Articles on this Page
- 04/01/15--04:16: _Could Paul Bryant J...
- 04/02/15--04:15: _Actions of Alabama ...
- 04/06/15--04:17: _Is Ryan Gerald Russ...
- 04/07/15--04:36: _Former Governor Don...
- 04/07/15--08:17: _Joey Kennedy says f...
- 04/08/15--04:15: _The New York Times ...
- 04/09/15--04:18: _U.S. Supreme Court ...
- 04/13/15--04:10: _Did Alabama Sheriff...
- 04/14/15--04:15: _Did Alabama Deputy ...
- 04/15/15--04:25: _I am one of only th...
- 04/16/15--04:34: _Theresa Bruno, Busi...
- 04/20/15--04:18: _Legal Schnauzer fig...
- 04/21/15--04:15: _Judge Claud Neilson...
- 04/22/15--04:11: _New U.S. Supreme Co...
- 04/22/15--18:17: _Are dark, greedy po...
- 04/23/15--02:58: _Will youth minister...
- 04/24/15--09:23: _Legal Schnauzer ini...
- 04/27/15--04:20: _New study indicates...
- 04/28/15--04:24: _Second member of AG...
- 04/29/15--04:15: _Alabama deputy Chri...
|Paul Bryant Jr.|
(From Bloomberg Markets
It's important because Bryant stepped in a major pile of doo-doo once before from his efforts to evade the tax man. Could it happen again? Time will tell, but reporter John Archibald makes clear that perhaps Bryant hasn't learned his lesson about the IRS.
Near the end of his article, Archibald drops a bomb about the Crimson Tide Foundation, a nonprofit fund-raising organization for UA athletics. Bryant has been chairman since its inception in 2005, and Archibald writes the following about the foundation, using it as an example of UA leaders' tendency to seemingly feel basic rules and courtesies don't apply to them:
When UAB supporters went to Tuscaloosa in support of a Southside stadium, trustees did not even give them the courtesy of a hearing. They simply ignored the students from Birmingham and killed the plan without a word.
Because they don't believe they answer to anyone.
The Crimson Tide Foundation - which two years ago bought Nick Saban's house for almost $3.1 million -- is a perfect example. In February AL.com sought IRS filings on that foundation as well as Auburn's similar Tigers Unlimited Foundation. Auburn complied, but Alabama said they no longer file IRS 990s.
How did a UA representative respond when confronted with questions about this issue? Archibald tells us:
When Deborah M. Lane -- assistant to the president and associate VP for University Relations - finally explained that decision this week she said the group believes it does not have to file the form because it is affiliated with a government entity: The UA Board of Trustees.
Which would make that foundation's books ... public. Yet the dance goes on, as the family tries to keep it all in the family.
They have been allowed to do it so long, by politicians and by media too scared, too cheap, or too homer to challenge it.
Could this be an instance of history repeating itself? It's possible, because we've seen signs that no one has much challenged the way Bryant manages his private business entities under the Greene Group banner. Bryant apparently likes to surround himself with "yes men and women," a trait that almost landed him and several associates in federal prison back in the late 1990s. In fact, it almost certainly would have if Birmingham lawyer Doug Jones, then U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, apparently had not called off a planned investigation of a Bryant company (Alabama Reassurance) in the wake of a major white-collar prosecution in Philadelphia.
The Pennsylvania case ended with convictions across the board and a 15-year prison sentence for a lawyer/entrepreneur named Allen W. Stewart. In the course of the prosecution, Alabama Re was implicated in a $15-million insurance fraud scheme--and that was to be the focus of an Alabama investigation until someone (likely Doug Jones, a long-time Bryant associate) stepped in and called off the probe.
How does this involve the IRS? In fall 2013, Bloomberg Markets magazine picked up on our reporting about the Alabama Re case and turned it into a national story for its January 2014 print issue. (See print article at the end of this post.) An early version of the story appeared at Bloomberg's Web site on November 25, 2013.
Reporters Anthony Effinger and John Helyar show that Bryant got in trouble because of a scheme to avoid taxes. In fact, the whole purpose of Alabama Re was to hide dog-track profits from the IRS. This is what Bloomberg reported about a Mississippi Department of Insurance examination of Alabama Re in the 1990s: :
“They were propping up broke companies for a fee,” says Tom Gober, who was examiner-in-charge at the Mississippi Insurance Department in the early 1990s. “Companies knew they could call on Alabama Re because Alabama Re had to offset dog track profits.”
Bryant’s enterprises are all units of a holding company called Greene Group Inc., which Gober says allows the firm to consolidate its tax liabilities and offset profits from other enterprises with insurance write-offs.
Experts in Alabama knew that Bryant's company intentionally worked with troubled insurers in a way that deceived the public--and the markets. From Bloomberg:
The company made a business out of propping up troubled insurers with reinsurance that appeared to reduce liability, says W.O. Myrick, a retired Alabama state insurance examiner. The contracts carried little, if any, risk to Alabama Re, he says. One client, Inter-American Insurance Co. of Illinois, went into liquidation in 1991, according to Cook County court documents.
“Historically, Alabama Re has entered into contracts to assume liabilities from problem insurers to help them appear to be in better financial condition than they actually are,” Myrick says in a telephone interview.
In other words, Alabama Re, under Bryant Jr.'s "leadership," was a scam from the get-go. What about the Crimson Tide Foundation, another of Bryant's creations? Why is it not filing IRS documents that similar foundations seem to file?
Bryant flirted with IRS-related disaster once before--and managed to get away with it. Is he heading down that path again?
That's because the actions of Deputy Chris Blevins in "effectuating" my arrest so clearly fall outside the boundaries of the law. Blevins' unlawful actions fall into at least four categories: (1) His failure to state his purpose for being at our home; (2) His failure to state his mission before entering our home; (3) His use of excessive force, as defined by law; (4) His use of pepper spray in a situation where the law does not support it.
Let's examine each of these issues closely:
(1) Failure to state his purpose--Under Alabama law, an officer making an arrest must give notice of his authority. From Code of Alabama 15-10-2: "An officer may execute a warrant of arrest on any day and at any time; but in doing so, he must inform the defendant of his authority and, if required, must show the warrant."
In other words, an officer must tell you why he is in your presence, he must describe his purpose for being there. We've already established that Blevins did not show a warrant, but perhaps more importantly for our purposes now, he never stated that he was at our home to arrest me--until after he had already knocked me to a concrete floor three times and directed pepper spray into my face.
That makes the arrest unlawful, especially when you consider that it took place inside our home. That takes us to item No. 2.
(2) Failure to state his mission before entering our home--Both statutory law and case law in Alabama show that an officer has important responsibilities before entering a home. To quote further from Code of Alabama 15-10-2: "If [an officer] is refused admittance, after notice of his authority and purpose, he may break an outer or inner door or window of a dwelling house, in order to make the arrest."
Blevins was refused admittance to our home--I told him to get out of our garage--but he had given no "notice of his authority and purpose" for being there. A videotape of the arrest shows Blevins walking into our home without stating why he is there. Under Alabama statute, this is unlawful.
Case law, in the form of Livingston v. Browder, 285 So. 2d 923 (Ala. Civ. App., 1973), provides additional insight on this point:
Importantly, in most circumstances, a person must make known his purpose and demand admittance before breaking into and entering the house of another to make an arrest. 5 Am.Jur.2d Arrest § 93. Mr. Justice Bouldin, in Gray v. Williams, 230 927*927 Ala. 14, 18, 160 So. 715, 718, spoke to this point when he stated:
"In entering the dwelling of a third person, especially at night, the officer is under duty to apprise the head of the family of his mission and authority. No particular words are necessary, but, coming in the name of the law, he should make known such fact."
The arrest videotape shows that Blevins failed to fulfill his duty before entering our home, and that is one more ground for making my arrest unlawful.
(3) Use of excessive force, as defined by law--When an arrest is unlawful--as this one was on almost a half dozen grounds--a law-enforcement officer is not authorized to use force. As stated in Jackson v. Sauls, 206 F. 3d 1156 (11th Circ., 2000):
" . . . if a stop or arrest is illegal, then there is no basis for any threat or any use of force, and an excessive force claim would always arise but only collaterally from the illegal stop or arrest claim."
As we've shown, Blevins' actions were illegal from the moment he stepped into our garage without stating his purpose for being there. Under Jackson, all of the force that Blevins subsequently used was unlawful.
Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F. 3d 1340 (11th Circ., 2002). The court in Vinyard borrowed heavily from two major excessive-force cases: Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) and Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F. 3d 1188 (11th Circ., 2002).
From the Vinyard ruling:
As this Court also recently explained in Lee,"Graham dictates unambiguously that the force used by a police officer in carrying out an arrest must be reasonably proportionate to the need for that force, which is measured by the severity of the crime, the danger to the officer, and the risk of flight. . . ."
Courts have consistently concluded that using pepper spray is excessive force in cases where the crime is a minor infraction, the arrestee surrenders, is secured, and is not acting violently, and there is no threat to the officers or anyone else.
In my case, there was no crime at all, severe or otherwise. I was being arrested for alleged contempt of court in a civil matter--one where I could not lawfully be subjected to a contempt finding. By Blevins' own words in his incident report, he was the one acting violently, throwing me through boxes (twice) and up against a sturdy, metal dog pen. By Blevins' own account, all I did was put my arms in front of my face to protect myself from his blows. When finally informed that I was under arrest, I was lying on the floor of my own garage--with the doors closed--so it seems clear I was not a flight risk. (See incident report at the end of this post.)
Reporting on my story has focused largely on clear violations of the First Amendment. In my view, however, the story goes way beyond that. Discussions of the First Amendment tend to be nuanced and theoretical. But there was nothing nuanced about Chris Blevins' actions in our garage--or about the five months I spent in jail.
