Total Pageviews

Friday, November 17, 2017

Who's on first?

We have been harping for the past four years that something just isn't right with the Morgan County Sheriff's Office.  We began by speaking to past and present employees to get an inside knowledge of any nefarious active going on behind the scenes.  We were chugging along slowly until we heard about the Title Marts.  The time frame was the April 2015.  The first we heard was that Steven Ziaja was part owner of the dealership.  We heard claims that Ziaja was walking around with thousands of dollars in his wallet and showing it off; that he was operating at the Priceville Title Mart and Hartselle Title Marts.

We observed Ziaja working at the Title Marts when he should have been performing duties at his regular job.  We sent people into the Title Marts to snoop around and low and behold who do we see but Sheriff Ana Franklin's daughter Alyssa.

Then we discover that Ziaja was selling cars under the alias of Ricky Dukes.  How do we know that?  We sent a message to Dukes questioning vehicles he advertised.  If our contact showed interested in the vehicle we were referred to Mr. Masterson or Greg Steenson at the Priceville Title Mart.  It was and is very interesting that Ziaja used an alias to sell cars.  We decided that the reason was that he did not want his agency to know what he was involved in.

On one occasion we saw Sheriff Ana Franklin at the Priceville Title Mart riding around with Ziaja on an ATV or walking around like she owned the place. 

We eventually believed that we had enough information to prove that Ziaja and possibly Ana Franklin and Alyssa Franklin were deeply involved in the operation.  We are actually amazed at how deeply involved the Franklin's were in the operation.

Ziaja continued to find ways of making money off of the Title Marts.  He sold fictitious cars to the Title Marts, he and Blake Robinson opened a detail shop making over $38,000.00 off of Mr. Jeffreys when both men should have been working that law enforcement day jobs.  Ziaja hid his activities from his superiors while Robinson's boss Sheriff Ana Franklin knew exactly where he was. 

Then came all of the investments in the PONZI scheme.  Greg Steenson got the most blame for that activity.  Don't believe for one minute we are condoning anything that Steenson did in this matter but it is obvious that he did not mastermind this plan alone.  He had help in the form of Ana Franklin, Steven Ziaja, Blake Robinson, and Alyssa Franklin.  Why is that so obvious you ask?  Well! If you look at the investors in the PONZI scheme the majority are law enforcement friends of Franklin and Ziaja, employees of Sheriff Franklin such as Blake Robinson and Bones Wilson, and family of Sheriff Ana Franklin, and coworkers of Steven Ziaja.

Franklin, Blake, Bones, and Ziaja were raking in the money.  Sheriff Franklin had her family working which was a good thing for her.  It meant more of the sheriff's office money went to her. Which makes us wonder where Franklin's oldest daughter obtained a $100,000.00 to jumpstart their business.  We are talking about a  young family that had to have a co-signer to purchase a house.  The co-signer interestingly enough was Steven Ziaja.  After the purchase of the house came approximately $65,000.00 dollars in upgrades to the house, a huge commercial BBQ grill, and big fancy cars.  The company may be prospering now but the question is where did the initial money come from? Not family for sure.

Sheriff Ana Franklin didn't stop there.  Franklin included her staff, contract labor, and inmates into her corrupt activities.  Franklin had these people believing everything she said.  She claims to have everything under control.  Maybe she does and maybe she doesn't.  Time will tell.  We have been saying for years that the sheriff is going to jail.  We stand firm on our predictions.  It is unfortunate that those who trusted Sheriff Franklin have placed their freedom in jeopardy as well.

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Reference Decatur Daily Article - Sheriff says jailers needed to curb overtime, liability

Folks, October 1, 2017 was the first day of the fiscal year.  Six weeks into the new year Franklin is just now asking for 19 additional jailers.  The sheriff has been in office since January 2011.  Surely by now Franklin knows that she must develop the budget she needs prior to entering a new fiscal year.  This is another of Sheriff Franklin's ploys to blame anybody but herself for her shortfalls.  It's also an illustration of Franklin's style of mismanagement.  The jail has been understaffed, undertrained, and underpaid for years and she knew it.   No wonder there's high turnover in personnel.  The jail's shortfalls are due primarily to her profligate spending available resources on toys, parties, and replenishing her "retirement account".  And secondarily, her frequent, continuing AWOLs.  If she were at work more often instead layin' up fat and sorry with a rag tied around her head.
(cue Johnny Cash singing 'Sunday Morning Coming Down')

The commission should stand firm on their position.  Commissioner Long is correct in asking what she can "bring to the table".  $600,000 of unforecast funds is a lot of money to spring on the county.  On the other hand here is what Franklin is most likely planning on.  Franklin will go to the Southern Center Law Group and report: "I ain't my fault.   It's that damned ol' commission."

