ah, c'mon Blake, you can make up a better story than that. How many drivers in human history, upon being pulled over, have told cops, 'I had one beer.'" But wait, it might have been true in this case, and that raises this question: Was my nephew the victim of an unlawful search? Here's more from the incident report:

I walked to my patrol car and requested Officer Bennett (DSN 1804) to respond to my location with a preliminary breath tester. While he was en route I requested Christian County Dispatch to run a record check on Shuler and Cox. They returned with a valid license and no [warrants].

Officer Bennett arrive on scene and we approached the driver's door of the Avalon. I instructed Shuler to step out. I told him I had reason to believe he was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant and requested he take a preliminary breath test; he agreed to take the test. The test returned positive for the presence of alcohol. I informed Shuler of the results and advised him of Missouri implied consent. He agreed to take Standardized Field Sobriety Test. Shuler and I went to the paved area of Bumper to Bumper Auto Parks, where he performed the sobriety testing. He failed three portions of the test. I placed Shuler under arrest for suspicion of driving while impaired. I transported him to the Clever Police Station while Officer Bennett remained on scene with Cox and the vehicle.

OK, things don't look so good for Blake at this point. But here is where it gets interesting, raising constitutional questions:

We drove to City Hall, where Sergeant Stoops (DSN 1802) administered a breathalyzer test on Shuler. The test returned negative for alcohol.

Well, what do you know? My nephew wasn't drunk. And he might have been the first driver in history to tell the truth about having only one beer. This story has a happy ending, right, with Blake and his girlfriend being sent on their merry way -- Blake having been proven innocent of the "offense" for which he was arrested? Not exactly. The report continues:

I transported Shuler back to his vehicle, where Officer Bennett informed me he had located what he believed to be marijuana and paraphernalia inside the Avalon. I informed Shuler that I had 364 days to charge him with a crime for the recovered contraband. I told Schuler (sic) he was free to leave and he exited the scene.

Now, wait a minute. How does that happen? My nephew was arrested for "driving while impaired," and the official breathalyzer proved that he was not impaired -- at least not by alcohol. In fact, that test came back "negative for alcohol"; it didn't even prove he'd had one beer.

So, get this: While Blake M. Shuler was proving his innocence of the charge for which he was arrested, an officer from the Clever PD -- a different officer from the one who stopped Blake and found probable cause to arrest him -- was going through Blake's vehicle and found what he "believed" to be marijuana and paraphernalia.

Let's review what these cops did: One of them took Blake away from his vehicle, to administer a breathalyzer test that proved Blake was innocent. Meanwhile, a second cop -- who apparently never smelled the "consumed alcohol" that caused Blake's problems in the first place -- took it upon himself to search the vehicle. What happened? While one cop was learning that Blake was innocent of the charge in question, a second cop was finding evidence to hit him with another charge.

Does that sound fair to you? It doesn't to me. Does it sound like cop No. 2 sort of jumped the gun on his vehicle search? I would say he sure as hell did. Here's more from the report:

I returned to Clever City Hall and logged the recovered contraband into evidence. On 3/23/16, I issued Schuler (sic) citation # 150535206 for possession of marijuana and citation #150535207 for possession of paraphernalia. I sent him the citations via the United States Postal Service.

End of report.

What happened next? What constitutional issues might have been in play? Did anyone stand up for Blake M. Shuler's constitutional rights?

Stay tuned.


(To be continued)

My nephew was victim of bogus search in Clever, MO, even though SCOTUS found in "Rodriguez" that cops must have reasonable suspicion to extend traffic stops

Blake Shuler

You might think word of U.S. Supreme Court decisions would filter down to all jurisdictions, no matter how small. But they apparently don't make it to Clever, MO. That's how my nephew, Blake Shuler, wound up with a criminal record, as fallout from a traffic stop and unconstitutional search of his vehicle.

