President Obama and Penny Pritzker

Liesel Pritzker

In 1982, for instance, when The Kansas City Times published an investigation of family finances after the collapse of a skywalk at a Kansas City Hyatt killed 114, they discovered that the family’s casino purchases beginning in 1959 were funded by $54 million in loans from the notorious mob-connected Teamsters Pension Fund, without telling stockholders as the law required. (The family agreed to a consent decree that allowed them to neither admit nor deny the allegations—shades of Superior Bank). The paper also quoted an IRS informant, a vice president of the offshore bank where the family stashed their cash: “The Pritzker family of Chicago through their Hyatt Corp. initially received their backing from organized crime.” According to the reporter who won a Pulitzer for the series, Knut Royce, Jay Pritzker’s initial response was to try to buy the newspaper. Failing that, he arranged a private takeover of Hyatt, the family’s one company that has ever been public, so it never would have to file information with the Securities ad Exchange Commission again.

This family is famously secretive. In 2003 two family scions, siblings Liesel and Matthew Pritzker, sued their father Robert Pritzker for $6 billion, claiming he had looted their trust fund. In 2004, a judge gave them access to sealed financial reports. Explained investigating reporter Gus Russo, “that unearthed a secret family deal cut after Liesel’s uncle Jay Pritzker’s death in 1999, a plan that would have broken up the fortune into eleven shares valued at $1.4 billion each. In early 2005, rather than expose the complicated Pritzker offshore shelters to the light of day, the Pritzker family put the final touches on a private settlement agreement” giving Liesel and Matthew Pritzker upwards of $500 million each to drop the case.

Luther Strange

On behalf of the plaintiffs, I have previously responded to your Rule 11 letter and our position has not changed: Presley is inapplicable here and the Attorney General's actions are a violation of federal law, which we intend to prove at trial after engaging in wide-ranging discovery permitted by the federal rules of civil procedure.

Plaintiffs are . . . without legal basis when they allege that the Defendants have effected a “de facto” replacement of the Macon County Sheriff.  . . . Plaintiffs do not and cannot allege that the sheriff is no longer in office or has been deprived of all the powers of a sheriff. All Plaintiffs allege is that other executive-branch officials, and the Justices of a unanimous Alabama Supreme Court, have determined that the sheriff misinterpreted Alabama’s gambling laws when he publicly announced that the machines at issue were legal. . . . That was not even a “transfer of decision-making power” between state officials for the purposes of the Voting Rights Act. . . .  But in any event, Presley holds that even when a State transfers power between officials, the State will not be deemed to have engaged in a de facto replacement of the official who lost power so long as that official “retains substantial authority. . . ." Plaintiffs do not allege that the Macon County sheriff no longer has substantial authority. Plaintiffs’ Voting Rights Act claims are thus frivolous as a matter of law.

We need not consider here whether an otherwise uncovered enactment of a jurisdiction subject to the Voting Rights Act might under some circumstances rise to the level of a de facto replacement of an elective office with an appointive one, within the rule of Bunton v. Patterson. For present purposes it suffices to note that the Russell County Commission retains substantial authority, including the power to appoint the county engineer and to set his or her budget. The change at issue in Russell County is not a covered change.

Dorothea Batiste

On November 2, 2010, over 107,000 people elected Dorothea Batiste as one of our three Domestic Relations Judges. Immediately, she implemented procedures that substantially increased the number of cases heard each month, increasing the number of closed cases each year from 8% to 103%. In a little over two years Judge Batiste handled over 2,800 cases. She implemented standards that protected the children and provided both parents equal voice in the lives of their children. 

However, within a few months of being on the bench, Judge Scott Vowell, the Presiding Judge at the time began countless visits to her office, made numerous telephone calls, and demands to change her orders for the benefits of the few; this is not for which we elect Judges. The AL NAACP condemns the politics, race discrimination, harassment, retaliation and attack on Judge Batiste.

