“Many, many more hundreds of eggs are fertilized than become humans,” he says, because not all of those eggs will attach to a woman’s uterine wall and result in pregnancy. But if you’re going to hold that as a standard—that life begins at conception and any egg that’s fertilized has the same rights as an individual—well, “Whom do you sue? Whom do you throw in jail?” he asks. “Every woman who has had a fertilized egg pass through her? Every guy whose sperm has fertilized an egg and then it didn’t become a human?”

From there, Nye escalates his argument, saying that legislators who push anti-abortion agendas are straight up “ignorant.” He explains, “It’s a reflection of a deep scientific lack of understanding,” adding, “You [anti-abortionists] literally don’t know what you’re talking about.”

Biologically, conception is the moment when a sperm cell from a male breaches the ovum, or egg, from a female. The process is also known as fertilization and is the initial stage of development for human growth.

In embryology, implantation refers specifically to the attachment of the fertilized egg to the uterine lining, which occurs approximately 6 or 7 days after conception (fertilization).

If one sperm manages to enter, the egg changes instantly to prevent any other sperm from entering. Next, fertilization begins: the genetic material of the sperm and egg combine to create a new cell that rapidly starts dividing. This tiny bundle of cells is called a blastocyst, and it travels down the fallopian tube on a three-day long journey to the uterus.

You aren’t officially pregnant until the blastocyst attaches itself to the wall of the uterus, where it develops into an embryo and placenta. Two weeks later, when you miss your expected next period, it’s time to take a pregnancy test to confirm it.

We usually think that pregnancy begins at conception—the moment that sperm enters the egg. But it makes more sense to consider the time when the fertilized egg successfully implants into the uterine wall as the true beginning of pregnancy.

Why? Well, implantation may be a bigger hurdle to clear than fertilization. Recent research shows that as many as two thirds of fertilized eggs fail to implant, indicating that embryos are likely predestined for survival or death before even the first cell division. . .

Today, this Court again reaffirms the principle that unborn children are protected by Alabama's wrongful-death statute from the moment life begins at conception.

The use of the viability standard established in Roe is incoherent as it relates to wrongful-death law because, among other reasons, life begins at the moment of conception. The fact that life begins at conception is beyond refutation.

Tom Parker

Women’s bodies, lives, and futures are quite literally in the hands of men who seemingly couldn’t pass a high school health class. That’s part of what’s so hard about watching these debates: It’s not just that women’s rights and autonomy are being legislated away, but that it’s being done by complete morons.

This lack of remedial understanding of women’s bodies is not limited to Alabama. Representative John Becker of Ohio, a Republican, for example, sponsored a bill to limit insurance coverage for abortions, but claimed that it would have an exception for ectopic pregnancies, when the fertilized egg implants outside the uterus.“That treatment would be removing the embryo from the fallopian tube and reinserting it in the uterus,” he said, explaining a procedure that doesn’t exist and isn’t medically possible.

There is also Texas state Representative Dan Flynn, a Republican, who believes abortion requires cutting into a woman’s uterus, or Vito Barbieri, the Idaho state Representative, a Republican, who thought you could give a woman a remote gynecological exam by having her swallow a tiny camera. And who among us can forget former Missouri Congressman Todd Akin, who once claimed that women can’t get pregnant if they’ve been raped because “the female body has ways to shut the whole thing down.” (Akin was not the only Republican congressman who believed this: In 1995, North Carolina’s former state Representative Henry Aldridge, claimed that when women are raped, “the juices don’t flow, the body functions don’t work, and they don’t get pregnant.”)

We cannot ask women to follow laws written by men who believe our bodies work like a game of Marble Run.

It’s not just that their science is so woefully wrong. The politicians passing these arcane laws seem to have zero understanding of how the implementation of their legislation will impact real-life women.

When asked how the state would treat women who have had miscarriages — how would they be able to prove they didn’t end the pregnancy? — [Clyde] Chambliss, the Alabama Senator, responded that the burden of proof would be on the prosecution. Does that mean that all miscarriages will be investigated? (If you think that’s out of the realm of possibility, consider that a Virginia lawmaker once tried to pass a bill that would require women to report their miscarriages to the police within 24 hours.)

Sometimes, though, lawmakers’ absolute ignorance over the laws they are passing provides necessary ammunition to American women. When Alabama Senator Bobby Singleton, a Democrat, pointed out that Alabama’s new law could punish those who dispose of fertilized eggs at an IVF clinic, Chambliss responded, “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.”

So much for “life begins at conception.” Chambliss proved what feminists have been saying all along — this isn’t about protecting fertilized eggs. It never has been. These laws are about men controlling women’s bodies. Even if they don’t know the first thing about how they work.

Sandra Bland

All four Missouri deputies who testified at my wife Carol's recent "assault" trial said in written reports that she wound up on the ground either before or just after being handcuffed. But at trial, under oath, none of them mentioned Carol being on the ground -- and one of them went out of her way to say Carol was handcuffed while standing.

Why all the inconsistent statements, which likely amount to perjury? Well, it's obvious Carol's arm was broken for two reasons:

(1) She was seated on the ground, on her butt, where an unknown individual wearing a blue shirt and reflective sun glasses had slammed her;

(2) "Mr. Blue Shirt" then reached down to grab both of Carol's arms just above the elbows, while she still was seated on the ground, and violently yanked on them in an upward and backward motion.

Carol and I both testified to that, under oath, at trial -- and while Carol likely was in a state of shock and might have had a concussion from being slammed to the ground on the day cops beat her-- I saw the whole thing from about 15 feet away, while sitting in the driver's seat of our car. Unlike Carol, I did not have my brains scrambled by having cops slam my head against a wall multiple times after they unlawfully burst into our apartment. And certainly, no one slammed me butt-first to the ground.

Carol's arm likely was broken because she had been slammed into an awkward position, sitting butt-first on the ground, when an ignorant animal in a blue shirt started yanking on both arms as hard as he could.

How vicious was this? From my sportswriting days I've been on the sidelines at numerous college football games -- including pretty fair teams like Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Kansas State, LSU, Tennessee, UAB, Florida, North Carolina, and many more. I've seen some frightening hits from a few feet away, but I've never seen a level of violence inflicted on anyone that tops what was done to Carol during our unlawful eviction in September 2015.

A Missouri deputy stated at Carol's "assault" trial that she "may not have" been wearing a seat belt when she was initially detained in the caged area of a patrol car near the end of our unlawful eviction in September 2015. The flip side of Deputy Scott Harrison's statement, of course, is this: Carol may HAVE been wearing a seat belt while detained in the patrol car.

