Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved with investigating conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear that the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

IRS officials at the agency’s Washington headquarters sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea-party-affiliated groups, the documents show.

IRS employees in Cincinnati told conservatives seeking the status of “social welfare” groups that a task force in Washington was overseeing their applications, according to interviews with the activists.

In a news conference Monday, President Obama said he learned of the investigating in media reports on Friday and has “no patience with it.”

“If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on, and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that’s outrageous,” Obama said. “And there’s no place for it. And they have to be held fully accountable.”

The way our prosecution system works is through a "snitch process." I was asked to snitch on the governor, and they were going to let me out. But I would have had to lie and I said, "No, I’m not going to get up there and say a man did something he didn’t do." It’s a sad situation for our country.

Lowell Barron

Barron's attorney, Joe Espy, said there was no denying the transactions took place between Barron and Johnson because they were a part of Barron's campaign finance disclosures. The issue is the interpretation made by Strange, Espy said, that laws were broken in those transactions.

"How could we dispute the transactions not taking place when we publicly disclosed them?" Espy said "Sen. Lowell Barron and his campaign publicly disclosed every transaction we're talking about. We don't dispute them. We said, 'Hey, we ran a campaign, these are our expenses and we paid this lady.' That's about as simple as I can make it.

"Does it take two years to bring charges against a man who is not a public official . . . who has publicly disclosed everything they bring out? Does anything address your common sense and tell you something is wrong? Every smell test I know, it does not pass."

Dorothea Batiste

Even back in 2011, but continuing on into 2012, Judge Vowell would make a point of upsetting me by finding cases where I had issued rulings and, without telling me in advance he was doing so, then would enter documentary paperwork to change my rulings. In addition, Judge Vowell took cases away from me, without my permission or knowledge, to favor certain litigants, some of whom were his friends. This included certain lawyers. When I found out about this, I was quite upset and told him he should not be doing this--that it was not right, nor ethical, and it had to stop. In reply, Judge Vowell said, "I don't care what you have to say."

Scott Vowell

What especially upset me, starting at the end of the summer of 2011 and continuing into 2012, was that Judge Vowell (as he himself later has admitted in a letter) started meeting with lawyers representing litigants in my courtroom. [See Judge Vowell's letter admitting to it. Exhibit 1.] However, it also later became obvious that Judge Vowell was stirring up lawyers unhappy with their client's rulings in my courtroom. Of course, in a divorce case, one side is always unhappy, and frequently both sides. Both sides are usually quite unhappy even before they get to the courtroom.

There is another example of disparate treatment given by Judge Vowell to a white female judge, namely [Suzanne] Childers, of the Jefferson County Circuit, Domestic Relations Division. She sentenced litigant Keith Muhammad to 325 days . . . for non-payment of child support, and he actually served it from October 6, 2011, to January 5, 2012. In fact, this judge issued such orders on a routine basis (sometimes putting 2 to 3 people in jail in different cases on the same day). Scott Vowell never complained about Ms. Childers to the AJIC. Instead, when she asked for extra help, Scott Vowell gave it to her. [See Exhibit 7].

Eric Holder

(Update: Joseph Siegelman, the governor's son, released the following statement on a progressive listserv in Alabama: 

Yes, my dad is appealing [Judge Mark] Fuller's denial of a new trial. Nonetheless, Holder does appear to be hiding behind those in-house guidelines to avoid dealing with the case head on.)

At Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., asked Attorney General Eric Holder if he would push for a presidential pardon for former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. “The president could pardon him now,” said Cohen as he pressed Holder.

Holder responded that Siegelman is not eligible to apply for a pardon because he’s currently serving his sentence, and a commutation not possible because he has an appeal. Cohen rightly noted that those are Department of Justice rules, but they do not constrain the president. Holder agreed: “The president’s pardon power is close to absolute.”

Is your Pardon Attorney Ron Rodgers under investigation for withholding information? Cohen asked, referring to an Inspector General probe.

