Alabama's crooked system of starving inmates so that sheriffs can use the money for personal expenses finally is being exposed for the whole nation to see

Outgoing Moran Sheriff Ana Franklin
(Decatur Daily)

An Alabama prosecutor is suing his county sheriff for using funds intended for feeding jail inmates to pay her own legal fees. In another sign that nontraditional journalism has immense value, a groundbreaking blog puts the important (and largely unseen) issue in perspective.

Morgan County District Attorney Scott Anderson filed a lawsuit on December 21 seeking to recover funds outgoing Sheriff Ana Franklin allegedly had used for personal expenses. William Gray of Birmingham, one of Franklin's attorneys, said the sheriff used surplus jail-food money to pay lawyers who helped negotiate a deal with federal prosecutors that recently ended with Franklin pleading guilty to a misdemeanor for willful failure to file a tax return. From an article by Eric Fleischauer, of the Decatur Daily:

Some money originally earmarked for feeding Morgan County jail inmates has gone to pay lawyers for Sheriff Ana Franklin, one of her attorneys said.

The legal expenses may be part of at least $105,000 in jail-food money that Morgan County District Attorney Scott Anderson alleges the sheriff has taken or spent.

Anderson [on Dec. 21] filed a civil lawsuit against Franklin alleging she has illegally kept and spent state-issued jail food money that she should have been holding in trust exclusively for the feeding of inmates.

This issue has particular resonance here at Legal Schnauzer since I spent more than five months in an Alabama jail (Shelby County) in 2013-14 for reporting on state legal and political corruption, mostly among Republicans. I became the only U.S. journalist to be incarcerated since 2006 and probably the only American in history to essentially be "arrested for blogging," due to a preliminary injunction that has been an unlawful "prior restraint" under more than 200 years of First Amendment law.

I know what it's like to eat Alabama jail food; I survived on it for more than five months. Since then, we've learned that Alabama sheriffs make it a practice to pocket money intended for jail food and use it for their own purposes. That issue first hit the press in early 2018 when former Etowah County Sheriff Todd Entrekin was found to have pocketed $750,000 in jail-food funds and used most of the money to purchase a beach house in north Florida.

A recent report at al.com shows Entrekin, who lost his bid for re-election, made more than $1.5 million from funds that were supposed to be used for feeding federal immigration detainees at the Etowah County Detention Center in Gadsden.

Morgan County Prosecuting Attorney Scott Anderson
(Decatur Daily)

Here is the equation for Entrekin, Franklin, and other sticky-fingered Alabama sheriffs: The less money you spend on feeding inmates, the more money you will have for your own ventures. The headline on this post might as well be "Alabama sheriffs live in high style by starving inmates." I once was one of those starving inmates; I lost 25 pounds during my five months in jail, and it would have been worse if I had not had resources to take one of the few survival options available to Alabama inmates.

Morgan County Whistle Blower, a ground-breaking blog that has broken one story after another in the Ana Franklin scandal, summarized Alabama's inmate-food crisis in a Dec. 23 post that focused on the Lawrence County Jail:

Folks these jails have become all about the almighty dollar. They are no longer about corrections or punishment. They are about how much money can we make off the inmates and their families or loved ones.

In Lawrence County, if you bond someone out of jail they now charge a $35.00 jail processing fee. Not sure where this money goes or what it is used for or who gets it. Not sure what the purpose of this fee is since in Lawrence County everyone who is arrested or gets a ticket when paying their fine and court costs pays a $35.00 jail fee. This fee is to pay for the construction of the current jail which is 20 years old. Just another burden added to the families for the money maker. This applies to property bonds and bail bondsmen but the $35.00 is separate from what you have to pay the bondsman and must be paid by the person making the bonds. I think this is a clear case of double dipping. The $35.00 jail fee is being paid twice.

As if that is not bad enough as soon as you walk into the doors of the jail you immediately have access to two machines, the first is so you can put money into their account so they can buy items from the jail including food. This seems like a racket to me; first, you don’t feed them adequately and then sell them overpriced food all the while getting rich off leftover jail food money. Next to the first money machine is another money machine to put money into an account so they can use the phones.

These things put a burden on the families, many of whom are already struggling financially. The phones they can do without but when a loved one calls and says they are hungry and it has been well documented they are not being fed properly by these greedy sheriffs it is hard to not rake and scrape and come up with money for them to buy something to eat.

This whole operation just seems to swirl around how we can make money off people who are in jail and contrary to popular belief most are not hardened criminals like the sheriff portrays them. The food is about like this jail processing fee, it all seems like double dipping to me, getting money from the State for food and then getting money from the inmates for food.

The operations of the Sheriff's Department has gone from one of law enforcement to one with multiple systems within the organization that is totally focused on making money.

That is very well stated, and the highlighted portion particularly hits home because I lived under those conditions for five months. I can add one point to this, and I know about it only because I've experienced it firsthand. Bottom line: An inmate does not suffer from Alabama's crooked jail-food system only while he's incarcerated; its impact can stay with him long after he has been set free.


(To be continued)

Alabama sheriffs' tendency to steal jail-food funds and boost their own bottom lines can leave inmates with health concerns that last long after they are released

A food tray from the Etowah County (AL) Jail

We invite you to check out the photo above of a food tray from the jail in Etowah County, Alabama. I spent five months -- from Oct. 23, 2013 to March 26, 2014 -- in the Shelby County (AL) Jail, and the tray of food above looks a lot like what we tended to have there.

Since my release, we've seen widespread reports of Alabama sheriffs taking funds intended for inmate food and using them for personal expenses and projects -- such as beach houses, in the case of former Etowah County Sheriff Todd Entrekin, who lost his re-election bid and stepped down last month.

Exposure to Alabama jail food can be dangerous -- both due to its sparse quantity and its dreadful quality. I have reason to worry about the impact it has had on my own health.

As for Todd Entrekin -- the poster boy for Alabama sheriff corruption -- he is not the only one to essentially starve inmates, so that his personal bottom line would benefit. Morgan County District Attorney Scott Anderson recently sued outgoing Sheriff Ana Franklin, alleging she used inmate-food funds to pay her legal expenses from battling corruption charges.

That's not the only food-related scam involving Alabama sheriffs. I have little doubt a normal-sized adult could starve in an Alabama jail; I lost 15-25 pounds in five months -- and not being a picky eater, I usually cleaned my plate, what little was on it. As you can see from the photo above, there wasn't much on it much of the time.