We are fully aware of the matters put before the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, and the Court of Judiciary and hereby denounce this continued selective prosecution, witch hunt, harassment and absolute abuse of process which Judge Batiste has endured. 

The cases presented by the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission concern a mother not getting child support, another mother in a custody battle needing her witness, a man who died without ever seeing his portion of the martial assets, and another mother in a custody battle needing a witness so that her children did not have to testify. Judge Batiste used the contempt powers of the Court in an effort to enforce these orders of the Court. 

The NAACP receives complaints monthly concerning the unfairness of judges, and when the complaints are submitted to Presiding Judges or other oversight organizations, their complaints seem to fall on [deaf] ears. Yet you have a Judge who is trying to be firm but fair, and she finds herself being suspended from the bench. We demand that Circuit Court Judge Dorothea Batiste be reinstated to the Bench, immediately.

For the past 6 months, the State of Alabama and the City of Birmingham [have]  commemorated the Civil Rights Movement and the 50th anniversary of the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, AL. This movement began long before the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, such events as Rosa Parks’s refusal to give up her seat to white passengers, which led to the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Demonstrations for voting rights, justice and equality in Birmingham led to a movement that Alabama had not seen before, because people could no longer stand by in silence. The AL NAACP shall not be silent in this grave injustice that has occurred to Circuit Court Judge Dorothea Batiste. 

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

After [Ted] moved to the Crescent Center, my mother, Sarah and Emma went to the Crescent Center after hours around 5:00 and I entered the building. I needed proof of the cost of my house and other things about the company, St. James. The lawyer, Jim McLaren, asked me to get proof of certain things for court. Sarah was playing in the rose garden and Mother was watching her, and Emma was asleep in the car. 

I went into his office as it was unattended and took files from a drawer regarding the house I lived in and other files, including the file on Sarah's trust fund.

[Ted] walked up with a construction worker while I was loading the files. He grabbed Sarah and threatened to hold her and keep her if I didn't hand him the files. I reluctantly gave him the files in exchange for Sarah, as I knew I had files that were important to our future. He put her in her car seat and grabbed all the files.

If you want this kid, give me the G-d--ned, f-----g files.

[Ted] later called the police and tried to have me arrested for breaking and entering. The office was open, and I did not break in. The police came for me the following day and threatened me. I was told to report to the police station and turn myself in. I called a lawyer locally and asked him to meet me there. He got me off of the charge. 

I went back home, and mother packed, and the girls and I drove her home to Tennessee. We were so scared--mother crying, the kids crying. I drove all the way to Tennessee, and the girls and mother sobbed most of the way. It was horrible, so scary. Then when I got back to Greenville, the police came to my house again and tried to arrest me. I called the lawyer again, and he got them to leave me alone again. I can't remember how much I had to pay the lawyer; but it was a lot.

Michael D. Waters Sr.

Kary Bryant Wolfe

Law clerks write the opinions for almost all federal appellate judges, Domnarski writes, and it stands to reason that the practice also is common in federal trial courts. Domnarski says members of the legal tribe rarely discuss the issue because it "raises too many embarrassing questions." Domnarski goes on to write: "We have become too comfortable with the troubling idea that judging does not require that judges do their own work."

The simple issue is this: Ingram cannot be dismissed from this case because she submitted evidentiary matters requiring that her Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss be treated as a Motion for Summary Judgment—and Shuler is entitled under the law to conduct discovery in order to counter that evidentiary material. 

The Court cites some half dozen cases on this simple issue, but the controlling Eleventh Circuit case is Snook v. Trust Co. of Georgia Bank, 859 F. 2d 865 (11th Cir., 1988).

The U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has found: “Although the complaint need not expressly state that [Defendant] was vicariously liable to the Sprinkles, it must at least give notice of vicarious liability.” Category 5 Management Group v. National Casualty Insurance Company, (Eleventh Circuit, 2012). At this stage in the proceedings, Shuler is required only to give notice regarding vicarious liability, and she has met that standard.