Holder answered:

“There were some difficulties in connection, I don’t remember what the individual’s name was, about information that was I guess relayed to the White House from the Pardon Attorney’s office, but I think corrective measures have been put in place so that kind of mistake would not happen in the future.”

The individual’s name — and Holder should know it – is Clarence Aaron, who outrageously was sentenced to life without parole for a first-time nonviolent drug offense. And Holder should be outraged that Pardon Attorney Ronald Rodgers withheld vital information on Aaron’s case. The only corrective measure that can prevent a repeat would be to remove Rodgers from a position for which he temperamentally is unsuited.

By the way, none of the 16 Puerto Rican national terrorists pardoned by President Clinton — with an assist from Holder — had applied for pardons. But that didn’t stop Holder at the time. But then this Attorney General never has been overly preoccupied with any notions of justice.

Numerous legal experts have said this was a grave injustice . . . Can you assure me that you will review his case because in my opinion . . . an innocent man is in jail, being deprived of liberty? Nothing is more important than liberty; taking your liberty is probably the harshest thing the government can do to a person. We have taken this gentleman's liberty, and I believe we need to look at that case."

Robert Vance Jr.

At the time that Vance signed the TRO he did so with knowledge that he did not preside over the case. The electronic case action summary reflects that Judge Vance had available on his computer the notice and assignment of the case to Judge Houston Brown.

However at that time Judge Brown was not relieved of authority to preside over the case, and Vance was not granted authority or jurisdiction over the case. At that time, the case was not before Judge Vance. Judge Brown in his order made no claim that he had authority to transfer the case to Judge Vance. In fact, Judge Brown at that time did not have authority to transfer or reassign the case as he was not the presiding judge in the circuit. Judge Vance also had no authority to transfer the case to his own docket.

It is clear that Cashion and  his attorneys wanted Judge Vance to preside over their case. Cashion first filed the case in a venue where none of the parties to the action resides or maintains a principal place of business. Cashion filed a motion with his complaint requesting that the matter be transferred to the Commercial Litigation Docket. All cases approved for the Commercial Litigation Docket are assigned to Judge Vance unless he declines them on the basis of docket volume. . . . Cashion went to an improper venue specifically to select Judge Vance. 

Judge Vance not only accommodated this forum shopping, he ventured to rule on the case before the forum shoppers even made it to the checkout aisle.

Because these orders were rendered in a matter not assigned to Judge Vance, they represent non-judicial acts under the color of law. Vance's acts . . . violate both the substantive and procedural due process rights of the Trust and Hayden.

Said extra-judicial orders were prejudicial to the Trust in that they prevented the Trust from performing its duties to nurture the trust principal. The Trust suffered the loss of considerable investment returns and interest. The Trust also was deprived of assets valued at more than $20,000,000.00.

The Trust and Hayden also continue to suffer considerable costs and attorneys fees in an effort to overcome Vance's usurpation of judicial authority.

Alabama judge faces $25 million lawsuit alleging he improperly took a case from another judge and issued damaging rulings. This is the judge who ran against Chief Justice Roy “Don’t Remove the Ten Commandments From the Courthouse” Moore. The moral of the story is: don’t use the Alabama judicial system. [Legal Schnauzer]

In early January 2009, just a few days before he took office, President-Elect Obama said he intended to "look forward, as opposed to looking backwards" on apparent crimes under the Bush administration. As president, Obama seems to have followed through on that pledge because his Justice Department has failed to review political prosecutions such as the one involving former Governor Don Siegelman in Alabama, where I live. 

Political prosecutions, of course, were just of one of many improper acts on the justice front during the Bush years--torture, warrantless wiretapping, firings of U.S. attorneys were among the others. In essence, Obama issued a decree that no one would be held accountable for those acts. 