We have to disagree with the Daily on their statement that the sheriff is facing a re-election next year.  We believe she is facing jail.

Franklin slipped into the sheriff's office today and met with one of the local media sources.  We just happened to be in town and noticed that a media source in our area turned into the sheriff's office.  The guy was there approximately one hour.

We can only assume Ana didn't want anyone in the sheriff's office to know she was there as we did not see the vehicle(s) she is known to drive.

Now we see that yet another media source is at the sheriff's office awaiting their turn.




More and more people have gone across the river


Was it Larry and Pam?

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Lines in the sand

Just like the Alamo, Larry and Pam Berzett have drawn a line and unlike Col Travis, they will not cross over it, remaining loyal to Mama Ana.  And they will go down with her.  Franklin, Bones Wilson, and Blake Robinson are sweating bullets.  The grand jury is in session.  Who's on first?  Stay tuned.

Who is scared of the outcome

You can say what you will about the whistleblowers you folks are going to jail.  You can LOL all day long but you cannot change the course you have set your sights on.  You folks have gone too far to be redeemed.

We must say Ziaja showed his butt a couple of weeks back at an event.  He is totally in love, Sheriff Franklin and he just can't get over it.

There is also Blake Robinson on the streets of Morgan County acting like a real deputy.  Strutting his stuff as if he was never a part of Sheriff Ana Franklin's clique.

At this point, we cannot leave out Bones Wilson or Justin Powell.  Then there is the Berzett's and the Goodwin's.  If Brian only knew.  Of course, he knows.  Did he think the horse trailer just appeared one day out of the blue?

What about Sheriff Ana Franklin hiding her assets and pretending to be living on the family property.  Franklin has rarely been in the office over the past month.  She has set her home up in Saraland and hopes that nobody from Federal agencies come calling and question Charlie and the folks they purchased their property from.  No debt for all those upgrades of the homes, the new home/barn combo, and the property.  How do you justify the money when the feds coming calling.  You don't.

Franklin has some good family out there that she has completely let down.  She has been an embarrassment.  Ana was the "cream of the crop".  Franklin's accolades now are "I stole the inmate food funds'.  We can see her saying as she has many times 'I got away with it'.  She moved the inmate food funds to her personal account and will doubtfully return any of the money.  Franklin is waiting for the dust to settle and then that money will be long gone.  We were recently told that Ana is keeping her money hidden on a property right here in Morgan County in a large building.  Other assets are spread all over Morgan, Saraland, and Cullman County.

We eagerly await indictments to be handed down.  We can't help but wonder what the Anonymous will say then?  They may have to wait until they bond out to blog.  We will just have to wait and see.  These folks are so arrogant they will still deny any wrongdoing.  Wonder how many of Ana's fine friends will be singing her praises when they get out of jail.  All of these folks have had a free ride, all expenses paid, travel, trucks, horse trailers, horses, gear, and equipment to satisfy their greed.  We sure hope that keeps you warm once you are arrested.  You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  We doubt your wrongdoings will be that hard to prove.  However, on that note, we will have to wait and see.

For now, let the good times roll.

Ana Goons: it's coming

It coming, its really really coming




Sheriff arrested. It's coming

Monday, November 13, 2017

Blogger Comments

For all of those who miss the comments, we intend to turn the comments back on.  We do not mind healthy comments that discuss the issues but the vulgar filth will not be tolerated.  We will permanently block all inappropriate comments from both sides.  If you disagree with the fact that the sheriff bought property in Saraland so state it.

It is interesting to note that all nasty comments stopped once we decided to monitor the anonymous comments.   If the vulgar comments are placed on the blog we will block the anonymous comments and only legitimate comments will be accepted so each person can take responsibility for their words.

You may not like what you hear on the blog but you are going to hate the sound of prison doors locking behind you if you are a part of the sheriff's corrupt group. 

The whistleblowers will have to defend their words; are you willing to do the same?

What is Billable Barney up to these days

Let me ask you, Barney, what happened to the investigation you received from the Marshall County Major Crime Unit?  Why hasn't anything such as arrest or charges come from that investigation?  What are you up to?  Are you spending more and more of the county's money while you are supporting Ana's needs?

It may be of interest that the whistleblower office was raided on the night of October 5, 2016.  Why?  The whistleblowers have done nothing wrong.  The keystone cops Bones Wilson and Blake Robinson and Justin Powell raided the office seized, the computers, and let them sit in an open area until October 14 when they were delivered to the Marshall County Major Crime Unit (MCMCU).  The MCMCU was trained by the State and Secret Service located in Birmingham, Alabama.  They are highly qualified as research has proven. 