Doug Jones

Jones: I'm trying to make sure you understand that I have read your stuff, I have seen your conspiracy theories, and I am not going to answer any of your questions because I don't trust what you will write, period. 

LS: I'm taking it down word for word. . . . I'm asking you, who called off the investigation of Paul Bryant? 

Jones: I am not going to respond to any of your questions . .  

LS: You were a public official then, Doug . . . 

Jones: I am not going to respond to any of your questions. . . . I've seen the garbage you write and the way you spin and the way you slant. It's the most disingenuous stuff I've ever seen. . . . It just doesn't matter to me. You're a nothing to me."

Jones, in theory, is a Democrat, while Riley has extensive ties to Bush-Republican henchmen. But the two became compadres on the HealthSouth lawsuit, which yielded substantial sums of cash for both of them. So isn't it curious that Ronnie Gilley, whose prime defense lawyer has been Doug Jones, would plead guilty in a move that seems to help the Riley clan? 

How does it help the Rileys? Well, Gilley now appears set to testify against the other bingo defendants, including VictoryLand owner Milton McGregor. And it seems clear now that McGregor has been the feds' main target all along. . . . 

Does it benefit the Rileys to see Milton McGregor wind up in federal prison? Yes. Did Doug Jones help his buddy, Rob Riley, by pushing Ronnie Gilley to plead guilty and agree to testify against McGregor? Our sources say the answer is yes.

Robert Vance Jr.

The standard for recusal is an objective one: whether a reasonable person knowing everything that the judge knows would have a ‘reasonable basis for questioning the judge's impartiality.’ . . . The focus of our inquiry, therefore, is not whether a particular judge is or is not biased toward the petitioner; the focus is instead on whether a reasonable person would perceive potential bias or a lack of impartiality on the part of the judge in question.

If the Judge has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding, he must recuse. Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics 3(C)(1)(c).

Vance may believe that by entering a judgment in this matter against Defendants he can affect the damages or outcome in the federal lawsuit. Whether this strategy is effective or not, the fact remains that any action taken by Vance in this matter is tainted when viewed through the lens of the pending federal lawsuit. Vance cannot help but consider what effect his actions and orders will have on the federal lawsuit. To expect Vance to rule on this matter without any consideration of the other lawsuit is unreasonable. If the Judge has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding, he must recuse. Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics 3(C)(1)(c).

No reasonable person knowing all of the above-listed facts could help but question the impartiality of Judge Vance. Judge Vance has exhibited extrajudicial bias in favor of plaintiffs by (1) inappropriate ex parte communications with Plaintiffs; (2) Judge Robert Vance has accepted excessive campaign contributions from plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel and thereafter stated on the record that he had no intention of complying with Alabama statutes regarding campaign contributions; (3) he illegally usurped authority over this case and actively prevented this matter from being heard by a jury or competent court; (4) he has repeatedly ignored well established law and issued only rulings which are favorable to Plaintiffs to the extent that his rulings have taken on the tone of litigator rather than jurist.

Johnny Ford

The legal claims in this lawsuit are not barred by clear and on point Supreme Court precedent. On the contrary, the actions of the Defendants in this matter are a blatant violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

Defendant Strange’s Rule 11 letter, dated 4/15/2013, was designed to intimidate the plaintiffs and their counsel. This letter contained a deadline that was not cited anywhere in the rules, demonstrating Attorney General’s Strange propensity to go to any length to strong arm the plaintiffs into submission to his misinterpretation of the law.

The plaintiffs in the instant case have filed a complaint that has more than a reasonable factual basis. As argued in both the complaint and in the opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, there are no general laws in Alabama which relate to bingo because it can only be authorized in a particular county by constitutional amendment. . . . Attorney General Strange repeatedly states that the plaintiffs’ complaint makes claims that are not “warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” However, the Attorney General fails to cite any existing law or conclusive precedent to support this contention.