Police abuse has been one of the leading stories in the United States over the past eight to 10 months; my story is just one more example of it. I managed to live through it, but the closer you look at the details, the uglier it gets.
|Ryan Gerald Russell|
It's the case of Ryan Gerald Russell, an Inverness man who was convicted in the 2008 shooting death of Katherine Helen Gillespie, his 11-year-old cousin. A Shelby County jury deliberated 35 minutes before convicting Russell and recommended a death sentence. Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner, now on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, sentenced Russell to death in December 2010. Russell is housed on death row at Holman Prison.
But was this a case of murder? And, as was the case with Anthony Ray Hinton, is there any evidence tying Russell to the shooting? Based on press reports at the time, the answer to the first question is "maybe not." The answer to the second question is "no."
Are there similarities between the Hinton case and the Russell case? Well, here is how al.com described the process that set Hinton free:
After nearly 30 years on Alabama's death row, Hinton this morning walked out of prison a free man and into the arms of his sisters and friends.
He was freed when prosecutors dismissed the charges for his re-trial in the 1985 deaths of two fast-food managers after new testing on Hinton's gun couldn't prove the crime scene bullets were fired from the weapon.
Bryan Stevenson, executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) in Montgomery, served as Hinton's attorney and pushed for the evidence that finally freed his client:
EJI has been asking for more than a decade for prosecutors and the Alabama Attorney General's Office to have the gun re-tested because Hinton's original attorney did not hire a qualified gun expert.
"It should have happened many many years ago. . . . His case, in my judgment, is a case study in what's wrong with our system. He was convicted because he is poor. We have a system that treats you better if you're rich and guilty than if you're poor and innocent," Stevenson said.
There is no evidence that Russell's court-appointed trial lawyers hired a gun expert, qualified or not. In fact, Russell's lawyers, Mickey Johnson and Rick Vickers of Pelham, put on no defense at all. We can find no documents on Google Scholar that indicate Russell's conviction was appealed. News reports at the time raised questions about whether the prosecution even had the right murder weapon--and the reports offered no forensic evidence that showed Russell fired the gun.
What led to Katherine Gillespie's death? Here is how we summarized it in a November 2010 post:
The death of Katherine Helen Gillespie is a sad and tragic story. She was born through artificial insemination to a mother who died when she was 7 years old. She did not have a father, so she lived with her maternal grandmother until the summer of 2007. At that point, the grandmother developed signs of dementia, and Gillespie came to live in Inverness with the 37-year-old Russell, a distant cousin who was single and reportedly planned to adopt her.
Katherine Gillespie had been at summer camp on June 16, 2008, and it appeared Russell was going to be late picking her up. A camp counselor later testified that Gillespie was concerned as it got closer to 6 that evening, and Russell had not picked her up, but she was happy and smiled when he made it on time.
Three teenagers reported later that evening being rear-ended by an SUV. When they followed the SUV, it went to Russell's residence. Two of the teens, Andrew Stone and Robert "Bo" Montiel, later testified that a young girl, presumably Gillespie, got out of the SUV and asked them in a tearful voice not to call the police about the collision. They said Russell stayed in the vehicle and eventually backed it into the garage.
One of Russell's ex girlfriends went to the house after relatives told her they had not been able to reach him for several days. She discovered Katherine's body inside the SUV.
Was there reasonable doubt in the Russell case? Evidence showed that Russell had financial problems and a serious drinking problem, but reasonable doubt about murder--and whether he committed it--was everywhere. Consider just a few issues raised at trial:
|Katherine Helen Gillespie|
* Ed Moran, a forensics expert, could not connect the bullet from the body to any gun that he examined. From a January 2011 post and an article in the Shelby County Reporter:
Moran said the bullet jacket recovered from the body could not be marked back to any of the guns he examined. He said there was not enough microscopic markings on the jacket for him to make a conclusion.
* Katherine's body was found in Russell's house, where she lived, and he was her legal guardian. The supposed murder weapon was found there--one of 37 guns recovered at the scene. But that's pretty much where the evidence against Russell ends. We see no sign that he intended to kill Katherine, nothing tying him to the murder weapon. Does this evidence even rise to the level of "flimsy"? But a man sits on death row because of it? Here is how we summarized it:
Here is perhaps the most stunning element of this case: Based on press reports, from both The Birmingham News and the Shelby County Reporter, no evidence was presented that tied Russell to the actual act of shooting Gillespie. Articles about the testimony of a forensics expert made no mention of fingerprints, powder residue, or any other evidence that proved Russell fired the weapon. Yes, the gun was found in Russell's house. But proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he fired the gun? If any was presented at trial, it was not reported in the press.
Russell and Gillespie hardly were alone on the property that night, as we reported:
Based on press reports, we know that at least six other people--a former girlfriend, three teenagers, and at least two sheriff's deputies (called first by the teens, then by the former girlfriend)--were on or near the Russell property that night. . . . Is it possible that someone else on the scene that night had a gun and accidentally shot Katherine? It appears that authorities never seriously considered that possibility, and of course, that scenario would not go to murder either. It might, however, go to a massive wrongful-death lawsuit against the persons or entities responsible.
It took the Alabama "justice system" 30 years to get the Anthony Hinton case right. The Ryan Russell case emits many of the same foul odors. How long will it take for someone to take a second look? Has there even been a legitimate first look yet?
To be called Killing Atticus Finch, the film promises to expose Bush-era corruption in Alabama; Washington, D.C.; and around the country. The film's fund-raising site bills it as "the movie that Karl Rove does not want you to see."
From a federal prison in Oakdale, Louisiana, Siegelman sent a letter to the public, via Legal Schnauzer. The letter reads:
A LETTER FROM DON SIEGELMAN
My Dear Friend:
Once again, I call on you to help me fight for justice, not for me, but for our criminal justice system. I thank you for helping with my personal fight to expose the truth about how Karl Rove used the Department of Justice as a political weapon, and to finally hold him accountable. Now I am seeking to make an important systemic change to help ensure fairness and reduce government misconduct. Please watch, share and support the Documentary Killing Atticus Finch. Help us tell my story!
All my best,
Here is a summary of the documentary project and the effort to get it filmed:
THE MOVIE KARL ROVE DOES NOT WANT YOU TO SEE!
This film will expose the dark underbelly of corrupt politics that has remained secret for far too long.
Just like America's favorite literary figure, Atticus Finch, former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman believed in a judicial system that completely failed him. Don Siegelman needs your help! We need you to back this project so that the world will know about this travesty of justice. It's that important!
We have launched this GoFundMe Campaign to help produce a documentary that tells the whole story behind Don Siegelman's malicious prosecution and wrongful conviction. If you carry that same hunger for justice, please join us to shine a light on the truth.
“Don Siegelman isn’t just fighting for his freedom; he’s fighting for the integrity of our democracy” – Al Gore, former vice president
Here is the trailer for Killing Atticus Finch:
|Joey Kennedy and three of his|
(From B-Metro Magazine)
In a post yesterday at his Facebook page, Kennedy said he is considering possible legal action. Al.com, the digital equivalent of The Birmingham News, fired Kennedy on February 19.
He reached a severance agreement with al.com on March 6 and signed on as a columnist for B-Metro Magazine. Also, Kennedy and his wife, Veronica, are launching Animal Advocates of Alabama, a Web site about animal-related news and advocacy.
Kennedy seemed stunned yesterday to learn that representatives for his former employer were using his name in an effort to sell newspapers--even hinting that he was about to return to the fold. Said Kennedy on Facebook:
Well, one tries to move on. The company that fired me for "making threats" and "being too personally involved in my stories" is now putting people out in stores around the city telling potential subscribers that they are negotiating with me to return to Alabama Media Group and The News. I've not been a party to these "negotiations," yet they're using my credibility and standing in the community to sell subscriptions to their 3-day-a-week paper.
How does Kennedy feel about this strange turn of events?
I'm insulted, offended and just plain angry. I've consulted with my lawyer and we're deciding what to do next. This is wrong on so many levels. I did nothing but exemplary work for this group for more than 33 years. They cast me aside, and now try to use me to sell subscriptions. How do you describe this?
Three terms come to my mind to describe it--"sleazy,""underhanded," and "dim-witted." Oh, and I mustn't forget "shameless."
How would you describe al.com's treatment of one of Alabama's best-known journalists? Please send your adjectives, adverbs, and other descriptive phrases to us via the comments section.
Before you searching always remember to change your IP adress to not be followed!
PROTECT YOURSELF & SUPPORT US! Purchase a VPN Today!
For the good news, perhaps the best-known brand in American journalism was shining light on an issue of constitutional importance in the Deep South. For the bad news, reporter Campbell Robertson produced perhaps the most poorly written and researched article I've seen on my case--and I've seen probably more than 100 stories in both mainstream and Web publications, national and international. We recently passed the one-year anniversary of my release from jail, and I'm still finding coverage that I didn't know was out there.
Perhaps most troubling about the Times is its flagrant double standard when it comes to the use of anonymous sources. More on that in a moment.
As for shoddy reporting in the Times' article, "Blogger's Incarceration Raises First Amendment Questions," I could write a treatise on all that's wrong with it. For starters, the headline is not accurate. Every expert quoted in the story says I was wrongfully jailed contrary to long-settled First Amendment law. In fact, the situation did not raise any questions about the First Amendment. The only question was: How could Alabama have such a corrupt judicial system that it screws up straightforward, fundamental issues? The Times' solution to that issue was to acknowledge that the judge had made numerous rulings that were "unconstitutional" and "way out of bounds,"but it did not publish his name (Claud Neilson).