Obama's "look forward" statement made no sense at the time, and it makes even less sense now, coming after he expressed outrage the other day over disclosures about the IRS targeting conservative groups for political reasons. Obama said in a news conference that he would not "tolerate" such actions, that wrongdoers must be held "accountable," and the problem must be "fixed." 

But his inaction toward the DOJ shows that he will tolerate the targeting of political opponents, that he will not hold individuals accountable for such actions, and he will not take steps to fix the problem. Obama was uttering empty words at his press conference about the IRS. Many of us expect that from a Republican chief executive; we should demand better from a Democrat.

I don't believe progress will be made until the Obama DOJ grows a spine and initiates an investigation of the Siegelman case and other Bush-era political prosecutions. Pardoning Don Siegelman would be a positive step. But we cannot allow such manipulation of our justice apparatus to remain unaddressed. If Obama leaves office with these issues still hanging, he has been a failure, in my view.

Also, this could wind up at Obama's doorstep someday. He has appointed any number of large donors to ambassadorships and such. Once he's out of office, a Republican DOJ could claim that appointments involved "inferred quid pro quos," and Obama and those donors could be at huge risk. The president ignores this issue at his own peril.

More importantly, it imperils the Democrat Party. Are candidates and donors going to get involved if they know they might wind up in federal prison for engaging in standard political behavior? The Siegelman case already has had a chilling effect here in Alabama. Many statewide offices no longer attract a serious Democratic candidate. If political prosecutions are allowed to stand, look for that trend to spread to other states.

Attorney General Eric Holder is President Obama’s worst appointment. Holder started out with baggage — the Clinton pardons of Marc Rich and unrepentant Puerto Rican terrorists. With the media leak investigations, he is carrying more baggage. And Holder’s load is likely to become heavier. 

Debra J. Saunders

Nonetheless, the president told reporters last week, Holder has Obama's full support. 

Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., questioned Holder about the pardon process as he urged the AG to consider pardoning former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. Roger Shuler of the Legal Schnauzer blog reports on the issue here. There’s some political risk in pushing for a pardon for a fellow politician, but Cohen has bipartisan cover. And the exchange shows the pressure that will be brought to bear on the president as he is about to leave office. 

Will Obama decide he wants to commute and pardon politically-connected offenders? Or will he continue to use this presidential power sparingly?

Karl Rove

Largely ignored in a public outcry last week—radio rants, Twitter storms, congressional, presidential and prosecutorial posturing--were the following:

Our pieces in December and January raised very serious questions about whether six different “dark money” political groups seeking tax exemption had made false statements on their applications. Those applications are signed under penalty of perjury. If any false statements were made knowingly, the groups— including Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS —may have committed a crime. There is no indication, however, that either the IRS or the Department of Justice has done anything since January to investigate whether such crimes were indeed committed. The groups in question happen all to be conservative. Not one congressional Republican has, to my knowledge, expressed any concern about this possible criminality.

In a confidential 2010 filing, Crossroads GPS—the dark money group that spent more than $70 million from anonymous donors on the 2012 election—told the Internal Revenue Service that its efforts would focus on public education, research and shaping legislation and policy.

The group's application for recognition as a social welfare nonprofit acknowledged that it would spend money to influence elections, but said "any such activity will be limited in amount, and will not constitute the organization's primary purpose."

The tax code allows groups like Crossroads to spend money on political campaigns—and to keep their donors private—as long as their primary purpose is enhancing social welfare.

Crossroads' breakdown of planned activities said it would focus half its efforts on "public education," 30 percent on "activity to influence legislation and policymaking" and 20 percent on "research," including sponsoring "in-depth policy research on significant issues."

This seems at odds with much of what the group has done since filing the application, experts said. Within two months of filing its application, Crossroads spent about $15.5 million on ads telling people to vote against Democrats or for Republicans in the 2010 midterm elections.

"That statement of proposed activities does not seem to align with what they actually did, which was to raise and spend hundreds of millions to influence candidate elections," said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, who reviewed the group's application at ProPublica's request.