Carol Tovich Shuler

That blows to hell the cops' story that Carol broke her own arm by flailing about in the back seat of the patrol car before transport. (Never mind that a comminuted fracture -- a break in more than two places -- is caused by trauma, as in a car crash, and likely is impossible to inflict on one's self, especially while handcuffed and seat belted.) It adds credence to Carol's testimony that she was seat-belted in the back seat from the get-go and could not have flailed about -- even if she had wanted to, and she didn't.

How many lies and inconsistent statements can four cop-witnesses tell in one relatively simple misdemeanor trial? Based on our experience in Missouri with the "assault of a law enforcement officer" case against my wife, Carol, the answer is "a lot."

Judge Jerry A. Harmison Jr., however, was looking out for his cop friends. He unlawfully excluded the Probable Cause (PC) Statement, Misdemeanor Information, and written incident reports in the case, depriving Carol of the opportunity to impeach witnesses and show that their credibility was near zero. [See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 S. Ct. (1974) and State v. Armbruster, 641 S.W. 2d 763 (Mo. banc, 1982).]

And yet, Harmsion stated in his judgment that he found the prosecution witnesses (the four deputies) more "credible" than the defense witnesses (Carol and me). That's because Carol was not allowed to show the cop-witnesses repeatedly lied on the stand -- or, at the least, made statements wildly inconsistent with what they had written earlier.

Alabama has joined the growing number of states determined to overturn Roe v. Wade by banning abortion from conception forward. The Alabama Human Life Protection Act, as the new statute is called, subjects a doctor who performs an abortion to as many as 99 years in prison. The law . . . has no exceptions for rape or incest. It redefines an “unborn child, child or person” as “a human being, specifically including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.”

We ought to take our laws seriously. Under the laws, people have all sorts of rights and protections. When a state grants full personhood to a fetus, should they not apply equally?

For example, should child support start at conception? Every state permits the custodial parent — who has primary physical custody of the child and is primarily responsible for his or her day-to-day care — to receive child support from the noncustodial parent. Since a fetus resides in its mother, and receives all nutrition and care from its mother’s body, the mother should be eligible for child support as soon as the fetus is declared a person — at conception in Alabama, at six weeks in states that declare personhood at a fetal heartbeat, at eight weeks in Missouri, which was on the way to passing its law on Friday, but at birth in states that have not banned abortion.

And what about deportation? Can a pregnant immigrant who conceived her child in the United States be expelled? Because doing so would require deporting a U.S. citizen. To determine the citizenship of a fetal person requires examination of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which declares, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The word “born” was not defined by the drafters. Presumably, they intended the standard dictionary definition: brought forth by birth. Our dates of birth are traditionally when our lives begin; we do not celebrate our dates of conception or the date of our sixth week in utero. But in states with abortion bans, “born” takes on new meaning. Now legislatures assign an arbitrary time during gestation to indicate when life, personhood and, presumably, the rights that accompany these statuses take hold. This grant of natural personhood at a point before birth brings application of the 14th Amendment into question and may thus give a fetus citizenship rights — but only in those states. There are no laws that allow the United States to deny citizenship rights to a natural-born citizen merely because they reside with, or in, a noncitizen.

Detaining any person without arraignment or trial violates the Constitution and international human rights laws. A fetus has not committed a crime, not been arraigned or charged, not weathered a trial by a jury of its peers, not had the opportunity to confront its accuser. These laws redefining personhood surely mean that a pregnant woman cannot be incarcerated, as doing so requires confining a second person without due process.

Carliss Chatman

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution requires a census every 10 years to count all persons residing within the United States. If a fetus is granted personhood, it should be included in the count. The census currently asks about the age and date of birth of each household resident. Will it now include the date of conception in select states so that fetuses may be counted? There is the potential to unfairly skew census data and disproportionately apportion representatives and resources to those states.

These questions highlight the unintended and potentially absurd consequences of sweeping abortion bans. At the heart of the issue is how the 14th Amendment’s definitions of personhood and citizenship should be applied. States have been allowed to define the personhood of unnatural creatures — such as corporations — since very early in our nation’s history. In exchange for this freedom, states are not permitted to go back on their deal. In other words, once personhood rights are granted, a state may not deny life, liberty or property without due process, nor may a state deny equal protection under the law. States have never had the right to define the personhood of people. This was a subject — influenced either by place of birth or by complying with immigration and naturalization requirements — for the Constitution and federal law. State grants of natural personhood challenge this norm.

When states define natural personhood with the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade, they are inadvertently creating a system with two-tiered fetal citizenship. This is because Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey create a federal floor for access to the right to choose — a rule that some ability to abort a fetus exists in the United States. If these cases are overturned, that eliminates only the federal right to abortion access. Overturning Roe would not prohibit a state from continuing to allow access. In a post-Roe world, in states like New York that ensure the right to choose through their constitutions and statutes, citizenship will begin at birth. In states that move the line to define life as beginning as early as conception, personhood and citizenship will begin as soon as a woman knows she is pregnant.

Trying to define citizenship and personhood based on the laws of each state creates some far-fetched and even ridiculous scenarios. If we follow that logic, we’ll tie our Constitution into a knot no court can untangle.

Chris Blevins

How bad can some rogue officers be in the South, especially in the state I know best--Alabama? How deep is their disregard for the law? To help answer those questions, we can turn to my own arrest on October 23, 2013, which led to five months in jail. What was my crime? As with the Walter Scott case, there weren't even allegations of a crime; I was arrested for blogging--and I'm not making that up.

How absurd did it get? Courtroom evidence suggests that Alabama deputies arrested me without a warrant, making the arrest "unauthorized and illegal" under the law. If that was the case, the deputies likely ran afoul of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that generally prohibits warrantless entry into a private home to make an arrest.

Payton v. New York, 455 U.S 573 (1980) specifically forbids such entry in most cases involving felony arrest. My arrest was for civil contempt in a defamation lawsuit and did not involve a crime at all.

Shelby County deputy Chris Blevins entered my home on October 23, 2013, walking into our basement garage to knock me down three times and Mace me before telling me that I was under arrest. It's all caught on a videotape that later was played in open court.

At no point, in a video taken from his police cruiser, does Blevins show an arrest warrant. When the prosecution was told to turn over copies of any warrants at my resisting-arrest trial in January, prosecutor Tonya Willingham replied that she did not have any warrants.

All of that suggests there was no warrant for my arrest, and that raises the issue of Payton v. New York. Here is the key finding in that case:

"The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest." I can be heard on the video telling Blevins to get out of my house, so his entry was nonconsensual.

Evidence strongly suggests that my October 2013 arrest, by an Alabama deputy who neither showed a warrant nor said he had one, was unlawful. So how on earth was I charged with "resisting arrest," and convicted, resulting in a fine of $845? For that matter, how did I wind up incarcerated for five months on an arrest that was conducted outside the law?