I see no reason for me to provide a detailed critique of Robertson's work because Andrew Kreig, of the Justice-Integrity Project, already has done an excellent one. Kreig's report is titled "Alabama Court Hammers Blogger Again As NY Times Flubs Libel Story," and here is perhaps his key finding:
In view of the apathy of much of the media regarding Shuler's dire circumstances, New York Times coverage in the Sunday edition of the nation's most influential newspaper was a slight net positive for Shuler and other advocates of the First Amendment.
But neither the reporter Robertson, a native of a nearby Alabama community just south of the courthouse, nor his selected experts featured in the article conveyed to the public the appalling danger of a court system operating so lawlessly.
What about the Times' hypocrisy on the use of anonymous sources? Robertson refers to Legal Schnauzer as a "hothouse" of "fuzzily sourced allegations," an apparent reference to my use of unnamed sources in reporting on Alabama GOP politico Rob Riley and lobbyist Liberty Duke. It also might be a reference to my use of unnamed sources in reporting about Attorney General Luther Strange and his former campaign aide, Jessica Medeiros Garrison.
Both of those stories led to defamation lawsuits, the first two in my almost 37 years as a professional journalist. They came within roughly a month of each other, from pretty much the same source--Alabama's cadre of right-wing elites, who tend to talk one way about "family values" and act another. So far, my reporting never has been found to be false or defamatory at trial.
I've written more than 2,800 posts here, and I can recall using anonymous sources in only three storylines--the two GOP-related stories noted above, plus one about Bush-appointed federal judge Bill Pryor and his ties to 1990s online gay pornography. It's common practice in journalism to use anonymous sources when the provided information is sensitive and could lead to blowback, even harm, for the source. Given that I was unlawfully thrown in jail not long after writing the Riley/Duke, Strange/Garrison, and Pryor/porn stories, it seems clear that my sources, indeed, would have faced serious repercussions if they had been named.
The story centered around an alleged "inappropriate relationship" involving GOP candidate John McCain and a lobbyist named Vicki Iseman. Here is the heart of the story:
Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.
Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.
The Times' reporting was wishy-washy, at best, never directly stating that McCain and Iseman had an affair. Iseman sued anyway, claiming the paper and several of its reporters and editors had "falsely created an impression that she had engaged in an improper romantic relationship with Senator John McCain."The Smoking Gunpublished a document that claimed the newspaper had "brazenly published" a piece about a "nonexistent tryst."
Who won the courtroom battle? That's hard to say, since the two sides reached a settlement. It seems clear John McCain was a big loser.
In the wider picture, The New York Times probably is the biggest loser of all. Based on personal experience, I would say a newspaper that once was considered great probably doesn't even rate as good anymore.
|South Carolina Officer Michael Slager shoots a fleeing|
Walter Scott in the back.
The public understandably is focused on the brutality that is apparent in the video, plus the fact that Slager has been fired and charged with murder. (See full video at the end of this post.) But the key to the story might lie in the moments before a bystander started shooting video of Scott and Slager struggling in an open, grassy area.
That's because Scott and Slager first encountered each other via a traffic stop. And a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case on traffic stops might explain why Slager acted with such impunity toward Scott. It also might explain why Slager lied about his actions, claiming he shot Scott because he felt threatened--and apparently planting his taser to make it appear that Scott had taken it from him.
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case in question is styled Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), in which the high court gave its OK for pretextual traffic stops. No one should be surprised that right-wing ideologue Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion in Whren.
What is a traffic stop based on pretext? Here is how one legal Web site describes it:
A "pretext" or "pretextual" stop is a stop in which the officer detains the citizen for a minor crime (i.e. traffic offense) because the officer actually suspects the person of involvement in another, more significant crime (i.e. drug possession).
In other words, a pretext stop involves deception. A law enforcement officer tells a citizen he is being stopped for one thing, when he's really being stopped for something else. And the nation's highest court, in Whren, has said this is perfectly fine.
According to news reports, Slager stopped Scott because he had a broken brake light on his vehicle. Reports also indicate Scott was wanted on a family-court warrant because he was behind on child-support payments.
Did Scott really have a broken brake light? It's possible that he did not, and Slager actually stopped him because he had looked up information about the child-support case. It's also possible Slager stopped Scott simply because he was "driving while black."Whren is almost 20 years old, but petitioners in the case foresaw the kind of tragedy that could happen to someone like Walter Scott. From the Whren opinion:
(Petitioners) argue . . . that "in the unique context of civil traffic regulations" probable cause is not enough. Since, they contend, the use of automobiles is so heavily and minutely regulated that total compliance with traffic and safety rules is nearly impossible, a police officer will almost invariably be able to catch any given motorist in a technical violation. This creates the temptation to use traffic stops as a means of investigating other law violations, as to which no probable cause or even articulable suspicion exists. Petitioners, who are both black, further contend that police officers might decide which motorists to stop based on decidedly impermissible factors, such as the race of the car's occupants. To avoid this danger, they say, the Fourth Amendment test for traffic stops should be, not the normal one (applied by the Court of Appeals) of whether probable cause existed to justify the stop; but rather, whether a police officer, acting reasonably, would have made the stop for the reason given.
The petitioners, in other words, wanted SCOTUS to force officers to be honest in their reasons for conducting traffic stops. But the high court rejected that argument, and in our view, that led to the kind of brutality and dishonesty Officer Slager exhibited during and after the killing of Walter Scott.
Whren is a case where one party before SCOTUS had more foresight and intelligence than the justices themselves. If Scalia and his colleagues had paid attention to a valid argument, Walter Scott might be alive today--and Officer Slager might not stand accused of murder.
Walter Scott shooting from The Post and Courier on Vimeo.
An Alabama police officer recently body slammed a grandfather from India named Sureshbhai Patel, and video of the assault helped shine an international spotlight on law-enforcement abuse in the Deep South. The spotlight became even brighter last week when a South Carolina officer fatally shot a fleeing Walter Scott in the back, over a non-operating brake light on Scott's vehicle--and then lied that he was being threatened at the time of the shooting.
How bad can some rogue officers be in the South, especially in the state I know best--Alabama? How deep is their disregard for the law? To help answer those questions, we can turn to my own arrest on October 23, 2013, which led to five months in jail. What was my crime? As with the Walter Scott case, there weren't even allegations of a crime; I was arrested for blogging--and I'm not making that up.
How absurd did it get? Courtroom evidence suggests that Alabama deputies arrested me without a warrant, making the arrest "unauthorized and illegal" under the law. If that was the case, the deputies likely ran afoul of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that generally prohibits warrantless entry into a private home to make an arrest.
Payton v. New York, 455 U.S 573 (1980) specifically forbids such entry in most cases involving felony arrest. My arrest was for civil contempt in a defamation lawsuit and did not involve a crime at all.
Shelby County deputy Chris Blevins entered my home on October 23, 2013, walking into our basement garage to knock me down three times and Mace me before telling me that I was under arrest. It's all caught on a videotape that later was played in open court.
At no point, in a video taken from his police cruiser, does Blevins show an arrest warrant. When the prosecution was told to turn over copies of any warrants at my resisting-arrest trial in January, prosecutor Tonya Willingham replied that she did not have any warrants.
All of that suggests there was no warrant for my arrest, and that raises the issue of Payton v. New York. Here is the key finding in that case:
The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest.
I can be heard on the video telling Blevins to get out of my house, so his entry was nonconsensual. What are some of the primary legal points in Payton and how might they apply to the Legal Schnauzer case? We will take a look at those questions in upcoming posts.
Those questions become particularly compelling in the aftermath of the assault on Suresehbhai Patel--not to mention the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, and the Eric Garner chokehold death in New York City and the Walter Scott shooting in South Carolina . . . and the list seems to grow by the day.
Meanwhile. we've already shown that Officer Blevins violated Alabama statutory law by entering our house to make an arrest without stating his purpose for being there. And he violated federal law by unlawfully using pepper spray, constituting excessive force.
Is our nation turning into a police state that is spinning out of control? A growing body of evidence suggests the answer is yes.
How disturbing is this? Well, we learned yesterday via The New York Daily News that Officer Michael Slager laughed to a coworker about "pumping adrenaline" after shooting Walter Scott to death.
We have some disturbed individuals wearing law-enforcement uniforms right now. I saw that firsthand when Chris Blevins committed an assault and battery against me--inside my own home.
How bad was it? The video below features an interview with my wife Carol just a few days after I had essentially been kidnapped, and the footage shows the havoc that Blevins wreaked in our garage--all apparently without the benefit of having a warrant. (Hat tip for the video to Matt Osborne, editor of Breitbart Unmasked.)
(To be continued)
places a special burden on law-enforcement officers when entering the home to make an arrest. Evidence we've seen so far indicates Shelby County deputies failed to meet that burden when entering my home on October 23, 2013, to make an arrest on civil-contempt charges.
Payton v. New York 455 U.S. 573 (1980) "prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest." In fact, the words of Payton suggest the actions of Shelby County deputy Chris Blevins would have been unlawful even if he had a warrant.
That's because my arrest was not for a felony; it wasn't for a crime, and it wasn't supported by law. That would seem to make the Blevins' actions even more constitutionally dubious, considering that he entered my home without showing a warrant, knocked me to a concrete basement floor three times, and sprayed Mace in my face--all without even telling me why he was there.
A close reading of Payton, however, indicates Blevins' entry into our home would not have been made lawful by the presence of a warrant. (Hat tip to an anonymous comment who raised this issue on yesterday's post.) The Payton court found that a warrant must be present to enter a dwelling "to make a routine felony arrest." What about entry to a home for a misdemeanor arrest--or, as in my case, an arrest that was not criminal in nature at all?