Also, you can check out my mugshot (below, left) from the night I entered the Shelby County Jail and another (bottom) after I spent about a week at the Jefferson County Jail, which was near the end of my overall five-month incarceration. You can see that the fullness in my face is pretty much gone, and my shoulders look shrunken. Do people suffer in jail? Can this kind of weight loss under the extreme stress of false criminal charges affect a person's health down the road?I think the answer is obvious, and something close to starvation is not out of the question.

In order to survive, many inmates while I was in jail would have family put money in an account for the "store" or "commissary" and use that for snacks. The Morgan County Whistleblower blog has reported on this double-dipping scam, and we borrowed from their commentary in a recent Legal Schnauzer post:

. . . as you walk into the doors of the jail you immediately have access to two machines, the first is so you can put money into their account so they can buy items from the jail including food. This seems like a racket to me; first, you don’t feed them adequately and then sell them overpriced food all the while getting rich off leftover jail food money. Next to the first money machine is another money machine to put money into an account so they can use the phones.

We will not address the jail-phone scam for now. But there is an element to the jail-food scam that you likely would only know if you have been in an Alabama jail -- as I have. And it goes beyond quantity of food and isn't even seen on a tray.

Roger Shuler Mugshot No. 1

The choices on an Alabama jail "commissary" list are a nutritional nightmare. While the regular meal trays are filled with food that appears to be extremely starchy, high in carbs and sodium, the "store" list contains almost all junk food. And by junk food, I mean sweets -- as in snack cakes and pies, candy, etc.

Up until the night I was "arrested for blogging," I had been fortunate to enjoy pretty good health -- and so had my wife, Carol. But I'm not so sure that is still the case. Having been exposed to jail food for five months -- not to mention a wrongful foreclosure in Alabama, an unlawful eviction in Missouri (plus the accompanying financial stress), and the emotional strain of watching Missouri cops beat Carol and break her arm, then bring bogus "assault" charges against her, the victim of an assault -- I suspect one or two of my key health numbers are outside the normal range now. I know Carol has at least one key number that no longer is within normal.

Having someone cheated out of his job and health insurance, along with his freedom and the roof over his head, can come with health consequences for the victim and his spouse. That's one of many reasons why it is a stupid thing to do.

If we wind up with a negative health event, or dealing with a chronic, life-altering illness -- all because Alabama political thugs did not like the content of my blog -- someone is going to have hell to pay. There will be major legal liability, and we intend to make sure that dealing with that is going to be painful.


(Note: Legal Schnauzer needs your help. Loyal readers have sustained this blog for years, and support is urgently needed now that my wife, Carol, is recovering from a fainting spell, which led to a recent broken arm. The healing process is going well for Carol, but statements from her doctors indicate this likely was fallout from political thugs cheating both of us out of our jobs [and health insurance] in Birmingham -- and the stress of dealing with financial wreckage that comes from being targeted for right-wing attacks. If you are able to help along our journalism journey, please click on the yellow donate button in the upper right corner of the blog, under the "Support the Schnauzer" headline. We are deeply grateful for your support through the years.)

Roger Shuler Mugshot No. 2

After a scorching verdict in New York hush-money case, will it be goodbye Mar-a-Lago and hello Rikers Island for unrepentant convicted felon Donald Trump?

Inside Rikers Island (AP)

 

Should Donald Trump see the inside of a jail cell before the 2024 election in November? The answer is yes, according to a  report this morning at The New Republic (TNR). Under the headline "Lock Him Up! Why Donald Trump Should Do Jail Time Before the Election; Granted, most first-time offenders who commit this particular crime don’t do time. But Trump isn’t most first-time offenders," staff writer Timothy Noah explains:

Donald Trump stands convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. That’s a class E felony. New York State sentencing guidelines say the punishment for committing a class E felony “shall be fixed by the court, and shall not exceed four years.”  If the convicted felon is not (as Trump is not) “a second or persistent felony offender,” then the judge “may impose a definite sentence of imprisonment and fix a term of one year or less.” 

The guidelines make no exception for former presidents. At Trump’s July 11 sentencing, Justice Juan M. Merchan should send Donald Trump to jail. I say “jail” because in New York State, sentences less than one year are served in jail, not prison. Trump can pursue the appeals process from his jail cell, as would anyone else. (A number of news reports indicate that if Trump is jailed, his likely destination is Rikers Island, perhaps the most notorious correctional facility in New York.)

Noah's words cut against the grain of most legal experts who have commented on the subject. But Noah shows his reasoning has solid grounding in the facts and the law:

My recommendation goes against what appears to be the rough consensus in the legal community. “Typically this is not the kind of case where you would expect a first-time white-collar offender to receive a sentence of incarceration,” Andrew Weinstein, a New York defense attorney, told Reuters’ Luc Cohen. Six legal experts advised Reuters that felony falsification of business records did not typically get first offenders jail time. When Weinstein represented such a client 15 years ago, the man got three years’ probation. 

Statistical evidence supports this conclusion. During the decade preceding Trump’s April 2023 indictment, the Manhattan district attorney brought 437 cases that included a felony charge for falsifying business records, according to a court filing. Manhattan criminal court records cited by Reuters’ Cohen show that four defendants who pleaded guilty in that period were sentenced to a year or less in prison. That’s less than 1 percent. Three of these four, unlike Trump, were also charged with other crimes, including fraud and grand larceny. The fourth was sentenced to one year of “intermittent imprisonment,” which meant he entered prison every Monday evening and left every Wednesday morning. 

For another survey, Norm Eisen, who was counsel for the first Trump impeachment trial, cast a wider net, reviewing nearly 10,000 cases since 2015 all over New York state. As with the smaller Manhattan sample, Eisen’s 10,000 cases statewide typically involved additional charges. So Eisen confined his review to those cases where falsifying business records was the most serious charge. The proportion of convictions in such cases that yielded prison time, he found, was not 1 percent but 10 percent. But that still meant that in 90 percent of cases similar to Trump’s, the conviction did not send the guilty party to prison.

Why, then, do I argue that Justice Merchan should send Trump to jail? Because Merchan won’t base his sentence solely on the similarity of Trump’s case to previous cases. He’ll also consider the many differences, and these are substantial.

