Trent Cowherd and his wife, Sharon (From Facebook)

The tenant should be served with, or the property posted with, a summons and petition notifying them that a lawsuit has been filed and will have the opportunity to be heard in court before any eviction. Upon the Landlord receiving a judgment for possession and filing for a Writ to Execute on the judgment for possession, the GCSO will schedule a date and time with the plaintiff/Landlord within five business days to stand by while the Landlord evicts the Tenant and regains possession of the property. The Landlord has the responsibility of scheduling for a locksmith and staff required for moving of property if needed. 

Missouri State Statutes reference Landlord/Tenant Law RSMo. Chapters 441, 534 and 535

Q. Do I need to be present at the eviction?

Yes. On the day of the eviction, you must be available to “greet” the Deputy Sheriff. The Deputy will usually pull up to the location of the eviction in a marked patrol car. Typically, the Deputy will not leave the car. It is up to you to go to the car and identify yourself as the landlord or landlord’s representative. You will then need to identify the entry door to the rental property and will sign a document authorizing the Deputy to use force to enter if necessary. Generally, you either need to have a key to the rental property so that the Deputy can enter or have a locksmith available to provide access.

That's a ridiculous response. It's not a clarification at all. . . . He answered a question that he asked himself . . . and he answered it falsely.

I've been cutting him a lot of slack, refusing to say he lied, I wanted to wait for this letter to come out. It's hard to come to any other conclusion but he perjured himself. . . .

I think he should come before the committee and explain it. No one asked him about the Russian ambassador; he's the one who volunteered that information, that he didn't speak to anybody, and it turned out he had met twice with Russian ambassador, once in a private meeting.

He had seven weeks to notify us. This is about Russian government hijacking our election, and whether there was any collusion in that interference with the Trump campaign. . . .

It's very clear I did not push [Sessions] into saying, "I didn't meet with the Russians."

Democrats on the committee asked why he didn't, in seven weeks after he misled us there, why he didn't correct it, and the response was absurd. He said, "Having considered my answer responsive and no one having suggested otherwise, there was no need for a supplemental answer. . . ." 

This is serious stuff. He is the second administration official who has lied about contact with the Russians, and it all goes to the fact Russians interfered with our elections. And the question is: Did the Trump campaign and its people collude with Russians?

What do Russians have on Trump? Why does he say all of these positive things about Putin? Why lie about taxes. Getting more and more disturbing all the time.

I don't think it was gotcha question. Would you recuse yourself was basically what I was asking. Instead, he said he hadn't met with Russians, and of course, he had.

I think clear it's that something is desperately wrong.

The letter just sort of insults the intelligence in a way that is mind-boggling. That's why I say there is no other conclusion but that he committed perjury.

I would like him to come testify before the committee so he can explain it. This letter is ridiculous and insults the intelligence. . . . This is getting stranger and stranger. The clock is ticking. Was Trump campaign colluding to change our election?

X-ray of Carol Shuler's broken arm

An Occupy Wall Street activist named Cecily McMillan was the apparent victim of a "cover charge" in May 2014 in New York City. Aviva Shen also covered the McMillan story for Think Progress:

"Occupy Wall Street activist Cecily McMillan has been sentenced to 3 months in jail and five years probation for assaulting a police officer, a charge that sparked outrage and protests earlier this month. McMillan, who said she threw her elbow up behind her instinctively after the officer groped her breast, faced up to seven years in prison for felony assault. The perceived injustice inspired multiple petitions on McMillan’s behalf and close public scrutiny — but could the 25-year-old graduate student’s case help bring attention to others like her?

"Despite medical photographs of McMillan’s bruises, including a hand-shaped mark on her breast, Officer Grantley Bovell said McMillan attacked him unprovoked, and prosecutor Erin Choi said McMillan’s claims were “so utterly ridiculous and unbelievable that she might as well have said that aliens came down that night and assaulted her.” Grainy cell phone footage of the altercation makes it unclear whose version of events is accurate."

Missori deputy Debi Wade (From Facebook)

McMillan’s conviction sparked a flurry of media coverage and a protest in Zuccotti Park. But her predicament is unfortunately quite common. Police often charge victims of brutality with anything from assault to disorderly conduct to discredit their claims of police misconduct. While it is nearly impossible to compile exact statistics on this practice, sometimes called “cover” arrests, video recording has helped expose a number of cases where police have wrongfully charged people or fabricated police reports to justify violence.