And what of the investigators? Congressional committees leapt into action. The inspector general for the IRS had apparently already investigated. The President demanded another investigation; the Department of Justice said it had commenced a criminal inquiry.

Knowing that such is the way in Washington, we waited at ProPublica for someone to send us a subpoena, show up on our doorstep, or maybe just call. Nothing. Nothing since December 13, when we told the IRS we had these documents they weren’t supposed to have sent us—or since the next day, when we published that fact. Nothing before the inspector general reached his conclusion, nothing before the congressional hearings started televising their demands for answers and their righteous indignation, nothing since.

In point of fact, the investigators would have found out that we have nothing of value to them. But the fact that they didn’t even ask tells you a lot. And it reinforces the point that much of the heat generated last week on this subject is just the latest expression of Washington cynicism and its consequences—that the talk show hosts and their fellow travelers, and the representatives and senators and officials in the executive branch, aren’t really looking for answers here. They’re just putting on a show.

Dorothea Batiste

This case has morphed into an abuse of process, because the AJIC has allowed itself to be transformed into a Super Appellate Court of Alabama to review decisions of Judge Batiste, even when the litigants are not complaining. 

It is also obvious that Scott Vowell has developed a runaway ego, in which he is power-tripping by trying to show Judge Batiste that he is more powerful than she, and that, by golly, if he complains, he's going to make the complaint stick.

The Commission . . . does not review . . . abuse of judicial discretion during a court proceeding absent evidence of bad faith. 

Nowhere in the 38-page AJIC complaint with 23 pages of exhibits is there any allegation that Judge Batiste engaged in bad faith, notwithstanding that the 147-paragraph complaint basically alleges abuses of discretion by Batiste in the use of her contempt power.

Investigations may be instituted by the Commission only upon a verified complaint filed either by a member of the public or by a member of the commission . . .

Almost all of the complaints Scott Vowell has forwarded to the AJIC contain an unverified typed letter in which Judge Vowell purports to pass on complaints of unhappy litigants, which complaints are mostly also unverified. Many of these complaints do not reflect the subject matter of the complaint, or whether it was a litigant or attorney who was unhappy. These complaints are essentially anonymous, contrary to AJIC rules.

Scott Vowell

The AJIC has . . .  allowed former Jefferson County presiding Circuit Judge Scott Vowell to further abuse the process of the AJIC by stirring up litigants, witnesses, and attorneys, unhappy with Judge Batiste's divorce court rulings, through encouraging them, or assisting them, in filing multiple complaints against Ms. Batiste. Many of said complaints are frivolous or nonsensical. Some even involved two attorneys long since dead, namely Rusty Wright and Chris Christ. Indeed, one such frivolous complaint even involved a litigant supposedly unhappy with a continuation of the misspelling by Judge Batiste's office of the litigant's name, notwithstanding that the original misspelling began with the litigant's attorney. Reflecting his bad faith, Judge Vowell even encouraged this complaint.

Sarah Rollins (right), with her  sister, Emma, and father, Ted

Patriarchs in the wealthy Rollins family, from their primary bases in Georgia and Delaware, have a history of taking questionable actions with trust funds. In fact, that issue is about to become part of our coverage on the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case here in Alabama.

Randall and Gary Rollins are the heads of Atlanta-based Rollins Inc., the umbrella company for Orkin Pest Control, RPC Inc. (formerly Rollins Energy Services), and other entities. But they now stand accused of essentially raiding trust funds for their own benefit, and a Georgia court has found those claims should go to trial.

When I lived in Greenville, S.C., I practiced Spanish so that I could converse with the Hispanic women who cleaned Ted's office, on the top floor of the First Union Building. He was just starting St. James Capital and had formed a partnership with Randall Rollins and his dad [John Rollins Sr.], where Ted would purchase various real estate around the country and develop it. He had just purchased the Crescent Center in Greenville, S.C., for St. James Capital. He later moved his offices to the Crescent Center. 