None of that can happen in a place where the actual law means anything. But we are talking about Shelby County, Alabama, and District Judge Ron Jackson--who I knew from previous experience has a tendency to pull "law" from some dark place underneath his robe. We also are talking about powerful conservative legal/political figures, led by Rob Riley and lobbyist Liberty Duke (and God knows who else behind the curtains) who wanted me in jail to stop my reporting on this blog.

Here is the fundamental question we asked in a recent post: Can you be charged with resisting an unlawful arrest? The answer is no, and here is why:

Code of Alabama 13A-10-41 (Resisting Arrest) states:

"A person commits the crime of resisting arrest if he intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer from affecting a lawful arrest of himself or of another person."

(1) Officer Chris Blevins entered our home without showing a warrant or saying he had one. At my resisting-arrest trial, prosecutor Tonya Willingham was instructed to turn over any warrants as evidence, and she said, "Your Honor, we don't have any." At this point, it's a matter of public record that there was no warrant for my arrest. Either that, or Ms. Willingham withheld evidence, which could cost her law license. Entering a dwelling without a valid warrant violates a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case styled Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1979).

Shelby County (AL) Jail

(3) My arrest was based on alleged violation of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction in the Riley/Duke defamation case. But more than 200 years of First Amendment law prohibits such actions as "prior restraints" on free speech. In other words, they prohibit speech before it has been found unlawful at trial--and there was no trial in the Riley/Duke case, meaning my reporting still has never been found false or defamatory in any legitimate proceeding. All of this is governed by a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case styled Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931). My arrest might represent the most flagrant violation of Near in American history.

Under Alabama law, a person commits the crime of resisting a lawful arrest by preventing or “attempting to prevent a peace officer from affecting [sic] a lawful arrest of himself or of another person.” Ala. Code § 13A-10-41. An arrest without a warrant, as here, may be effected “if a public offense has been committed or a breach of the peace threatened in the presence of the officer.” Ala. Code § 15-10- 46 3(1). There is no Alabama law or practice criminalizing resistance of an unlawful arrest, however. See Shinault v. City of Huntsville, 579 So. 2d 696, 698 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) . . .  Indeed, Alabama law has historically permitted use of reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest. Ala. Code § 13A-3-28 Commentary (1975) . . . 

(1) In his incident report, Blevins states that he has two warrants for contempt of court in his vehicle. But the video shows that they stayed in his vehicle, and he never showed them to me or mentioned that he had them. . . . He reports walking inside our garage to tap on the trunk of our car--all without showing he had any legal authority to be there or verbally stating why he was there. Despite that, Blevins apparently was surprised when I got out of my vehicle and, in his words, "began yelling for me to get out of his house." Gee, can't imagine why I would do that. An armed stranger, who has shown he has no legal grounds to be there, is walking right into my house--even after being told to get out. Why would that concern me?

(2) Blevins admits he made the initial physical contact after I put my right hand in my right front pocket. Apparently, he thought I was reaching for an assault weapon. (News flash: I was putting my car keys in my pocket, where they always go when I get home.) Blevins also noted that I pushed a button to close the garage door behind us. I don't remember doing that, but I do remember thinking, "Don't close the door because you want this guy out of here." It's possible I reflexively pushed the button because I've been doing it that way when I've come home for 25 years.

(3) Blevins then writes, "I told Mr. Shuler that I had a warrant for his arrest," but this is a lie--and the video proves it. He never mentions an arrest, his apparent purpose for being there, until after I've been knocked to a concrete floor three times and maced in the face.

(4) On the video, Blevins can be heard repeatedly saying, "Don't fight me, don't fight me" as he is shoving me around. But according to Blevins' own words, I wasn't fighting him--it was the other way around. The only physical act that Blevins describes of me is putting my arms in front of me--an effort to try to protect my face and glasses from his flailing arms.

(5) Blevins admits throwing me through boxes, to the floor, three times. Never does he say I took any offensive action against him, other than raising my arms in front of my face. . . .

My entire arrest was captured on video, although it has some flaws. Blevins' vehicle was parked at about a 45-degree angle to our garage, so when we go inside the garage and the door closes, the dash cam loses sight of us and mostly shows our backyard. Audio, however picks up the whole thing--and that shows that Blevins entered our home without showing, or saying he had, a warrant. Blevins' own words, show that he initiated physical contact, and I never lashed out at him; I never cursed or threatened him, and I never tried to run away. Also, after Blevins and I exit the garage, Officer Jason Valenti can be heard threatening to break my arms.

"In the audio, you can hear Deputy Blevins assaulting me three times and spraying me with mace before he ever said that he was on the premises to conduct an arrest," Shuler said. "The evidence showed that I was defending myself with the only physical act that I did according to Blevins' own words was raising my arms in a defensive posture, and I was defending myself against a grotesque example of police brutality and excessive force. Evidence showed that Blevins likely had no warrant given that the prosecution could produce no warrant at the trial. The notion that a journalist or any other citizen could be arrested and beaten up in their own home without a warrant should be a cause of great concern for all citizens."

Assistant District Attorney Tonya Willingham prosecuted the case and when forced to turn over copies of any warrants she said she did not have one. How can a resisting arrest case be prosecuted when there are no warrants in evidence? That's one of many disturbing questions raised by Tuesday's trial.

Following are some other revelations from the case:

* Blevins admitted that this was a traffic stop and that Shuler had committed no traffic violations that warranted him being stopped;

* Blevins admitted that he made physical contact with Shuler before ever stating that he was on the premises to make an arrest;

* Blevins never instructed Shuler to get in any sort of arrest position and never told Shuler to put his hands behind his back until after the three assaults and macing;

Blevins admitted that he has had citizen complaints about use of excessive force and police brutality; Deputy Jason Valenti, who assisted in the arrest, can be heard on the video threatening to break Shuler's arms;

* The incident in the report has a box that says "Warrant Signed?" and Blevins has inserted the word "No" as an answer.

Dr. Mark Rettenmaier

(2) Facts or circumstances.—The facts or circumstances described in this paragraph are any facts or circumstances from which there is an apparent violation of—

(A) section 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2252B, or 2260 that involves child pornography; or

(B) section 1466A.

The FBI paid Best Buy Geek Squad employees as informants, rewarding them for flagging indecent material when people brought their computers in for repair.

That's according to documents released to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital civil liberties organization, which filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking records that might show warrantless searches of people's devices.

EFF filed its complaint last year after revelations about the FBI's interactions with Geek Squad technicians emerged in the case of Mark Rettenmaier, an Orange County physician and surgeon who took his computer in for repair when it wouldn't boot up. Rettenmaier faced child pornography charges after a Geek Squad employee flagged his computer to the FBI.

In May, a federal judge threw out almost all the evidence (which prosecutors said included hundreds of images of child pornography) because of "false and misleading statements" an FBI agent made in an affidavit to get a search warrant for Rettenmaier's house. The government ended up dropping the charges against him.

