Brett Kavanaugh

For more than a week now, people have been asking why the Senate Judiciary Committee's majority members and Trump did not want this F.B.I. "follow up" investigation.

And, for more than a week, I've been saying there's at least one VERY SIMPLE REASON why they did not want an F.B.I. investigation. And, it's the same reason the majority members refused to issue a Senate subpoena ordering Mark Judge to appear yesterday to give testimony.

It's as simple as the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Here's what's going to happen and here's my tip. I'm 99.99 percent CERTAIN that as the F.B.I. is at this very moment preparing to visit Mark Judge and to interview him, Mark Judge is going to refuse to answer any questions. Mark Judge will take the Fifth, no question about it.

That optic alone will pretty much implode Judge Kavanaugh's chance to ascend to the Supreme Court. Dr. Ford provides compelling and highly credible testimony to the SJC yesterday, and then, when the F.B.I. interviews Judge, he takes the Fifth. In other words, Kavanaugh's good friend Mark Judge, who was allegedly in that bedroom with Ford and Kavanaugh is going to invoke his right to remain silent in order NOT to incriminate himself. WOW. It's already looking bad for Mark Judge for the F.B.I. to get involved, and this F.B.I. investigation has hardly started.

Here's something else. In most jurisdictions, there are certain crimes that have no statute of limitations. Murder, of course, is the most common crime that has no statute of limitations. However, several states have other serious crimes to which there is no statute of limitations. In many states, there is no statute of limitations for rape or attempted rape. It's my understanding the sexual assault Dr. Ford alleges Brett Kavanaugh committed against her has NO statute of limitations in Maryland.

We also know that if a 17-year-old black boy in Maryland had pushed 15-year-old Christine Ford into a bedroom and threw her on a bed and jumped on top of her and tried to remove her clothes, that black boy would have been thrown in prison for a very long time. So this allegation of sexual assault by Dr. Ford against Brett Kavanaugh is still very serious today, even if it happened 36 years ago.

Furthermore, Mark Judge will also invoke the 5th to avoid self-incrimination in light of his former girlfriend reporting that Judge once admitted to her that he and high school friends had sex with one or more girls when they were drunk or had been drugged. . . .

Mark Judge

My point. We have a lot of people out there who think very simply. HOWEVER, it's those same simple-minded people who are going to be troubled as soon as it's reported that Kavanaugh's good friend, and the other boy alleged to have been in that room with Ford and Kavanaugh, refuses to speak and has exercised his right not to incriminate himself. That's something that simple people believe is indicative of wrongdoing and criminality and attempting to hide and conceal the truth.

U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said this afternoon, with regard to Kavanaugh, that the truth has a "funny" way of eventually coming out. And he spoke with notable assurance that ultimately, the truth is going to catch up to Kavanaugh.

Still, I have watched all this drama pretty well and have made some accurate predictions that have come true. During the lunch break yesterday, I predicted to my wife that in the SJC's afternoon session, Senator Lindsey Graham would reclaim his 5 minutes and kick the woman questioner to the curb and launch a tirade and, boy, did I call that one accurately. I think it's virtually impossible that Mark Judge will do anything other than invoke his right not to say anything that might incriminate himself. Then, it's just simpletons who will have to think about birds that flock together. And, Brett Kavanaugh is hoping that most simpletons will never know what the urban slang phrase "Devil's Triangle" really means. (It actually means a threesome that involves two males and one female).

Rally Cat

For those who don't remember, the saga of Rally Cat began on August 9, 2017, during a game against the Kansas City Royals at Busch Stadium. The Cardinals down, one run with the bases loaded and two outs in the bottom of the sixth inning, were interrupted one pitch into Yadier Molina's at-bat by a feral cat darting across the outfield.

There were smiles, there were laughs and there were bite marks, but a grounds crew member successfully swiped the kitten into his arms and into safety. Just one pitch later, Molina blasted a grand slam into the left-field stands.

Thus, Rally Cat blossomed from just a cat to a next-level idol.

Despite some initial adoption confusion, the St. Louis Feral Cat Outreach took him into their arms for a peaceful retirement from the big stage. Thursday, the outreach provided an update into the life of Rally Cat, saying he was having the time of his life with both his human and kitty friends — even if he is still shy around strangers.

Rally Cat update: RC is enjoying his retirement with his human sibling and kitty best friends.

He is still a little shy around strangers, but he's blossomed into a total lap cat with his family.