He was out of town that week; I left the girls with the maid, and went in the early evening to his office. I walked past the guard, and he told me to sign in. I signed in. I went to the top floor to Ted's office. I spoke to the maids and told them that I had to do some work on the computer and that I was Ted's wife. 

I went to his secretary's desk. I sat down and found a yellow legal pad with a list of all his files written in it. 

One thing on the page caught my eye: Sarah's Trust Fund; it listed where it could be found on the computer.

Luther Strange and  Jessica Medeiros Garrison

* 11/9/06--$17,500 to Alabama Politics, Inc. (consulting) 

* 11/10/06--$1,325.57 to Jessica Medeiros Garrison (food/lodging/transportation) 

* 11/27/06--$100.24 to Jessica Medeiros Garrison (advertising)

Robert Vance Jr.

At a later hearing, Judge Vance also announced that he was not bound by any statutory provision which limits a judge's ability to receive campaign contributions. . . . It is believed he was referring to Ala. Code 1975, Sec. 12-24-2, which limits campaign contributions to not more than $2,000.00 from any law firm to any circuit judge. If this threshold amount is exceeded, then the judge is disqualified from hearing the case. . . . The law itself indicates that disqualification is required because an appearance of impropriety exists when a judge takes substantial campaign contributions from litigants or counsel. And it is the appearance of impropriety that necessitates the judge's recusal.

A review of the records provided to the Alabama Secretary of State indicate that the lawyers at the firm representing Cashion contributed at least $3,600.00 to Judge Vance's most recent campaign while Cashion's case was pending. . . . There may have been other contributions from Maynard through PACs, however, Vance has refused to disclose that information.

At [a] November hearing, Vance . . . disclosed that he had previously been involved in a controversy wherein he received excessive campaign contributions from Maynard.

Judge Vance justified his disregard for the aforementioned statutes by saying that the issue was never addressed by the Alabama Supreme Court when a Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed in another case. . . .  

However, Judge Vance's disregard for law was never vindicated as it was never addressed. . . . Judge Vance has sought to justify his conduct by claiming that the aforementioned statute has never been enforced. However, the law reflects a public policy concern that pursuant to the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics a judge must recuse if there is an appearance of impropriety. Accepting such donations during the case presents the appearance of impropriety. The Canons of Judicial Ethics have been enforced, and regardless of the application of the above-referenced statutes, Vance has an obligation to recuse if there is evidence to show an appearance of impropriety. $3,600.00 in campaign contributions is evidence of impropriety and requires recusal. However, Judge Vance has ignored his obligation and persisted in a course of action that continues to deprive Plaintiffs of due process.

Former Illinois judge Michael Cook

A courthouse drug scandal expanded Friday with charges alleging that a St. Clair County probation worker used cocaine repeatedly with two judges and provided the dose that killed one of them. 

James K. Fogarty, of the probation office’s investigative unit, told officials he bought cocaine and re-sold it to Associate Judge Joseph Christ and Circuit Judge Michael N. Cook the day before the two went to a hunting lodge where Christ died March 10. 

Fogarty, 45, was charged in U.S. District Court in East St. Louis with distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He was held pending another hearing. 

Earlier Friday, Cook, 43, appeared in the same courthouse to answer charges of being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm, and a misdemeanor charge of possession of heroin.

The charges capped a frenetic two-day period in which Cook was arrested Wednesday at the home in Belleville of Sean D. McGilvery, a friend now accused of running a busy heroin shuttle from Chicago. 

The FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and other agencies searched McGilvery’s house plus Cook’s chambers in the courthouse in Belleville, home in the same city, and family hunting lodge in Pike County, Ill., where Christ died. 

McGilvery, 34, was charged late Thursday with conspiracy to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute, heroin. The charges claim he sold more than a kilogram.