Payton does not specifically address this issue, but it strongly suggests that entry into a home under such conditions is unlawful, even with a warrant.
Blevins' actions were troubling the night I was arrested, and that was roughly a year before police misconduct became a national issue with the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager named Michael Brown by a white officer in Ferguson, Missouri--and the chokehold death of a black adult named Eric Garner in New York City.
It also happened before an Alabama police officer's assault on an Indian grandfather named Sureshbhai Patel; before an officer's fatal shooting of Walter Scott in South Carolina; and before the shooting of Eric Harris in Oklahoma, by an officer who apparently meant to tase Harris but shot and killed him with a pistol instead.
Did Blevins' unlawful entry into our home serve as a precursor to what has become, in 2014-15, "The Year Police Officers Were Unmasked As Thugs"? It's starting to look that way.
The Brown, Garner, Patel, and Harris debacles unfolded in public places. The thuggish behavior I experienced--which, thankfully, only roughed me up and did not kill me--took place in private, inside my own home. When officers start entering homes to rough up citizens who have been charged with no crime . . . well, our democracy might be showing serious wear and tear.
From Blevins' failure to show me a warrant or state that he had one, plus the failure of prosecutor Tonya Willingham to later produce a warrant when ordered to do so in court, makes a reasonable person think any warrant was defective for some reason--or there was no warrant at all.
This we know for sure: The law takes a dim view of law-enforcement officials entering a private dwelling without a valid warrant. Here are words from Payton v. New York:
The physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed. To be arrested in the home involves not only the invasion attendant to all arrests, but also an invasion of the sanctity of the home, which is too substantial an invasion to allow without a warrant, in the absence of exigent circumstances, even when it is accomplished under statutory authority and when probable cause is present. In terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.
How traumatic was it for my wife Carol and me to have a law-enforcement thug unlawfully enter our home and wreak havoc? The following interview with Carol, on Bob Kincaid's Head On Radio Network (HORN), gives an idea.
(To be continued)
|Actress Judy Garland became|
part of a historic defamation
The answer shines disturbing light on events that led to me being thrown in the Shelby County, Alabama, jail from October 23, 2013, to March 26, 2014. It also might cause citizens to ask if Judge Claud Neilson, Birmingham lawyer Rob Riley, and lobbyist Liberty Duke--the three individuals most responsible for my incarceration--should be subject to a federal investigation.
As to our original question, only two journalists were jailed over civil matters in the 20th century--and both cases involved circumstances radically different from those in my case.
How extraordinary were the actions of Riley, Duke, and Neilson? For some perspective, I'm only the third journalist to be jailed in a civil matter in 115 years--since the days of the William McKinley presidency.
Actually, my incarceration was even more extraordinary than the previous paragraph suggests, but we will save details about that for an upcoming post.
For now, we know that a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case styled Branzburg v. Hayesallows for the imprisonment of journalists who refuse to turn over information related to a criminal case. According to a list compiled in April 2013 by Fox News, that has happened at least 28 times since 1900, five times in the 2000s.
What about the two civil cases where journalists were sent to jail in the 1900s? One of them involved an actress who played the lead role in one of the most beloved movies of all time. The other involved alleged political chicanery in a small Illinois town. Let's take a look:
* Garland v. Torre (1958)--Judy Garland, best known for her role as Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, sued New York Herald Tribune writer Marie Torre, claiming quotes in a Torre column from an unnamed CBS executive defamed her. Torre reported that Garland was balking at a planned CBS special because, according to a network source, Garland thought she was "terribly fat" at the time. Garland claimed the statement was false and defamatory and harmed her professional reputation. Garland's lawyers took Torre's deposition, but she repeatedly refused to reveal the identity of her source. A federal judge sentenced Torre to 10 days in jail for contempt of court. This was the first case where a plaintiff faced a formal First Amendment challenge to a demand for information about sources.
* Costello v. Capital Cities Communications, et al (1984)--Richard Hargraves, an editorial writer for the Belleville (IL) News-Democrat, wrote an unflattering piece about Jerry Costello, chairman of the county board of supervisors. Hargraves wrote that Costello had lied regarding a campaign promise to oppose new taxes, and Costello sued for libel. During a deposition, Hargraves refused to name anyone in county government to whom he had spoken before writing the editorial, and a judge ordered him jailed for three days.
How do Garland and Costello differ from my case? Perhaps the biggest difference is that the plaintiffs in these cases did not seek unlawful preliminary injunctions. Also, the plaintiffs clearly sought trials because parties were subjected to depositions and cross-examination as part of trial preparation. There was nothing even resembling a trial in my case. Neilson conducted one hearing, to which I was escorted from the Shelby County Jail in shackles and chains, and that was it.
Lawyers for Garland and Costello apparently knew that the law does not allow for a preliminary injunction in a defamation case. Rob Riley and Liberty Duke apparently didn't know it or chose to ignore it. I lost five months of my freedom because of that.
Before you searching always remember to change your IP adress to not be followed!
PROTECT YOURSELF & SUPPORT US! Purchase a VPN Today!
|Shirley Salloway Kahn|
This is not the first time we've seen a conflict of interest that raises questions about Shirley Kahn's ethics, or lack thereof. The most recent conflict is multi-layered and even has connections to President Ray Watts' decision to torpedo the UAB football program.
John Archibald reports that Thesis Media, owned by Theresa Harper Bruno, has been paid $723,000 since October 2014 to work on the Campaign for UAB fund-raising project. Bruno opened a Mountain Brook jewelry store called Jordan Alexander several years ago, and her business partner is . . . Shirley Salloway Kahn.
UAB employees have reported receiving e-mails at work promoting Jordan Alexander, Archibald writes. That indicates Kahn (and Bruno) are using public resources and time for their personal business. We already have seen that Kahn has a habit of conducting her personal affairs on the UAB clock. More on that in a moment.
Where does UAB football enter the picture? A company called Theresa Harper Bruno Inc. has been paid $172,500--that's more than $28,000 a month--to help repair the public-relations disaster that ensued when Watts pulled the plug on the Blazer program.
The bottom line? A business partner and personal friend of Shirley Kahn has made a bunch of money from the death of UAB football. The same partner/friend has made even more money off the Campaign for UAB, an effort that Kahn oversees.
The big question: Has some of that money found its way back to Jordan Alexander, the jewelry store? If so, that could be a sign that Shirley Kahn has used her public office to enrich herself. That's the same problem that led to a pending 23-count criminal indictment against Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard.
Does that question call for an audit of Kahn's financial activities? Sure looks like it to us.
In all, Theresa Harper Bruno has made close to $900,000 from providing public-relations services to UAB. What kind of public-relations expertise does Bruno possess? Well, her company, Thesis Media, does not have a functioning Web site.
Let that sink in for a moment: A company that is designed to connect with the public cannot figure out how to get its own Web site up and running.
What about Shirley Kahn's previous clash with the Alabama Ethics Law? As we reported in October 2012, Kahn regularly encouraged UAB employees to house visitors at her husband's hotel. From that post:
The top fundraising officer at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) regularly tried to use her official position for personal gain, a source tells Legal Schnauzer.
Shirley Salloway Kahn, vice president for development, alumni and external affairs at UAB, regularly encouraged university colleagues to house visitors at the former Pickwick Hotel on Birmingham's Southside. The facility, now called the Hotel Highland at Five Points South, is owned by Kahn Properties. Dr. Donald Kahn is the president of Kahn Properties, and he is married to Shirley Salloway Kahn.
Alabama ethics law states that no public official or public employee is to use her official position for personal gain, for herself or a family member.
What about Kahn's tendency to do personal work while on the UAB (and taxpayer) clock. From our earlier post:
Our source says Shirley Kahn also has been seen apparently working with her husband at a site in English Village where one of his properties is being renovated. This activity took place about 2:30 p.m. in midweek, during the standard UAB work day. Was Kahn working on personal business while on the public clock? According to our source, it certainly looked that way.
Archibald managed to get a limp "statement" from Kahn about her relationship with Theresa Bruno, although we must note that Kahn apparently declined to answer questions. The UAB brain trust wanted no part of our 2012 report, perhaps because it came on the heels of a major fund-raising scandal at the University of North Carolina. From that 2012 post:
|Theresa Harper Bruno|
How much business has Shirley Salloway Kahn actually sent to a hotel that her husband owns? We raised that question via a phone message and an e-mail to Kahn, with a copy to Dale Turnbough, UAB's associate vice president for public relations and marketing. They have not responded to our query.
The Kahn story comes on the heels of a recent report that two top fundraisers at the University of North Carolina stepped down amid an investigation that they had charged the university for personal travel. Matt Kupec, UNC's vice chancellor for university advancement, resigned on September 9. Tami Hansbrough, a fundraiser in the university's division of student affairs, resigned on September 12.
The dominoes did not stop falling there. UNC Chancellor Holden Thorp announced on Sept. 17 that he will step down at the end of the academic year. This came after The Charlotte Observer asked in an editorial: "How Many Chances Should Thorp Get?" As the editorial points out, Thorp had been dealing with a number of fires on the Chapel Hill campus, including some in athletics. But the announcement of his plan to step down did not come until after the fundraising scandal had sparked banner headlines.
Could the Kahn/Bruno scandal lead to the senior VP's exit? Could it also lead to the ouster of Watts, who already is teetering from a "Fire Ray Watts" campaign that started with the clumsy, classless killing of UAB football?
Those who care about UAB--and that should include everyone who lives in Alabama--ought to be hoping the answer proves to be yes on both questions.
|Legal Schnauzer Roger Shuler with Murphy,|
the real schnauzer who inspired a blog.