For instance, another Occupy activist was cleared last year of charges that he “charged the police like a linebacker” after video footage showed cops tackling him as he was trying to get up. In another high profile case, police charged two University of Maryland students with felony assault, claiming they attacked officers on horses after a basketball game. A month later, a video emerged showing the cops beating an unarmed student with batons over a dozen times for no apparent reason.

Jeff Sessions (From slate.com)

For over six years, Roger Shuler has hounded figures of the state legal and political establishment on his blog, Legal Schnauzer, a hothouse of furious but often fuzzily sourced allegations of deep corruption and wide-ranging conspiracy. . . .

Starting in January 2013, Mr. Shuler, citing unidentified sources, began writing that Robert Riley Jr., the son of the former governor, had impregnated a lobbyist named Liberty Duke and secretly paid for an abortion. Both denied it, and Ms. Duke swore in an affidavit that they had never even been alone in the same room.

Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said, encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow during Sessions’s confirmation hearing to become attorney general.

David Shuler

Hi Roger: 

I hope you and Carol are doing well. Mom asked me to contact you regarding the lease on your duplex. She said she tried to talk to you about it when she recently stopped by to visit, but was unable to do so. She talked to the people at Cowherd Construction and they are willing to extend your lease without a co-signor in that the rent has always been paid in full and on time. The lady suggested that you meet Mom at their office on 6/29 and they would allow you to execute a new lease. This lease would be in your name and would be your responsibility. I do not know if they would require Carol to be on the lease. I would think that they would also want her to sign since she would be living there. I also do not know how they would handle the deposit and pet deposit since those were paid by Mom.

Mom will make the last rent payment on 6/29 which will cover the month of July. You have the option to renew and stay there or of course, you could vacate and pick some place else to live.

Again, I hope you guys are doing well. Mom just wanted me to e-mail this information to you to avoid any confusion.

Dear Judge Halford:

I am writing regarding the above referenced case. Roger Shuler is my brother who has been estranged from my family for approximately 25 years. Recently, a family friend helped him relocate to the Missouri area. Unfortunately, my 85 year old mother made the mistake of agreeing to co-sign a lease for Roger with Trent Cowherd Construction. She agreed to pay his moving expenses and his rent for thirteen months to help him get back on his feet. She never dreamed that Roger Shuler would then refuse to pay his rent and/or vacate the property.

My purpose in writing this letter is to let you know that I intend to appear on behalf of my mother. Gondolyn Shuler intends to cooperate with the Petitioner (Trent Cowherd) in the matter and assist in any way to help them regain possession of the rental property currently occupied by Mr. Shuler.

Jeff Sessions

The complaint accuses Sessions of violating the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct by committing perjury and other crimes when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 10, 2017. The complaint alleges that Sessions committed crimes when he falsely testified that he had no communications with the Russians during the election campaign and when he subsequently engaged in a cover up. In my opinion, Sessions’ continuing service as Attorney General amounts to a serious conflict of interest, violates the integrity of the United States Department of Justice and is a form of corruption.

J. Whitfield Larrabee

Beginning on or about January 10, 2017, Sessions engaged in unethical and criminal conduct in violation of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.

Sessions violated Rule 8.4(b) by committing a criminal act or criminal acts that reflect "adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects."

Sessions violated Rule 8.4(c) by engaging “in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”

Sessions violated Rule 8.4(d) of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging "in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."

Sessions violated other provisions of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct by giving false testimony to a legislative body, by failing to take reasonable and appropriate measures to remedy this misconduct, by affirmatively acting to cover up and conceal his misconduct, and by failing to avoid conflicts of interest in his activities as a lawyer and public official.

On January 6, 2017, the United States government released a report expressing the conclusion of the FBI, CIA and NSA that Russia engaged in a campaign of cyberattacks, propaganda, and mis-information in order to aid Trump to win the presidential election. This report gained a great deal of coverage in the news media such that it very likely came to the attention of Sessions.