Shouldn't the not-so-clever cops in Clever keep up with U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions? Yes, they should, but Blake's experience indicates they do not. Clever Municipal Judge Matthew B. Owen certainly should keep up with high-court rulings -- as should any attorney who practices before him, such as Blake's "counsel," David Shuler (my brother) But alas, they don't seem to keep up with them either. Perhaps the cops, the lawyers, and judge simply don't care what the nation's highest court rules -- especially if it runs contrary to their personal beliefs or instincts.

Such stupidity and/or callousness has repercussions for the public. In Blake Shuler's case, it left him with a criminal record he does not deserve. How do we know? A SCOTUS ruling that is barely two years old -- focusing like a laser on the law of traffic stops and vehicle searches -- makes it clear.

First, let me note that this case goes way beyond a family member's experience in a tiny midwestern town. Issues related to traffic are probably the No. 1 reason many Americans come in contact with our "justice system." And what often starts out as an incident that appears likely to end in a ticket or a warning, can suddenly turn much more serious. In fact, Americans probably are most vulnerable to abuse of ignorant or reckless law-enforcement officers when they are driving, or riding in, a vehicle.

Here is some advice from the Legal Schnauzer: Next time you get pulled over by a cop, remember one word: Rodriguez. It tells you much of what you need to know about search of a vehicle.

SCOTUS found in Rodriguez v. U.S. (2015) that "a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures. A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a ticket for the violation."

The Rodriguez court goes on to hold that extension of the stop beyond its traffic-violation purpose is lawful only if officers have a "reasonable suspicion" that additional criminal activity is associated with the vehicle. From the opinion:

We granted certiorari to resolve a division among lower courts on the question whether police routinely may extend an otherwise-completed traffic stop, absent reasonable suspicion, in order to conduct a dog sniff. . . . [W]ithout additional reasonable suspicion, the officer must allow the seized person to depart once the purpose of the stop has concluded.”

The dog sniff in Rodriguez produced more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, and the driver faced federal drug charges that had him staring at a five-year prison sentence. But SCOTUS found the purpose of the stop involved an officer's observation that Rodriguez had driven on the shoulder of the road. Did the officer have reasonable suspicion of any other criminal activity, beyond the traffic violation? In other words, was there any reason to suspect there were drugs in the vehicle, justifying extension of the stop and a search of the vehicle via a dog sniff?

David Shuler

SCOTUS noted that the district court found "the dog sniff in this case was not independently supported by individualized suspicion" and vacated the Eight Circuit's judgment, sending the case back to lower courts for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. In essence, SCOTUS found that Rodriguez and his passenger should have been allowed to depart once the traffic warning was written. From the opinion:

An officer, in other words, may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop. But contrary to JUSTICE ALITO’s suggestion . . .  he may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual.

What about Blake Shuler and his passenger, once a breathalyzer test proved he was innocent of DUI? Should they have been allowed to depart, instead of being subjected to a vehicle search? There is nothing in the incident report suggesting police suspected the presence of drugs in the car, or suspected any other criminal activity associated with the car or its passengers. In light of the 2015 Rodriguez case, the cops narrative (see below) strongly suggests they had no "reasonable suspicion," meaning the vehicle search was unlawful.

Did David Shuler pursue that line of defense for Blake? The record indicates he did not, and David is not responding to questions about the matter. But we next will present the questions that were posed to him.


(Previously in this series)


Blake M. Shuler, my nephew, pleads guilty to possession of marijuana and paraphernalia . . . (6/29/17)


My nephew, Blake M. Shuler, faced a harsh lesson of American life . . . (7/26/17)



My nephew got legal help from Missouri lawyer David Shuler . . . (8/23/17)



Recent SCOTUS ruling indicates . . . (8/28/17)

Blake M. Shuler, my nephew, pleads guilty to possession of marijuana and paraphernalia, then changes his plea to "peace disturbance," but still gives my family the black eye of a legitimate criminal record

Blake Shuler
(From facebook.com)

My wife, Carol, and I seem to come from law-abiding stock. Carol doesn't remember anyone in her family being charged with a crime; it might help that, on her father's side, the family is relatively new to this country. Carol's grandfather Tovich came to the U.S. directly from Serbia, not speaking any English, and somehow found his way to Bibb County, Alabama -- where he worked as a coal miner, then opened a successful restaurant, only to see it burn down at the outset of the Great Depression. Relatively speaking, his was a rags to riches to rags story.