Kamala Harris

Dear, Senator Grassley, et al.

The current situation regarding the accusations made by Dr. Ford against Brett Kavanaugh have prompted me to write you today. I have moved on with my life since he forced himself on me as well. The times were so different, and I didn't expect to be taken seriously, embarrass my family, be believed at all.

I was at a party with a friend. I had been drinking. She left with another boy, leaving me to find my own way home. Kavanaugh and a friend offered me a ride home. I don't know the other boy's name. I was in his car to go home. His friend was behind me in the backseat. Kavanaugh kissed me forcefully. I told him I only wanted a ride home. Kavanaugh continued to grope me over my clothes, forcing his kisses on me and putting his hand under my sweater. 'No,' I yelled at him.

The boy in the backseat reached around, putting his hand over my mouth and holding my arm to keep me in the car. I screamed into his hand. Kavanaugh continued his forcing himself on me. He pulled up my sweater and bra exposing my breasts, and reached into my panties, inserting his fingers into my vagina. My screams were silenced by the boy in the backseat covering my mouth and groping me as well.

Kavanaugh slapped me and told me to be quiet and forced me to perform oral sex on him. He climaxed in my mouth. They forced me to go into the backseat and took turns raping me several times each. They dropped me off two blocks from my home. 'No one will believe if you tell. Be a good girl,' he told me.

Watching what has happened to Anita Hill and Dr. Ford has me petrified to come forward in person or even provide my name. A group of white men, powerful senators who won't believe me, will come after me. Like Dr. Ford, I'm a teacher, I have an education, a family, a child, a home. I have credibility. Just because something happens a long time ago, because a rape victim doesn't want to personally come forward, does not mean something can't be true.

Jane Doe

Oceanside, California

Nothing -- the whole thing is ridiculous. Nothing ever -- anything like that, nothing. I mean, that's -- the whole thing is just a crock, farce, wrong, didn't happen, not anything close.

On Sunday evening, the Senate Judiciary Committee released the transcript of a telephone interview with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh given by Senate Democrats on Wednesday, the night before the hearing. The interview included questions regarding a highly dubious, nonspecific, anonymous accusation of rape received by the office of Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA). . . .

By bringing up the totally baseless and ambiguous accusation, the Democrats ensured that it would be on record to add to the cloud over the judge.

Jason and DianaKander

Kander posted a message on his campaign website and Facebook page saying that in the 11 years since leaving Afghanistan as an Army intelligence officer, he has experienced depression, nightmares and suicidal thoughts. He said he needed to abandon the mayoral race, in which he was seen as a front-runner to win the 2019 contest, to focus on his mental health.

“Instead of dealing with these issues, I’ve always tried to find a way around them,” Kander said. “Most recently, I thought that if I could come home and work for the city I love so much as its mayor, I could finally solve my problems. I thought if I focused exclusively on service to my neighbors in my hometown, that I could fill the hole inside of me. But it’s just getting worse.”

So today [Kander] announced he's calling it quits and withdrawing from the KC mayoral race. He claims he ended up at a veteran's facility and that he was suicidal.

Yeah, right. He's probably received word that a grand jury in KC may be investigating all of the crimes he and his wife and accomplices have committed over the past several years.

Of course, there's going to be a lot of speculation as to the real reason(s) Kander withdrew. This is especially so, since the KC Star had already published a story, boldly saying that Kander was a shoo-in to be elected mayor.

I think it's again incredibly deceptive for Kander to claim he suffered all kinds of psychic injuries while in the military. As the Kander Memo showed, for almost all of Kander's time in the military reserves, he was state-side doing duty every other weekend. The fact is, Kander was on active duty only for six months total; he spent three of those months in Florida at a military base there, and then only three months total in Afghanistan, as an office clerk for some top brass, safely ensconced in a highly-secure office compound. How much so-called "intelligence" work can you do in only three months? Because Kander was only in Afghanistan for three months, he barely had time to fully unpack his suitcase before he had to repack to go home.

There's a real reason why Kander withdrew from the KC mayoral race, but it's not the reason Kander is telling reporters now.

Kander’s service in the military has been part of his political profile. After one term as Missouri secretary of state, Kander ran in 2016 for U.S. Senate as the Democratic nominee against Republican incumbent Roy Blunt. Kander’s campaign famously featured a television advertisement in which he assembles a military rifle blindfolded.