Prior to January 10, 2017, the FBI and US government intelligence agencies concluded that Russian operatives were behind the hacking of the computers of Democratic National Committee and of the email account of John Podesta, chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

On January 10, 2017, Sessions gave sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing concerning his confirmation as Attorney General.

Evidence establishes that Sessions is guilty of perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621.

After giving false, deceitful, dishonest, fraudulent and misleading testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sessions participated in a cover-up of his criminal, dishonest and unethical conduct.

On March 1, 2017, the Washington Post reported that Sessions met with Kislyak twice in 2016 and that he failed to disclose the meetings when asked by Franken.

On March 1, 2017, Sessions’ spokeswoman, Sarah Isgur Flores (“Flores”) responded to the Washington Post report. Referring to Sessions’ testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Flores stated: “there was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer." Flores is the Director of Public Affairs at the Department of Justice and is under Sessions supervision.

On March 1, 2017, in response to the Washington Post report, Sessions issued a statement through Flores: “I have never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.”

Sessions’ denials of the Washington Post report, and his assertion that the report was false, was itself false, misleading and dishonest. The Washington Post never reported that Sessions and Kislyak discussed issues of the campaign. Sessions’ statement about the Washington Post report included at least one lie.

Because Sessions’ testimony denying that he had communications with the Russians was false and misleading, it was dishonest for him to allow Flores to speak on his behalf and to assert that “there was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer."

On March 6, 2017, Sessions submitted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supplementing his testimony on January 10, 2017. (Letter from Sessions to Charles E. Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”)

Sessions claimed in the letter that his response to Franken, denying any communications with the Russians during the campaign, “was correct.” Rather than acknowledge the falsity of his prior testimony, Sessions willfully and deliberately insisted that his prior false testimony was correct. In doing so, Sessions made an additional material false statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee and attempted to conceal and cover up his prior false testimony and perjury.

The FBI and the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) are currently investigating links between associates of Trump, the Trump campaign and the Russian Government.

The individuals associated with the Trump campaign who were in contact with Russian officials include: Trump’s former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, Trump’s advisor and son in-law Jared Kushner, Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump’s foreign policy advisor Carter Page, Director of National Security for the Trump campaign J.D. Gordan and Sessions. None of these individuals were properly registered as agents of the Russian government under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 611, et. seq. Trump and his representatives repeatedly and falsely denied that these contacts with Russian officials occurred. . . .

Collusion with Russia by individuals associated with a political campaign, who are not registered as foreign agents of Russia, in order to aid Russia in influencing the election of the President of the United States, would be a criminal violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Kislyak and Sessions were likely in contact because of Sessions’ position and relationship with Trump and his campaign. Sessions was not part of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Except for his participation in the Trump campaign, there were few other reasons for the Russian ambassador to want to communicate with Sessions in the midst of an election. The primary reason Kislyak communicated with Sessions was his role in the Trump campaign, not his role as a Senator.

Sessions’ contacts with the Russian ambassador during the election campaign and his false and misleading statements denying these contacts are specific facts that give rise to a reasonable suspicion that Sessions was involved in criminal activity related to Russian interference with the 2016 election.

David Shuler

I appreciate you sending me a copy of your pleadings. Your counterclaim seems to indicate that I somehow want to be involved in your legal proceedings. Nothing could be further from the truth. For some reason, people keep contacting me regarding issues they are having with you. Maybe it is because I have a law degree and they think I will know what to do. . . . 

Roger, I have no hard feelings toward you and I wanted to make it clear that I have never wanted to be involved in your business. For some reason, people keep calling me about you and I am stupid and think I can help.

I will likely see you in court on Thursday, but unless absolutely necessary, you will have no further contact from me.

Again, I wish you the best.

Jeff Sessions (From cnn.com)

Arthur Outlaw wanted a second term.

It was 1989 and Outlaw, the Republican mayor of Mobile, Alabama, was girding himself for his re-election campaign. Word was that Lambert Mims, a popular local Democrat, would run against him. Some Republicans were growing skittish.

But a close friend of Outlaw’s had something planned. The friend had been president of the state Young Republicans, chairman of the regional GOP, then a senior official in the Mobile County Republican party. And now he was the top federal prosecutor in southern Alabama.