Trump did not help himself with his belligerent, disrespectful, deny-everything behavior throughout the hush-money trial in Manhattan. In short, Trump made himself a candidate for jail time, Noah writes:

The most obvious difference (in Trump's case) is that Trump did not plead guilty. That puts him in a different category from the four Manhattan defendants out of 437 who did jail time. Judges typically sentence defendants who plead not guilty more harshly than defendants who plead guilty.

Another significant difference is that Trump disrupted the trial proceedings at every opportunity. The judge had to impose a gag order barring Trump from discussing witnesses, jurors, prosecutors, court staff, family members of District Attorney Alvin Bragg, or members of Merchan’s own family. It’s pretty unlikely that defendants in those earlier cases incurred comparable prohibitions from the judge. It’s even more unlikely that these earlier defendants were found by the court to have violated gag orders 10 times, as Trump was. The $10,000 in fines that Trump paid did little to silence him, and at one point Merchan threatened to jail him for contempt of court. In the end, Merchan did not. Now that Trump’s a convicted felon, this misbehavior is reason enough to impose a jail sentence.

Daniel Richman, a law professor at Columbia and onetime federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, told me he doesn’t expect Trump to serve jail time. But “in an ordinary case,” he conceded, “judges don’t take kindly to defendants who show contempt for the process.” Doing so, Richman said, would “argue strongly for coming down hard on someone.”

Another consideration is that Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen spent more than a year at the Otisville Federal Correctional Institution as inmate 86067-054, then another year and a half under house arrest, for his own role in Trump’s hush-money transaction. Granted, Cohen was sent to jail not only for violating campaign law but also for tax evasion and making false statements to a bank. But it was Cohen’s covert payment to Stormy Daniels that brought prosecutors to his door. 

Compared to Trump, Cohen was “a less culpable person in terms of this crime,” Andrew Weissmann, a law professor at New York University (and former lead prosecutor in Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation), told me. Trump was “the leader of the charged crime. This was all done for him.” Also unlike Trump, Weissmann pointed out, Cohen pleaded guilty (as Trump did not) and cooperated with the Mueller investigation (which Trump did only kinda-sorta). In addition, Cohen expressed remorse for his role in this crime. Trump, needless to say, has not, and indeed has done quite the opposite, insisting on his innocence, calling Merchan “corrupt” and “conflicted,” and much more.

Multiple news accounts have cited Trump’s age (he’ll be 78 at sentencing) as a reason not to send him to jail. It’s unusual, apparently, for 78-year-olds who falsify documents in the first degree to get jail time. This thinking requires updating. We also used to think it inadvisable for people older than 75 to run for president. The primary voters have spoken otherwise. If Trump is spry enough to serve a second term, he’s spry enough to do hard time.

News accounts have also noted that first offenders who falsify documents in the first degree seldom get jail time. Let us pause for a moment to appreciate how remarkable it is that a sociopath like Trump reached the advanced age of 77 before he received his first felony conviction. Bravo, Mr. President! That said, Trump has been pronounced a lawbreaker in too many previous civil proceedings to count. Just this year, Trump was found guilty of sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll in one such proceeding and defrauding banks in another. This second ruling is especially relevant to the hush-money case, given the common theme of deception. Fraud is a persistent refrain in anti-Trump litigation; seven years ago, you’ll recall, Trump paid $25 million to settle fraud claims against his bogus Trump University. Do you seriously expect Justice Merchan not to connect these dots? Past history and character, Eisen wrote, are legitimate matters for a sentencing judge to take into consideration, and in Trump’s case these cry out for jail time.

A final difference is the stakes. In those previous instances where New York state defendants falsified business records, the motive was theft, which is bad. Trump’s falsifications played out on a much larger stage. This crime, Eisen has observed, “could be seen not just as unfortunate personal judgment but also, as Merchan has described it, an attempt ‘to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election.’” Trump’s defenders say the New York criminal case was brought for political reasons. Of course it was! Trump’s falsifications may have put him in the White House! That makes Bragg’s decision to proceed with the case more defensible, not less.

Trump should go to jail not because of the ways his conduct resembled previous offenses but because of the gaudy and appallingly singular ways it did not. In this as in so many other areas, Trump ventures where others dare not, then complains when the boom comes down that he’s being treated differently. He’s treated differently because he is different. He behaves worse than others do, and that misbehavior affects many more people. That’s why some voters love him, and others hate him. And it’s why he needs to spend time in jail. 

I think Merchan should give Trump six months. That way, should he win the 2024 election, Trump can be out by Inauguration Day. As I noted previously, in New York state a sentence of less than one year is served in jail, not prison. In New York City, the jail felons get sent to—white collar as well as violent criminals—is Rikers Island. I’m fine with that. If it’s good enough for Trump’s former chief financial adviser Alan Weisselberg, age 76, who’s got three months left to go there on his five-month Riker’s sentence, it’s good enough for the boss. Let’s give them some quality time together.

Peyton Manning surely is pleased to have earned a second Super Bowl Ring, but I was thrilled to watch the game from home and not from an Alabama jail cell

Peyton Manning
(From bleacherreport.com)

Probably no one enjoyed last night's Super Bowl 50 more than Peyton Manning. The 39-year-old quarterback overcame serious injuries to his foot and neck, plus a string of disappointing post-season finishes, to guide the Denver Broncos to a 24-10 victory over the favored Carolina Panthers. If Manning, as expected, now retires--he has a hip that likely will need replacement in the not-too-distant future--he will close out a Hall of Fame career with a second Super Bowl championship and a bushelful of records that aren't likely to be broken any time soon.

That's a lot to be pleased about. But if Manning was No. 1 on the happy meter during last night's game, I might have been a fairly close second.

Why? Well, I was able to watch the game from the comfort of our home--or at least from the pay-by-the-week motel that currently serves as our "home" in the Missouri Ozarks. The last time Denver played in the Super Bowl--at the end of the 2013 season--I watched it from the "cozy confines" of the Shelby County Jail in Columbiana, Alabama.

What was a guy, who (best I can recall) does not even have a speeding ticket on his record, doing in jail? Well, I had committed the "crime" of writing a blog about legal and political corruption in Alabama--especially the kind that white, male elites have used to help turn a beautiful, high-potential state into a low-production backwater. Rob Riley, the attorney son of former GOP governor Bob Riley, has benefited mightily from Alabama's dysfunctional environment, so he filed a defamation lawsuit designed to shut me down.