Kander narrowly lost his contest against Blunt in a year when most Democrats in statewide races were pummeled and Donald Trump carried Missouri by 19 points over Hillary Clinton. Kander’s performance, coupled with an effervescent personality, made him a leading progressive personality on cable television news shows.

Kander was frequently mentioned as a possible candidate for Missouri governor, Congress or even for the White House. That’s part of what made his decision to run for mayor all the more surprising.

Mark Judge

The bureau appears to be moving quickly; on Tuesday, investigators wrapped up an interview with a crucial witness, Mark Judge, a friend and high school drinking buddy of Judge Kavanaugh who has been identified as the only witness to the alleged sexual assault of Dr. Blasey. Mr. Judge’s name came up frequently last week when the judge and Dr. Blasey testified before the Judiciary Committee.

“Mr. Judge completed his FBI interview,” Barbara Van Gelder, Judge’s attorney, told The Hill in an email. “We are not commenting on the questions the FBI asked Mr. Judge.”

I will cooperate with any law enforcement agency that is assigned to confidentially investigate these allegations.

Mark Judge claims that he will cooperate with the F.B.I.'s investigation so long as the investigation can be done "confidentially." See? Mark Judge is already setting this up to refuse to answer questions. Whoever heard of an ordinary citizen saying that he or she will cooperate and answer questions posed by the F.B.I. so long as the F.B.I. promises the interview will be treated confidentially? Is Mark Judge out of his mind? Or does he think he is an entitled white guy who can demand conditions from the F.B.I.? Plus, it's an absurd condition, because the F.B.I. submits all of its reports to the Senate and other government agencies and, ultimately, those records will be subject to review by the public under the United States Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA).

Also, if you have a woman who has alleged that two men pushed her into a bedroom and sexually assaulted her, whoever heard of the right or the chutzpah of one of those suspects saying to the F.B.I., "Yeah, I'll talk with you and cooperate, as long as you promise that my cooperation will be treated 'confidentially.'"Do these privileged and affluent white boys, who grew up in the D.C. North Land of Maryland, think that they're members of some sort of privileged rich white boys' club? This is absolutely nutty for Mark Judge to even make the suggestion that he will cooperate if the F.B.I. assures him that his statements will be treated confidentially?

Mark Judge is saying he will cooperate with the F.B.I. but then adds the proviso that he will require that his cooperation be treated confidentially. He is fencing with the F.B.I. Not real smart. I think he's playing with fire here too, because it's like he's spoofing Christine Blasey Ford for her initial request that her information be treated confidentially. Victims have some good reasons to want confidentiality, but the alleged criminal perpetrator has no reasonable right to expect any confidentiality from law enforcement, unless, apparently, you're a rich and affluent white male from north D.C. land.

Bottom line is that Mark Judge and his tribe are creating this highly misleading headline on the Web that Mark Judge will cooperate with the F.B.I., which I predict, will be a sham impression as we move forward, when Mark Judge starts waffling and saying that he's not going to talk to the F.B.I. unless they promise it will be treated confidentially, which is a promise and condition the F.B.I. will not make or give to him.

For right now, I'm assuming that Mark Judge and his crowd are only creating a headline to make it appear that Mark Judge has nothing to hide, when he will go on to blame the F.B.I. for not giving him confidentiality, thus in his pretense warranting his decision not to speak at all. It's all a tactical set up for Mark Judge not to talk.

Christopher Wray and Donald Trump

FBI director Christopher Wray should be forced to resign over [the Kavanaugh supplemental background check]. It was Wray's firm, King and Spalding, that used to host the Russia Am Cham conferences for Oleg Deripaska, Mr Millian, and Mr. Sater --  the Riley/Sessions Gang attended when they beat Milton McGregor and his buddies out of $40 million for a fake Russian lottery. 

Wray's firm represents the Russian Oil and Gas Business firm that Vladimir Putin directs. Also, Christopher Wray was a Yale Law School graduate, just like Kavanaugh,  and has been buddies with the Kavanaugh, Rove, and Sessions crowd for years. 

The FBI's Kavanaugh background check is just a report done by a member of the Jeff Sessions, Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump Russian Mafia. I tried to say last week it would be bullshit, due to Wray's ties to the Russian Mafia. His old firm is a big part of Putin's legal team. Until we as a country crush the New York/Alabama/GOP Russian Mafia, we are going to continue seeing this level of corruption.