“Jeff says that Mims won’t be around by that time,” an Outlaw aide said ominously, while discussing the election at a City Hall meeting that February, according to a sworn affidavit from an official who was in the room.

A few months later, Mims confirmed that he would be challenging Outlaw. Then Jeff Sessions made his move.

Sessions, then the US attorney for Alabama’s southern district, indicted Mims on criminal corruption charges relating to obscure four-year-old negotiations over a planned recycling plant. Mims was the ninth notable Democrat in the area to be indicted by Sessions since the young Republican was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. He would not be the last.

Opponents concluded that Sessions used his federal prosecutor’s office, and the FBI agents who worked for him, as political weapons, according to more than half a dozen veterans of Mobile’s 1980s legal and political circles. Some alleged in court filings that the ambitious young Republican actually worked from a “hit list” of Democratic targets.

“Sessions was a gun for hire,” said Tom Purvis, a former sheriff of Mobile County, “and he went after political enemies.” Purvis was acquitted of charges against him that Sessions oversaw after Purvis unseated another Outlaw ally from the elected sheriff’s position.

Lambert Mims (From theguardian.com)

Sessions had no direct evidence that Mims had committed a crime. The recycling plant was never even built. “I’ve never seen such a flimsy, weak case as this against anybody,” Mims’s attorney said in court.

Still, Sessions’s office, which boasted a 95% conviction rate, persuaded a jury to find Mims guilty. Mims, a 60-year-old lay preacher, sobbed through his trial. He cried when he was convicted, then cried again when he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. “I will go to my grave proclaiming my innocence,” Mims told Judge Charles Butler.

Carol Shuler

COUNT I
(Missouri Charge Code: 565.083-002Y20051313.)

The Prosecuting Attorney of the County of Greene, State of Missouri charges that the defendant, in violation of Section 565.083, RSMo, committed the class A misdemeanor of assault of a law enforcement officer in the third degree, punishable upon conviction under Sections 558.011 and 560.016, RSMo, in that on or about September 9, 2015, in the County of Greene, State of Missouri, the defendant knowingly cause physical contact with Jeremy Lynn, a law enforcement officer without the consent of Jeremy Lynn by pushing him.

Upon initial contact in the entryway of the residence, Roger's wife Carol T. Shuler physically assaulted Capt. Jeremy Lynn. I was not witness to that assault, however, I was advised that Carol first pushed the door from inside when Capt. Lynn attempted entry with the key, then got physical with him once inside the threshold and pushed him repeatedly.

Principal: "Now, Billy did you see little Johnny steal your money?"

"No sir, Mr. Principal, but someone advised me that he did."

"Who advised you of that?"

"I don't know his name. But he's a tall, green man -- sort of like the Jolly Green Giant. And he has wings, and sprinkles pixie dust everywhere, and then flies off."

"Billy, do your parents have a 'friend' they call 'Mr. LSD'?"

"Oh, yes, Mr. Principal, they talk about him all the time."

"I see. Billy, that explains a lot. Here's some good news: I think you've got a fine career ahead of you as a deputy with the Greene County Sheriff's Department."

"Thanks, Mr. Principal! That sounds like fun!"

"Oh, trust me. You'll have a blast."

Carol Shuler

In the probable cause statement, Debi Wade claims Carol Shuler “assaulted” Capt. Jeremy Lynn in the entryway of the residence. Wade then states: “I was not witness to that assault, however, I was advised that Carol first pushed the door from inside when Capt. Lynn attempted entry with the key, then got physical with him once inside the threshold and pushed him repeatedly.”

Wade admits she did not witness this incident and says an unnamed individual “advised her of what happened.” This is rank hearsay, and it is the only information in the probable cause statement about the alleged assault on Jeremy Lynn. This information is due to be excluded as hearsay, and since it’s the only information regarding the only alleged incident of assault, the charge is due to be dismissed.

[Potts] alleges that the prosecutor acted vindictively when he raised the charge from possession of a controlled substance to possession with the intent to distribute after the trial court sustained Appellant's motion for a mistrial during voir dire.  He also argues that the prosecutor deliberately induced the mistrial in order to file the greater charge and as a result double jeopardy bars further prosecution on either charge. We conclude that the first part of that contention requires reversal . . .