I challenged the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds, due to unlawful service, and was set to then pursue First Amendment issues, when deputy Chris Blevins entered our home on October 23, 2013--without showing a warrant or stating that he had one--and I was assaulted (knocked to a concrete basement floor three times), doused with pepper spray, handcuffed, and hauled to jail in the back of a squad car.

My apparent infraction? Contempt of court for failure to remove certain items about Rob Riley and lobbyist Liberty Duke from this blog--even though those items, by law, had never been found to be false or defamatory. In fact, they still--to this day--have never been found to be false or defamatory, under the law, by a jury. But I spent more than five months in jail anyway--finally earning my release on March 26, 2014.

My mugshot after being roughed up by an Alabama cop

Rob Riley and his father's corrupt political machine are the reasons I watched Super Bowl 48 (XLVIII) from jail on February 2, 2014. What do I remember about that experience?

First, I learned quickly that perhaps the biggest challenge of jail is figuring out how to pass the time. Jails, unlike prisons, are not designed to hold people for very long, so that means there are almost no semi-useful ways to spend your time--no library, no computers, no real recreational opportunities. Your options are pretty much TV (a show not of your choosing, with the volume at ear-splitting levels), eating, sleeping, TV, showering, walking in circles, playing cards, getting into a fight over the TV (or the phones), or TV.

I met probably a couple of dozen guys in jail who also had spent time in prison. Each one said he would much rather be in prison than in jail.

I was excited about Super Bowl 48 for two reasons: (1) All the inmates seemed to agree that was the show to watch, so there were no arguments about the merits of American Idol vs. Housewives of Atlanta; (2) Because of  all the commercials and the "halftime spectacular," Super Bowls usually are interminable, taking four to five hours to finish--not counting the hours of pre-game hype.

"Gee, this will be a great way to kill time," I thought. "And since neither Alabama nor Auburn is involved, that reduces the chance for harsh words and possible brawls. Peyton Manning is getting old, so maybe I can sit back and enjoy watching him try to nail down a second Super Bowl before he rides off into the Denver sunset."

What happened? Seattle's defense suffocated Manning and the favored Broncos, jumping to a 22-0 halftime lead. The lead eventually grew to 36-0 before the Seahawks finished off a 43-8 rout, in one of the most lopsided Super Bowls ever.

So much for my dream of having an entertaining way to kill four or five hours in jail. The game was worth watching for little more than an hour. After that, I gave up on hoping Manning could penetrate the Seattle defense and laid down on my bunk, staring at the bunk above me.

Even in our current spartan accommodations--Carol and I have come to call it "The Shiftless Drifters Motel"--watching last night's game was an utter joy, compared to my jail experience of two years ago.

Denver's defense, led by Von Miller and DeMarcus Ware, was impenetrable this time. In fact, the Broncos more or less did to Carolina's Cam Newton what Seattle did to Manning two years ago.

My appreciation for being able to watch the Super Bowl in a state of freedom was not the only reason I was hyped about last night's game. As usual, the state of Alabama was well represented in the game, with eight players who call our state home. The only states with more players--California (24), Texas (14), Georgia (13), Florida (12), and Ohio (10)--have significantly larger populations than Alabama. On a per-capita basis, Alabama had more players in Super Bowl 50 than any other state.

In fact, I even feel a certain kinship with one of the players from Alabama--a quarterback who was one of the most exciting college players I've ever seen live. You might assume I'm talking about Cam Newton, who won the Heisman Trophy while playing at Auburn. But I'm actually thinking of Joe Webb, who played quarterback (and wide receiver) at UAB, and now serves on special teams for Carolina. In fact, he returned one kickoff for 24 yards in last night's game.

The 6-4, 235-pound Webb is from Birmingham, flew under the major recruiting radar, and developed into a dynamic run-pass quarterback threat for UAB. I've seen some awfully good football players live--Bo Jackson, Herschel Walker, Ozzie Newsome, and many more--but Joe Webb will always be one of my favorites. Plus, I got to interview Webb several times, and he always seemed to be a thoughtful, likable guy. In the right offensive system, I still think he could be a standout in the NFL.

A second mugshot, after I had been transferred to the
Jefferson County Jail and back--and after I had lost about
25 pounds. The Jail Weight-Loss Plan? I don't
recommend it. As you can see, this image still is out there
at jailbase.com. Considering there were no lawful
grounds for me to be in jail, this picture is the
defamation that keeps on giving.

Joe Webb and Cam Newton are in their 20s and still have plenty of time to win a Super Bowl. But last night belonged to Peyton Manning and Denver. And that could not help but remind me of my experience of watching the Super Bowl from jail.

According to my fellow inmates, there was at least one guy in our 64-man unit who had done time for murder. He apparently had served his prison sentence for that and was in the Shelby County Jail for a lesser offense. Most of the guys I met in jail were in for probation violations (usually related to alcohol), drug offenses (marijuana, meth, heroin--in that order), DUI, domestic violence, and such.

The really bad dudes--alleged murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc.--were in the unit next to ours. Thankfully, there was a nice thick wall between us and them.

I'm quite sure I was the only person in the jail--at that time, or any other time--who had been arrested for blogging.

Do I have memories of my jail time--or have I tried to block it out, as if it never happened? Oh, I definitely have memories. For one, the vast majority of the inmates were pleasant and likable guys, at least to me, and some of them were uber funny. I really would like to see some of them again, but it seems that once you get out of jail, the thought of seeing those people again is troubling--even if you like them.

I'll never forget the inmate who committed suicide just a few feet from me. And during Super Bowl 48, I distinctly remember thinking, "I can't believe I'm watching the Super Bowl, with a convicted murderer right over there."

The murderer actually seemed like a pretty nice guy. But still, it sure was nice to watch last night's game with Carol. I might not have been as happy as Peyton Manning, but it was pretty darned close.

Alabama physician Mark Hayden has regained his freedom, and documents suggest our reporting at Legal Schnauzer helped achieve justice in the case

Dr. Mark Hayden

An Alabama physician, who was arrested in late November on a dubious civil-contempt charge, has regained his freedom. Dr. Mark Hayden was released from the Jefferson County Jail last Friday after a habeas corpus hearing before U.S. Magistrate John England.

Details about Hayden's release are murky at this time. It appears that England released him, although an order dated December 21, 2016 (two days before Hayden's release) does not specifically mention release. Did Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mike Graffeo, who signed the writ of arrest, order the release? It's possible, but we do not have access to the full case files -- and they involve both state and federal jurisdiction -- so many questions remain unanswered. (England's order is embedded at the end of this post.)