The Attorney General cites Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 42 So. 3d 65, 86 (Ala. 2009) and Ex parte State of Alabama, _ So.3d _, 20143 WL 765747 (Ala. Mar. 1, 2013) as support for this position that “the Alabama Supreme Court has addressed these ‘bingo’ amendments in multiple counties and these decisions apply statewide.” Barber v. Cornerstone only addressed the bingo constitutional amendment for Lowndes County, Amendment No. 674. . . . The bingo constitutional amendment for Lowndes County is significantly different from the Macon County bingo constitutional amendment. Most importantly, Lowndes County’s sheriff is not constitutionally delegated the authority to promulgate rules and regulations for the operation of bingo in the county as this Court recognized in Hope for Families v Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., 721 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (M.D. Ala. 2010). The State Supreme Court also recognized in Cornerstone that they “did not adhere to the boundary lines long established in [their] precedent.” Tyson v. Macon County Greyhound Park, 43 So. 3d 587 (Ala. 2010). As such, Cornerstone is inapplicable.

Ex parte State of Alabama is also inapplicable here because it involved a mandamus petition related to the refusal of a circuit judge to issue a search warrant when the circuit judge determined that probable cause did not exist. . . .  A determination of the existence of probable cause does not end the inquiry, it only begins it.

This complaint is not replete with scandalous allegations that have no relevance to the legal claims that plaintiffs are actually trying to make, but puts forth sufficient factual matters with exhibits that are plausible on its face. The plaintiffs’ contentions are that when Defendant General Strange decided what bingo must be and issued his May 2011 memorandum, he usurped the authority which had been vested solely in the Macon County Sheriff. So while General Strange may have the authority to ‘enforce’ bingo regulations or general criminal laws, he does not have the authority to ‘create’ or ‘promulgate’ the rules anymore than he has the authority to ‘create’ or ‘promulgate’ general criminal laws (such authority being vested in the legislature).

Rollins Ranch Cartersville

At issue is a struggle between a family with deep pockets and philanthropic ties to the community — Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health honors the family’s contributions — and a state agency with the power to condemn even wealthy citizens’ land if it serves a public purpose. 

Georgia Department of Transportation officials say they have chosen the right route for the project after thorough financial, traffic and environmental studies involving extensive public input. 

“I believe that’s the most engineered, studied piece of land in the state of Georgia,” said David Doss, who represents Rome and Cartersville on the State Transportation Board. “The process has been followed to the letter of the law.”

The Rollins family did just about everything it could do to block a new road linking Interstate 75 to Rome and running just south of the family's vacation home and prized fishing lake. 

And on Thursday the effort by the prominent Georgia clan -- which was joined by environmentalists and other nearby residents -- appeared to pay off. Gov. Nathan Deal told Rome lawmakers that building the road through Rollins' land would be tremendously costly and that the state will explore alternatives. 

He also vented at the Rollins' monumental efforts, which he said were "employed to delay and ultimately divert the course of the project." 

The final decision is up to the Georgia Department of Transportation, which said it is still evaluating options. But Deal's comments mean the direct route to I-75 that Rome and its 100,000 residents have long sought is mired in deeper uncertainty.

The land would probably already have a road running through it if it were owned by anybody else. But the Rollins clan, which controls a multibillion-dollar pest control business that includes Orkin, has waged one of the most aggressive road-blocking campaigns in state history. 

The family hired lawyers, strategists, engineers and scientists who lobbied to prevent highway construction on the land. Biologists contended it would endanger rare birds and wildlife. Engineers harped on potential design flaws. Attorneys persuaded officials to turn a chunk of the property into a state-recognized wilderness. And preservationists convinced the federal government to declare a nearby mine as a historic landscape called Dobbins Mountain Mining Landscape. 

The latter was a key development. Deal's letter came after the Federal Highway Administration concluded that any road built near the abandoned manganese mine, which dates to the 1860s, would have an "adverse effect" on the site and urged engineers to show whether there's a better alternative.