On my side of the family, I had not been aware of anyone who had committed a crime. But that changed recently, and since I've reported dozens of posts about misconduct in other people's families, it seemed only fair to report on bad behavior in mine.

My nephew, Blakely "Blake" Myers Shuler, was arrested on March 20, 2016, and charged with possession of marijuana and paraphernalia. Blake is the 25-year-old son of my brother, Paul, who works as a radiology technician at Mercy Hospital in Springfield. I'm not sure if Blake works, but he was arrested in the small town of Clever, MO.

Paul signed papers that sought to have Carol and me declared "incapacitated and disabled" (IND and DIS, under Missouri law), which could have made us wards of the state -- ineligible to vote, file a lawsuit, or manage our own financial and health affairs.

There is little doubt that the IND and DIS lawsuit was the idea of my brother lawyer, David Shuler, and Paul probably went along with it. Since discovering David's vile, nasty letter that he wrote to the judge in our eviction case, I'm not surprised at any underhanded stunt he might pull. (The letter is embedded at the end of this post.) I've long thought Paul probably was cut from a little better cloth than David was, but I've seen evidence that suggests that is not the case, and we will be reporting on that shortly.

Paul's IND and DIS lawsuit was dismissed, by the way, so even his own attorney decided there was no legitimate case there. For the anonymous commenters who periodically crawl out from under a rock to claim I've never won a lawsuit, here is evidence that they are wrong. Carol and I won the IND and DIS lawsuit against us, and it wasn't even close. For the record, we would have won every legal matter that involved us if they had been managed by honest judges, who actually followed the written law. Such judges, as many of our readers know from personal experience, are hard to find.

More importantly, if the first legal action involving us -- filed AGAINST us by Mike McGarity, a neighbor with a lengthy criminal record -- had been decided correctly under the law, none of the other cases would have happened.

As for Blake Shuler, records show he initially pleaded guilty to the two charges against him. My brother, David, eventually represented him. and via some peculiar legal maneuvering, Blake got the drug charges dropped and pleaded guilty to "peace disturbance" -- even though there is zero evidence in the record that he disturbed the peace.

Either way, my nephew has a criminal record -- even though it's for something he didn't do, and charges were dropped on what he apparently did do. Perhaps my brother, Paul, should have been paying more attention to his own son and spending less time filing bogus lawsuits against Carol and me.

Is there irony in all of this? Yes, indeed. Regular readers know that I was arrested ("kidnapped" is the more accurate term, given no warrant ever has surfaced) and thrown in the Shelby County, Alabama, Jail for a five-month stay, from Oct. 23, 2013 to March 26, 2014. There is one caveat to that story: I never committed a crime and never was charged with a crime. My arrest was based on alleged "contempt of court" based on failure to abide by a preliminary injunction in a defamation lawsuit (a 100 percent civil matter). Such injunctions have been unlawful under the First Amendment for more than 200 years, but word of that apparently has not reached the corrupt swamp of Alabama.

Public documents show that we never were lawfully served with the complaint, and we were not summoned to appear in court until well after the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction had already been issued. It's funny when I think how many times contrarian commenters have said things like, "Why didn't you appear in court?" Well, last time I checked, most people don't appear in court when they haven't been summoned.

U.S. Post Office in Clever, MO
(From americantowns.com)

Bottom line: I spent five months in jail, with my mugshot plastered all over the Web, and I was not even charged with a crime -- and I sure as hell did not commit one. The same applies to Carol. She has been arrested twice because of the unlawful eviction from our first "home" in Springfield, Missouri, the eviction where Carol wound up with an arm broken so severely that it required trauma surgery for repair. She was the VICTIM of an assault, but thanks to corrupt Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott, she faces charges of "assaulting a law enforcement officer." This is an obvious example of a "cover charge," where cops press charges against a victim of their brutality to discourage a civil complaint.