The records now released to EFF shed a bit more light on the relationship between Best Buy and the FBI. The documents show a range of interactions: a $500 payment from the FBI to a Geek Squad employee, a meeting of the agency's Cyber Working Group at Best Buy's computer repair facility in Kentucky, and a number of investigations in which Geek Squad employees called the FBI field office in Louisville after finding suspected child pornography.

A key question is whether Best Buy employees "go fishing" in customers' devices with the goal of helping the FBI.

That's what Rettenmaier's attorney James Riddet argued a Geek Squad technician had done when he searched the "unallocated space" of Rettenmaier's computer, where he found an image that was used to persuade a judge to grant a search warrant for his home.

"Their relationship is so cozy," Riddet told The Washington Post last year, "and so extensive that it turns searches by Best Buy into government searches. If they're going to set up that network between Best Buy supervisors and FBI agents, you run the risk that Best Buy is a branch of the FBI."

Best Buy tells NPR that it does indeed report discovery of child pornography to law enforcement, citing a "moral and, in more than 20 states, a legal obligation" to do so — but it says it prohibits employees from looking for "anything other than what is necessary to solve the customer's problem." 

EFF says it is concerned the FBI is using Geek Squad informants to conduct private searches as a means of circumventing Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless searches.

The FBI would not comment on the matter, citing ongoing litigation. "In addition," a spokesman said in an email to NPR, "the FBI does not provide any information on the dealings with informants, for obvious reasons."

Manuel Duran

The actions pursued by government officials in this case threaten core First Amendment freedoms that are essential to our democracy: the right to criticize and expose the actions of government officials, and the right of members of the press to write and publish about them. Petitioner Manuel Duran Ortega is a 42-year-old journalist from El Salvador who fled to the United States in 2006 after his life was threatened. On April 3, 2018, while reporting on a demonstration in Memphis, Tennessee, Mr. Duran Ortega was illegally arrested by Memphis police and subsequently turned over to and detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in retaliation for his past critical coverage of immigration enforcement activities. Mr. Duran Ortega was arrested and is being detained by DHS in order to punish and suppress his speech as a journalist, in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Multiple press reports suggest Morris Dees' primary talent, since founding SPLC in 1971, has been separating liberals from boatloads of cash. On the flip side, he and his staff -- while promoting the notion that "hate groups" are proliferating in America -- did relatively little to stand up for those whose civil rights had been violated, often by judges, lawyers, bar associations (the legal tribe), and law enforcement, and conservative politicians.

In fact, we now known Dees long has been in bed with the very entities that tend to abuse civil rights. One source who has seen Dees operate in an up-close way tells Legal Schnauzer Dees he has a history of manipulating courts -- especially the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta -- to help ensure his allies receive favorable treatment. If this means sucking up to Republicans -- even those with records of opposing civil rights -- Dees is willing to do it.

Some have suggested SPLC practices a form of reverse racism, against white people. From National Vanguard:

"The SPLC works closely with the judiciary, law enforcement, secret police agencies, the media, and academia to quash the rights of White Americans by targeting, terrorizing, and destroying them and their families emotionally, reputationally, economically, and organizationally. . . ."

Roger Shuler

Recently, the Eleventh Circuit Court sent Duran’s case back to the Board of Immigration Appeals. According to his attorneys, this means he could face additional months or even years in detention while his asylum claims work their way through the legal system.

This week Duran also filed a new federal lawsuit, which alleges Shelby County, Tenn. and the city of Memphis targeted Duran because of his unflattering coverage of them.
The lawsuit claims the city police had no probable cause to arrest Duran at the protest and the Sheriff’s department should not have turned him over to immigration officials.

Manuel Duran Ortega is a citizen of El Salvador who has lived in the United States continuously since his arrival in 2006. He has resided in Memphis, Tennessee, for the majority of that time. 

In 2006, Mr. Duran Ortega fled El Salvador, where he had been working as a television station manager. After a rival television station employee used his law enforcement connections to have Mr. Duran Ortega arrested on trumped-up charges, Mr. Duran Ortega reported on corruption in law enforcement and the judicial system. After his report, he began to receive death threats and escaped to the United States.

Virginia Emerson Hopkins

Stott and Harrington

Riley’s res judicata argument fails because it is based on the false notion that there was a “prior action” to this one. In fact, Riley admits that res judicata claim preclusion holds “. . . any claim that was, or that could have been, adjudicated in the prior action is barred from further litigation.” A simple review of court records shows there was no “prior action” to this one. The instant case (Shuler, et al v. Duke, et al) was filed on March 26, 2016. The other case (Shuler, et al v. Garrison, et al) was filed on April 29, 2016. In simple language, this case came first. Therefore, res judicata and similar doctrines, such as collateral estoppel, do not apply and do not bar the Shulers’ claims. Also, Riley falsely claims certain issues in the instant case already have been decided in the “prior action.” One, there was no prior action. Two, the Eleventh Circuit has not upheld any of the district court’s findings in Garrison. The Shulers’ appeal was (wrongfully) dismissed on alleged error in the Notice of Appeal, but no trial-court rulings were upheld in Garrison on the merits, so there were no affirmances per the Eleventh Circuit. 

(Note: We have grounds to challenge the dismissal in Garrison on "fraud on the court" grounds, which make the ruling void and subject to attack at any time because, as a matter of law, it is a nullity.)

Riley’s Rooker-Feldman argument fails for multiple reasons, but the primary issue is this: Per Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F. 3d 1266, 1276 (11th Cir., 2009), the Riley-Duke state-court proceeding has not lawfully ended because Roger Shuler had no reasonable opportunity to appeal; the 42-day window for filing a notice of appeal lapsed during his five-month incarceration. When a state-court proceeding has not ended, it cannot be subject to Rooker-Feldman. 

A second reason Riley’s Rooker-Feldman argument fails: The Eleventh Circuit has found that Rooker-Feldman does not apply to interlocutory state-court judgments, such as the preliminary injunction that caused Roger Shuler’s unconstitutional incarceration in the instant case. From "Revisiting Rooker-Feldman,"Florida State University Law Review, 2009: “The circuits are split on whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars suits in lower federal courts that challenge state court interlocutory orders. The Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits use a narrow approach, applying Rooker-Feldman only to final state court judgments.” Also from "Revisiting RookerFeldman" . . .  (“Federal courts have been somewhat divided about whether Rooker-Feldman can bar lower federal-court jurisdiction when a state court has made an interlocutory ruling, such as granting a preliminary injunction.”) As noted above, the Eleventh Circuit has come down against a bar on state-court interlocutory rulings, such as the preliminary injunction at issue in the present case.