We do know this: The arrest matter is styled Steven Mark Hayden v. Mike Hale (Jefferson County Sheriff), and court documents/proceedings suggest Legal Schnauzer played a role in gaining Hayden's release. Hayden himself told me, "Roger, you got me out of jail!"

We're not sure if that is true, but if it is true at least in part, we are happy to have helped justice prevail -- and it proves to be a pretty darned nice Christmas present here in the Schnauzer household. This much is certain: We are pleased Dr. Mark Hayden has regained his freedom, especially since he never should have been jailed in the first place.

If Mark Hayden's words to me are true, that means he's at least the second person we've helped get released from an Alabama jail. The other was Bonnie Cahalane, who was unlawfully incarcerated in the Chilton County Jail due to an alleged debt from her divorce case.

Dorothea Batiste, a black, female judge in Jefferson County, apparently was not at risk of going to jail. But Alabama's white judicial elites, including retired Jeffco judge Scott Vowell, were trying to run her off the bench. My reporting on the matter likely helped save her seat -- Batiste indicated to me she believed that to be the case. She will leave the bench in January after losing in the November 2016 election.

Hayden . . . Cahalane . . . Batiste. All were victims of unjust jailings or removal proceedings. All had relatively positive outcomes after we reported on their cases. Those, like GOP insider Jessica Medieros Garrison, who consider Legal Schnauzer to be a "ridiculous little blog" . . . well, the evidence suggests they are way off base.

In the third sentence of his order, Judge England references a blog post that he had received via e-mail, apparently from Dr. Hayden's wife, Angela. Document 3-1, attached to the order, is a link to our post on the Hayden case. Mark Hayden told us that during a state hearing last Wednesday, Judge Graffeo mentioned Legal Schnauzer and seemed quite disturbed that his order of arrest had made it into the Web press.

Here is the main point: Dr. Hayden was in the Jefferson County Jail, where I spent a week during my five-month incarceration in 2013-14. I can confirm, with firsthand knowledge, that the Jeffco Jail richly deserves its reputation as one of the nation's worst (and most dangerous) jails. People have died in that jail, and I have no doubt people will continue to die in that jail. It's dangerous, wretched, nasty conditions have been the subject of litigation.

It's possible that Dr. Hayden was on the same unit where I was housed. Dr. Hayden said he was on the sixth floor, and I was either on the sixth or fifth floor. Inmates told me that I had the pleasure of being on the "(relatively) good guy's unit," which was considered the best and safest spot in the jail. They said the higher up you went, the worse it got. As I recall, the 10th floor was at the top, and inmates said it was an "absolute zoo."

During the week I was in the Jeffco Jail, I got the distinct impression that my life meant zero to anyone on the jail staff -- and I was only there because of gross incompetence or corruption from Judge Don Blankenship, related to the Jessica Garrison case. I imagine Dr. Mark Hayden had the same thoughts. I am hardly a picky eater, but food at the Jeffco Jail reminded me of something you might see in a pig's trough on a farm. Having grown up in the Missouri Ozarks, I've seen a few pig troughs on farms.

What's next in the Hayden case? England's order indicates that Hayden might not be home free. Hale apparently will be given 30 days or so to show the court why Hayden is due to be held. That means Homewood attorney Rob "Uday" Riley could appear on stage left, because he is Sheriff Hale's attorney. Any brief Riley produces is likely to be filled with misstatements of fact and law. We know from personal experience that he and other members of the Riley Jackson Firm are dreadful attorneys, the kind who care not one iota about justice or the law.

From the England order:

Petitioner (Hayden) should be aware there will be no ruling on his petition until it is fully briefed; Respondent (Hale) is entitled to explain why he contends Petitioner is lawfully in custody and must be given adequate time to do so.

We will keep you updated on the Dr. Mark Hayden case as details become available.

Mark Hayden -- Order Re Habeas Corpus (Dec. 21) by Roger Shuler on Scribd

Alabama blogger Rickey Stokes calls Claud Neilson a "government-paycheck suckin' judge" for failing to cite law that allowed him to order my "arrest for blogging"

Claud Neilson

How did Alabama blogger Rickey Stokes react when he asked Judge Claud Neilson to cite the law that allowed him to order my "arrest for blogging" in October 2013 -- only to have Neilson provide an evasive, horse-manure answer? Stokes called Neilson a "government-paycheck suckin' judge."

I like Rickey Stokes. He's got the cajones to call a state judge and ask him to explain his crooked rulings in a matter that involves profoundly important First Amendment issues; no other journalist that I'm aware of confronted Neilson directly about my unlawful five-month incarceration that lasted until March 2014 . And Stokes is smart enough not to fall for it when the judge resorts to bobbing and weaving for an answer.

Stokes came up a tad short in a couple of areas on his post about questioning Neilson. First, I wish Stokes had confronted Neilson with Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), a U.S. Supreme Court opinion hat is roughly 88 years old and holds that the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction Neilson issued to justify my arrest are unlawful "prior restraints" -- and have been under First Amendment law that dates back more than 200 years.

Second, Stokes ends his post with a scenario that shows he does not realize the case leading to my incarceration -- Rob Riley and Liberty Duke v. Roger and Carol Shuler -- was handled in a much more crooked fashion than even the appropriately cynical Stokes can fathom. In short, I consider Stokes' missteps to be minor. The important thing is that Stokes confronted Claud Nielson -- something no mainstream media (MSM) reporter in Alabama was willing to do -- and held him up for the lawless, crooked weasel that he is. Rickey Stokes, who is a bail bondsmen by trade, when he isn't writing Rickey Stokes News, will have my eternal respect and gratitude for doing that.

What exactly did Stokes do? Well, let's let him explain it, straight from his March 24, 2014, post, titled "Since October 23 in Shelby County Jail Because He Will Not Remove Article":

JUDGE CLAUDE NEILSON - RETIRED JUDGE DEMOPOLIS, ALABAMA

The Judge is Claude Neilson of Demopolis Alabama. He is retired and specially appointed in this case.

Today I called Judge Neilson and he answered the phone. I asked him how could he hold Shuler in jail on "civil' contempt"? Judge Neilson responded that Shuler held the keys to the jail. That when he removed the articles from The Legal Schnauzer he could be released from jail.

WHAT!!!