Did Carol actually commit an offense? Anyone can view the Probable Cause Statement and Misdemeanor Information in her case -- they are public documents -- and see they present zero admissible evidence that she violated any law. Missouri Circuit Judge Margaret Holden Palmietto dismissed the trespass charge, and the "assault" charge should be tossed soon. But for now, Carol still is having to fight a charge for which there is no evidence, not even enough to meet the low threshold of probable cause.

Let's close by considering a couple of other points of irony:

(1) My brother, David, came to the legal aid of Blake Shuler in a drug-possession case -- as he should have, in my view -- but David hasn't lifted a finger to help Carol and me, legally. In fact, the letter embedded below shows he has gone out of his way to hurt us. No member of my family has even inquired about Carol's well-being or voiced the slightest concern about what happened to her, the victim of gross police abuse.

(2) While corrupt cops, lawyers, and judges have made it appear via the Web that Carol and I have engaged in criminal activity, their own documents show that we haven't. So how ironic is it that Blake Shuler -- the son of my brother who tried to have Carol and me committed -- came along to produce a genuine criminal record to go under the Shuler family name?

Yep, the Shulers no longer can claim to have kept their distance from true criminal activity -- and that has nothing to do with Carol or me.

On a broader note, I know from my own five months in jail, that marijuana possession is one of our most frequently prosecuted crimes. Possession and probation violations -- with inmates often being on probation for possession -- were the two most common reasons people were in jail during my stay in Shelby County, Alabama. (I was the only inmate I could find who was in jail for blogging.)

A legitimate debate can be had about whether marijuana possession should be a crime at all. That's an issue for another day, but for now, public documents in the Blake M. Shuler case provide a rare inside glimpse of how a possession case can unfold in the Heartland. It shows how our "justice system," even in a tiny outpost like Clever, MO, can become fundamentally dishonest when a lawyer enters the picture.

We sought comment for this post from Blake Shuler, his parents, and his lawyer, but they have not responded to our queries.


(To be continued)

In goofy marijuana-possession case against former NFL player Dorial Green-Beckham, Missouri cops can't keep their stories -- or their math -- straight

Dorial Green-Beckham mugshot

How screwy was the probation-revocation proceeding in Springfield, Missouri, that caused former NFL player Dorial Green-Beckham ("DGB") to land in the Greene County Jail for 90 days? Based on local press reports, the sentence was grounded largely on the word of police officers who apparently cannot count.

As my wife, Carol, and I know from firsthand experience, Circuit Judge Jerry Harmison tends to buy anything crooked cops and prosecutors throw at him -- and that's why Green-Beckham now is behind bars. But was Harmison's ruling based on facts and the law? We don't have access to the full court file, but news accounts suggest there is enough doubt to choke a rhinoceros on the marijuana-possession charge that caused DGB's probation in a DWI case to be revoked.

How goofy is the justice system here in the Southwest Missouri Ozarks, once perhaps best known as the home to Jed Clampett and his family of hillbillies, before they moved to Beverly Hills? Even Jed likely would have been amused by the DGB charade, had he heard about it while lounging around his "cement pond."

When Green-Beckham was arrested last December on the drug charge, the headline in USA Today was "Ex-NFL WR Dorial Green-Beckham arrested with pound of marijuana, police say." The headline in the local Springfield News-Leader was pretty much the same -- "Dorial Green-Beckham caught with pound of pot after drug raid in Springfield, police say." So, it's established that cops caught DGB with a pound of pot, right? Well, not exactly.

First, I should note that I'm a novice when it comes to matters involving marijuana and the like -- except for my reporting on MJ cases involving my nephews -- Blake Shuler and Noah Shuler. But my research indicates a pound is quite a bit of pot.

While I'm hardly an expert on pot, I apparently know a lot more than the loons in the Springfield Police Department. This is from a local newspaper account of Green-Beckham's recent probation-revocation hearing, written by reporter Harrison Keegan:

. . . testimony provided more details about the December drug arrest. Police initially said Green-Beckham was found with a pound of marijuana and officers discovered an additional 7 pounds of marijuana at the house.