Several people who reached out to investigators to offer information said they were also left hanging. NBC News says dozens of potential witnesses have come forward to FBI field offices, “but agents have not been permitted to talk to many of them.” The New Yorker spoke to several people who were also unable to get an audience with the FBI despite their ability to corroborate [Deborah] Ramirez’s story and information refuting claims Kavanaugh made during last week’s testimony.

Russian drilling platform in the Arctic

The most troubling issue that Wray may face is the fact that his law firm — King and  Spalding — represents Rosneft and Gazprom, two of Russia’s largest state-controlled oil companies.

Rosneft was prominently mentioned in the now infamous 35-page dossier prepared by former British MI6 agent Christopher Steele. The dossier claims that the CEO of Rosneft, Igor Sechin, offered candidate Donald Trump, through Trump’s campaign adviser Carter Page, a 19% stake in the company in exchange for lifting U.S. sanctions on Russia. The dossier claims that the offer was made in July while Page was in Moscow.

Rosneft is also the company that had a $500 billion oil drilling joint-venture with Exxon in 2012, when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was Exxon’s CEO. However, the deal was nixed by President Obama in 2014, when he imposed the sanctions that crippled Russia’s ability to do business with U.S. companies. The lifting of sanctions by the Trump administration would enable Exxon to renew its joint venture agreement with Rosneft, and the law firm of King and Spalding could end up in the middle of the contract negotiations between those two companies.

The law firm’s representation of Gazprom raises even more serious conflict issues for Wray. Gazprom was a partner in RosUkrEnergo AG (“RUE”), which is controlled by Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash. He is under federal indictment in Chicago for racketeering charges, has had numerous financial dealings with former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, and is generally considered to be a member of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle.

Though there is no indication that Wray personally worked on any of the Rosneft or Gazprom legal matters handled by his law firm, he might well have an ethical and legal conflict of interest that would prevent him from any involvement in the FBI’s Russian probe. When a law firm such as King and Spalding represents clients, then all of the partners in that law firm have an actual or potential conflict of interest, preventing them from undertaking any representation of any other client that has interests clearly adverse to those of these two Russian companies. These conflict rules continue to apply even after a lawyer leaves the law firm, so Wray could be ethically barred from involving himself in a federal investigation that includes within its scope a probe of Rosneft, Gazprom and affiliated companies. The public appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety might require him to recuse himself from the investigation.

If Wray was confirmed as the FBI director, and then had to recuse himself with regard to some or all of the Russia-related aspects of the critical investigation being conducted by the FBI and special counsel Robert Mueller, the potential damage to the investigation could be significant. If Wray refused to recuse himself from the Russia-Trump investigation — or at least acknowledge the potential conflict issue, a serious cloud could be cast over the FBI’s level of commitment to the investigation.

FBI Director Christopher Wray does not have me fooled, and he should not have any women fooled on what he is up to with the Kavanaugh appointment. His approval of Kavanaugh is all about a Russian Oil Company drilling in the Arctic. We have already gotten rid of his buddy, Rex Tillerson, over the Exxon deal, and now it is Wray's time. Christopher's law firm, Atlanta's King and Spalding, represents Putin's two biggest oil and gas companies, which are Roseneft and Gazprom. They (the Roseneft bunch) had a deal to do the work on the Arctic Drilling with Putin and, well folks, Christopher is in the FBI chair to put that deal through for the Russian government. It is a $500-billion deal,  but we are watching the situation closely at the Alabama Resistance.

They need Kavanaugh on the bench to do so. Trump is their side show to distract us from what is truly at play. These men work for Vladimir Putin on his $500 billion Arctic deal. The FBI director's firm represents the Russian government.

Have you ever wondered why the FBI is not going out and arresting all these folks involved with Russian election theft in 2016? Well the former law firm of FBI director Mr Wray firm represents Putin and his gas and oil companies, which are the biggest businesses he owns and controls in Russia. Essentially, our FBI has been infiltrated at the top levels by Putin's No. 1 law firm in the United States. In fact, the FBI director's firm (King and Spalding, of Atlanta) put together the biggest deal Putin's bunch had ever attempted -- the $500-billion Arctic drilling deal with Exxon, which was stopped when President Obama put sanctions on them for the 2014 annexation of Crimea. 

They thought getting Trump elected would lift the sanctions, but the Alabama Resistance released the info that stopped them in January 2017. They are, however, still putting players into position, like Kavanaugh and Wray, to try to put the deal through. You all will notice these guys come from Yale, the same school Bush went to.