The investigation into a drug scandal involving a St. Clair County judge, another who died of a cocaine overdose and a county probation worker charged with providing them with drugs, is far-reaching, a federal prosecutor said Tuesday.

“This is a wide-open investigation and is not limited in scope to the St. Clair County courthouse,” U.S. Attorney Stephen Wigginton said after a hearing for accused probation officer James K. Fogarty at U.S. District Court in East St. Louis.

Wigginton did not elaborate, other than to say the investigation was “fast-moving and dynamic.”

“We have a number of leads we are tracking down,” Wigginton said.

Ted Rollins and partner Mike Hartnett at the New York Stock Exchang

I went to his secretary's desk. I sat down and found a yellow legal pad with a list of all his files written in it. 

One thing on the page caught my eye: Sarah's Trust Fund; it listed where it could be found on the computer. 

I went into [the secretary's] list of files and saw that the file existed. I was not computer literate at that time and could not open up the file.

Then another item caught my nervous eye; it was the phone message book. . . . The book contained call after call from Cary Sheahan, a girl who worked in the office of the director of executive health care at Emory. She was the go-to person for every Rollins family member who needed anything at Emory. Every year each one of them checks in for a full physical and stay in the John W. Rollins wing of the hospital to be checked out fully and completely. [Ted] was dating Cary, it appeared from her messages and the numerous calls to him. She left messages with his secretary about how excited she was to be meeting him and where. There were messages from me mixed in with the girlfriends' messages. I have often wondered if [Cary Sheahan] was a code name used by Holly Rollins or if he was dating Cary and Holly at the same time. 

I have often mentioned the trust fund to Ted and asked questions about it after finding the yellow legal pad with his list of files. I tore out the page with the list of files and kept it for a long time. I confronted him with it and he refused to discuss it.

The person who would definitely know about the Trust Fund would be Teri McGinn, who lives in Taylors, South Carolina, near Greenville, and was his assistant for years and often talked with his father and Linda Prickett (Ted's mother). [Teri McGinn] would know all about it, as he slept with her, too. 

She works for the Golden Strip Child Center in Greenville, the organization which was set up by the Duke Endowment monies to Furman University and to Greenville for the prevention of child abuse while I was living there. Interesting that that this is where she works.

I suggest you interview her on all things Rollins. She was his other hand, she was his muse, she was his everything for most of the time we were in Greenville, South Carolina. She was his stand-in mother while I was having Emma and getting back to normal and I didn't have the time to constantly serve him. She will KNOW all about the trust fund and where it is.

Johnny Ford

Where the Alabama State Courts have repeatedly served as a rubber stamp to the recalcitrant majority officials and have ignored federal requirements, the plaintiffs' only recourse is to seek refuge in federal court and pray for an equitable relief. The defendants now move this Court to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint in yet another attempt to deny Black Americans the enjoyment of their right to participate in the voting process and experience the sustainability of their choice. 

The defendants fasten their discriminatory stratagem to a feeble distinction between bingo and electronic bingo, declaring the latter to be criminal without the benefit of legislation or final judicial determination. This impuissant attempt to argue that the electronic form of bingo is criminal and any use of these devices is a violation of the gambling laws of Alabama is simply another clandestine attempt to suppress and nullify the lawful passage of Amendment 744 and deflate the voting power of the people of Macon County. 

The Sheriff of Macon County, under his constitutional authority, approved the use of electronic bingo games. While the Attorney General may be authorized to 'enforce' the gambling laws in Alabama, as he is all other laws, the Alabama Constitution says that only the Sheriff of Macon County can devise regulations for the conduct and operation of bingo within Macon County. There are no general laws in Alabama which relate to bingo because it can only be authorized in a particular county by constitutional amendment. When Defendant Strange decided what bingo must be and issued his May 2011 memorandum, he usurped the authority which had been vested solely in the Macon County Sheriff. So while General Strange may have the authority to 'enforce' bingo regulations or general criminal laws, he does not have the authority to 'create' or 'promulgate' the rules anymore than he has the authority to 'create' or 'promulgate' general criminal laws (such authority being vested in the legislature).