On [March 8], however, officers said Green-Beckham had less than 35 grams of marijuana in his pocket when he was arrested, but investigators believe he was also responsible for an additional one pound of marijuana found inside the house.

Green-Beckham was not the target of the drug-related search warrant.

Let's allow that to sink in for a moment. OK, what does the above tell us?

(1)  Cops said last December -- to the accompaniment of blaring headlines -- that Green-Beckham was found in possession of a pound of marijuana.

(2) Now, roughly three months later, cops say Green-Beckham had less than 35 grams. "Oops, our bad," say the cops.

(3) How much less than 35 grams did DGB possess? Was it 5 grams, 2 grams, 1 gram? Cops don't seem to have an answer. We probably would have no reason to believe them if they pulled an answer out of their collective fannies?

(4) What happened to the 7 pounds of marijuana that was originally in the house? Did cops smoke it, eat it, sell it? We don't know, but it apparently had nothing to do with the guy who now is in jail.

(5) Cops now say they "believe" DGB is responsible for 1 pound of pot found inside the house. Why do they "believe" that? DGB did not reside in the house, and cops claim he was not the target of the search warrant. Is Dorial Green-Beckham now behind bars based on what clueless cops "believe" but cannot prove?

DGB with the Philadelphia Eagles

A little math adds to the circus atmosphere surrounding this case. Our research indicates 1 pound of pot equals roughly 450 grams. Now that DGB is said to have possessed less than 35 grams, it appears cops missed the total by a mere 415 grams (at least). As for the mythical 7 pounds of grass, that is 3,150 grams for which cops no longer can account. Gee, these guys are precise, aren't they? Would anyone, other than Judge Jerry Harmison believe a word these clowns say?

Why does 35 grams seem to be a magic number for Springfield cops? It's probably because the city code, section 78-261, is called "Possession of thirty-five grams or less of marijuana." That probably is the code section under which Green-Beckham was arrested.

Harmison's actions in the DGB case are no surprise to Carol and me. We saw Harmison over and over ignore cops' inconsistent statements, even outright perjury. He apparently took much the same approach to the DGB case. (Motions re: perjury, inconsistent testimony, and court errors in the Carol Shuler case are embedded at the end of this post.)

How ugly might the incarceration of Dorial Green-Beckham be? I will admit that I am a cynic toward law enforcement, but I don't think it takes a huge leap of imagination to consider the following: Green-Beckham's pro football career has been pretty much a flop, so far, but he still is a wealthy guy, especially by Springfield, MO standards. When the Tennessee Titans signed DGB in 2015, he received $5.3 million in guaranteed money and a signing bonus.

It's safe to say that DGB probably has enough money to last a lifetime, if he handles it wisely, and he's the most celebrated black guy in Springfield, MO -- maybe in the city's history. In an area known for its right-wing politics, it's not hard to find people here with less-than-progressive views on race -- and that likely is especially true among law enforcement.

Given cops' inability to keep their story straight, is it possible they did target Dorial Green-Beckham and even planted a baggie of weed on him? We might never know the whole truth, but that scenario would not surprise me one bit.

Alabama might be entering an era where ingrained public corruption is unmasked and punished, thanks largely to a small public charity and its dogged CEO

K.B. Forbes

 

Alabama might be entering an era where the public corruption that has plagued the state for decades might finally be held to account. That we've reached such a point owes largely to a Birmingham-based public charity and its CEO, K.B.. Forbes, writing at the blog .banbalch.com, reports former attorney/banker/entrepreneur Donald Watkins.

How toxic has Alabama's corporate, political, and legal environment become? Watkins states that bad actors have "targeted for destruction" three online journalists who have reported widely on corruption -- Forbes, Watkins, and me (at this blog, Legal Schnauzer).  That doesn't count Shelby County attorney Burt Newsome, who was targeted for a head-on vehicle crash that appears to have been deliberately staged -- or Newsome client and former Drummond Company executive David Roberson, who had someone shoot into his vehicle while he was driving on U.S. 280.