This deal with Putin is being conducted through the Exxon bunch. So we must watch them closely. I am going to tell you these Good Ole boys want that $500-billion Arctic deal, and we must say no. This is why the GOP is so lined up with Putin.

Clint Toedtmann and Jenna Harmison

Clint Toedtmann mugshot

Sentencing Hearing Held

STATE BY APA DODD. DEFT WITH ATTY RUSSELL. JUDGMENT: SIS FOR 2 YRS CASP 3 PROBATION ON BOTH CTS -80 HRS CASP W/I 6 MONTHS, DEFT TO SERVE 48 HRS IN GCJ BEGINNING 6/2/17 AT 8:00 PM UNTIL 6/4/17 AT 8:00 PM. DEFT DTO FILE SATOP COMPLETION W/I 2 WKS PLUS COSTS INCLUDING CVCF and 160 LER. DEFT TO CONSUME NO ALCOHOL DURING PERIOD OF PROBATION. STAY TO 6/29/17. JUDGE IMHOF/JFC COPY OF COMMITMENT LETTER TO GCJ. /JFC

U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY)

First, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler, could make clear that, should he become a subpoena-wielding chairman in January, he will aggressively investigate the FBI’s conduct in the Kavanaugh investigation. Notifying the FBI and DOJ that he will subpoena documents, demand interviews with officials at every level, and ultimately hold a hearing will have a dramatic impact on an agency that rightly worries about its public standing—and where key officials worry about their personal reputations—after several years of GOP attacks.

“Much of Washington has spent the week focusing on whether Judge Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court,” Lisa Graves wrote in a Slate column on Sept. 7, more than a week before the New Yorker published the then-anonymous sexual assault claims of Christine Blasey Ford. “After the revelations of his confirmation hearings, the better question is whether he should be impeached from the federal judiciary. I do not raise that question lightly, but I am certain it must be raised.”

Graves wrote that Kavanaugh had misled the Judiciary Committee about the stolen documents that Graves had written as chief counsel for nominations for Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) when he was the chairman of the committee.

Kavanaugh, she wrote, “lied. Under oath. And he did so repeatedly.”

Therefore, she concluded, “he should not be confirmed. In fact, by his own standard, he should clearly be impeached.”

The mysterious Russian businessman who went by the name Sergei Millian claimed last year to have long helped Donald Trump pursue Russian investors, a claim the president’s team flatly denied.

The claim is again under scrutiny with the sudden release late Thursday of closed-door congressional testimony.

A Washington intelligence consultant whose reports are at the center of probes into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign told lawmakers that Millian organized a trip for Trump representatives to promote the billionaire’s vodka brand in Russia.

The testimony of Glenn Simpson drew a sharp denial from Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer, and only added to the shroud of mystery hanging over Millian, who was a visible figure early in the investigations into Trump’s ties with Russia but since had disappeared from view.

Simpson, according to the 165-page transcript, alleged that Millian came to the United States under his real name of Siarhei Kukuts. After becoming Sergei Millian, he helped run a group with little Internet footprint called the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce. Millian has said on resumes that he is from Belarus and from Russia, Simpson said. . . .

Sergei Millian

Cohen acknowledged last year that he and another Trump associate, Russian émigré Felix Sater, had pursued a Moscow hotel deal for the Trump Organization during the presidential campaign. In an email to Cohen made public last year, Sater boasted, “Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it.”

Asked anew about Millian on Thursday night, Cohen steadfastly denied any connection.

“I have never met Mr. Milian (sic). He e-mailed me several times with various issues,” Cohen said in an email response to McClatchy, adding that by November 2016 he’d “demanded (Millian) cease contacting me.”

I realize there is no statute of limitation on felony sexual assault in Maryland. I assume there may be statutes of limitation on “false imprisonment” and “kidnapping.” I am NOT suggesting Kavanaugh be charged with these crimes, but I don’t understand why the terms “False Imprisonment” and “Kidnapping” are not mentioned as well as “sexual assault”.

I have never done criminal work (I was a civil litigator for twenty years, including three and a half years as a Trial Attorney with the Department of Justice’s Civil Division in the seventies). Yesterday, as I was reviewing the allegations of the Blasey Ford accusation, it struck me — wait a minute — isn’t that false imprisonment and/or kidnapping???