The Garrison case produced a $3.5-million default judgment against me, with Jefferson County Circuit Judge Don Blankenship releasing an order last week. Garrison has been executive director of the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), an affiliate of the Washington, D.C.-based Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC).
On RAGA's Web site, Garrison currently is listed as senior advisor, with Strange set to be the group's chairman in 2016-17. Garrison also serves in an "of counsel" role with the Birmingham law firm Balch Bingham.
I'm not in a position to publicly discuss legal strategy, but I can say the law provides avenues to overturn default judgments, which are considered disfavored as both a matter of law and public policy in Alabama. I have not participated in the case for roughly a year--unable to defend myself or file valid counterclaims--and that is what led to the default judgment. I am still getting caught up on the case, but here are a few points I can make:
(1) As has been widely reported, I was unlawfully incarcerated from October 23, 2013, to March 26, 2014, because of a defamation lawsuit brought by Republican political figure Rob Riley and lobbyist Liberty Duke. From the moment I set foot out of the Shelby County Jail, my wife Carol and I were faced with possible foreclosure on our home--and the foreclosure actually took place on April 29, 2014. Without going into too many details at this point, that was part of the fallout from me being cheated out of my job at UAB for reporting accurately on this blog about the Don Siegelman case and the actions of wife-beating U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller (who now faces possible impeachment)--and from Carol being cheated out of her job at Infinity Insurance.
Bottom line? We were forced to move, and I stopped receiving notice about matters in the Garrison lawsuit. That's what led to the default judgment. Al.com's Kent Faulk reported the following in his story about the $3.5-million judgment:
Bill Baxley, one of Garrison's attorneys, also said the ruling "speaks for itself." He said he doubts his client will be able to collect any money from Shuler, who had his house foreclosed upon a year or so ago.
That seems to indicate Baxley knew my address had changed and that I likely was not receiving notice of court proceedings.
(2) Based on Kent Faulk's reporting about the $3.5-million default judgment, a significant portion of it apparently is based on allegations that I reported that Luther Strange was the father of Garrison's child. I did not, however, report that Luther Strange fathered a child with Garrison. From Faulk's article:
At the March 9 hearing the judge heard testimony from Garrison and Strange. Both testified the allegations Shuler had written that the two had an extramarital affair and had a son together were false, according to the judge's order.
Anyone is free to scour every post I've written about Jessica Medeiros Garrison, and it will be clear that I never wrote that Garrison and Strange had a son together. In fact, Faulk's article strongly suggests that Garrison and Strange testified falsely before the court.
(3) Both Baxley and Judge Blankenship apparently have tried to hold me accountable for comments left on my blog. Consider this from Faulk's article:
Garrison testified that Shuler had written false comments in his Legal Schnauzer blog concerning her and Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange, the judge's order states.
"The (Legal Schnauzer) comments suggested that the plaintiff (Garrison) received preferential treatment from the Attorney General because the two were engaged in an ongoing extramarital affair; and that the Attorney General was the father of the Plaintiff's minor son," the judge's order stated.
Garrison testified that the comments were false and "were embarrassing, hurtful and degrading."
This suggests Garrison's case and Blankenship's order are based largely on comments left at my blog, and not on the posts that I wrote. Is it lawful to hold me liable for comments left at my blog? Based on an Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) article about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), the answer appears to be no. From the EFF article:
CDA 230 also offers its legal shield to bloggers who act as intermediaries by hosting comments on their blogs. Under the law, bloggers are not liable for comments left by readers, the work of guest bloggers, tips sent via email, or information received through RSS feeds. This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments.
In summary, the $3.5-million default judgment rests on shaky legal and factual grounds. Jessica Garrison and Luther Strange essentially picked on somebody who could not defend himself. In my view, that raises questions about the validity of the foreclosure on our home, which was at 5204 Logan Drive in Birmingham, 35242.
Did someone get the foreclosure process started with an ulterior motive in mind? Was the motive to turn our lives upside down and force my wife and me to move, thinking that would be the end of Legal Schnauzer?
Those are questions to address on another day. But for now, Legal Schnauzer lives on. And so does my defense in the Jessica Garrison lawsuit.
Attorney Davy Hay filed his Notice of Appearance on Saturday (April 18, 2015), and the document can be viewed below.
The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, based at the University of Virginia, has been issuing "Jefferson Muzzles Awards" for 24 years to those who have wantonly trampled First Amendment rights.
Claud Neilson, a retired circuit judge the Alabama Supreme Court specially appointed to hear a lawsuit brought against me by Republican political figures Rob Riley and Liberty Duke, was among eight individuals or entities to receive "Muzzles Awards" for 2014-15.
Josh Wheeler, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center, says the "Muzzles" are designed to spotlight First Amendment violations that might not have made front pages around the world. From a center press release:
Josh Wheeler, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center, says people might be as surprised by what is not on the list this year as they are by what is. “At several points during the past year, the news was understandably dominated by coverage of the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris, the café shooting in Copenhagen, and the threats against theaters screening the movie The Interview. While the Thomas Jefferson Center stands united with those condemning violence as a response to speech, our mission has always been focused on meeting challenges to the rights and principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. This year, as always, the Jefferson Muzzles reflect that focus.
Wheeler also believes it is important for the Jefferson Muzzles to include lesser-known acts of censorship. “It challenges the assumption held by many that, because of the First Amendment, attempts at censorship are few and far between in this country. In fact, such acts occur every day. Our hope is that the Jefferson Muzzles help to dispel the complacency with which many view free speech issues.”
The mayor of Peoria, Illinois; a district attorney in Bedford County, Pennsylvania; the administration of a New Jersey community college; and the administration of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are among those joining Neilson as "winners" of the dubious awards. The Associated Press picked up on the Muzzles Award story last night, and it ran at al.com,seeing as how one of the chief "winners" is from Alabama.
Here is the citation for Neilson's "award":
Alabama Circuit Court Judge Claud D. Neilson for ignoring a basic tenant of defamation law that “equity will not enjoin a libel” and holding blogger Roger Shuler in contempt of court until he removed allegedly defamatory statements from his website. Shuler spent five months in jail before finally agreeing to remove the statements because he felt he could not endure jail any longer.
(Note: It's not quite accurate to say I felt I could not endure jail any longer. Obviously, I wanted to get out ASAP, but the main reason had to do with my physical well-being. I had witnessed an inmate suicide and numerous fights or near fights and feared for my safety.)
The Jefferson Center then provides more details about Neilson's unlawful actions in my case:
Alabama resident Roger Shuler is a former newspaper reporter who since 2007 has maintained the blog Legal Schnauzer. The blog aims to “scale all obstacles in pursuit of truth and justice” and since its founding Shuler has used it to allege a wide variety of illegal or unethical activities by Alabama’s public officials and political figures.
|Judge Claud Neilson|
While in many circumstances it is not unusual to find someone in contempt of court for refusing to obey a court order, it is virtually unheard of in the context of allegedly defamatory speech. Were it otherwise, individuals could effectively silence critics by merely alleging their speech to be defamatory without actually having to prove it. To avoid this, the established remedy for reputation harming falsehoods is post-publication relief, not pre-publication censorship. Yet Judge Neilson issued an injunction without any finding that Shuler’s posts about Riley were defamatory. By issuing a prior restraint on Shuler’s speech, Judge Neilson employed a legal mechanism that the U.S. Supreme Court has described as “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” Moreover, Judge Neilson’s unconstitutional injunction deprived a U.S. citizen of his liberty for 5 months. In hopes that it will inspire him to learn what any law student in a basic First Amendment course already knows, Alabama Judge Claud Neilson is awarded a 2015 Jefferson Muzzle.
*When a law enforcement officer went to Shuler’s house to arrest him for contempt of court, an altercation occurred resulting in a resisting arrest charge against Shuler. That matter involves legal issues that are not relevant for the purposes of this Muzzle.
The full Muzzles press release can be viewed below. Of the eight cases, mine is the only one that involves incarceration of a citizen. A strong argument could be made that Neilson's actions were far and away the most serious and outrageous infringement of First Amendment rights on the list:
In Rodriguez v. United States, SCOTUS found that a stop prolonged beyond the time for an officer to complete his traffic-based inquiries is "unlawful," especially where there is no reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity connected to the vehicle. The majority opinion, written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, says even a brief extension of a stop, once a citation or warning is given and traffic-related documents are returned, runs afoul of the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizures.
That means Shelby County deputy Mike DeHart violated the Fourth Amendment when he prolonged a traffic stop at the North Shelby County Library in order to serve me with court papers in the Riley/Duke complaint. That means service was unlawful, and I lost five months of my freedom because of a ruling from a court that had no jurisdiction over me.
We recently received documents from the court file showing that DeHart admitted his traffic stop, on September 29, 2013, was a "pretext" stop--meaning the real reason he stopped me was to deliver the court papers and not because of any alleged traffic violation. That strongly suggests DeHart's "pretext" reason for stopping me--that I had rolled through a stop sign--is false. If that's the case, the traffic stop was unlawful from beginning to end, and the Shelby County Sheriff's Office has stepped in some serious constitutional doo-doo. (More on DeHart's admitted "pretext" stop in an upcoming post.)
The Rodriguez ruling does not change the law as it relates to our encounter with DeHart. It just affirms a legal precedent under slightly different facts than the high court has addressed before. In other words, DeHart's stop already was unlawful--it's even more unlawful as of yesterday.