Between June 28, 2016, and June 29, 2016, a law enforcement computer, using software designed to capture IP addresses of computer users attempting to download files containing depictions of child pornography via the Freenet, detected a remote user requesting a folder known as "Prelolitas-World_Anya A 9.rar."This folder is known by law enforcement to contain 123 images depicting a child under 12 years of age engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The same user also requested to download another folder containing 141 images of a child under 6 years of age engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

Upon arrival, the investigators located WALKER, the sole occupant of the home, and after advising him of his Miranda rights, questioned him with regard to his use of Freenet. WALKER acknowledged that he used Freenet to download images, but invoked his right to an attorney being directly confronted with the allegation that he was downloading child pornography.

The investigators located WALKER'S computer in a second floor office. The computer was actively running the Freenet application. Detective Larry Roller opened the user interface and noted that the computer was in the process of downloading a batch of files known to law enforcement as containing depictions of child pornography. The computer, along with several USB drives, were seized by investigators. A forensic examination later yielded the discovery of approximately 174,121 images files and 6,572 video files containing depictions of child pornography

Spencer Collier

Section 13A-10-9

False reporting to law enforcement authorities.

(a) A person commits the crime of false reporting to law enforcement authorities if he knowinglymakes a false report or causes the transmission of a false report to law enforcement authorities of a crime or relating to a crime.

(b) False reporting to law enforcement authorities is a Class A misdemeanor.

(2) KNOWINGLY. A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that the circumstance exists.

Spencer Collier, the state’s former top cop, was arrested in south Alabama amid accusations he filed a false report.

Collier was booked and quickly released from Daphne City Jail, according to local law enforcement. A spokesperson from the Daphne Police Department said Collier’s charge related to a report he made regarding fraudulent credit card use while he was staying in a local hotel Thursday evening.

He turned himself in to the Daphne City Jail at around 1:30 p.m., according to Daphne PD Sgt. Jason Vannoy, who characterized the incident as “domestic.”

Collier addressed the arrest and his family situation in a statement.

“My adult son, who is a recovering addict and multiple felon, used my bank card without my permission,” said Collier in a message to AL.com. “I filed a police report, being this is the second time in a year that he has done this. I was unaware that my wife (we are currently estranged) gave him permission. He pressed charges because I listed him as the suspect.”

He added: “I have no doubt that I will be exonerated - but the entire episode is embarrassing. I am so sorry for any embarrassment that this has caused the City of Selma. I wish to apologize to the Daphne Police Department and also express my gratitude for their professionalism throughout the entire incident.”

Having been told about Collier’s defense of what happened, Sgt Vannoy of the Daphne PD said that fundamental information given by Collier to an investigating officer was deemed to be false.

"Luv Guv" Bentley and Rebekah Mason

Senator Doug Jones (D-Mountain Brook) says contrary to some reports, he is not on the “impeach Donald Trump” bandwagon and to say he is open to it was a “misinterpretation.”

During an appearance on Huntsville radio’s WVNN on Friday, Alabama’s Democratic U.S. Senator said he did not think there should be an impeachment inquiry.

“I’m really glad you asked me that because quite frankly, the Yellowhammer blog consistently misinterprets my positions on a lot of things, which I just ignore,” he said when asked about the possibilities of impeachment. “But they said this week that I was open to something like that, which is really a misinterpretation of a position. I don’t think there ought to be impeachment inquiries right now.”

The Jefferson County Democrat urged his congressional colleagues on the other side of Capitol Hill to get away from impeachment talk and focus on the Russian interference aspect.

“The House is going to do what they’re going to do. I can’t control that House. I wish they would get away from all the talk about impeachment – talk about doing some oversight, but more importantly, let’s talk about the Russian interference and get to the bottom of it so we can protect our democratic election.”

OCASIO-CORTEZ:Well, I think every day that passes the pressure to impeach grows and I think that it’s justifiable, I think the evidence continues to come in and I believe that with the president now saying that he is willing to break the law to win re-election, that -- that goes -- that transcends partisanship, it transcends party lines and this is now about the rule of law in the United States of America.

KARL: There’s a new poll out this morning, NBC News that shows significant growth in Democratic support for impeachment. And the -- the survey was done before George's interview. Pelosi, though -- Speaker Pelosi has really held her line on this. How is that flying with progressives? 

OCASIO-CORTEZ:Well, you know, I think for me this question has -- should not be about polls, it should not be about elections. I think that -- that impeachment is incredibly serious and this is about the presence and evidence that the president may have committed a crime, in this case more than one. And so I believe that -- that our decision on impeachment should be based in our constitutional responsibilities and duties and not in elections or polling.

That being said, with the increase in polls I think the American people are now recognizing, in -- in a much broader scale, the depth and the severity of the misconduct coming out of the White House and a demand to protect our institutions and protect the rule of law in the United States and -- and at least opening an inquiry into -- into possible misconduct.

I don't think we're there yet. Congress will have to grapple with it. Right now, we don't want to do anything that would be looked at as a political move. We want to do something that is looked at as for the benefit of the country. We have to weigh everything. . . . There may be votes to impeach, but not be votes to convict . . . . That's on people's minds. We're in no rush. . . We have to sit down, put our heads together, and figure out what's good for the country. . . . That's the bottom line . . . . If I come to the conclusion that impeachment would be good for the country, I would not hesitate to vote for impeachment. But I just don't think we are right there yet. I want to see consensus. I think Nancy Pelosi is doing the right thing, at the right speed."

Doug Healy

At this point, you have to make a decision; I will help you out with a termination or the adoption process. I know you are against termination, but I wish you would educate yourself on this option and make a reasoned decision. At this point, there is no brain activity; it is simply a part of you. At five weeks, it is barely the size of the end of a ball-point pen. I don't understand how you can consider that a person. The process would be taking a pill and having a period, simple as that, and this would be over. I honestly don't understand why you don't do this and let us both move on with our lives.

There simply isn't a scenario where we are parents together and your refusal to accept this has ruined our friendship. In consideration of my future wife, I blocked your number; she's getting obsessed with you, and that isn't good for either of us. If you don't want to consider a termination or an adoption, then please do not contact me again, or even mention my name in relation to this. Just tell people it was an accident, and let it go. You're a smart person, but seem to make rash, emotional decisions rather than thoughtful or considerate ones. I would really urge you to make a very well-reasoned decision, rather than one based on emotions. I'll check this account in a couple of weeks to see if you have re-considered your options, but if you haven't, please do not reply or ever contact me again. 

Spencer Collier

A:Bentley had, and continues to have, a pattern and practice of using ALEA equipment, facilities, and labor for his own personal reasons, including using and attempting to use ALEA law enforcement officers to try to dig up dirt on people that Bentley disliked or became upset with.

Q: What equipment are you referring to?

A: Which instance? In general?