Kavanaugh allegedly grabbed her in the hall as she was on the way to the bathroom and pushed her into another room, where he then locked the door, turned up the music and covered her mouth. (Mark Judge may have helped with some of those actions).

Once in the room, he assaulted her, with Judge looking on and egging him on, including directing him while giggling maniacally. When Judge joined them by jumping on Kavanaugh’s back (wonder what he had in his mind???? I don’t want to go there), she escaped by “unlocking” the door and going out into the hall and escaped.

To me, it appears that Kavanaugh (and Judge’s actions) provide the elements of the crime and or tort of False imprisonment. The issue with kidnapping is a little less clear, because it varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In common law it generally included an aspect of sending the person somewhere else, but I also remember issues where just moving the person from where they are to somewhere else against their will could be kidnapping.. . . 

Again, I’m not suggesting legal charges on these two crimes and torts be brought against Kavanaugh and Judge, but I am suggesting that the discussion needs to include a discussion of these two additional aspects of the attack. Adding the totality of the charges that could have been brought underscores the severity of Kavanaugh's actions.

Here's quick law in Maryland on kidnapping.

Nutshell: kidnapping in Maryland is considered as false imprisonment with any movement or concealing of the victim.

Dr. Ford testified she walked upstairs and used the restroom and then as she was trying to go back downstairs to the living room, she was pushed from behind and forcefully moved into a BEDROOM and then forcefully moved to lay down on a bed and then was jumped on by Kavanaugh (more physical restraint) and the Kavanaugh also allegedly tried to CONCEAL the kidnapped victim by having closed and locked the bedroom door and turning up the music and Kavanaugh putting his hand over her mouth to conceal their having taken control of the victim and hiding her in the room to have their way with her. This is clearly KIDNAPPING and criminal assault and felony attempted rape. See Johnson v. State, 439 A.2d 542 (Md.App. 1982), at pp. 432-33. See other Maryland kidnapping decisions cited on page 433.

Clint Toedtmann mugshot

Clint Toedtmann and Jenna Harmison

On 02-25-2016, I was on patrol driving east on Walnut from Grant. I observed a black Chevrolet Cruz disobey a stop sign at Main and College then failed to signal at Campbell and Elm. I stopped the vehicle at South and Elm and contacted the driver who was identified as Clinton Toedtmann. 

While speaking with Toedtmann, I could smell an odor of intoxicants in the vehicle. Toedtmann exited the vehicle to take the Standard Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs). Prior to the tests, Toedtmann advised me that he had drink (sic) two to three beers. I observed Toedtmann's eyes and they appeared to be watery and bloodshot. 

Jerry Harmison

Brett Kavanaugh

In their motion, the Plaintiffs note that "upon filing of an affidavit [the Plaintiffs] received approval from the district court to proceed IFP in the instant matter." [citations omitted]. The affidavit to which the Plaintiffs refer was filed in their initial Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which was filed on March 26, 2016, at the time this case was initially filed. . . . The Order to which they refer only granted them partial IFP status. . . .  The Court also notes that another IFP motion to prosecute an appeal was filed on September 6, 2016. . . . Although that motion was denied by the previous judge assigned to this case . . . , the Eleventh Circuit ultimately granted the Plaintiffs leave to appeal IFP.

The most recent of these two motions, and the affidavit associated therewith, contains information that is more than two years old, and therefore out of date. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file a current affidavit, in the form attached to this Order, within 14 days. The failure to provide the affidavit will result in the motion being denied.

A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action, or who was determined to be financially unable to obtain an adequate defense in a criminal case, may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization, unless:

(A) the district court—before or after the notice of appeal is filed—certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis and states in writing its reasons for the certification or finding; or

(B) a statute provides otherwise.

Virginia Emerson Hopkins

Burt Newsome

A ground-breaking expert on money-laudering, Buddy Parker, Newsome’s RICO attorney, is looking at all the moving parts and intricate details, even the mundane aspects of the case that may have been overlooked, or unknown to observers, including us.

Persons and entities of interest we are learning about (some for the first time):

* Alabama State Representative Jim Hill, an attorney who represents co-conspirator John W. Bullock, and Hill’s ties (as a former judge) to the Alabama Judiciary System.

* John W. Bullock and his business the Pink Variety Store near Pell City, Alabama.

* Diane Bullock, the ex-wife of John Bullock.