Where might an apparent federal investigation be headed? It's probably too soon to say, but Watkins hints that more stunning events could lie ahead. That might include the resignation of a second federal judge in the Northern District of Alabama, accompanied by curious circumstances like those that  trailed the recent surprise resignation of U.S. Judge Abdul Kallon.

If accountability does come to pass, it apparently will be driven largely by non-traditional journalism, with Forbes blazing the trail. Writes Watkins:

As Alabamians, we all owe Kevin B. Forbes, co-founder and chief executive officer of Consejo de Latinos Unidos (CDLU), a great debt of gratitude. CDLU is a nationally recognized consumer healthcare advocacy group that exposed and helped to bring to an end hospital price gouging of uninsured patients. More recently, Mr. Forbes and CDLU have turned their attention to cleaning up ingrained corruption in the U.S. Attorney's office and U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, which is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama (USA).

Mr. Forbes has authored nine investigative reports, spurred three Congressional hearings, and worked coast to coast to improve healthcare for all. His written complaints to the U.S. Department of Justice have succeeded in shining a much-needed spotlight on out-of-control public corruption in the Northern District's "rigged" criminal justice system. This time, criminal investigators in Washington, Georgia, and Florida are moving to curb it.

Born and raised in California, Forbes once taught English as a second language to working Latino students at a post-Secondary vocational school near Watts, South Los Angeles, California. As the son of a Latino immigrant, Mr. Forbes is fluent in Spanish. He has lived in Chile and Mexico.

Corruption in Alabama largely has gone unchecked. But the CDLU and Forbes have ushered in a new culture, Watkins writes:

On December 4, 2019, Forbes and CDLU launched a three-year long fight in Washington against public corruption in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Alabama. His unrelenting anti-corruption campaign is now bearing fruit that will benefit Alabamians and the nation for decades to come.

As a direct result of Mr. Forbes' and CDLU's courageous anti-corruption campaign, we have seen the following stunning turn of events that threatens to jail Alabama's most powerful political, business, and political figures:

Watkins then cites eight major incidents that were largely tied to Forbes' reporting at banbalch.com:

(1) The abrupt midnight resignation of U.S. Attorney Jay Town in 2020 after photographs taken in 2017 showed an ethically compromised Town chugging down cocktails with Alabama Power Company CEO Mark Crosswhite during the height of his office's criminal investigation into allegations of bribery and corruption that was linked directly to Alabama Power, former state Rep. Oliver Robinson (D-Birmingham), the Drummond Company, and the law firm of Balch & Bingham. The goal of the bribery scheme was to defeat an initiative by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to add a predominantly black neighborhood in North Birmingham as a Superfund clean-up site. Alabama Power provided $30,000 of the money that was used to bribe Rep. Robinson. At least 21 Balch attorneys played some part in the bribery scheme, as well. Yet, neither Alabama Power, nor Crosswhite, nor none of Balch's 21 participating attorneys, nor Drummond Company CEO Mike Tracy was charged in the bribery scheme. Over the objection of honest federal law enforcement officials in Birmingham, Jay Town shut down the bribery and money laundering investigation after meeting with Crosswhite. Only one "fall-guy" from Drummond and one from Balch were indicted, tried, and convicted, along with Robinson, who pleaded guilty. Borrowing a page from a 1980 RICO conspiracy, bribery, and fraud case in Birmingham federal court that was "fixed" to benefit executives at Alabama Power and the Drummond Company, Jay Town steered the North Birmingham Bribery case away from Mark Crosswhite and Mike Tracy and was rewarded with a cushy, high paying general counsel's job that U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) arranged for him with Huntsville-based defense contractor Gray Analytics after his resignation.

(2) The demotion of Jay Town's handpicked First Assistant U.S. Attorney Lloyd Peeples in 2021, who has burrowed himself into the Office as the head of its Criminal Division. Peeples is a failed Homewood, Alabama, pizza restaurant owner with a dismal record on operating businesses and a documented history of hostility towards blacks and women. Despite his failure as a businessman, Jay Town had Peeples running the multi-million dollar U.S. Attorney's office on a day-to-day basis while Town drew a full-time salary for ceremonial work.