When the State has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, the “decision whether or not to prosecute and what charges to file generally rests entirely within the prosecutor's discretion.” . . . This decision is rarely subject to judicial review. . . . Not all charges that can be, must be filed in the initial indictment. . . . Prosecutors can hold some charges in abeyance for strategic use.

However, when such a decision comes after an accused has exercised a constitutional or statutory right, those principles conflict with the premise that “[t]o punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.” [Potts] relies on Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974), for the proposition that due process bars the State from retrying him on the higher charge.

As an initial matter, Shuler moves this court to order the state to turn over all documents related to an investigation of a “critical incident” involving use of force, as required by Greene County Sheriff’s Department policy. Shuler notes that policy calls for interviews of all individuals targeted with use of force and all witnesses, but neither Carol Shuler nor her husband, Roger, have been interviewed. That suggests no investigation was done -- or at least, that any such investigation was incomplete.

Regardless, Shuler moves that all documents related to a GCSO investigative report that was supposed to be prepared per departmental policy – including all internal memos, emails, texts or other written or electronic forms of communication – be turned over as soon as possible.

Griffin McGahey (From highcottonusa.com)

“From the day we started this company more than 50 years ago, one thing has been constant,” Tommy McGahey, CEO of High Cotton says. “Our customers succeed because of our attention to detail.”

High Cotton has changed over the years, of course. “We began as a traditional direct mail house, helping clients fulfill bulk mail at the absolute lowest cost,” McGahey says. “But we’ve evolved. Today, we are a data driven company, helping companies primarily in the banking and healthcare industries with payment technology and customer communications.” Each of these industries is marked by incredible complexity with literally millions of details to get right.

“Speed, security, competitive pricing — these are all aspects of our business that our clients count on,” McGahey says. “But in the end, it’s our focus on the details that determines our clients’ success.”

[Jennifer} represents clients in a variety of industries, such as e-commerce, natural resources, government contract, healthcare, pharmaceutical, and retail, and her clients range from large publicly-traded companies to small family-owned businesses. Jennifer has litigated cases ranging from a single plaintiff to class action to the federal government. Jennifer handles cases across the country and is currently national counsel representing a provider of online travel services in more than 40 lawsuits and administrative proceedings throughout the United States.

Jennifer J. McGahey (From lexology.com)

Robed and disrobed Bill Pryor

The military scandal involving sharing of sexually explicit images of troops has expanded beyond the private social media site Marines United to a slew of gay pornography web pages with images of men wearing military uniforms engaged in sex acts, USA TODAY has learned.

The broadened investigation to an increasing number of websites underscores the complexity of policing social media sites where sensitive images can be uploaded in an instant for all to see. In the case of the sites with gay pornography, military investigators will be tasked with determining whether active-duty troops were involved in conduct that could bring discredit on their service, a potential violation of military law.

The Marine Corps is not the only service affected. Images of men in the uniforms of sailors, soldiers and airmen also appear on an array of Tumblr sites. Similar to the Marines United case, it is unclear whether men appearing in the images — some photographed engaging in sex — provided consent to have their images shared publicly. Victims of so-called revenge porn in the Marines United case have limited protection under military law if the photographs or videos were taken originally with their consent.

Navy, Marine, Army, Air Force and Coast Guard investigators have "established a multi-service task force to expand the investigation," she said.

Military officials briefed Congress on Thursday about the Marines United scandal, in which hundreds of active-duty Marines have viewed photos of servicewomen taken without their consent and cyberbullied some of them.

On some of the gay Tumblr sites, fully dressed troops appear in photos with their name tags visible. At least one such Marine did not agree for his photo to be republished amid a sea of images of men having sex, according Lt. Col. Eric Dent, a Marine Corps spokesman.

Al Crowson (second from left) and some of the other sleazeoids who inhabit the hideously corrupt Shelby County Courthouse (From facebook.com)

Ted Rollins, the head of Charlotte-based Campus Crest Communities, helped his company complete a $380-million IPO late last year. And a South Carolina divorce-court judge found that Rollins belongs to one of the nation's wealthiest families and has the use of multiple private aircraft. But Rollins managed to get the divorce case unlawfully moved to Alabama, and the resulting judgment means that his ex wife and two daughters qualify for food stamps.