* Virginia Voitus, an alleged girlfirend of John Bullock, and former bank teller.

* Alabama Power’s Government Affairs Department and employee Melissa Black.

* Scott, Sullivan, Streetman, and Fox, P.C. the law firm that has remained silent even though associate Robert M. Ronnlund has allegedly engaged in criminal obstruction of justice and alleged alteration of evidence.

* The detectives at the Calera Police Department including one who allegedly verbally disparaged Newsome over the phone. Calera Police was the agency that provided a statement (not sworn nor under oath) calling the pre-paid cell phone number connecting all the co-conspirators “a routing switch.”

* The Alabama Supreme Court and Associate Justice William B. Sellers, a former Balch  Bingham partner.

* State Senator Rodger Smitherman and Judge Carole Smitherman who have received over $30,000 in questionable campaign contributions. Judge Smitherman presides over the secret Star Chamber.

* The Columbiana Police Department which pulled over and arrested Newsome in May of 2013. Newsome was pulled over after attending a publicly-known court hearing.

* Verizon and alleged employee Jason Forman.

We learned what appears to be the most damaging evidence is alleged witness tampering and intimidation by alleged “racketeers” linked to Balch Bingham.

One of the key witnesses to the Newsome Conspiracy Case was allegedly told not to provide testimony or evidence and then was eventually and abruptly fired.

Ironically, every move hidden or unhidden, done inside the secretive Star Chamber or not, we are told only helps Newsome. With 44 retaliatory orders signed by Judge Smitherman, and the cast of dubious characters rejoicing with every questionable filing, antic, motion, and lop-sided “victory” (including the unsolicited responses to the Alabama Supreme Court about Newsome’s Writ of Mandamus), only help solidify the civil RICO case. 

Although they may not find a “briefcase full of cash,” the intricate details, alleged money-laundering, and manipulation of the Alabama legal system (including law enforcement) should create a solid civil RICO case that will fundamentally impact not only Balch Bingham, but the entire judiciary system in Alabama.

Steve Marshall and Robert "Luv Guv" Bentley, the disgraced governor who appointed him.

RAGA is not registered with the state and commingles its funds with other political action committees, masking the donors contrary to Alabama law. Ethics Commission Executive Director Tom Albritton knows Marshall’s contributions were unlawful, so does Secretary of State John Merrill, but no one is willing to act. Even Marshall himself is on the record saying the type of contributions he received from RAGA are illegal and banning such contributions was, “the only legal protection standing between Alabama voters and the reality or appearance of quid pro quo corruption.”

Perhaps the larger question for the Commission and the Alabama Republican Party is should a candidate who willingly takes illegal campaign contributions be allowed to remain on the ballot? . . .

The right remedy in the Marshall situation lies with the Alabama Republican Party, which is responsible for pursuing such violations and taking appropriate action, but the so-called party of law and order has taken a pass on the Marshall fiasco, choosing to remain silent.

Republican Party Chair Terry Lathan and the Executive Committee could end the charade by immediately moving not to certify Marshall’s votes in the upcoming general election. Of course, this would mean conceding the race to Democrat Joe Siegelman. This might not be palatable, but how much more bitter is a win by cheating?

Since the party will not act on the issue, it falls to Ethics Commission Chairman Judge Jerry Fielding who can swiftly move to bring the Marshall matter before the Commission. . . .

It is now time for the commission to act because the people have a right to know if their attorney general is a cheat.

When the attorney general of Minnesota learned of the years of pollution dumped from a 3M plant into his state’s waterways, he filed a lawsuit demanding the company clean up its mess.

A few years later, on the eve of the trial, 3M settled, agreeing to pay $850 million to make Minnesota’s water clean again.

At least three other states have also filed lawsuits against the company, with court records documenting decades of pollution and also concerted efforts by 3M and other polluters to mask the dangers of that pollution.

Alabama isn’t one of those states.

Oh, we have the pollution. Testing near a 3M plant in Decatur has shown high levels of pollutants similar to the ones in Minnesota and Michigan, and it has left residents in Lawrence and Morgan counties afraid to drink their tap water.

But Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall isn’t filing a lawsuit.

Instead, he’s busy threatening reporters and pretending like he has no clue about the three-year-long ordeal.

Multiple sources have confirmed to APR that a spokesperson in Marshall’s office, communications director Mike Lewis, contacted WHNT-TV station, at Marshall’s direction, to complain about reporter Chelsea Brentzel, who is the station’s lead reporter on the ongoing water issues in north Alabama.