You mean this government paycheck suckin' Judge who is retired and probably drawing a six figure salary still from the people is keeping a man in the Shelby County Jail because he will not remove something from the web?

Let's point out two key issues here?

(1) Stokes' question, in so many words, was, "What law allows you to hold Shuler in jail for "civil contempt"? Neilson responds by saying "Shuler holds the keys to the jail." That's the same pablum, word for word, Neilson spewed during the one hearing I had before him, on Nov. 14, 2013. Stokes' question essentially asks, "What law gives you the authority to throw a journalist in jail over reporting that has not -- as a matter of law -- been found defamatory? (Note: Even if the material of which Riley and Duke complaint had lawfully been found defamatory -- by a jury, as required under defamation law -- the remedy would have been money damages, not incarceration.) Neilson twists Stokes' words and puts the burden on me for being in jail -- all while failing to answer the question of why I was in jail in the first place. Neilson, of course, can't answer that question because there is no law that allows him to issue a "prior restraint" and then hold me in contempt for "violating" a ruling he can't lawfully issue.

(2) Stokes paraphrases Neilson as saying that when I removed the articles from Legal Schnauzer, I could be released from jail." Again, that is the same pablum Neilson spewed in the Nov. 14, 2013,  hearing. And again, it doesn't answer the question, which essentially was: How can a journalist be forced to take down a story that, as a matter of law, has not been found to be defamatory? Neilson danced around that issue because there was no answer he could give.

This, of course, involves a practical question that I asked Neilson myself. "Even if I were willing to take down the offending articles, how am I supposed to do it from jail?" Neilson's response: "That's your problem." That shows Neilson is not only a crook, who has no respect for the rule of law, he's also a jackass, who is blind to basic human courtesy and fairness. Calling Claud Neilson a reptile would be an insult to reptiles across the globe.

Stokes picked up on this issue in his post:

First, in the Houston County Jail in Dothan, Sheriff Hughes does not let the inmates have computers. So how in the world can this man remove something from the web? Oh, they did not teach this government paycheck sucking retired Judge that in law school or how to screw people judge school!!!

As for Stokes' second minor misstep, noted in the fourth paragraph above, let's look at the issue he raises near the end of his post:

I do not know Roger Shuler. I do not agree with some of his writings. And my investigation, some of what he wrote, well I hope he has had proof. 

(Note: Here is a technical issue the public often gets wrong in a civil case such as Riley, et al v. Shuler, et al. As defendants, Carol and I didn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. They had to prove my reporting was false and defamatory. If they can't do that -- and they did not even come close in this case -- it's party over and case closed -- game, set, match.)

And he was stupid with this lawsuit. Give me the authority to take depositions under oath. MAN - please - please give me that. Especially Rob Riley, Bob Riley, Luther Strange!!! WOW - PLEASE PLEASE - my heart races at the opportunity.

Shuler should have agreed and took the opportunity to get them under oath to answer questions.

Oh well...

Shuler remains in the Shelby County Jail or Jefferson County Jail for Civil Contempt of Court. All for the former Alabama Governor's son--Rob Riley.

As for Stokes' claim that I "was stupid with this lawsuit," he's probably assuming this was a somewhat regular lawsuit, which would follow normal procedures. But there was nothing normal about it. The lawful remedy in a defamation case is money damages, to be determined by a jury. But Riley-Duke did not seek money damages or a jury trial. As for depositions and other forms of discovery, those are precursors to a trial -- and their first function is to help determine, at summary judgment, if there should be a trial at all. But Riley-Duke did not seek a trial or discovery; they wanted Neilson to act as a one-man censor, which is exactly what he did, even though long-standing defamation law forbids it.

If Riley and Duke weren't going to conduct discovery -- and they did not even ask for any -- was there any way I was going to be allowed to conduct discovery? Of course not. In fact, the record offers proof of that. Consider the notice we received on a preliminary-injunction hearing. First, it came via an unlawful traffic stop by Shelby County deputy Mike DeHart and did not even include a summons, calling us to court. Is it any surprise that we didn't appear? Also, we received less than 24 hours notice of the hearing, and the Alabama Supreme Court has held that such sloppy actions by a plaintiff are unlawful, as we explained in an Oct. 10, 2013 post:

Alabama Republican Rob Riley has filed documents that seek to have me held in contempt of court for violating a preliminary injunction related to certain posts at this blog.

Under Alabama law, however, no preliminary injunction exists because we were not given proper notice of a hearing on the matter. In fact, Riley's own court documents prove that no lawful injunction exists. How do we know? It's spelled out in an Alabama Supreme Court case styled Southern Homes, AL v. Bermuda Lakes, LLC, 57 So. 3d 100 (Ala., 2010).

As you can see, the ruling was issued in 2010, so it's not ancient law. A Yale Law School graduate like Rob Riley should be able to find it. But apparently that kind of research is beyond Mr. Riley's legal skills--and those of retired Circuit Judge Claud Neilson, who issued the injunction.

What issues were at hand in Southern Homes? We addressed that in the Oct. 10, 2013 post, which came less than two weeks before my arrest. In other words, we knew any attempt to arrest us was unlawful well before it happened. That's because there never was a lawful preliminary injunction:

The Southern Homes case involved a preliminary injunction that a circuit judge issued related to the development of 87 acres in Madison County, near Huntsville. The order enjoined Southern Homes from taking any action related to its dispute with Bermuda. But the Alabama Supreme Court found the preliminary injunction was unlawful because Southern Homes did not receive sufficient notice of a hearing, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP). From the opinion:

Southern Homes argues, among other things, that it received insufficient notice under Rule 65(a)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., of the hearing on Bermuda's motion for a preliminary injunction, in violation of Southern Homes' due-process rights. We agree. Rule 65(a)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides that "[n]o preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the adverse party." Rule 65(a)(1) does not specify how much notice must be given to the adverse party before a preliminary injunction can be issued. However, as the United States Supreme Court has held in interpreting the federal equivalent of Rule 65(a),2 the notice required by Rule 65(a) "implies a hearing in which the defendant is given a fair opportunity to oppose the application and to prepare for such opposition." Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda County, 415 U.S. 423, 434 n. 7, 94 S.Ct. 1113, 39 L.Ed.2d 435 (1974). See also Alabama Republican Party v. McGinley, 893 So.2d 337, 344 (Ala.2004) (holding that "[t]he hallmarks of procedural due process are notice and `the opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."'