Sherry Carroll Rollins said she and the girls now are on food stamps--and have been for some time. That's because Alabama Circuit Judge D. Al Crowson ordered Ted Rollins to pay only $500 in alimony and $815 in child support--a monthly total of $1,315. Our research indicates that is a shockingly low level of support for a man of Rollins' means, a CEO whose family owns Orkin Pest Control and other highly profitable enterprises.

The case was heard in Shelby County, Alabama, and Mr. Rollins received an extraordinarily favorable judgment, even though Mrs. Rollins had sued him for divorce some three years earlier in Greenville, South Carolina--where the couple had lived and where numerous court orders already had been entered. Simple jurisdictional law--call it Law School 101--shows that such a judicial heist cannot be done. But Alabama Circuit Judge D. Al Crowson did it anyway, violating all sorts of law that perhaps is best explained in a case styled Wesson v. Wesson, 628 So. 2d 953 (Ala., 1993). Here is the key finding:

"Once jurisdiction has attached in one court, that court has the exclusive right to continue its exercise of power until the completion of the case, and is only subject to appellate authority."

Legal doctrine doesn't come much shorter or simpler than that. Based on the clear language in Wesson, Sherry Carroll Rollins and the two daughters she had with Ted Rollins (now teens and living with their mother in Alabama) received a "shaft job" that would make Isaac Hayes blush.

(From copblock.org)

X-ray of Carol Shuler's broken arm

Forcible entry and detainer defined.

534.020. If any person shall enter upon or into any lands, tenements or other possessions, with force or strong hand, or with weapons, or by breaking open the doors or windows or other parts of a house, whether any person be in it or not, or by threatening to kill, maim or beat the party in possession, or by such words or actions as have a natural tendency to excite fear or apprehension of danger, or by putting out of doors or carrying away the goods of the party in possession, or by entering peaceably and then turning out by force, or frightening, by threats or other circumstances of terror, the party out of possession, and detain and hold the same in every such case, the person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a "forcible entry and detainer" within the meaning of this chapter.

In an unlawful detainer action, under section 534.200, RSMo 2000, "[t]he complainant shall not be compelled to . . . make further proof of the forcible entry or detainer than that he was lawfully possessed of the premises, and that the defendant unlawfully entered into and detained or unlawfully detained the same.""[T]he principal issue in an unlawful detainer action is the immediate right of possession. . . . " 

Martha Stewart (From businessinsider.com)

On March 6, 2017, Sessions submitted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supplementing his testimony on January 10, 2017. (Letter from Sessions to Charles E. Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”)

Sessions claimed in the letter that his response to [U.S. Sen. Al] Franken, denying any communications with the Russians during the campaign, “was correct.” Rather than acknowledge the falsity of his prior testimony, Sessions willfully and deliberately insisted that his prior false testimony was correct. In doing so, Sessions made an additional material false statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee and attempted to conceal and cover up his prior false testimony and perjury.

In recent corporate scandals, some executives have learned the hard way that lying is still a crime in corporate America. Martha Stewart was accused of selling her ImClone stock allegedly after receiving insider information. However, she was not convicted of securities fraud. She was instead convicted for lying. In addition, Computer Associates executives were indicted and some have already pleaded guilty for lying to their own company’s attorney during an internal investigation when their lies were passed on by their attorney to the government. . . .

Lying is a crime because those who lie in a judicial proceeding are destroying the essential fabric of the “rule of law,” which has enabled capitalism to be so successful in the United States. Lying is and must be a crime in a judicial proceeding—and must be enforced against everyone—whether he or she is the President of the United States, the president of a Fortune 500 multinational organization, or the janitor. Stewart’s crime of lying must be viewed not only in terms of how it may have impacted her own company and shareholders,[4] but must also be viewed in light of the potential damage to our entire economy if lying were suddenly to be tolerated in our judicial proceedings. After all, if it is okay for Stewart to lie, then how can we complain about accountants who lie about a company’s financial audits, executives who lie about their company’s sales and revenues, or analysts who lie about their stock recommendations? What then makes us think that anyone will continue to invest their money in the American stock market, which has been the driving force of our brand of successful capitalism during the second half of the 20th century?