As we stated in a post on October 16, 2013--just one week before my arrest--the law already was clear that prolonged traffic stops are illegal, in the absence of reasonable suspicion regarding criminal activity connected to the vehicle. Even DeHart never made the slightest hint that criminal activity was associated with our car. The following paragraph sums up the law as it stood before yesterday's Rodriguez opinion:
Ordinarily, when a citation or warning has been issued and all record checks have been completed and come back clean, the legitimate investigative purpose of the traffic stop is fulfilled. United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347, 1353 (11th Cir., 2004)
What element did Rodriguez add to the equation? A Nebraska officer had prolonged a traffic stop of Dennys Rodriguez in order to walk a drug-sniffing dog around the car. Given that it was unclear whether the officer had reasonable suspicion of a crime, SCOTUS found that extension of the stop violated the Fourth Amendment.
Our encounter with DeHart did not involve a drug-sniffing dog or anything else remotely related to an alleged crime. But yesterday's Rodriguez ruling drives home a legal principle that already had been clear in Simms and numerous other cases. Here, in the words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is the fundamental finding in Rodriguez (citations omitted):
Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been completed. The Fourth Amendment may tolerate certain unrelated investigations that do not lengthen the roadside detention . . . but a traffic stop “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a warning ticket. . . .
The Government’s argument that an officer who completes all traffic-related tasks expeditiously should earn extra time to pursue an unrelated criminal investigation is unpersuasive, for a traffic stop “prolonged beyond” the time in fact needed for the officer to complete his traffic-based inquiries is “unlawful. . . . ” The critical question is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, but whether conducting the sniff adds time to the stop.
In our case, the issue wasn't a dog sniff, but court papers--which DeHart handed me after giving me the traffic warning and returning my traffic-related documents. And his actions unquestionably added time to the stop. In the words of Ginsburg, DeHart's "authority for the seizure" ended the moment his traffic-related tasks were completed.
A trial judge in the Rodriquez case found that the dog sniff extended the stop by only "seven or eight minutes," and thus was a de minimis intrusion that is permissible by law. But the SCOTUS majority disagreed, saying an extension of any duration is unlawful, in the absence of reasonable suspicion regarding criminal activity. Wrote Ginsburg:
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. . . . Without additional reasonable suspicion, the officer must allow the seized person to depart once the purpose of the stop has concluded.
Even before yesterday's ruling, DeHart was required to let us depart once his traffic-related tasks were completed. Rodriguez drives home the fact that an extension of the stop, even a brief one, was unlawful.
|Matt Pitt at The Basement|
What is that dark story? Pitt's troubles with law enforcement began when he refused to do the bidding of conservative political/corporate forces who wanted to use his ministry (The Basement) for their own purposes, sources tell Legal Schnauzer. Those forces allegedly include former Governor Bob Riley and University of Alabama trustee Paul Bryant Jr. Our sources say Pitt never would have been prosecuted if he had allowed his ministry to be used for the political and financial interests of others. They also say Pitt has made enemies from his desire to build a ministry that reaches across racial boundaries.
Full disclosure: I know Matt Pitt, and I like him. We were in the Shelby County Jail together for a time, and while we were not able to talk a lot, I was around Pitt enough to come away with a favorable impression. I found him to be a person of good will, with a good heart, a keen intellect, deep knowledge of The Bible, and a genuine interest in reaching young people who often fall away from organized religion. I also witnessed Pitt preach to small groups in jail and came away convinced that he is a talented communicator, with a gift that could be used to move a broken, conflicted society forward.
Based on comments left at al.com, quite a few people in the Birmingham area hold animosity toward Pitt--for reasons I can't quite grasp. I can only attribute the ill will to possible jealousy or fear that The Basement will cut into membership figures at established churches. It also might be due to Pitt's efforts to build an inclusive ministry, one that reaches people of all colors, I've lived in Alabama long enough to know that the notion of races mixing in a religious environment makes many people uncomfortable.
Also, Alabamians have a long history of trying to bring down those who might try to separate the state from its ugly past. Is Matt Pitt the kind of person who might strike fear in those who cling to the Alabama of yesterday? I suspect the answer is yes. The Basement is billed as "the fastest growing youth movement in the country." And it reaches way beyond Alabama; I've seen pictures of Pitt preaching from coast to coast--in Colorado, Ohio, California, Texas, Missouri, New York, and many other states.
Matt Pitt could be the next major, positive religious figure on the American scene, but Jefferson County prosecutors persist in pursuing him for a felony that he almost certainly did not commit--one that carries a punishment of up to 10 years in prison.
What led to Matt Pitt's legal problems? Our sources point to three key events:
(1) Political figures, apparently with ties to Riley and Bryant, encouraged Pitt to use The Basement to endorse a slate of white, conservative political candidates;
(2) Business figures encouraged Pitt to do the ministry's banking with Bryant Bank;
(3) Pitt and a few associates were invited to attend a University of Alabama football game and sit in Bryant's private box. During the game, a Bryant crony was heard to say, after looking out over the packed stadium, "Can you imagine this many people pay us to watch n-----s beat up on each other?"
Pitt rebuffed the first two entreaties and was so disgusted by No. 3 that he decided to have nothing to do with Paul Bryant Jr. or his bank.
Before long, Pitt was in trouble with the law because of an honorary sheriff's badge that he never asked for--Jefferson County Sheriff Mike Hale gave it to him.
Where does politics enter the picture? Bob Riley appointed Jefferson County District Attorney Brandon Falls, who apparently made the decision to prosecute Pitt. Mike Hale's legal counsel is Rob Riley, Bob Riley's son. In fact, Rob Riley made an appearance at the Pitt trial on Tuesday. Jefferson County Tax Collector J.T. Smallwood played a significant role in Pitt receiving the honorary badge, and Smallwood reportedly has close ties to Bryant.
What about those oddities connected to the trial? We will address those in a post tomorrow morning.
Before you searching always remember to change your IP adress to not be followed!
PROTECT YOURSELF & SUPPORT US! Purchase a VPN Today!
|Matt Pitt (right) and attorney Nikki Bonner|
Youth minister Matt Pitt's refusal to go along with powerful political and business interests in Alabama probably led to his prosecution on charges of impersonating a peace officer. Courtroom oddities at this week's trial in Jefferson County have heightened our concern that an innocent man might go to prison. It would not be the first time that has happened in Alabama--especially when someone has stood up to the state's conservative elites, as Matt Pitt has.
A jury is expected to reach a verdict today.
We reported last night that Pitt's legal troubles started not long after he refused a request for his ministry (The Basement) to endorse a slate of conservative political candidates. The troubles also started not long after Pitt declined to place his ministry's money with Bryant Bank, which is led by powerful University of Alabama trustee and football booster Paul Bryant Jr. Finally, Pitt seems to have made enemies because of his desire to build an inclusive ministry, one that crosses racial boundaries.
I don't claim to be an expert on Alabama case law regarding impersonation of a peace officer, but my research indicates Pitt never should have been prosecuted--either in the current Jefferson County case, or in an earlier one in Shelby County. He certainly should not be convicted, but given Alabama's toxic "justice" environment, I would not be surprised if that happens.
My understanding is that the alleged crime of impersonation usually requires some kind of affirmative or creative action that is designed to deceive the public into believing one is a member of law enforcement. For example, a person who creates or unlawfully obtains a badge or uniform, and then uses it to deceive the public, likely would be violating the law.
I've seen little or no sign that Pitt did that. The Jefferson County Sheriff's Office gave him an honorary badge as an apparent pat on the back for his work with The Basement. We haven't seen any indication that Pitt asked for the badge. It seems unclear if any member of the public ever was deceived into thinking Pitt actually was a law-enforcement officer. In fact, the Pitt defense team obtained an affidavit from witness Brad Lunsford, who stated that Pitt never acted in a way that made him think he was a police officer.
Judge Tommy Nail, who is presiding over the Jefferson County case, seemed to support my research based on this report Monday from al.com:
(Prosecutor Shawn) Allen described that in the Florida incident, Pitt laid out his honorary badge for the Walton County officer who pulled him over, in an attempt to get out of a speeding ticket. "Everybody knows it's an honorary badge," Nail said. "It doesn't carry any authority to do some act. Laying an honorary badge out, in my opinion, doesn't meet the elements of impersonation."
That hinted that Nail was going to hold the prosecution to the actual law; in fact, Nail all but shouted from the bench that Pitt was not guilty. But the judge's tone changed the next day. And that brings us to those courtroom oddities? Let's count them:
(1) Nail makes a radical change of course -- On Monday, the judge said he would not allow evidence of Pitt's previous encounters with law enforcement. That is in keeping with Alabama Rule of Evidence 404, which generally prohibits evidence of alleged prior wrongs. This is how al.com's Greg Garrison reported Nail's finding, which appears to be a correct statement of law:
Nail also ruled that he would not allow Pitt's previous encounters with law enforcement as evidence.
Allen said the prosecutors planned to show a pattern of behavior by Pitt. Nail said those incidents are not relevant to the Jefferson County incident.
"None of that's coming in, in my opinion," Nail said.
One day later, Nail took a 180-degree turn, as reported by WBRC, Fox 6, in Birmingham:
Matt Pitt's legal team lost ground on Tuesday after Judge Tommy Nail reversed his decision to keep evidence from a previous case out of this trial.
Pitt is currently on trial in Jefferson County after being charged with impersonating a peace officer in June 2013.
On Monday, Nail ruled that prosecutors couldn't enter evidence or testimony from a 2012 Shelby County case in which Pitt was also charged with impersonating an officer.
That changed Tuesday. Nail allowed a current and former Calera police officer to give testimony in that 2012 case. Pitt pleaded to a lesser charge in Shelby County. However, his bond was revoked and he did serve jail time in Shelby County because his Jefferson County charges violated the terms of his plea deal.
Nail said the only reason he allowed this testimony was to show Pitt's intent in the Jefferson County case.
What caused Nail to change his mind? We don't know, but it smells funny--and it greatly enhances the chance of a conviction. Nail was right the first time--those prior incidents are not relevant to the Jefferson County incident.