Bottom line: We were required to receive sufficient notice of the preliminary-injunction hearing to allow  "a fair opportunity to oppose the application and to prepare for such opposition (calling witnesses, gathering evidence, etc.)" Instead, we got less than 24 hours notice, violating Alabama law and meaning there was no lawful preliminary injunction for me to violate. In other words, Riley v. Shuler was crazier and more crooked than Ricky Stokes could even imagine.

In a perfect world, Rickey Stokes might have gone a little deeper in his analysis and hit Claud Neilson with even more questions the judge couldn't answer. But that's a quibble. Mr. Stokes did unmask Neilson as a criminal and a fraud, and that is a major public service.

Donald Trump's strange claim that Todd Blanche "kept me out of jail for years" seems to be a subconscious reaction to unyielding stress created by Epstein files

Just when you think Donald Trump has said all the nutty things he can say, along comes a moment like the one Monday where Trump praised Todd Blanche for keeping him out of jail for years. What were the circumstances involved and the exact words spoken? For that, we turn to this report from Mediaite:

President Donald Trump praised acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on Monday, saying the lawyer has “kept me out of jail for years.”

What was the sound you might have heard when Trump uttered those words? It was thousands (millions?) of casual listeners spewing liquids out of their mouths, in a reflexive response to the words that had just hit their ears. What did Trump mean, if anything, by his latest mangled attempt at speaking English? We will address that question in a moment. But first, here are more details from Mediaite: 

Trump nominated Blanche as deputy attorney general before elevating him to acting attorney general after Trump fired Pam Bondi last month. Previously, Blanche served as Trump’s personal attorney during the New York hush money trial in which Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 counts of falsifying records to conceal hush money payments to cover up his affair with pornographic actress Stormy Daniels. In January 2025, then-President-Elect Trump was given a sentence of unconditional discharge with no jail time and no fine.

On Monday, the president hosted an event celebrating law enforcement and praised various members of his administration. Trump had some especially colorful remarks when he got around to Blanche . . . 

We have a man who’s doing a great job, I’ll tell you. I knew it, because he kept me out of jail for years. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. He kept me out of jail. They would indict me left and right, the crooked Democrats. You know, it’s amazing. They impeach me. They indict me. Then, when I get in office, if I say something like, “Well, maybe that should be looked into.” ‘Weaponization!”

I go through court cases. I win them because they were fake indictments. But when I even mention like, I said the other day that some of the stuff should be looked into. They said, “Weaponization! He’s a terrible human being. Weaponization”… They blame me for weaponization. They are a crooked bunch and we want to keep it the way it is, what we have now. We have great law enforcement now. We have law enforcement that loves our country, not law enforcement that’s sick and dangerous.

What's going on here? Two things jump out at me: (1) Trump is lying when he says he wins court cases. He certainly did not win the Stormy Daniels hush-money case or the E. Jean Carroll civil case involving allegations of rape and defamation, and those are just the two best-known recent cases with which he has been involved; (2) Trump is projecting "weaponization" on his enemies, when no president in history has weaponized "sick and dangerous law enforcement" the way he has -- with his ICE thugs fatally shooting Minneapolis residents Alex Pretti and Renee Good.

History tells us that Trump lies and projects the way most of us breathe. When he is using those familiar rhetorical devices, it tells me at least some of his brain cells still are intact. 

And consider this: Trump mentions that Todd Blanche "kept me out of jail"  twice. And Blanche did not save him from legal peril for a short period of time; he did it "for years."

This suggests to me that Trump has a genuine concern he did something so wrong, so damning that, without Blanche's intervention, it could have landed him behind bars. We should note here that Trump uses the term "jail" probably because, like many Americans, he uses that term and "prison" interchangeably. In fact, the two terms have different meanings, with jail usually used for relatively brief stays (often while a jailee awaits trial or disposition of his case) and prison reserved for more serious offenses (often used for years or decades of incarceration).

In this instance, Trump's mind probably was on prison. I suspect Trump would guffaw at the notion of jail. He almost certainly knows that someone of his wealth and status is unlikely to land in jail. After all, members of the privileged class can afford the kind of high-priced lawyers who can convince a judge their clients will appear for hearings and such.

At this point, we should consider this question: How many times has Todd Blanche represented Trump in criminal cases. TIME magazine provides the answer in a profile of Blanche published on April 2, 2026:

Prior to joining the Department of Justice, Blanche, 51, represented the President in three of the four criminal cases he has faced. In the hush-money trial in which Trump was ultimately convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a 2016 payment to an adult film star, Blanche served as his lead defense attorney. He also defended Trump—to more favorable results—in the federal cases brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith over his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and mishandling of classified documents. Both cases were dismissed after Trump won re-election in 2024.

The two Jack Smith cases, which likely were by far the strongest and most important cases against Trump, now are behind him because voters returned him to the White House. Trump has attempted several avenues to have his hush-money convictions overturned, but that has not been resolved at the time of this writing. The judge in that case sentenced Trump to an "unconditional discharge," which meant no prison, probation or fines, so that case essentially is behind him, too.

An alert reader might be thinking, "Schnauzer, Todd Blanche is acting attorney general, which means he can no longer be Trump's personal attorney." And here is my response: "Technically, you are correct. But we are talking about Donald Trump here, and history tells us he wants his AGs to make personal loyalty to the president their No. 1 priority -- with administration of justice somewhere way down the list. 

"Both Blanche and his predecessor, Pam Bondi, have proven willing to bend and/or break all kinds of rules -- including mandates of the Justice Department Manual that forbid them from considering the president's desires on charging or non-charging decisions -- to curry favor with the White House. Bondi and Blanche have proven that they are happy to essentially turn the U.S. Department of Justice into Trump's personal law firm. 

That Todd Blanche was willing to indict James Comey in the absurd "seashells by the seashore case" is proof that he happily places Trump's desire for revenge over serving the public interest.

So, where do we stand in regards to Trump's peculiar statement that Todd Blanche "has kept me out of jail for years"? In my view, Trump is making a confession, one hidden by goofy, scrambled language.

We know that all of Trump's criminal matters -- the ones that have gone to court -- are behind him, at least in terms of substantive punishment. At the risk of getting into "psycho babble," I think Trump's statement about being kept from jail was an example of his sub-conscious talking out loud, stating matters that his conscious brain was not actively planning to say. 