Defendant Bentley's Executive Order No. 1, repealing former Governor [Bob] Riley's Executive Order No. 44 and essentially appointing Defendant Strange as the new "anti-gambling czar," was clearly a usurpation of the authority constitutionally given to the Macon County Sheriff, as related to bingo rules and regulations. This action constituted changes affecting voting, and as such, was subjected to the preclearance requirement pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

The Governor's executive order appointed the Attorney General, who in turn, replaced the officer designated by the constitutional amendments. This diminished the authority of the official whom the electorates of Macon County voted for by de facto replacing the elected office they solely entrusted with the promulgation and regulation of bingo rules by constitutional amendment with an appointed office. This goes way beyond merely changing the internal operations of an elected body, such as the Etowah County Commission in Presley.

Don Felder

Bonnie Cahalane

Felder, who says he was an equal partner and shareholder in Eagles, Ltd., claims that Henley and Frey began abusing him in 1994 on the Hell Freezes Over tour, when new business entities were formed that gave Henley and Frey a majority position. When he protested, Felder was told to "take it or leave it" and was threatened with firing.

Felder further alleges that several of the group's business dealings in the past 10 years have been compromised by outside interests. Among other things, he says the Hell Freezes Over album was placed with Geffen Records to help satisfy Henley's legal battles with the label; that Azoff and Peter Lopez, Frey's personal attorney, were paid to act as tour promoters, rather than having independent promoters bid on the project; and that the merchandising licensing fee for the Hell Freezes Over tour was "substantially below the market price."

The suit goes on to say that "the greed of Henley and Frey became more insatiable with each new project." They formed yet another company to handle the business dealings related to the Eagles boxed set Selected Works: 1972-1999, and that this new company totally excluded Felder, Walsh, and Schmit from an ownership stake. When Felder once again complained, he was sent a letter by Azoff that said he was out of the Eagles, which led him to sign the papers under duress.

Felder's lawsuit accuses Henley and Frey of bullying him into "one-sided" agreements divvying up band profits, withholding financial information and firing him without cause. . . .

The lawsuit, filed last year in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeks past earnings and potentially lost income totaling more than $50 million. Felder is seeking to dissolve Eagles Ltd., the corporation that holds rights to the band's name, some unreleased recordings and other property.

Pearl River Resort

When news broke on Tuesday afternoon of an FBI raid at the Silver Star and Golden Moon casinos, many Alabamians wondered if it was driven by the political ugliness that has engulfed our state since George W. Bush entered the White House. After all, news reports indicate that Mississippi Choctaws spent $13 million, funneled through Republican felon Jack Abramoff, to help get Bob Riley elected governor in 2002. And Riley's apparent desire to protect the Choctaws market share, by stamping out gaming in Alabama, led to a federal electronic-bingo prosecution that is ongoing in Montgomery. 

If Tuesday's raid has anything to do with Riley, Abramoff, and perhaps the Bush administration (hello, Karl Rove!), it would be a major national story. But so far, we have no indication that such weighty issues are driving the investigation. If they are, that would mean the Obama Department of Justice actually has its head out of you know where--and we've seen no sign that Eric Holder and Co. are up to the task of investigating and prosecuting Bush-era crimes.

The outlook revision to positive reflects a sharp improvement in run-rate EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization), largely owing to expense reductions from the termination of certain unfavorable vendor contracts. The outlook revision also recognizes changes to improve the Enterprise, including the establishment of a stable and professional management team. Notwithstanding these positives, the rating also captures weak topline trends due to soft regional economic conditions and the competitive nature of the inland markets where the casinos are located. While the bulk of major expense reductions are largely complete, Moody's still expects the Enterprise to prudently manage its costs such that EBITDA remains relatively stable despite contracting revenues.