Barney keeps running his overloaded mouth about the whistleblowers going to jail.  Why is the sheriff's attorney running his mouth about arrests?  Isn't that the Sheriff's job? When did Billable Barney become a Law Enforcement Officer with arrest powers?  Wonder where he attended APOST training?  Must have been with Larry Berzett.

Tell us, Ana, what happened to the investigation?  Why did you send the whistleblower computers and Warden Leon Bradley's computers to the Marshall County Major Crime Unit and then ignore the findings?  If you didn't ignore them why haven't you arrested us for the 175 criminal offenses Blake Robinson sent to the Sheriff of Etowah County?  The warden was arrested on one misdemeanor count. 







Friday, November 10, 2017

What happened to the Vacant Lieutenant Position

The Morgan County Sheriff's Office currently has a vacancy for a Lieutenant position.  Why hasn't the sheriff opened the position for open and fair competition, or why hasn't she filled the position?  One name stands out among the deputies who may be eligible for the position.  Blake Robinson is the employee that Ana plans to place in the position.  That is not a surprise to us.

Blake Robinson is one of the investors in the Title Mart debacle.  He invested thousands of dollars in the Title Mart.  He opened an auto detail shop in the Title Mart located in Hartselle.  Robinson and Steven Ziaja shared over $38,000.00 from the detail shop using the owers equipment, building, and supplies.  What a surprise for the real owners of the Title Marts.

Blake Robinson is also the sheriff's office employee who helped Sheriff Franklin prepare for the raid in the whistleblower's office and was instrumental in ensuring pictures and video were taken in the Straightline office to prove to Ana that their break-in was successful and the Keylogger software was installed.  The same software that Sheriff Ana Franklin claims that even if they did it, she has immunity to prosecution.

Blake Robinson is also the untrained deputy who arrested a man for a nonarrestable offense.  Blake doesn't appear to have enough experience to be a road deputy, much less a Lieutenant in a sensitive position.  Blake Robinson, like Bones Wilson and Steven Ziaja, are all going to jail along with Sheriff Franklin.

Their crimes against a business, citizens, the warden, and the community as a whole are despicable.  We are patiently waiting for their arrests so that we can move on to the normalcy of life we deserve as citizens.

Cowards.



Sheriff Ana Franklin Leader of the Pack
 Steven Ziaja Team Leader of the Pack

Bone Wilson Dirty Duty Officer

Blake Robinson oversight for verifying the dirty clandestine work details ordered by Sheriff Franklin

Information Technology for the Sheriff's Office and other duties as assigned by Ana, Bones, and Blake.s

Thursday, November 9, 2017

It Ain't My Fault




Ana and Dee Goodwin worked very hard to try to pull a class action lawsuit.  Their idea was to shut the whistleblowers up.  Ana needs the class action lawsuit to distract the county from her problems.  Dee Goodwin is very upset that we disclosed her dirty little secrets and her dealing with Ana and the inmate and the swindling of commissary funds. 

Franklin has been playing hide the high dollar horse trailer thinking that nobody would miss it.  The horse trailer is/was hidden out at Dee's mom's house.  the sheriff must have thought we would forget about it.  Franklin bought one of the horse trailers at Title Mart.  Good luck getting the title. 

All of Ana's goons know that their days of freedom are numbered.  We know why Dee spews venom we have told the truth about her.  Of course, Steven Ziaja sent us the information under his alias as Ricky Dukes.   

Ana is slowly washing her hands all of her goons to include Dee and Pam. 

The party is coming to a close.  No more running around horse trailer beds and falling into a drunken stupor.  They're coming for you, they're coming for private, they're coming for troll, Bones, Blake, Robinson, Powell, and others. 

The whistleblowers know the Ana goons are worried because their lips are moving.

Alabama vs LSU

Our readers will be surprised to learn that sources tell us Ana and Charlie were stopped by State Troopers while leaving the Alabama vs LSU game last weekend.  Thank goodness Sheriff Franklin did not have to walk the walk.  She wasn't driving.  However, we hear good ole Charlie showed his butt. Throwing his weight around letting the trooper know who he is.  Wow! That sounds familiar.  Sounds like Larry Berzett doesn't it?

It's obvious that Franklin surrounds herself with blowhards.  Just look at their cowardly comments they make if you can find them. Charlie pulled a "don't you know who I am attitude."