(2) What happened to Brad Lunsford? -- As noted above, eyewitness Brad Lunsford signed an affidavit stating that Pitt never did anything to make him think the evangelist was a police officer. But based on news reports, the defense never called Lunsford as a witness at trial? Why? I can't figure that one out.
(3) Why didn't Matt Pitt take the stand? -- It seems to be common practice for criminal-defense lawyers to keep their clients off the stand. I've seen that strategy backfire in numerous cases, especially in the prosecution of Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy. Scrushy has admitted the strategy backfired. I'm concerned that it's going to happen here.
Matt Pitt is an articulate guy, and he is innocent. Those kinds of defendants need to take the stand, especially in a case the prosecution should not have brought in the first place.
I will take off my reporter's objective glasses for a moment and state that I hope Matt Pitt is found not guilty--and that's because justice demands it. Unfortunately, Alabama courtrooms all too often are the place where justice goes to die. I pray that will not be the case today.
|Legal Schnauzer blogger Roger Shuler|
Prattville attorney Davy Hay filed the motion in Jefferson County Circuit Court yesterday afternoon, and al.com's Kent Faulk reported on it this morning in an article titled "Blogger Roger Shuler fighting $3.5-million judgment."
The motion outlines the extraordinary circumstances that prevented my continued appearance in the Garrison case, leading to the default judgment. As has been widely reported in the national and international press, law-enforcement officers beat me up inside my own home because of alleged contempt of court in another defamation case brought by two other GOP operatives, attorney Rob Riley and lobbyist Liberty Duke.
Deputies showed no warrant, never said they had a warrant, and entered my property without stating their purpose for being there, meaning the "arrest" was unlawful and essentially amounted to a kidnapping. On top of that, the preliminary injunction I supposedly violated was unconstitutional under more than 200 years of First Amendment law, as outlined in briefs from the ACLU and The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
I wound up spending five months in the Shelby County Jail, becoming the only journalist in the western hemisphere to be incarcerated in 2013. I also am the only U.S. journalist since 1900 to be jailed because of an unlawful preliminary injunction in a purely civil matter.
The motion states that after my release from jail on March 26, 2014, my wife Carol and I immediately faced foreclosure on the home we had lived in for 25 years. The psychological trauma of dealing with jail and possible homelessness caused me to spend six days for evaluation in a hospital psychiatric unit, where I was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Carol and I continue to live under circumstances where we fear for our lives and safety, given that both of us were subjected in Alabama to what amounts to court-sanctioned kidnappings. (Officers also tried to arrest Carol, in large part because Riley and Duke unlawfully named her as a defendant in a case over issues that did not involve her.)
Because of Carol's ability to avoid capture, she got out word about what had happened to me--and that led to widespread coverage of my arrest, including an article in The New York Times. Riley and Duke had asked for the case file to be sealed, so if deputies had kidnapped Carol too, we both probably would have just disappeared--with the public having no way of knowing what happened to us.
Would we have been killed or permanently detained? Would our cats have been murdered or forced to starve, with no one to care for them? We ask ourselves those and many other questions.
Attorney Hay outlines the circumstances we faced in the Motion to Vacate Default Judgment. The full motion can be read at the end of this post:
* "Mr. Shuler and his wife lost their home and were facing the very real possibility of being homeless. This being such a pressing and immediate issue, all other concerns had to be given lower priority.
* "Mr. Shuler had just spent five (5) months in jail, which began with being beaten by law enforcement officials in his own home and wrongfully detained, in violation of his constitutional rights".
* "Mr. Shuler and his wife experienced excessive psychological trauma, resulting in the defendant spending six (6) days in a psychiatric unit, in direct relation to these events, and was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder."
* "Mr. Shuler has a good-faith belief that his very life has been in actual peril as a result of his reporting. Accordingly, he has been and continues to be highly reluctant to submit to the authority of the state after what he perceives to be illegal attacks against his person, his family, and his rights as a citizen of the United States."
For the record, I feel the taking of our home amounts to a wrongful foreclosure under Alabama law. The elements of the tort are spelled out in a 2010 article from the Burr Forman law firm, titled "The Rising Tide of Wrongful Foreclosure Lawsuits." From the article:
Additionally, where a mortgage provides for a power of sale, under Alabama law, a wrongful foreclosure action lies whenever the power of sale is exercised "for a purpose other than to secure the debt owed by the mortgagor.."Reeves Cedarhurst Dev. Corp. v. First Am. Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 607 So. 2d 180, 182 (Ala. 1992). Such an improper purpose includes the mortgagee's goal of oppressing the mortgagor or furthering some interest of another.Johnson v. Shirley, 539 So. 2d 165, 168 (Ala. 1988).
Carol and I are convinced the foreclosure on our home was conducted for the improper purpose of turning our lives upside down and forcing us to move, with the goal of causing the demise of my reporting on this blog. We hope to show that in court.
Because of the forced moved, I stopped receiving notice of hearings in the Garrison lawsuit, and that led to the default judgment. As we already have shown, default judgments long have been disfavored in Alabama as a matter of law and public policy. That is clearly stated in a case styled Abernathy v. Green Tree Serving, (Ala. Civ. App., 2010):
We begin our analysis by pointing out what we have affirmatively acknowledged in many cases: default judgments are disfavored because "'such judgments preclude a trial on the merits.'"Stanfield v. Stanfield, 2 So. 3d 873, 876 (Ala. 2090488 Civ. App. 2008) (quoting Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Auth. Sewer Serv., Inc., 524 So. 2d 600, 604 (Ala. 1988)).
In the motion to vacate, attorney Hay seeks leave to file a counterclaim on my behalf, states that I have a meritorious defense, and claims the $3.5-million figure was reached in part because of an improper analysis that Garrison is a "private person." In fact, Hay argues, Garrison is a "public figure" under the law, by virtue of her significant role in Strange's statewide campaign, plus her leadership role in the national Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). In essence, Hay writes, Garrison's lawsuit was designed to "bully the defendant (Shuler) into silence." From Kent Faulk's article at al.com:
Hay states in the motion that Shuler has a meritorious defense in the case, "and by virtue of evidence currently in his possession and that which can be obtained through exhaustive discovery, shall show that the case against him is frivolous and nothing more than an attempt by the plaintiff to unconstitutionally bully the defendant (Shuler) into silence."
Hay argues in the motion that Garrison is a public figure, based on her work on Strange's campaigns, her appointment as Chief Counsel and Deputy Attorney General of the state of Alabama in 2011, and her position as director of the Republican Attorneys General Association. If Garrison was to be considered a public figure, rather than a private citizen, it would raise the burden to that of proving actual malice, the motion states.
In an article titled "The Color of Money Runs White At The Crimson Tide's Bank," Adam Rust of banktalk.org. shows that Bryant Bank rarely makes mortgage loans to certain minority groups.
Paul Bryant Jr., a member of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees and son of the late Hall of Fame football coach Paul "Bear" Bryant, is director of Bryant Bank. Bryant Jr., a major force behind Crimson Tide athletics, is known as one of the most powerful boosters in college sports.
UA's football and men's basketball teams mostly thrive off the efforts of black student-athletes. But once their athletics careers are over, many of those former Crimson Tiders apparently would not be welcome at Bryant Bank. Reports Rust:
So what kind of bank is Bryant Bank? While it is headquartered in Tuscaloosa (home of the University of Alabama's main campus), the majority of its branches are in greater Birmingham. In addition to those two cities, Bryant also operates branches in Huntsville and suburban Mobile. Bryant's model echoes that of the typical community bank, with emphases in small business and mortgage lending. They are not in venture capital, credit cards, and small auto loan portfolio.
But if they are involved in mortgage lending, do they provide credit to all of the community? Or does the evidence paint a different picture?
Well, they pick their spots. When it comes to single-family residential property lending, they are very pro-active in serving investors who want to buy single-family residential homes.
But race matters in Alabama, and Bryant Bank walks an interesting line when it comes to providing capital to minorities in a state whose metro area populations include many African-Americans.
How much does race matter at Bryant Bank? Rust's research indicates the answer is "a lot."
My review of their Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data suggests that they rarely extend the same opportunity to minorities who want to buy a home for their families. Between 2011 and 2013, the bank made two owner-occupant loans to African-American borrowers, two to Asian applicants, and another to a Latino applicant. They made a home purchase mortgage loan to an African-American in 2010, but they did not do so in 2008 or 2009.
As has been the case with most lenders during the last few years, more of Bryant's mortgage lending has been for refinancing. Again, if we focus on owner-occupants, then refinances made up 54.2 percent of lending at Bryant between 2008 and 2013. But the same racial discrepancy holds true on the refinance side as well. The ratio of refinance loans to white owner-occupants versus black owner occupants is 145 to 4. During the same period (2008 to 2013), the same ratio for home purchase is 122 to 3.
This information is shocking. It shows that Bryant Bank has gone entire years without making a single home-purchase mortgage loan to an African-American. The situation is particularly grim in the Tuscaloosa area, Paul Bryant Jr.'s backyard:
As might be expected, Bryant has a significant presence in Tuscaloosa. According to the FDIC, Bryant had about $460 million (note: I had written $460,000, which was a typo that would have understated their size and inferentially their ability to serve the community) in deposits on account in Tuscaloosa County, second only to Regions Bank. Regions held approximately $670 million in deposits at Tuscaloosa branches at the end of June 2014. Synovus was third, with a shade less than $391 million in Tuscaloosa deposits.
Bryant made no loans in this segment to African-Americans (home purchases or refinance) in Tuscaloosa in 2013. In 2012, they made one of these loans, a refinance on a single-family residential home for $18,000 to a borrower with $124,000 in income. The loan was registered as a "high-cost" loan, because it bore an interest rate that was 3.8 percentage points above a comparably-termed Treasury. If I had to estimate the actual rate, based upon a review of 10-year rates during that time, the interest rate was probably 5 3/4 percent.