The largest users of fluid containing diesel fuel cited by the lawmakers were BJ Services, Halliburton, RPC, Inc. (RES), and Sanjel Corporation. Those companies did not respond to requests for comment. 

The Safe Drinking Water Act requires "fracking" companies to obtain water-quality permits when they are injecting fluids underground, but the lawmakers said that EPA has issued no permits authorizing the use of diesel fuel in those wells. No companies have applied for such permits, they said.

Shelby County, Alabama

The problem is not that the court majority is racist. They're worse: they're Republicans. 

We've had Republicans, like the great Earl Warren, who put on the robes and take off their party buttons. 

But this crew, beginning with Bush v. Gore, is viciously partisan. They note that "minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels." And the Republican Supremes mean to put an end to that. . . . 

And when they say "minority," they mean "Democrat." 

Because that's the difference between 1965 and today. When the law was first enacted - based on the personal pleas of Martin Luther King - African-Americans were blocked by politicians who did not like the color of their skin. 

But today, it's the color of minority voters' ballots - overwhelmingly Democratic blue - which is the issue.

George Wallace

Placing a jurisdiction in federal receivership raises fundamental questions of state sovereignty; and doing so selectively, absent compelling justification, unconstitutionally departs from the “historic tradition that all the States enjoy ‘equal sovereignty.’”

These federalism concerns are not academic. The preclearance regime has an outsized effect on the basic operation of state and local government.

I believe in state's rights; I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we've distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the constitution to that federal establishment. And if I do get the job I'm looking for, I'm going to devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions which properly belong there.

Indeed, what is so puzzling about this notion of salience of the states’ rights discourse in this case is how concerns rooted in state sovereignty fly in the face of the obvious purposes of the Reconstruction Amendments. The Reconstruction Amendments were specifically passed to abrogate states’ rights and constrain state behavior after long experience in which black Americans were systematically subjugated by those states. Moreover, even if Tenth Amendment federalism concerns were constitutionally relevant, they would be superseded in this case by the Fourteenth Amendment, which was passed later in time. 

Shelby County v. Holder not only brings into focus the issue of the proper scope of Congressional power under the Fourteenth Amendment, it also seeks to examine how to balance that authority against states’ rights. Given the language, text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment, the issue of states’ rights in this context is irrelevant. Unfortunately, this Court seems to believe otherwise.

This is a look into the world of the private contractors that work in alliance with the official US intelligence community and appear to be state-sanctioned to commit crimes. We focus on one of these shady contractors, Endgame--an Atlanta GA corporation that both Barrett Brown and Michael Hastings were looking at. We show who they are, what they do, what their founders did before, who funds them and who they are connected to. We even filmed and photographed their building and lobby.

The final moves in a chess game are called the “endgame.” It has come to the attention of American whistleblowers and election integrity specialists that the CIA, NSA and White House have designed the ultimate final “endgame” for the free world as we know it--with a group of computer “security specialists.” 

One key component of this is a corporate office called Endgame, based in Atlanta, Georgia, (at the old Biltmore Hotel building, 817 W. Peachtree NW suite 770). This company is a spin-off from the major intelligence source X-Force that was founded originally by Chris Klaus whose career dates to at least 1994 when he founded Internet Security Systems, a private “white hat” counter-hacker group. 

The X-Force was a team of elite cyber-security specialists who operated within ISS in an Atlanta office and made daily reports to the intelligence community and White House about Internet security and malicious software threats. They were allegedly defensive in nature, at least when they started out, and protective of US security. One of their members was Christopher Rouland who was a famous hacker who got caught attacking the Pentagon’s systems by US Airforce cyber-cop Jim Christy who gave him a “break” so long as he would work from then forward as a “white hat” cybersleuth for the US government.

“White hat” in this context means defensive Internet security--fighting the “black hat” attackers. We write this in part to show that Rouland and his company Endgame have in fact gone back to “black hat” with the approval of the Federal government, doing (and facilitating for others) the sorts of attacks that the Pentagon, the NSA and the like don’t want their fingers found in.