These issues are serious if true.   The issues of drinking and driving are serious and should not be tolerated no matter who you are.  Ana and Charlie are arrogant and are determined to get their way.  We heard they bulled the officers.  We know that when the officers ran the tag it came back to the Morgan County Commission.

From what we understand this makes three stops for Ana.  Even if she wasn't driving we were told that she was quite inebriated.   We were also told that Charlie the driver of the Morgan County Commission vehicle was drunk.  Charlie is as irresponsible as Ana.  We noticed them drinking heavily one night at a local bar.  We also know that Charlie got into his SUV after drinking several drinks and drove off.  Charlie killed 4 people during a high-speed chase after being told to stand down.  Our sources tell us his boss ordered him to abandon the chase but he didn't.  Consequences. While the rest of us are out there abiding the law while driving Ana and Charlie are out there mocking the laws.  Fame, Power, and Prestige is their identity in their own minds.  We believe they are nothing but common criminals who used MCSO money to purchase and then upgrade their property in Saraland.  Charlie and Ana's heads have gotten bigger since living it up in a private sky-box with the people they purchased the Saraland property from.

   
It sure looks like Ana is two sheets in the wind in the above picture.

United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit.

James Larry FIKES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DAPHNE; Joseph Hall, Police Chief for City of Daphne; Susan Hostetter, City Personnel Manager a/k/a Susan Cowart; Charlie McNichol, Employee for the City of Daphne; Walter Gipson, Employee for the City of Daphne, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-7216.