(3) The 2021 meltdown of perennial political "dirty tricks" artist Joseph Perkins, Jr., and his PR firm, Matrix, LLC. In September of 2021, former Matrix CEO Jeff Pitts filed a lawsuit against Perkins in Florida alleging, for the first time in public, that Perkins engaged in (a) extortion, (b) abuses of the legal process in Alabama, and (c) an ongoing racketeering enterprise. Perkins, who is a confessed federal lawbreaker, has handled Alabama Power's "dirty tricks" operations on an outsourced basis for nearly two decades. Perkins and his companies are under a multi-agency and multi-state multiple law enforcement investigation that began in Florida. Alabama Power has historically funded Perkins and his entities using secret contracts that paid Perkins tens of millions of dollars, "without invoicing." Perkins' work as a "dirty tricks" operator is notorious and has garnered him lucrative contracts with Auburn University, Georgia Power Company (Atlanta), and the Southern Company (Atlanta) that deliberately obscure the nature of his work.

(4) The abrupt resignation of U.S. District Court Judge Abdul K. Kallon on April 5, 2022. Kallon presided over the 2018 North Birmingham Bribery Trial involving Oliver Robinson, Drummond Company executive David Roberson and Balch partner Joel I. Gilbert, which portrayed Roberson and Gilbert as "lone wolves" in the bribery scheme. Kallon's resignation comes as federal investigators are probing obstruction of justice charges in the North Birmingham Bribery Trial.

(5) The unexpected "retirement" of Drummond CEO Mike Tracy. Drummond is Alabama Power's longtime coal supplier for its dirty coal-fired power plants like the one Alabama Power operates at the Miller Steam Plant in Jefferson County, Alabama. This plant is the Number One air polluter in America. Tracy personally approved payments to two ethically-conflicted consultants who lobbied the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) to officially oppose the EPA clean-up initiative in North Birmingham. To conceal these payments from EPA officials and the public, Balch & Bingham General Counsel Blake Andrews paid these consultants directly and was later reimbursed by Drummond with Mike Tracy's expressed blessing. To the consternation of honest law enforcement investigators, Jay Town made sure Mike Tracy and Blake Andrews were not indicted or prosecuted for their roles in the bribery scheme.

(6) The April 2022 suicide of Balch & Bingham lawyer, William Dice Lineberry. Mr. Lineberry was the lawyer who helped set up the money laundering entity "Alliance for Jobs and the Economy" (AJE), which was the entity that was used to: (a) receive corporate donations from willing participants in the bribery scheme and (b) funnel over $360,000 in bribery money to Oliver Robinson.

(7) The April 7, 2022, resignations of two Assistant U.S. Attorneys in Birmingham with reported connections to the Office's investigation of the North Birmingham Bribery Scandal.

(8) The reported designation of Alabama Power Company CEO and ex Balch partner Mark A Crosswhite as a "target" of a multi-state federal probe into charges of RICO conspiracy, bribery, and obstruction of justice. Federal investigators are also probing the relationship between Southern Company CEO Tom Fanning and Mark Crosswhite. At Fanning's request and without any prior notice to Alabama Power ratepayers or its state and federal regulators, Crosswhite funneled tens of millions in "bailout money" from Alabama Power's coffers to the Southern Company for a boondoggle nuclear power plant in Mississippi that: (a) the Southern Company is constructing, (b) has been grossly over budget for more than a decade, and (c) is not intended to provide any electricity for Alabama Power's customers. An earlier probe into this matter by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was reportedly "fixed" by Sen. Richard Shelby with senior SEC officials in Washington to extricate Alabama Power and the Southern Company from civil and criminal exposure for this secret and unlawful diversion of Alabama Power's ratepayer funds.

Watkins quickly adds that a number of "open questions" remain on the table:

There are open questions as to whether Joe Perkins is cooperating with federal authorities in the new multi-state probe. Perkins reportedly possesses "dirty secrets" files on compromised public officials and regulators who may have accepted laundered campaign contributions and other "things of value" in exchange for taking official action to help Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, and the Southern Company sustained their respective business monopolies.