The Atlanta Biltmore

The HBGary hack may have been designed to humiliate the company, but it had the collateral effect of dropping a gold mine of information into Brown’s lap. . . . 

The data dump from the HBGary hack was so vast that no one person could sort through it alone. So Brown decided to crowdsource the effort. He created a wiki page, called it ProjectPM, and invited other investigative journalists to join in. Under Brown’s leadership, the initiative began to slowly untangle a web of connections between the US government, corporations, lobbyists and a shadowy group of private military and information security consultants. 

One connection was between Bank of America and the Chamber of Commerce. WikiLeaks had claimed to possess a large cache of documents belonging to Bank of America. Concerned about this, Bank of America approached the United States Department of Justice. The DOJ directed it to the law and lobbying firm Hunton and Williams, which does legal work for Wells Fargo and General Dynamics and also lobbies for Koch Industries, Americans for Affordable Climate Policy, Gas Processors Association, Entergy among many other firms. . . . 

In November 2010, Hunton and Williams organized a number of private intelligence, technology development and security contractors—HBGary, plus Palantir Technologies, Berico Technologies and, according to Brown, a secretive corporation with the ominous name Endgame Systems—to form “Team Themis”—‘themis’ being a Greek word meaning “divine law.” Its main objective was to discredit critics of the Chamber of Commerce, like Chamber Watch, using such tactics as creating a “false document, perhaps highlighting periodical financial information,” giving it to a progressive group opposing the Chamber, and then subsequently exposing the document as a fake to “prove that US Chamber Watch cannot be trusted with information and/or tell the truth.”

Rob Riley

Liberty Duke

In 1996, when the 3rd District’s Democratic incumbent ran unsuccessfully for the Senate, Riley ran for the House. He started off little known outside Clay County, but he was a strong and energetic campaigner and an ardent conservative. He supported school prayer, term limits, tax cuts, and a balanced-budget amendment. He opposed abortion rights, gun control, and racial quotas.

Like his father, Rob Riley long has claimed to be opposed to gambling, on moral grounds. But newspaper reports last fall showed that Rob Riley helped funnel Indian gaming money to an organization that fights non-Indian gambling facilities in Alabama. Both Riley and A. Eric Johnston, the director of Citizens for a Better Alabama, claimed they did not know the $100,000 came from Indian gaming sources. But veteran Montgomery journalist Bob Martin caught Johnston in at least one clear lie about the money, calling into question the validity of most everything he and Riley have said on the subject. 

Numerous published reports indicate Rob Riley has only a casual acquaintance with the truth in his public life. Now, we learn that his personal life also has been riddled with dishonesty.

Bull Connor's fire hoses

Yet another ruling from the legislative workshop of the Roberts 5, has now surgically overturned the landmark Voting Rights Act that redeemed the national disgrace of the criminally depraved Jim Crow era. Their surgical strike in Shelby County effectively overturns the most significant legal outcome of the Civil War; violates separation of powers; invents a new rule of “state equality” for applying federal legislation that nowhere remotely suggested in the Constitution, that was rejected by the leading precedent, and is inherently preposterous; reverses numerous precedents; decides the case of parties that were not in court instead of focusing on the case before it -- as the Constitution, Article III, requires; and rejects the very idea of applying a known objective rule to adduced facts as defines the judicial process.

Frank "Butch" Ellis

In 2010, Shelby County filed suit in federal court, describing Section 5 as a federal intrusion into state issues. It is this lawsuit that will be heard by the Supreme Court at the end of this month. Montgomery learned about the County Commission’s decision to sue the Justice Department when he read it in the Birmingham News. 

“As well as I know [County Commissioner] Corley Ellis—we have a friendship, not a close friendship but a friendship—I never got a heads up,” Montgomery said.