    Decided: April 09, 1996

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, and DYER and GARTH *, Senior Circuit Judges.Wayne A. Ehlers, Semmes, AL, for appellant. M. Kathryn Knight, Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, L.L.C., Mobile, AL, for appellees.
This appeal presents the question of whether the district court erred in dismissing, for failure to state a claim, a police officer's complaint alleging that he was discharged from his employment for exercising his freedom of speech. We find that the complaint does state a claim. We therefore VACATE the court's judgment and REMAND the case for further proceedings.
I.
On October 19, 1989, appellant went to work for the City of Daphne, Alabama, as an officer in its police department. On July 15, 1992, following a pretermination hearing, the City discharged appellant for “good cause,” consisting of
(a) Deliberately stealing, destroying, abusing or damaging City property, tools, or equipment, or the property of another employee, citizen or visitor;
(b) Disclosure of confidential city information to unauthorized persons;
(c) Wilfully disregarding City policies or procedures.1
On June 10, 1994, twenty-three months after his discharge, appellant brought this suit against the City, the city manager, the city personnel manager, the police chief, and three police officers.2  In a quintessential “shotgun” pleading,3 appellant sought compensatory damages 4 against the defendants severally to redress deprivation of rights secured by:
(a) The First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution providing for the rights of all persons ․ to enjoy freedom of speech, movement, association and assembly, to petition their government for redress of their grievances, to be secure in their persons, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to enjoy privacy, to be free from slavery and deprivations of life, liberty and property without due process of law, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and § 1985(2), providing for the protection of all persons in their civil rights and the redress of deprivation of rights under color of law; and
(b) the common law of the State of Alabama providing for damages to persons subjected to the intentional [infliction] of emotional distress or the intentional interference with employment contracts.
The “Statement of Facts” contained in the complaint is rather disorganized. It is difficult, without some speculation, to discern precisely what took place and how, if at all, the events interact with one another. In addition, one must read between the lines to determine which events deprived appellant of the various constitutional and statutory rights mentioned above. Given these impediments to an accurate construction of appellant's complaint, we relate the events described in, or arguably inferable from, appellant's Statement of Facts. We set out these events in the order in which they appear in the pleading.
(1) As noted above, appellant's employment in the police department began in October 1989 and, following a pretermination hearing, terminated in July 1992, purportedly for good cause.
(2) After his discharge, appellant sought employment at the municipal airport in Mobile, Alabama, but was turned down because the City's personnel manager said that he was ineligible for reemployment with the City.
(3) In August 1990, while employed by the police department, appellant was injured while responding to a domestic dispute. He filed a worker's compensation claim. Following surgery, his physician said he could return to work if restricted to light duty. The chief of police, Joseph Hall, put appellant on full duty, telling him that if he could not do his job, someone would be found who could.
(4) After his worker's compensation claim was settled and he returned to work, appellant attempted to reopen his claim.
(5) Soon after returning to work, appellant suffered “additional symptoms, which required the services of a chiropractor.” The chiropractor placed additional restrictions on his work activity; for example, appellant could not wear a “duty belt” while sitting. Appellant's supervisor told appellant that he could not work without wearing the belt.
(6) In August 1992, during a Department of Industrial Relations hearing on appellant's worker's compensation claim, the City's personnel manager testified falsely that appellant had not reported to work since the previous March.
(7) On May 26, 1990, Officer McNichol, a defendant here, ignored an order from his superior, Sergeant Gipson, to terminate a high-speed automobile chase. McNichol disregarded the order and continued the pursuit. The pursuit resulted in four fatalities. Appellant immediately reported the incident to Chief Hall and, in November 1991, to the Alabama Bureau of Investigation (“ABI”).
(8) Sergeant Johnson, another defendant in the case, drove a vehicle “that had not been properly condemned” on personal business. Appellant reported the incident. The ABI determined that Johnson's use of the vehicle was improper.
(9) At some point prior to his discharge, appellant commenced an “investigation of certain improprieties within the Daphne Police Department.” Chief Hall told him “to be quiet about the entire matter.”
(10) Appellant disregarded the chief's admonition and continued his investigation. He reported his findings to “other appropriate authorities,” including the ABI. When Chief Hall learned of these reports, he told the city manager that appellant had to be fired. Chief Hall then “devised and initiated a systematic strategy to eliminate [appellant] from the Daphne Police Department.” The chief's strategy succeeded on July 15, 1992, when the City discharged appellant.
(11) On November 12, 1991, Sergeants Gipson and Johnson “attempted to interrogate [appellant] regarding his investigation of the improprieties that [appellant] had witnessed within the Daphne Police Department. [Appellant] responded by informing [them] that he would not elaborate unless his attorney was present along with [Chief] Hall. [Sergeants Gipson and Johnson] responded by citing [appellant] for insubordination.”
(12) The City terminated appellant's employment without cause.5  The grounds the City cited as good cause for the termination were pretextual. The City discharged appellant because he was reporting episodes of misconduct in the Police Department to the ABI and “other appropriate authorities.”
Drawing on these facts, appellant sought in his complaint to hold the defendants liable on four counts. The first two counts contained state law claims: that the City lacked good cause for discharging appellant, and that the City breached its duty to treat appellant “in a manner so as not to cause him unnecessary mental and emotional distress,” by intentionally engaging, through its agents and employees, “in a clearly outrageous course of conduct causing severe emotional distress and physical harm to [appellant].” The third and fourth counts alleged violations of various federal constitutional and statutory provisions. Counts three and four each alleged damages in excess of three million dollars.
Count three states that during appellant's employment in the police department, and in discharging him on July 15, 1992, the defendants
either acted in a concerted, malicious intentional pattern to deprive [appellant] of his constitutional rights, or knowing that such [deprivation] was taking place, knowingly omitted to act to protect [appellant] from continuing deprivations of his rights to enjoy freedom of speech, movement, association and assembly, to petition his government for redress of grievances, and to be free from deprivations of life, liberty and property without due process of law; all in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States․
[Moreover, the defendants,] in acting to deprive [appellant] of his rights, went far beyond actions reasonably necessary for the discharge of their duties and within the scope of their employment, and instead misused their official powers and acted from a willful and malicious intent to deprive [appellant] of his civil rights and cause him grievous injuries thereby.
[Finally, the defendants] acted in an outrageous and [systematic] pattern of harassment, oppression, intimidation, bad faith, employment discrimination, cover-up and retaliation directed at [appellant]․