How did banktalk.org become interested in Bryant Bank? It came with recent reports about questionable actions of the UA Board of Trustees, including the killing of the UAB football program. Writes Rust:
I became interested in this small bank after reading a recent story ("Paul Bryant Jr.'s Bank is the Tie that Binds UA Trustees") in the Birmingham News, The story focused on the close ties between the University of Alabama football program, Bryant Bank, and The University of Alabama System Board of Trustees ("UASBOT"). In Alabama, the closure of the University of Alabama-Birmingham's football team has sparked a lot of hard feelings. Among those reactions, a number are pointing their fingers at UASBOT. Football is important in Alabama. The state spends a lot of money on two nationally-ranked programs. But Bear Bryant was never thrilled about another program drawing on fans from the state's largest city. With that history in the background, it is not surprising that Birmingham's leading newspaper would spend some time reviewing the mysterious bank associated with Bear's family.
The News pointed out that the UASBOT and Bryant Bank share similar governing styles. Only trustees of the UASBOT can select new trustees, and for years, those choices were made in private behind closed doors. The Trustees oversee a private foundation, which is managed in a similar fashion. Recently the Crimson Tide Foundation opted to stop releasing its IRS forms, as required by law, on the grounds that it was government entity. But another filing mandated by the State of Alabama found that the foundation purchased a $3.1 million home for Nick Saban, coach of the U of A football team.
Bryant Bank was founded by Paul Bryant, Jr., the son of Paul "Bear" Bryant. The Alabama football "family" is deeply connected to Bryant Bank. These connections are not anecdotal speculation, either. The University of Alabama system, which some consider to be the state's most valuable asset, is led by some of the same individuals that are in charge of this small bank.
Rust paints a picture of a bank that mostly ignores the same black community that provides many of the players who have made the Alabama Crimson Tide a college-football powerhouse. In other words, it appears that Bryant Jr. cares about the blacks who wear the Crimson Tide jersey. But he shows almost no interest in blacks who don't make tackles and score touchdowns. Rust shows that Bryant Bank stacks up poorly against one other major bank in the Birmingham/Tuscaloosa area:
Let's acknowledge that most banks have reported lending numbers showing higher rates of lending to non-minorities as a share of population during these years. That is especially the case when the analyses are limited to reviews of conventional lending and exclusive of FHA and VA. Bryant appears to limit its activities to conventional mortgage lending.
Nonetheless, Bryant's numbers are far outside the normal range. Regions Bank, for example, made 75 home purchase loans for owner-occupant African-Americans in just Birmingham in 2013 alone. As opposed to a 40-fold difference, Regions made 7.4 home purchase owner-occupied loans to white borrowers for every one it made to an African-American.
This is not the first time in recent days that we've seen signs Bryant and his associates operate with racial sensibilities out of the 1930s. We will look at another example in an upcoming post.
Investigator Howard "Gene" Sisson has been terminated for allegedly conspiring with former Deputy AG Sonny Reagan to obstruct the Hubbard investigation, according to a report from Bill Britt at Alabama Political Reporter. Reagan was forced to step down last December for allegedly leaking grand-jury information.
Both Reagan and Sisson played major roles in the raids that closed non-Indian gaming facilities around the state, including VictoryLand in Macon County and Center Stage Alabama near Dothan. The Reagan and Sisson exits raise a number of troubling questions about both the gambling raids and the Hubbard investigation.
From Bill Britt's report about the latest member of AG Luther Strange's staff to be shown the door:
Howard “Gene” Sisson, an investigator with the Attorney General’s Office since 2007, has been removed from his position after it was believed he conspired with Reagan to produce false allegations against Special Prosecutions Division Chief Miles Mathew Hart. The Special Prosecutions Division is leading the felony prosecution of Speaker Mike Hubbard, (R-Auburn), who has been charged by the State with 23 felony counts of public corruption.
Sisson, who has worked closely with Reagan on gambling raids and prosecutions, was reportedly involved in a complex scheme to discredit Hart in an effort to allow Hubbard to escape justice, according to those with background knowledge.
If Sisson was involved in a "complex scheme," which also could be known as a "conspiracy," that indicates a number of other individuals were involved. Our first obvious question: Who are those individuals, and will law enforcement pursue them?
Britt hints at those who might have been involved with Reagan and Sisson:
. . . court documents show, that Reagan shared attorney’s with Rep. Barry Moore, who was accused of lying to the Hubbard Grand Jury and also shared an an attorney with Hubbard. Reagan shared attorney Bill Baxley who represented Moore, and Rob Riley who represented Hubbard all simultaneously. Rob Riley, son of former Gov. Bob Riley, also represented his father and sister, Minda Riley Campbell, before the Grand Jury investigation of Hubbard.
This matrix of overlapping attorneys seems to have allowed a free flow of secret information between Hubbard and individuals who have been named as material witnesses in the Hubbard indictments.
In what increasingly appears to be a desperate attempt to avoid a criminal trial, Hubbard has offered memos by Reagan, to show prosecutorial misconduct. Even though it has been revealed in court documents that Reagan was leaking Grand Jury information to Hubbard and the Riley’s as early as 2013.
Reagan and Sisson have been the fall guys so far, inside the AG's office, but it appears one or both of them were working with Baxley and Rob Riley on the outside. Reports Britt:
A personnel complaint filed by Reagan against Hart, is seen as a coordinated effort to paint Hart as a rogue prosecutor and perhaps show prosecutorial misconduct.
However, court records show that Baxley advised Reagan to write the report and later he had Moore subpoena the same report, in an effort to show untoward actions on Hart’s part. Here is a case of an attorney advising one client to make accusations against a prosecutor and the other to ask for the records to make the documents public in an effort to claim misconduct. . . .
Reagan's bogus complaint is believed to have been written with the assistance of Riley and/or Baxley.
This is an evolving story, with a lot of unknowns between the cracks. But a number of clear questions come to mind:
* Will VictoryLand and Center Stage Alabama have their property returned and be set for reopening, given that Reagan and Sisson have seen their credibility torn asunder? A ruling in Victoryland's forfeiture case was expected last November. The ruling now is roughly six months late, and one can only wonder why it takes so long to make a relatively uncomplicated decision, especially given that Reagan did not present a witness to counter Victoryland's expert testimony. Do efforts to obstruct justice lead to Alabama judges, including the justices of the Alabama Supreme Court?
* Will leaks and other efforts to hinder the Hubbard investigation lead to more than just terminations and forced resignations? These appear to be cases of obstruction that can be prosecuted under criminal law. Will that happen, and what agency (state, federal, both?) will lead the way?
* Will attention eventually shift from members of the AG's staff (Reagan and Sisson) to those with whom they apparently conspired on the outside? If the spotlight finally shines on Baxley and Rob Riley, does that mean two prominent members of the Alabama legal community will face criminal charges and possible disbarment?
|Alabama Deputy Chris Blevins|
We're not making this up.
Chris Blevins, of the Shelby County Sheriff's Office, entered the garage underneath our house on October 23, 2013, and knocked me to a concrete floor three times and directed pepper spray into my face--all without showing a warrant, stating he had a warrant, or stating his purpose for being on our property. This all resulted from my alleged civil contempt, having nothing to with a crime.
The same Chris Blevins is featured in a "Code of Ethics" video, which was posted on April 8 at the department's Facebook page. The video can be viewed at the end of this post.
We already have shown that Blevins' actions inside our home run contrary to both state and federal law. We also have shown that the resisting-arrest complaint he brought against me is not supported by law or fact.
But now we have Chris Blevins, in living color, touting his commitment to ethical police work. We're guessing that the Shelby County department produced the video in response to the devastating publicity law enforcement has been receiving for a string of misconduct cases, beginning last summer with the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.
That an Alabama sheriff's office would choose Chris Blevins to appear in a video about ethics . . . well, it would be comical if the issues involved weren't so serious. The inclusion of Blevins in the video also hints that law enforcement, at least in Alabama, still does not "get it" about the anger many citizens now feel toward rogue police officers. That anger has been on clear display in Baltimore over the past two days.
The Alabama video features several members of the Shelby County department reading sections of the Code of Ethics they supposedly live by. Blevins is the third "performer" in the video, and with a look of utmost seriousness on his face, he touts his commitment to protect:
. . . the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder. And respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality, and justice.
You can see Blevins' name, right there above his right shirt pocket. After making his solemn statement, Blevins knocks on a door. Given my experience with him, I expect him to knock down the door and wreak havoc on the inhabitants--all without the benefit of a warrant or a statement about his purpose for being there. That seems to be his way of expressing respect for "liberty, equality, and justice."
To those who followed my arrest and incarceration--not to mention the recent shooting of Walter Scott in South Carolina and other incidents of "cops gone wild"--this might seem like a belated April Fool's post or something pulled from The Onion.
But it's for real, and you can check out Chris Blevins' straight-faced performance at the link below. Some of his colleagues in the video almost have smiles on their faces, as if they know the video is a crock, from beginning to end. But not Blevins--he appears to be deadly serious.
I doubt Blevins is capable of grasping the irony in his statement above. In my case, the public record shows I've been peaceful for all 58 years of my life--until Blevins unlawfully entered my home and interjected "violence and disorder," the very things he's supposed to protect me against.
How nutty is this video? You can check it out at the link below:
Code of Ethics video for Shelby County Sheriff's Office
Before you searching always remember to change your IP adress to not be followed!
PROTECT YOURSELF & SUPPORT US! Purchase a VPN Today!