We know that it is not uncommon for subconscious thoughts to become vocalized, perhaps as Freudian slips or cognitive errors (slips of the tongue).

So what criminal matters could be weighing so heavily on Trump's mind? His statement that Todd Blanche has kept him out of prison "for years," suggests Trump knows serious legal jeopardy is hanging over his head. It hasn't come in the form of a court case yet, but that might only be due to his desperate efforts to keep it out of public view -- and the willingness of Blanche and Bondi to unlawfully protect him. 

Trump's subconscious seems to realize this is a matter where no statute of limitations is likely to save him. This is from a query to AI Overview:

Criminal Cases: Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 3283) dictates that there is no statute of limitations for the prosecution of sexual abuse, physical abuse, or kidnapping of a child under the age of 18.

Donald Trump might not know much about the law, but I suspect he knows that. In my view, this knowledge -- even if it is buried deep in Trump's subconscious -- is the driver of his strange comments about being kept out of jail "for years." And it all points, of course, to Trump's documented ties to the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and the allegations of victims that Trump was involved in horrifying activities, including rape and murder. Trump and his allies have managed to largely stonewall the public on the full extent of his activities related to Epstein. But the president's subconscious seems to know that time is on the side of justice.

Officer Scott Harrison nicely coordinates his lies, joining Debi Wade in suggesting that Carol broke her own arm by flailing about in backseat of patrol car

Scott Harrison

Missouri deputy Debi Wade, who wrote the bogus Probable Cause Statement that caused my wife, Carol, to be arrested, essentially claims that Carol broke her own arm by flailing about in the back seat of a patrol car after being arrested and handcuffed. What about other officers who gave written statements about events during our unlawful eviction in September 2015? It looks like they copied off Wade's homework. In law-enforcement terms, that probably is known as "coordinating your lies."

First, let's consider the words of Officer Scott Harrison, who played an uber curious role in all of this. He was the one who supposedly contacted David Shuler, my lawyer/brother, and advised him that I had placed a 911 call threatening to shoot anyone who attempted to evict us. On the day we were evicted, Harrison was one of the first officers through the door and pointed an assault rifle at my head. He also was the officer who drove Carol to jail and then to Cox North Medical Center, where he received word that her arm was broken.

A few days after that, according to discovery documents turned over to Carol in her criminal case, four officers on the scene concocted a colossal batch of lies to suggest Carol broke her own arm and cover up the truth -- that an officer, apparently Lt. Christian Conrad, broke her arm. From Harrison's written statement:

Lt. Conrad retrieved my patrol unit keys, and then he drove my patrol unit to the driveway to the south of our location. Lt. Conrad and I helped Carol to her feet and then I escorted her to my patrol unit (#313). Carol was twisting and turning herself in a resistive manner as I walked her to my patrol unit. I told Carol to calm down and step into the patrol unit. Carol seated herself in the patrol unit and situated herself, before I closed the vehicle door.

I went back to the residence and collected some paperwork that I had left inside. As I exited the residence, I heard Carol yelling/screaming, and then noticed she was throwing herself against the backseat and cage of my patrol unit. She did this multiple times in the time it took me to walk back to the vehicle and open the back passenger door. I asked Carol if she was alright. Carol yelled at me to take off the handcuffs and stated that her wrists were hurting. I had Carol lean forward and I checked the handcuffs for comfort again. I was able to place a finger between the handcuffs and Carol's wrist.

I then transported Carol to the Greene County Jail. During the transport I advised Carol of her rights under Miranda and she stated she understood her rights. Carol was calm and had placed her head against the rear passenger side window during the drive to the Jail. Carol also appeared to be sleeping at one point during the transport. Once at the jail, Carol complained about her left arm hurting. Carol had a visible scrape to her lower lip, which she made no complaint about. Carol stated the pain was more in the middle of her arm, near the elbow. I advised jail staff to have a nurse from the Medical Division check out Carol. I photographed Carol's injury to her lower lip at 15:19 hours at the jail.

For the record, Carol categorically denies flailing about in the patrol car and says she couldn't have done that even if she had wanted to -- which she didn't. We will present evidence in upcoming posts that shows she is telling the truth.

As for Scott Harrison, his world soon would get a lot more complicated. He and his colleagues would find it necessary to build a web of lies in an effort to cover their butts:

A nurse arrived and looked at Carol's arm, and I took a photo of the arm where she stated it was hurting. I photographed Carol's left arm/elbow at 16:01 and 16:02 hours at the jail, which did not show any bruising but did sow some minor swelling. It wasn't until after that, that Carol began complaining of "severe" pain to her left arm and elbow. The jail nurse stated that Carol would need to be checked out at the hospital before she could be admitted as an inmate into the Greene County Jail. I notified Lt. Wade that Carol would need to be transported to Cox North Hospital for care. I placed handcuffs in front of Carol just prior to transport. She stated that she was in no pain from the handcuffs. I transported Carol to Cox North Hospital without incident. Upon arrival at Cox North ER, Carol was placed in room #8 and was then seen by Dr. J. [Jock] Porter, M.D. During our time waiting in the ER, the bruising became much more visible, so I photographed Carol's left [elbow] again, at 19:09. This photograph shows swelling and severe bruising to Carol's left arm in the elbow area.

After Carol's left arm and elbow were X-rayed, Dr. Porter advised that it was broken just above the elbow and would require surgery. Dr. Porter scheduled a Cox Ambulance to transport Carol to Cox South Hospital for the actual surgery. I notified Lt. Wade of the status update, and she then notified Capt. [Jeremy] Lynn of the situation. Lt. Wade called back and advised that Sheriff Arnott authorized Carol to be released from the PC charges for Assault on LEO 3rd degree and Interfering with a Legal Process, and that we would present the case to the Greene County Prosecuting Attorney for review. I notified hospital staff and Carol Shuler herself that was released from custody prior to her being transported by ambulance to Cox South Hospital for surgery. Carol remained calm the entire time we were at the jail and hospital.

Harrison's statement tells us that Sheriff Jim Arnott authorized that Carol be "released" from charges, not just released from jail to receive treatment at the hospital. That appears to mean any charges were dropped. So what did Carol do to cause the charges to be reinstated in fall 2016 and for her to be re-arrested on January 30, 2017? Nothing in the documents we've seen suggests she did anything. But she still faces criminal charges.

Next, we will examine the written statements of two more officers.


(To be continued)