Q: In general, yes.

A:Governor Bentley on several occasions requested either myself or special agents -- other special agents either in executive or protective services, dignitary protection, to access law enforcement-sensitive databases to obtain information on individuals that he viewed were political enemies of his.

Q: Can you provide me some examples of instances in you contend that happened?

A:Yes. Governor Bentley requested myself and another special agent to try and gather information on Donald Watkins. He also requested it on a blogger out of Shelby County. I don't know the gentleman -- recall the gentleman's name, he ran a blog.

A: Specifically, Governor Bentley had discovered an investigation that ALEA had conducted in the Wiregrass area, where a blogger was making accusations of racial bigotry towards a current ALEA employee, former sheriff. We pretty quickly were able to show that there was no merit to the investigation. The governor was pleased with the investigation and the methods we used to disprove it. He specifically -- initially contacted Jon Barganier to contact me and ask for -- if we could do a similar investigation aimed at a blogger out of Shelby County to disprove what the blogger was saying the governor.

A: Jon [Barganier] brought it to my attention by phone. I told Jon it was probably not a proper conversation between he and I, that I needed to have the conversation with the governor. I went in later to meet with the governor and again, he praised the investigation that we had done and what our capabilities were, and he wanted to know  if we could use similar capabilities to discredit a blogger in Shelby County that was saying negative things about him. I explained to the governor that that was law enforcement sensitive, that it would require criminal justice purpose to utilize that and told him it wouldn't be proper.

On another occasion, the governor asked us to use law enforcement sensitive information to discredit Donald Watkins. I don't know Donald Watkins, I didn't know him. I don't necessarily know what it was about, but obviously Mr. Watkins had said some negative things about the governor, and the governor wanted us to discredit him in general. I again explained to the governor that NCIC, ACJIS, all of that was law enforcement sensitive, and we had to have  criminal justice purpose to utilize it.

Doug Healy

As terrible as your decision has been, and as uncomfortable as your decision making has made me, I have respected you and your decision and not said anything to you or any third person to date aside from my girlfriend. I wish you would offer me the same courtesy and respect. You seem happy by this pregnancy; it makes me sick at my stomach to think about having a bastard child in Poplar Bluff when I'm finally with the person I was meant to be with. I'm not leaving her for you. Period. If I could change one thing in my life right now, it would be that we never went past texting in July. I really can't imagine anything worse at the moment than what is happening. Your plan on how to handle this is making a bad spot in life much worse. I don't want to be associated with your decision in any manner.

If you do choose to go down the path you have started, then I'm asking you, for the second time, to never contact me again, and to never mention my name to the child. I'm assuming at this point that you simply wanted a baby. Good for you; I feel no obligation or guilt since that is your decision, and clearly not mine. There is no other rational decision for your decision. As far as I'm concerned, I'm the unwilling sperm donor, but I'm not the dad. There is a big difference. There was no love involved in its conception, just two consenting adults, and that was just a big mistake in and of itself. Why you wouldn't let a couple truly in love raise it is simply beyond my grasp. 

If you do continue to seek my involvement, in any manner, either by telling other people that I am the father, through the courts, or through attempts to contact me directly, I will do whatever it takes to gain sole custody. I will do whatever it takes to make sure you never see it again, and me and my wife will raise it without it ever knowing it wasn't ours. It make take a year or two, but I will ultimately get sole custody and have your rights terminated. That would be best for the child, as we would raise it in a traditional home, where it would be loved and would never know what happened. You would not be involved in any manner. I would rather not do this, but I will if you insist on my involvement going forward.

Spencer Collier

Deposition testimony from former Gov. Robert Bentley and former Alabama Law Enforcement Agency Chief Spencer Collier in a recently settled lawsuit between the two men confirmed that Bentley viewed me as a “political enemy" and asked Collier to investigate me for criminal wrongdoing as a means of discrediting me.

The other online journalist who was targeted for destruction is Roger Shuler. Shuler and I published a series of articles in 2015 that exposed Gov. Bentley’s secret love affair with his mistress and lover, Rebekah Caldwell Mason.

The publication of my “Forbidden Love” and “Executive Betrayal” series of investigative articles in September/October 2015 infuriated Bentley.

Once First Lady Dianne Jones Bentley confirmed that Rebekah Mason was her husband’s paramour, she sued Gov. Bentley for a divorce and exited their marriage. Gov. Bentley had already exited the marriage, emotionally and otherwise. He was hopelessly in love with Rebekah Mason, a married mother of three children who served as his senior political advisor. Mason's sexual seduction of Bentley gave her complete control of the governor’s office.

Donald Watkins

Roger Shuler published two recent articles [see here and here] that exposed Bentley’s sinister and unlawful plan to use federal and state resources to launch criminal investigations against Shuler and me in retaliation for our news reporting on the Bentley-Mason love affair and sex scandal.

Bentley was not worried about the state’s mainstream news media organizations because he regarded them as too weak, too compromised, and too afraid to report on his “sex-for-power” scandal. He was right. These media outlets did not join the fray until seven months later when audiotapes surfaced of phone sex between Bentley and Mason.

Bentley lied in his deposition when he claimed that he did not know what became of the investigations. They, in fact, continued. . . .

Spencer Collier refused to use federal and state resources to launch politically motivated criminal investigations against Roger Shuler and me. Because of this refusal, Collier was fired.

Undeterred, Gov. Bentley’s efforts to use federal and state resources to harass me continued under the leadership of David Byrne, the governor’s legal adviser/consigliere, and Stan Stabler, Bentley’s replacement for Collier.

Spencer Collier was right about the use of the federal NCIC criminal database and state ACJIS information system for political and personal reasons. It is a crime to use these databases for political and personal reasons.

In 2000, former Jefferson County Sheriff Jimmy Woodward and Birmingham Attorney Albert Jordan were charged, tried, and convicted in federal court for using the NCIC and ACJIS databases for political and personal reasons. Their convictions were upheld on appeal.

As evidenced by his deposition testimony, Gov. Bentley engaged in the same politically motivated and retaliatory conduct in 2015. Yet, Bentley was not prosecuted by federal or state law enforcement authorities for these criminal acts.

Spencer Collier sued Bentley for his wrongful termination. The case was settled last week with Collier receiving a reported $700,000 under the settlement agreement. Thereafter, the case will be dismissed.

Collier’s ordeal is ending, but mine continues.

Gov. Bentley resigned his office in disgrace in April 2017. Today, Bentley and Rebekah Mason are still lovers and they work together in Bentley's private medical practice.

The mainstream reporters who were afraid to publish articles on the Bentley-Mason secret love affair during the first seven months of the scandal in 2015-16 eventually won praise for their work from pundits on national TV. One of them won a Pulitzer Prize for regurgitating and repackaging the journalistic work performed by Roger Shuler and me under the most threatening, harmful, and retaliatory conditions.