Count four of the complaint states that the defendants,
acting individually and in their official capacities as supervisory and administrative officers of the City ․ conspired, planned, agreed and intended to harass, intimidate and cause economic injury to [appellant]. [Their] purpose in so acting was to prevent [appellant], through economic and psychological violence and intimidation, from seeking the equal protection of the laws, and from enjoying the equal privileges and immunities of citizens under the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Alabama, including but not limited to his rights to enjoy freedom of speech, movement, association and assembly, to petition his government for redress of grievances, and to be free from deprivations of life, liberty and property without due process of law; all in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
Pursuant to their conspiracy, [defendants] acted to deprive [appellant] of his civil rights, by repeated and insidious act[s] of harassment, retaliation, intimidation, bad faith and threat, all in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
One has to guess at the number of claims for relief appellant attempted to state in counts three and four. By combining several claims for relief in each count, appellant disregarded the rules governing the presentation of claims to a district court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a pleader, in setting forth a claim for relief, to present “a short plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) provides that “[a]ll averments of claim ․ shall be made in separate paragraphs, the contents of each of which shall be limited as far as practicable to a statement of a single set of circumstances․” Moreover, “[e]ach claim founded upon a separate transaction or occurrence ․ shall be stated in a separate count ․ whenever a separation facilitates the clear presentation of the matters set forth.” These rules work together
to require the pleader to present his claims discretely and succinctly, so that his adversary can discern what he is claiming and frame a responsive pleading, the court can determine which facts support which claims and whether the plaintiff has stated any claims upon which relief can be granted, and, at trial, the court can determine that evidence which is relevant and that which is not.
T.D.S. v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 760 F.2d 1520, 1543 n. 14 (11th Cir.1985) (Tjoflat, J., dissenting).
The Rules of Civil Procedure also provide a cure for the problem presented by counts three and four. Specifically, if a complaint “is so vague or ambiguous that a [defendant] cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading,” the defendant may move for a more definite statement before filing a response. “If the motion is granted and the order of the court is not obeyed within ten days after notice of the order or within such other time as the court may fix, the court may strike the [complaint] or make such order as it deems just.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e).
Although it is likely that a more definite statement would have tightened appellant's complaint and perhaps eliminated many of the claims, the defendants elected not to seek one.6  Instead, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), they moved the court to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim for relief. They also moved the court to strike portions of the complaint as redundant.
Concluding that appellant's complaint failed to allege a cognizable federal claim, the court dismissed counts three and four. The court held, however, that even assuming the presence of a cognizable federal claim, the defendants, who were sued in their individual as opposed to their official capacities, were entitled to qualified immunity. See generally Lassiter v. Alabama A & M Univ., 28 F.3d 1146 (11th Cir.1994). Finding that the Rule 12(b)(6) ruling stripped the court of federal question jurisdiction, the court dismissed the pendent state law claims without prejudice. This appeal followed the entry of final judgment for the defendants.
II.
Appellant's sole challenge to the district court's judgment is that the court erred in dismissing his claim under the First Amendment, which is made applicable to state and local governments by the Fourteenth Amendment.7  Given that error, appellant contends, it follows that the court should not have dismissed the pendent state law claims in counts one and two.
Appellant asks us to read his complaint as alleging that the City, pursuant to a conspiracy with the individual defendants in the case, discharged appellant for exercising speech on a matter of public concern-specifically, Officer McNichol's disregard of Sergeant Gipson's order to discontinue the high-speed chase, which resulted in four deaths. Appellant's complaint strongly implies, if it does not explicitly allege, that when Chief Hall learned that appellant was investigating “improprieties ․ [appellant] had witnessed within the ․ Department” and that he was reporting his findings to “appropriate authorities, including the ABI,” he told appellant to be quiet and, when appellant persisted, he told the City's personnel manager that appellant had to go.
It is well established that a state may not discharge a public employee in retaliation for public speech. Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 107 S.Ct. 2891, 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987). This circuit employs a four-part test to determine whether a state (or, as in this case, a city) has done so.
First, a court must determine whether the employee's speech may be fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1689, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983); Rankin, 483 U.S. at 384, 107 S.Ct. at 2896; Morgan v. Ford, 6 F.3d 750, 754 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1221, 114 S.Ct. 2708, 129 L.Ed.2d 836 (1994) (citing Bryson v. City of Waycross, 888 F.2d 1562, 1565 (11th Cir.1989)). Speech addresses a matter of public concern when the speech can be “fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 146, 103 S.Ct. at 1690. In the present case, appellant has alleged that he was fired because he reported police misconduct (i.e., failure to terminate a dangerous, high-speed chase, and improper use of a confiscated vehicle).8  Certainly, the question of whether police officers are properly performing their duties, as a public safety issue, must be considered an issue of political or social concern. Moreover, in alleging police misconduct, Fikes sought to “bring to light actual or potential wrongdoing or breach of public trust on the part of” government officials. Connick, 461 U.S. at 148, 103 S.Ct. at 1691. “[A] core concern of the [F]irst [A]mendment is the protection of the ‘whistle-blower’ attempting to expose government corruption.” Bryson, 888 F.2d at 1566. Therefore, Fikes has alleged sufficient facts to establish that he engaged in speech on a matter of public concern.
Second, a court must weigh the employee's “[F]irst [A]mendment interests” against the interest of the City, as an employer, “in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Morgan, 6 F.3d at 754. In performing this balancing test, a court must consider several factors: (1) whether the speech at issue impeded the government's ability to perform its duties effectively; (2) the manner, time and place of the speech; and (3) the context within which the speech was made. Connick, 461 U.S. at 151-55, 103 S.Ct. at 1692-94; Morales v. Stierheim, 848 F.2d 1145, 1149 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1013, 109 S.Ct. 1124, 103 L.Ed.2d 187 (1989). We can discern no indication that Fikes' actions disrupted the functioning of the Daphne police department. To the contrary, Fikes's attempts to expose police malfeasance helped further the municipality's responsibility to provide effective law enforcement services. In addition, Fikes chose to express his accusations at a “time, place, and manner” so as to minimize possible disruptions to the police department.