Brentzel’s mistake: Accurate reporting.

With residents clamoring about the water situation, she and WHNT have produced multiple stories, asking for comments from multiple state officials. That included Marshall, whose office continually ignored their requests for comment.

The one time Brentzel was able to corner the AG, back in July, to ask if any legal action was planned, he said the Alabama Department of Environmental Management hadn’t told him to file a lawsuit.

But when Brentzel quoted Marshall’s opponent, Joseph Siegelman, in a recent story saying he would take action if elected and questioning Marshall’s lack of action, suddenly the station couldn’t get the AG’s office off the phone.

Sources familiar with the calls said Lewis, at Marshall’s direction, complained about Brentzel’s recent story, calling it “political.” Because making sure the people of the state can drink their damn water is political now.

And then there was the threat.

Lewis informed the WHNT bosses that the AG’s office planned to freeze out Brentzel and would no longer respond to her requests, according to the sources.

* International Paper PAC-- two donations totaling $5,000

* Koch Industries (Wichita, KS) -- two donations totaling $10,000

* Monsanto (St. Louis, MO) -- one donation of $1,000

* McWane Inc. -- two donations totaling $20,000

* Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama -- four donations totaling $4,000

Accused mail bomber Cesar Sayoc

Legal Schnauzer has been attacked because of our journalism, and I have the mugshot to prove it.

Scene of Saturday's Pittsburgh synagogue shooting

We live in a time of tribes. Not of ideologies, parties, groups, or beliefs—these don’t convey the same impregnability of political fortifications, or the yawning chasms between them. American politics today requires a word as primal as “tribe” to get at the blind allegiances and huge passions of partisan affiliation. Tribes demand loyalty, and in return they confer the security of belonging. They’re badges of identity, not of thought. In a way, they make thinking unnecessary, because they do it for you, and may punish you if you try to do it for yourself. To get along without a tribe makes you a fool. To give an inch to the other tribe makes you a sucker.

[The Hubbard trial] was about the kind of mindset that has come to hold back many areas of the Deep South, not to mention other states where Southern thinking tends to hold sway. We are thinking of Great Plains or Midwest states, such as Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah.

What is this mindset all about? We have broken it into two parts -- one called "The New Confederacy," and the other called "Conservative Tribalism." Both were on display in the Mike Hubbard trial.

"The New Confederacy" includes individuals who tend to self-identify as "patriots," even though they reject fundamental tenets of the U.S. Constitution. These modern-day confederates tend to especially reject the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of due process and equal protection, which became part of America's constitutional landscape after the Civil War.

From 1866 to 1868, Southern states bitterly opposed ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Hubbard trial showed that many Southerners, especially elites, still despise the principles of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Conservative Tribalism, to a great extent, is at the heart of the legal difficulties that my wife, Carol, and I have experienced . . . and gave rise to this blog.

What do we mean by tribalism? Here is one of the most useful definitions I've seen:

Tribalism is the state of being organized in, or advocating for, a tribe or tribes. In terms of conformity, tribalism may also refer in popular cultural terms to a way of thinking or behaving in which people are more loyal to their tribe than to their friends, their country, or any other social group.

For our purposes, the key element is this: Members of a tribe are more loyal to that unit than to most anything else, including their country and its laws, constitutions, and governing concepts. In our experience, tribalism has been particularly evident among those who identify as conservative. But I have little doubt that liberal and moderate tribes are out there as well.

How is this for irony? George W. Bush, our most recent "conservative" president, led us into wars in two countries -- Afghanistan and Iraq -- that have been dysfunctional for decades (centuries?) largely because of tribalism. Bush supposedly tried to bring democracy to countries where it had almost no chance to thrive -- because tribalism was likely to keep it from taking root.

Virginia Emerson Hopkins

Dave Mason

Rule 59 motions should only be granted on grounds of newly discovered evidence or manifest error of law or fact. Jones v. Thomas, 605 Fed. App'x 813 (11th Cir., 2015).

Plaintiffs do not assert that there has been any change in controlling law or that there is newly-discovered evidence. Rather, they assert that the undersigned has made errors of law and of fact. The undersigned has carefully considered all of the arguments that the Plaintiffs have made but disagrees. Plaintiffs simply misunderstand either the opinion or the law or both. Accordingly, the Motion To Alter Judgment is due to be denied.