The rest of the story is history.

Christina Crow

But this argument fails because Riley simply cannot get around the U.S. Supreme Court’s finding in Lugar v. Edmondson, 457 U.S. 922 (1982): “Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the prohibited action, are acting ‘under color’ of law for purposes of the statute. To act ‘under color’ of law does not require that the accused be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents.” This is exactly the kind of unlawful collaboration that led to Roger Shuler’s arrest and incarceration, making Riley and Co. state actors.

Crow’s private-actor argument fails for the same reason the Riley argument fails above, at No. 10, per the U.S. Supreme Court finding in Lugar. Crow’s legal argument on the “state actor” issue fails on other grounds. For example, she cites Willis v. University Health Services, Inc., 993 F. 2d 837 (11th Cir., 1993). But that case was decided at summary judgment, after extensive discovery, and provides no support for Crow’s claim that the Shulers’ complaint should be subject to a motion to dismiss. The same is true of Rayburn v. Hogue. In short, Crow provides zero legal basis for her “state actor” argument.

Gespass’ time-bar argument regarding the Shulers’ defamation claim also fails. Gespass does not deny that he spoke to D.C.-based lawyer Paul Alan Levy and made false and defamatory statements about Mr. Shuler to Levy. Gespass acknowledges in a previously filed document (Motion to Dismiss) that the statute of limitations in the instant case runs to March 26, 2014. On page 4 of that motion, Gespass acknowledges that his defamatory statements to Mr. Levy took place before March 27, 2014. In other words, Gespass admits his defamatory statements were made inside the March 26, 2014, window, while Roger Shuler still was incarcerated, but yet he tries to claim they are time-barred. A key question, which Gespass conveniently ignores, is: When did Shuler learn of the defamation? Roger Shuler communicated with Mr. Levy a second time, on Oct. 16, 2016, and Levy related several defamatory statements that had been made to him by “another First Amendment litigator.” Shuler states that David Gespass is the only other First Amendment litigator with whom he has ever communicated, so it clearly was Gespass who made the defamatory statements to Levy – and Gespass, in his Motion to Dismiss, does not deny it. Also, the defamation claim, coming on statements of 10/16/16, is not time barred.

Ted Rollins

Rollins falsely claims the Shulers have supported their defamation count with “bare, conclusory allegations . . . without any factual support.”Strangely, Rollins follows this assertion with a full page of factual allegations from the Shulers’ complaint, supporting the defamation count. That doesn’t count the roughly 35 pages of direct evidence, attached as exhibits to the Shulers Rule 59 motion (Doc. 162), supporting their defamation count. Much of this defamatory material remains on the Web today.

Google’s primary argument is that Sec. 230c of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) protects if from liability for selling advertising to the owner of a Web site that promotes defamatory material. First, Google claims Sec. 230c bars any claims against Google for content that was created by a third party. Sec. 230c, however, does not say that; it says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Also, there are no facts in the record that content in the ad was created by a third party. Google further cites a district-court case – Am. Income Life Ins. Co. v. Google Inc.– for its holding that Google is immune under Sec. 230 for allegedly defamatory content found on Web sites. First, Am. Income is not controlling law in the Eleventh Circuit. Second, it involves allegations that certain Web sites published defamatory information that appeared on Google searches. In other words, Am. Income involved Google’s role as a service provider. The instant case, however, involves Google’s role as a seller of advertising – a business that reportedly produces about $14 billion annually. There is nothing in Sec. 230 that protects a distributor of ads for a defamatory Web site. The issues here involve Google’s role as a purveyor of advertising, not as a service provider. Google claims that it allows third-party advertisers to display ads on Web sites, while Google itself plays a benign role. First, the $14 billion in revenue that Google reportedly receives from its advertising business hardly suggests a benign enterprise. Second, Google’s own Web site for AdSense states: “Ads are reviewed to ensure they’re high quality and relevant to your content or audience . . . .” Google admits that it is supposed to review ads – and presumably is supposed to review the Web sites to which the ads refer -- but someone failed miserably with the ad at issue in this case.

Grain Belt Express route through Missouri

After twice rejecting a 780-mile transmission project to move wind energy from Kansas to the eastern United States, Missouri regulators are signaling they’re ready to approve the $2.5 billion project.

The Missouri Public Service Commission hasn’t formally voted on the Grain Belt Express line, but during a discussion yesterday and last week, members agreed the project satisfied all the criteria for approval and indicated they’ll vote to approve it despite push back from landowners.

The PSC also indicated it would attach conditions to its approval of the project, including a requirement for the developer to establish a decommissioning fund to pay for removal of the line when it’s no longer being used.

Originally proposed by Clean Line Energy Partners in 2010, the Grain Belt Express would deliver wind energy from southwest Kansas to Indiana to serve cities in the East. The line would have 4,000 megawatts of capacity, with 3,500 MW sent to the PJM Interconnection grid and 500 MW delivered to eastern Missouri, part of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator’s grid.

The high-voltage, direct-current transmission project is representative of the challenge of building large interstate merchant lines connecting regional power grids — something many experts agree is necessary to achieve high penetrations of renewable energy (Energywire, Feb. 25).

The PSC rejected the Grain Belt Express project in 2016 and 2017 following challenges by landowner groups that oppose giving developers eminent domain authority.

The commission’s most recent order denying approval was based on the fact that Clean Line had yet to obtain approvals from each of the eight counties the project would cross. However, four of five PSC members determined the project was in the public interest under Missouri law.

The Missouri Supreme Court last year overturned the PSC’s 2017 order and remanded the case to the commission. Clean Line was represented in its appeal by former two-term Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat (Energywire, July 18).

In a November filing asking the PSC for expedited reconsideration, Houston-based Clean Line announced that it had agreed to sell the project to Chicago-based renewable energy developer Invenergy LLC for an undisclosed sum.

Doug Healy, the general counsel, to the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission said they are currently getting their power from coal plants in Illinois and the contract expires in 2020.

Healy said Grain Belt Express is a much better offer, "this meets what our customers want in rural areas, when we can provide citizens renewable energy, there's no costs or risk of fuel, no emissions, it just makes a lot of sense, business-wise as well as for the environment."

Property owners along the route said it would hurt their land value and farms.

Doug Healy

The Missouri Public Service Commission’s decision to approve the sale was a necessary step for Invenergy to buy the rights to construct the proposed line, which will carry electric power generated by wind farms in Kansas to eastern consumers.

Clean Line Energy Partners announced in November that it would sell rights to the transmission line to Invenergy.

The line, which will go through eight northern Missouri counties, would also deliver power to at least 350,000 Missourians and unlock energy savings of $12.8 million per year, based on contracts already reached with municipal utilities around the state.