Corley Ellis is the Shelby County Commissioner who neglected to inform Ernest Montgomery that the county had filed suit against the Justice Department. The Shelby County lawyer who filed the suit is Corley Ellis’s father, Butch Ellis. Butch Ellis’s father was Handy Ellis, a former lieutenant governor and the chairman of the Alabama delegation at the 1948 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. 

With Birmingham Commissioner of Safety Bull Connor, Ellis led the Dixiecrat walkout of the convention after declaring that Alabama delegates were instructed “never to cast their vote for any candidate associated with a civil rights program such as adopted by this convention.”

Faulkner’s—“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”—has been quoted so many times that it has become an exhausted cliché. 

Except in places where the New South seems incapable of escaping the Old South. 

In such places, those lines are as fresh as this morning’s news.

Liberty Duke

Rob Riley (RR): You are the one who writes all that crap about me? 

Legal Schnauzer (LS): Uh, if that's how you want to term it . . . I write a blog called Legal Schnauzer, yes. 

RR: I've seen all the stuff you've written about me that's not true, and I don't appreciate it. 

LS: Let me ask you this. I have multiple sources who told me you had a relationship with a woman named Liberty Duke, which led to an abortion that was paid for by the Alabama Republican Party. Would you care to comment on that?

RR: Gosh, complete nonsense. No truth whatsoever.

LS: I have multiple sources that say it is true.

RR: Who are your sources?

LS: I'm not going to tell you who my sources are any more than you are going to tell me who your legal clients are.

RR: That is an outrageous lie.

LS: You know Liberty Duke?

RR: Yeah, I know her.

LS: And she's been . . . 

RR: Let me put it this way, buddy, I've never had an affair with her or anyone, period. Second of all, medical records would show that I couldn't father a child by her.

LS: Oh, really? Would you care to show me medical records? Can I have a copy of it?

RR: I'm not going to go get you my medical records. Listen, buddy, that is an outrageous lie. See ya.

Robert Vance Jr.

Whether a judge's actions were made while acting in his judicial capacity depends on whether: (1) the act complained of constituted a normal judicial function; (2) the events occurred in the judge's chambers or in open court; (3) the controversy involved a case pending before the judge; and (4) the confrontation arose immediately out of a visit to the judge in his judicial capacity. Scott v. Hayes, 719 F.2d 1562, 1565 (11th Cir.1983).

On March 28, 2012, the conspiracy between Cashion and Vance to deprive the Trust of due process continued as an ex parte hearing was conducted wherein Judge Vance and counsel for Cashion discussed an injunction and settlement of this matter.  . . . 

Exhibit 8 reflects that present at the hearing were only Judge Vance, Attorney Bethay for Cashion, and Attorney Miller for Cashion.

A review of the Case Action Summary Report shows that on March 28, 2012, no Answer had been filed on behalf of the Trust and that no attorney of record had noticed an appearance on behalf of Angela Rea Hayden as trustee for the William B. Cashion Nevada Spendthrift Trust.

Neither Angela Rea Hayden nor anyone else claiming to represent the trust was present for the March 28, 2012, hearing. In fact, Mrs. Hayden has never been to the Jefferson County Courthouse.

The court has found no Alabama case directly on point with the situation in this case. However, in a recent decision, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals noted that “Subject-matter jurisdiction generally lies with a court . . . and not with a specific judge sitting on that court . . . ” Ex parte Montgomery, 79 So. 3d 660.

Accordingly, because the husband never argued to the trial court that all orders entered by Judge Johnson were void because he did not have the authority to enter the orders, we conclude that the husband has waived consideration of that issue.

Our coverage of the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case has taken a number of twists and turns, but the most bizarre twist might have come a few weeks back when a man contacted me and claimed to be in possession of Ted Rollins' iPhone.

The caller said he worked for a company that was involved in the renovation of Campus Crest's offices in Charlotte, NC. As part of the project, he said, Campus Crest discarded numerous electronic devices--phones, cameras, laptops, etc.--and told crew members that they were welcome to take any objects from a pretty large pile. The caller said he took an iPhone and one other item--a camera, I think it was. 