Matthew Couch

Matt Couch is an associate in the firm’s Birmingham office. His practice focuses on civil litigation in the transportation sector, particularly in the areas of railroad personal injury claims and regulatory compliance. He regularly represents one of the largest class I railroad companies in the nation, litigating a wide array of issues and legal claims in state and federal courts. Matt is admitted to practice law in all state and federal district courts in Alabama and all state courts in Florida. Prior to joining the firm, Matt clerked for Judge Sharon L. Blackburn, former Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama. Matt graduated with honors from Cumberland School of Law in 2011, where he served on the editorial board of the American Journal of Trial Advocacy. Matt graduated from Appalachian State University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English in 2008.

When not practicing law, Matt enjoys participating in outdoor activities with his wife, Mary Ann, including running, hiking, wakeboarding, and snowboarding. Matt is an Eagle Scout. He also serves on the junior board of directors for the Firehouse Shelter, a men’s homeless shelter and outreach organization serving the Birmingham, Alabama, metro area.

Mary Ann Couch helps her clients avoid and solve problems in a variety of matters—from commercial disputes and financial services litigation to employment matters and ERISA litigation.

Mary Ann is licensed in both Alabama and Florida, and litigates cases in trial and appellate courts across the Southeast. She represents clients in a number of industries, including manufacturing, health care, natural resources, employee benefits, and financial services.

Before joining Bradley, Mary Ann served as a law clerk to the Honorable Joel F. Dubina, former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. During law school at the University of Alabama, she was an Executive Editor of the Alabama Law Review and an active member of the Moot Court Board. Mary Ann graduated from the University of Notre Dame with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Music (violin performance) and English.

David Gespass

The concepts of lawyer confidentiality and attorney-client privilege both concern information that the lawyer must keep private and are protective of the client’s ability to confide freely in his or her lawyer, but the concepts are not synonymous. Terminology from both, such as “privileged information” or “waiver” are sometimes used interchangeably, further causing the differences between them to become somewhat blurred. However there are several critical differences between the two in their applicability and exceptions and the extent of information covered.

The principle of confidentiality is set out in the legal ethics rules in each jurisdiction and in ABA Model Rule 1.6. Model Rule 1.6 Comment [2] states: “A fundamental principle in the client-lawyer relationship is that, in the absence of the client's informed consent, the lawyer must not reveal information relating to the representation. . . . This contributes to the trust that is the hallmark of the client-lawyer relationship.” A violation of the ethics rule may lead to disciplinary sanctions.

On the other hand, the attorney-client privilege, sometimes referred to as the testimonial privilege, is a concept from the law of evidence and is present in the common law or statutes of the fifty states. The client, acting through the lawyer, may claim the privilege. As stated in Model Rule 1.6, Comment [3]: "The attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine apply in judicial and other proceedings in which a lawyer may be called as a witness or otherwise required to produce evidence concerning a client.”

Paul Alan Levy (From rcfp. org)

Each day, countless people with legal problems consult attorneys before deciding if they want to hire them. Many, if not most, criminal defense attorneys offer free consultations for potential clients. Understandably, some defendants wonder whether such consultations—with attorneys who don’t yet and might not ever represent them—are protected.

In general, as long as the prospective client is seeking legal advice or representation and reasonably believes the communication will be confidential, the consultation is privileged. This is so even if the would-be client never pays or hires the attorney.

The potential-client-confidentiality principle also comes into play when an arrestee consults with a public defender at or from the police station or jail. The conversation is privileged, even though the public defender does not, and may never, represent the arrestee, and even though the public defender doesn’t receive a fee.

Robert Bentley and Rebekah Mason

In the span of 24 hours [Bentley's] transformation from family values grandpa to lecherous Luv Guv was under way. Even then it was impossible to foresee what a seismic year would follow.

At times the whole nation sat back and laughed as Alabama covered its face in sheer humiliation.

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley engaged in an extramarital affair with his former communications director, leading First Lady Dianne Bentley to file for divorce last Friday after 50 years of marriage, sources tell Legal Schnauzer.

Rebekah Caldwell Mason, a married mother of three from Bentley's home base of Tuscaloosa, was the governor's mistress in an affair that sources say raises a number of possible legal issues--including use of the state jet and a state trooper's services for personal reasons that had nothing to do with Bentley's official role.