The [rating] reflects Choctaw Resort's small size, earnings concentration in a single jurisdiction, relatively low population density in its primary market, weak gaming revenue trends, and the challenging local economy in its primary markets in Mississippi and Alabama. The rating also captures the high level of tribal distributions as a percentage of EBITDA and the expectation they will continue to be maximized (as per the credit agreement and bond indenture), and uncertainty related to the outcome of the FBI investigation that has been ongoing at the Enterprise since July 2011. Moody's will continue to monitor further developments from this investigation and assess potential rating implications as appropriate. In addition, the rating reflects the high degree of uncertainty surrounding the enforceability of lenders' claims at default and other unique risks common to Native American gaming issuers.

Moody's could revise the ratings outlook back to stable if revenue declines worsen such that EBITDA meaningfully deteriorates from current run-rate levels. Any factors/events that could debilitate the gaming operations would likely result in downward rating pressure, including an adverse development in the FBI investigation, management turnover/corporate governance issues, and/or a deterioration in liquidity.

I was going about 55 on 280 just past whole foods at about 8:00 p.m.  A car came up behind me and hit me in the rear doing about 75; I think the car is totaled. I am sore and my back hurts. My ankles hurt too for some reason. Kristie, Eric's wife, was with me. She is having a headache and her back hurts too. The paramedics came. Checked her out. She is pretty shaken. Never been in a wreck before.

I am now home by the Mtn. Brook police and have no car as the car was towed away . . . undrivable. 

Felt weird because you never expect to just be hit when you haven't hit your brakes and are driving down a three lane highway in the middle lane. It sounded like the car had exploded. It was so loud . . . fluids gushing from the car.

The [doctor] at St. Vincent's where I went Saturday to the ER to see if I was o.k. said that was probably the strangest wreck he had ever heard in the ER. He said cars don't usually follow behind you and plow into you unless you have put on your brakes. I DID NOT brake . . . the guy just hit us for no apparent reason.

Driver of Unit One stated he looked down to get his drink when all of a sudden the airbags deployed. Driver of Unit Two stated they were driving east on US 280 when driver of Unit One hit them from behind.

Milton McGregor at VictoryLand casino

Based upon my experience and understanding of [§] 13A-12-20(10), [Ala. Code 1975,] each machine observed . . .  at the Casino met the definition of a slot machine.

Furthermore, it is my opinion the machines inside the Casino fit the description of a Gambling Device as outlined in [§] 13A-12-20(5) [, Ala. Code 1975].

'Undeniably, the legislature cannot enact a statute that conflicts with the Constitution, that is, that prohibits that which is permitted by the Constitution or that permits that which is prohibited by the Constitution.'" Opinion of the Justices No. 373, 795 So.2d 630, 632 (Ala.2001) (quoting City of Birmingham v. Graffeo, 551 So.2d 357, 361-62 (Ala. 1989)).

Perhaps General Strange believes the ends justify the means when it comes to non-Indian gaming. It is clear that the concerted and illegal attacks a former Governor and General Strange made on VictoryLand and others have benefited the Indian casino operators who have lavished campaign cash on them. For example, the Poarch Creek casinos, who have a tax-free monopoly in Alabama, have experienced the fastest growth in revenues of any Native American casino in the United States--a staggering 61%--while revenues at Indian gaming facilities decreased nationwide. In fact, on July 11, 2012, the Poarch Creek Indians announced a $246 million expansion project at its Creek Casino Riverside in Wetumpka. And the Choctaws opened a new casino in Mississippi near the Alabama border in December 2012 after VictoryLand ceased operating electronic bingo games. 

We cannot be sure whether General Strange's "protest" is part of his ongoing effort to block non-Indian casinos from operating legal games in Alabama, if it is merely a public relations stunt to give the impression that he is acting in the manner desired by his mentor (Bob Riley) and Native American benefactors, of if it is intended to promote his future political aspirations. What is clear is that . . . there is no legal basis for considering his request.