When the man got home, he discovered that the iPhone included lots of information--contacts, e-mails, texts, photos, music, etc.--from its previous owner. After going through the material, the man discovered that the phone had belonged to Campus Crest's CEO. "I guess Mr. Rollins gave the phone to someone in IT, and they forgot to clear out everything and mistakenly put it in with the stuff to be thrown away," the caller told me. 

The man said he Googled Ted Rollins' name, discovered my blog, and decided that either Sherry Rollins or I might be interested in the phone. The caller also said that he had found at least two nude photos on the phone of a young person he believed to be an under-aged member of the extended Rollins family. The man said he was concerned this might constitute child pornography and raise various criminal issues. He also said the phone included images of a boy who had a black eye and apparently had somehow been roughed up.

Rob Riley

Rob Riley (RR): What's your address?

Legal Schnauzer (LS): It's 5204 Logan Drive, Birmingham, AL 35242. Let me ask you right up front, Rob, do you know something about who caused me to be fired at UAB?

RR: I don't even know you, Roger.

LS: I didn't ask that question, Rob. Do you know who caused me to be fired at UAB?

RR: No, I don't know why you were fired. Do you know why you were fired at UAB?

LS: No, I don't. Someone caused me to [be fired] after I wrote a piece about you-- mysteriously [that's when], I got fired at UAB. Aside from that, you claimed in the newspaper the other day you don''t know anything about gambling funds going to the RSLC and wound up in Alabama. Are you serious? They took gambling money from 2003, dating to the Mississippi Choctaws?

RR: No, no, I did not know that.

LS: Why do you not support gambling in Alabama? Is it on a moral basis?

RR: Yes.

LS: On a moral basis, and yet you had an affair with Liberty Duke and someone paid $250,000 for her to have an abortion. Is that correct?

RR: Listen, I've never had an affair with Liberty Duke or anybody else.

LS: I know that you did, and I'm giving you an opportunity . . . 

RR: What's your phone number, buddy?

LS: It should show up there; it's 991-7438. I'm giving you an opportunity to comment. I have multiple sources close to your family who say you had an affair with her, she got divorced in 2006, and it was because you had an affair that produced a pregnancy, and you paid for her to have an abortion. Actually, my understanding is that you had the Republican Party pay for it, that you are that cheap . . . 

RR: I don't know how else to say it. I don't know why you are upset because you think I had you fired at UAB. I do not . . . 

LS: I'm not upset . . . I'm asking you about Liberty Duke, who you had an affair with.

RR: Can you hold on a second?

LS: Sure

RR: I'm telling you right now, I'm tape recording this. I did not have an affair with Liberty Duke or anybody else. Never paid anybody for any kind of abortion, period. Now if you put that in writing . . . I'm letting you know that I'm tape recording this.

LS: I'm tape recording it, too, so I'm happy you are.

RR: Good, you're tape recording it, too. . . . I don't know who makes this crap up about me, but it is not true.

LS: I'm asking for your statement on  it . . . 

RR: It is an absolute, outrageous lie. Furthermore, I did not have you fired. I don't know anybody to call if I wanted to have you fired. I don't even know who you are.

LS: Would you share your e-mail accounts, so I can see that . . . Would you turn over your e-mail and phone records to prove that, plus to prove your relationship, or not, with Liberty Duke?

RR: I'm not going to let you go through my e-mails, phone records or anything else because all the crap you've written about me is a lie.

LS: OK, I'm asking for your response . . . 

RR: Let me make sure I have this address right--5204 Logan Drive, Birmingham, Alabama, 35242.

LS: That's correct . . . 

RR: Roger . . . 

LS: What's your address, Rob?

RR: What?

LS: I gave you mine, what's yours?

RR: 1944 Oxmoor Rd., Birmingham, Alabama . . . 

LS: No, your home address. I gave you my home address, what's your home address?

RR: Goodbye, Roger