Because of the number of individual culprits and corporate entities involved and the scope of Perkins "dirty tricks" operations, it appears that federal investigators are considering a potential RICO charge against the principal participants.

Additionally, at least one more federal judge in Birmingham may be implicated in the criminal probe and may be forced to resign.

Forbes' role goes beyond journalism. As head of a public charity, he also engages in advocacy -- and that has helped bring a national focus to problems in Alabama. Writes Watkins:

Mr. Forbes and CDLU sent letters to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) at the U.S. Department of Justice on December 4, 2019, January 9, 2020, and January 29, 2020 that detailed widespread and credible allegations of public corruption and obstruction of justice spearheaded by Jay E. Town while he served as U.S. Attorney and Lloyd Peeples served as his First Assistant U.S. Attorney. [Click here to view Forbes' 12/4/19, 1/9/20 and 1/29/20 letters to OPR.]

Both Jay Town and Lloyd Peeples have checkered backgrounds. Yet, they were warmly received in the Birmingham federal courthouse that served as the citadel for formal FBI COINTELPRO operations in Alabama, from 1956 to 1972, and informal COINTELPRO activities from 1972 to the present.

This is the same Birmingham federal courthouse where former Chief U.S. District Court Judge Frank McFadden reportedly "fixed" the 1980 "Coal Fraud Trial" case against Alabama Power Company chief financial officer and Drummond Company director Walter F. Johnsey, Drummond Company CEO Gary Neal Drummond, state senator Joe Fine, and four other defendants, all of whom were charged with operating an ongoing criminal racketeering enterprise. Lead prosecutor Broward Segrest would later explain how and why the case was "fixed." Segrest's account of how and why McFadden "fixed" the case for Alabama Power and Drummond was subsequently confirmed by former Blount, Inc., CEO and Republican gubernatorial candidate Winton Blount III, and another high level executive at Blount, Inc. After "fixing" the case for Alabama Power and Drummond, McFadden resigned and was promptly rewarded with a job as general counsel at Blount, Inc.

This appears to be the same playbook that was used in the North Birmingham Bribery Scheme. After the case was allegedly "fixed," Jay Town resigned and was rewarded with a cushy, high-paying job as general counsel at Huntsville-based Gray Analytics.

Does exposing Alabama corruption come with risks? Yes, it does -- as we know firsthand. Writes Watkins:

The only Alabama media organizations to investigate and publish news articles on the chokehold that Alabama Power Company, Drummond Company, Balch & Bingham, Joe Perkins, Matrix, and Senator Shelby have on federal law enforcement agencies and federal judges in Alabama have been Kevin Forbes and CDLU, Roger Shuler and his online publication, Legal Schnauzer, and www.donaldwatkins.com.

Despite his status as a confessed federal lawbreaker, Joe Perkins is the "hunting buddy" of Sen. Shelby and Chief U.S. District Court Judge Scott Coogler (Birmingham). It is unclear as to who picks up the tab for these hunting excursions.

Mr. Forbes, CDLU, Mr. Shuler, Legal Schnauzer, and I have been targeted for destruction by this band of culprits. Joe Perkins' handwritten notes outlined his plan to destroy me and was published on this news site in September of 2021. 

Note that Alabama mainstream publications have been largely absent on these stories. But Watkins hints that national news outlets might pick up the slack -- and he provides a much-deserved hat tip to K.B. Forbes and his public charity:

    A grateful public thanks to Kevin B. Forbes and CDLU for the courage and tenacity they have shown     in rooting out the ingrained corruption in the U.S. Attorney's Office and the U.S. District Courthouse     for the Northern District of Alabama. The job is not finished, but substantial progress has been made     in eradicating this corruption.

    The Washington Post, which reported on "Alabama's Watergate" on April 3, 1977, now has a chance     to report on the floodgate of public corruption at the highest level of federal law enforcement in           Alabama 45 years later. At www.donaldwatkins.com, we will do our part to support Mr. Forbes, CDLU, Roger Shuler, and Legal Schnauzer.