“Following today’s unanimous acquisition decision by the Missouri Public Service Commission, Grain Belt Express now has all the necessary approvals from state regulators to proceed with project development,” Invenergy spokeswoman Beth Conley said in a statement. . . .

The company has said that its structures will take up less than 10 acres of land throughout Missouri, not including land underneath transmission wires.

“Land in the easement can maintain its existing use, and landowners will be compensated fairly for the easement and any damages,” the company said in literature distributed to lawmakers.

After the PSC approved construction of the line earlier this year, the Republican-led Missouri House in April approved legislation forbidding the company from using eminent domain for the project.

“This is just another attempt by a private companies and a government commission to eliminate our personal liberties,” said Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankford.

He said he wasn’t opposed to clean energy but was “opposed to a private company saying, ‘I’m gonna do this and you’re gonna like it — or else.’”

Spencer Collier

Q: Let's back up a little bit. You mentioned that ALEA had conducted an investigation into allegations of racial bigotry concerning a certain person, perhaps in the Wiregrass; do I have that correct?

A: It was -- it pertained to members of the Dothan Police Department, including at that time a current ALEA employee who was a former sheriff of Houston County who was also a former Dothan police officer. It centered around a homicide that occurred in the area at least a decade or so ago, prior to this. Accusations were that race played a role in not thoroughly doing an investigation. There were additional accusations made.

Our agents, and I don't recall who it was -- because it got in the public, our agents were able to quickly discredit and disprove what the blogger was saying. It was part of -- the summary or the synopsis of it was part of a routine briefing that I gave the governor; I think it was in writing. The governor reviewed it at a staff meeting. According to Jon Barganier, the governor was pleased with the quality investigation and made a comment to Jon why can't we do something like this about the Shelby County blogger? And I am referring to that because I don't recall his name. And according to Jon, [Bentley] instructed Jon to make contact with me and ask, and Jon did that. I explained to Mr. Barganier that I needed to speak to the governor directly.

Q: Do you recall the name of the former Dothan police officer who was the subject of the investigation you referred to?

A: It was multiple Dothan police officers. Andy Hughes was the -- was the employee, who at this time worked for us; he was a former sheriff of Houston County and also a former Dothan police officer. At this time, he was an assistant director in Homeland Security, oversaw a tactical team.

Q: Do you recall if the Shelby County blogger you referred to is named Roger Shuler?

A: That sounds -- that sounds right. I'm not sure, though, John.

Q: In both instances in which you contend the governor approached you about conducting these investigations --

A: These were not investigations.

Q: Well, tell me why it is not an investigation.

A: Well, they -- I am not aware they committed any crimes.

Q: Okay. Well, when the governor approached you about both Mr. Watkins and Shelby County, you told him that the -- taking action in the way that he suggested would not be proper. Was that the end of the conversation?

A: Yeah, explained to him that not taking action, but utilizing LETS, NCIC, really any restricted database, has to have a criminal justice reason to utilize it. So I explained we couldn't use it unless we had a law enforcement purpose.

Q: So you did not proceed with either task that the government -- that the governor had requested of you?

A: I did not. And one of the conversations, Agent Scott Lee was present when the governor made the request.

Katherine Kealoha and her husband arrive at court.

Two U.S. marshals led former deputy Honolulu prosecutor Katherine Kealoha out of a courtroom Friday when a U.S. judge ordered her detained after a jury found her guilty of conspiracy and he expressed concern that she could try to obstruct justice before being sentenced.

Kealoha left her purse with her defense attorney as the marshals approached to take her into custody after the bail hearing.

She “lies as easily as she draws breath” and will do anything to avoid consequences, prosecutors said in court documents seeking her detention.

“This defendant is a walking crime spree,” Michael Wheat, a special federal prosecutor, told the judge in court, saying she holds sway with police and has tampered with grand jury witnesses in the past.

Prosecutors said during the trial that the Kealohas were afraid the uncle would reveal fraud that enriched the couple’s lavish life. Maintaining their power and prestige was a motive for the framing, prosecutors said.

A federal judge called Katherine Kealoha a “corrupting influence” Friday before ordering that she be detained pending her sentencing in October and two upcoming federal trials. The decision came a day after she was found guilty in one of Hawaii’s biggest public corruption trials.

In the court hearing, Judge Michael Seabright said Kealoha has shown she’s willing to tamper with witnesses in an effort to hide her schemes.

Trying to obstruct justice, he said, is Kealoha’s “bread and butter.”

Following the judge’s order, U.S. Marshals flanked Kealoha, who did not show any emotion as she was escorted out of the courtroom.

She’ll be held at the Honolulu federal detention center, where initially she’ll be placed in isolation ― standard procedure given that she’s a former law enforcement official.

Scott J. Wells

Probable Cause 

7. On March 8, 2017, Southwest Missouri Cyber Crimes Task Force (SMCCTF) Officer (TFO) Lee Walker reviewed two CyberTips, 16533142 and 16099575, from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Both CyberTips were initiated by Facebook. . . . CyberTip 16099575 was received by NCMEC on December 21, 2016, and CyberTip 16533142 was received by NCMEC on January 15, 2017.

8. CyberTip 16533142 was initiated by Facebook, after a file, 9p6ov3uhu4048okk15645265_10210760647827988_2086195755_n.jpg., containing suspected child pornography had been uploaded from a Facebook account. The suspect file was uploaded from a Facebook account with a screen name of scott.wells.79 and user ID 11033732066. The account listed a verified email address of scottw3820@yahoo.com. The suspect file was uploaded on December 15, 2016, at 15:18:55 hours UTC, using IP address 173.19.198.141. This affiant reviewed the image from CyberTip 16533142. The image depicts a minor, prepubescent female lying on what appears to be a bed with her pants pulled down, her legs spread and up in the air, exposing her vaginal and anal area. The minor female's hands are on her bottom.

9 CyberTip 16099575 was initiated by Facebook after a file, erhdoxdu14c8wk44015644194_10210760665228423_1722966896_n.jpg., containing suspected child pornography had been uploaded from a Facebook account and sent to another Facebook account. The suspect file was uploaded to and sent from scott.wells79's Facebook account. The suspect file was uploaded on December 15, 2016, at 15:18:55 UTC, using IP address 173.19.198.141. The suspect file was sent from scott.wells79's account to an account with a Facebook screen name of kara.adkins1007. This affiant reviewed the image from CyberTip 16099575. The image depicts a minor, prepubescent female laying on her stomach with no pants on, with her legs spread, exposing her vaginal and anal area.

Uploading is the process of putting web pages, images and files onto a web server. Downloading is the process of getting web pages, images and files from a web server.

To make a file visible to everyone on the internet, you will need to upload it. When users are copying this file to their computer, they are downloading it.

Brady Musgrave