Third, a court must determine whether the speech in question played a “substantial part” in the government's decision to discharge the employee. Id. Without a doubt, appellant's complaint raises this inference. Chief Hall's comment to the City's personnel manager indicates that the chief wanted appellant out of the police department. In addition, after appellant refused to reveal the results of his investigation to Sergeants Gipson and Johnson, they cited him for insubordination. Finally, a comparison of what the City initially cited as “good cause” (when it notified appellant of his discharge and his right to a pretermination hearing), with the “good cause” the City found after the hearing indicates that appellant was discharged for conduct other than that cited in the prehearing notice.9  The contrast between the notice and the discharge order suggests that the City arrived at good cause after the fact and without notice to appellant. From this it might be inferred, depending on the other evidence in the case, that the City had committed itself to terminating appellant's employment whether or not good cause existed. In any event, it seems clear to us that appellant has created an issue for the factfinder as to whether his speech played a “substantial part” in the City's decision to fire him.
Fourth, if the employee shows that the speech was a substantial motivating factor in the decision to discharge him, the City must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision in the absence of the protected conduct. Id. Whether the City can satisfy this burden is obviously a matter for another day.
III.
We VACATE the district court's judgment in favor of the City and the individual defendants in their individual capacities, insofar as it dismisses the First Amendment claim described above. We REMAND that claim for further proceedings. Due to the manner in which appellant has pled his complaint, however, the contours of that claim may differ when the district court, in narrowing the issues, calls appellant's counsel to task and determines precisely what it is that appellant contends. Our holding, therefore, is limited to the reading we have given the complaint in this opinion.
We also VACATE the court's dismissal of appellant's pendent claims and REMAND those claims for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
APPENDIX
27. On May 26, 1990, while FIKES was off duty, but was riding in a patrol car with Sergeant Walter Gipson, a high speed pursuit originated in the police jurisdiction of the City of Daphne. Due to the fact that said pursuit was becoming a danger to non-participants of the pursuit, it was ordered by Sergeant Walter Gipson to break-off the pursuit. This call to break-off was witnessed by FIKES. This order to break-off was ignored by Officer Charlie McNichol, with said high speed pursuit resulting in four fatalities. The four fatalities were subsequent to the order to Officer Charlie McNichol to break-off the pursuit.
28. FIKES reported the conduct of Officer Charlie McNichol regarding the high speed chase to Chief Joe Hall and again in an Alabama Bureau of Investigation (hereafter referred to as “ABI”) report dated November 22, 1991. As a direct result FIKES was accused by Chief Joseph Hall (hereafter referred to as “HALL”) of falsifying an official report to the City of Daphne, and of later stealing said report.
29. Melvin Johnson took a vehicle that had not been properly condemned and used the vehicle for personal use. Melvin Johnson was the acting Assistant Chief during this time period. The ABI determined in their investigation that Melvin Johnson should not have been using said vehicle for his personal use. HALL recommended that FIKES be terminated for reporting the improper use of the vehicle, although it was not out-right stated by HALL that the recommendation for termination was for reporting the vehicle matter.
30. Charlie McNichol filed a report containing false allegations with HALL regarding FIKES' investigation of certain improprieties within the Daphne Police Department. HALL responded to said report by informing FIKES to be quiet about the entire matter.
31. After HALL became aware of the fact that FIKES was conducting an investigation and was reporting his findings to other appropriate authorities, to include the ABI, HALL went to the City Manager and asked the City Manager to “shit-can” FIKES. HALL, while acting under color of state law devised and initiated a systematic strategy to eliminate FIKES from the Daphne Police Department. HALL later stated to others “that he had only fired one man in the past two-years, and he had fired him, (FIKES), because he called and had him (HALL) investigated”.
32. On November 12, 1991, Sergeant Walter Gipson and Sergeant Melvin Johnson attempted to interrogate FIKES regarding his investigation of the improprieties that FIKES had witnessed within the Daphne Police Department. FIKES responded by informing said individuals that he would not elaborate unless his attorney was present along with HALL. Sergeant Walter Gipson and Sergeant Melvin Johnson responded by citing FIKES for insubordination.
FOOTNOTES
1.   This statement of good cause is taken verbatim from appellant's complaint.
2.   Appellant also sued “DOES ONE through FIVE.” The district court, in its order dismissing the case, struck these unknown persons as defendants.
3.   See Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465, 1518 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 855, 112 S.Ct. 167, 116 L.Ed.2d 131 (1991).
4.   In the first paragraph of his complaint, appellant alleged that he “seeks to enjoin the defendants from continuing to deprive him of [his constitutional] rights.” In the prayer for relief at the conclusion of his complaint, however, appellant made no mention of equitable relief. Rather, he sought only money damages.
5.   The allegation that appellant's discharge was unlawful because it was without cause does not appear in the Statement of Facts, but rather in count one of the complaint.
6.   The district court had the inherent authority to require the appellant to file a more definite statement. Such authority, if not inherent in Rule 12(e), is surely within the district court's authority to narrow the issues in the case in order to speed its orderly, efficient, and economic disposition. In this case, the district court would have acted well within its discretion if, acting sua sponte, it had returned the complaint to appellant's attorney (retaining a copy for the court file) with the instruction that he plead the case in accordance with Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b).
7.   In its order dismissing the complaint, the district court stated that it had “consider[ed] ․ the motion, plaintiff's response in opposition thereto, defendants' reply brief and pertinent portions of the record․” Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,[i]f, on a motion ․ to dismiss for failure ․ to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b).To the extent that the district court's opinion can be read as showing that the court relied upon matters outside of the complaint, we should construe the order as granting summary judgment rather than dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). However, in order to convert a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) into a summary judgment motion, the district court is required to provide sufficient notice to the parties of its intent to do so. Here, the court failed to provide such notice. Therefore, we will treat the district court's order as one granting a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal rather than an order granting summary judgment.
8.   The relevant portions of Fikes' complaint follow in an Appendix to this opinion.
9.   The initial notice to appellant recited:(a) Violation of [police] department rules of conduct by making false accusations against other officers in the department;(b) Insubordination;(c) Making untrue public statements;(d) Filing untrue and inaccurate departmental reports; and,(e) Making false accusations and [misrepresenting] facts in a report of an official investigation.This statement of good cause is taken verbatim from appellant's complaint. As noted supra, the cause recited in the eventual discharge order read quite differently. It recited:(a) Deliberately stealing, destroying, abusing or damaging City property, tools, or equipment, or the property of another employee, citizen or visitor;(b) Disclosure of confidential city information to unauthorized persons;(c) Wilfully disregarding City policies or procedures.
TJOFLAT, Chief Judge:

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

So! Who is going to jail? Not us......

Folks, it seems like Ana desperately wants people to believe the whistleblowers are going to jail.  When Ana is out and about the county, she is frequently asked by those who supported her at one time if she really did the things that have been posted on the blog.  Ana's comment is always no.  Ana tells anybody and everybody that will listen how the whistleblowers went in her home, tampered with Bones truck, forced her to put fences up around her property (at MCSO expense of course), the whistleblowers cut my gas lines, the whistleblowers rigged my horse trailer so it would wreck.  According to Ana's own words, she met with folks in Montgomery to show cause why the whistleblowers should be arrested.  What does that tell you about the cockeyed sheriff of Morgan County?  It tells you, Franklin, is a liar.  If she had anything on the whistleblowers she would not be crying foul to the state, surrounding sheriffs, or anybody else.  We would have been arrested.

Speaking of Ana and her lies.  Ana will be arrested for a multitude of criminal offenses.  Ana will not be the only one of her goons who will be arrested.   She will have plenty of company.  She will have a long time to think about the destruction she brought to the MCSO, the employees, the inmates, and to families she destroyed along the way.

Ana doesn't care about the crimes she has committed, the people she has hurt and she relishes in having the power over her goons who commit criminal acts on her behalf.  Once they are arrested they will never understand or accept their part in the criminal acts that placed them behind bars. Ana and her goons are in denial.  They are cowards hiding behind their badges.  They attack from behind.  They are the worst of the worst cowards.  We could go on and on but all you goons are going to jail and when you do we will be there to help pick up the pieces and or perform any services we can to help rebuild a stronger county knowing you are done.

Trust is something you goons no longer have in this county.  Honesty is something you no longer have in this county. Integrity is something you no longer have in this county.  Morals are something you no longer have in this county (that is unless you are all ally cats).

Keep on talking about us going to jail but when you look in the mirror you know who is really going to jail.  It is exciting to sit and wait for your arrests to come.  We really feel sorry for you, well almost.  You didn't have to become criminals.  You knew what you were doing.  Each and every person who has a conscious knows before you commit the act that it is wrong. 


Tuesday, November 7, 2017

The Jail Administrator - Larry Berzett Who's in Charge

What kind of jail is Larry Berzett running and does he care.  Our sources tell us there is a lot of love going around in the jail between the inmates and corrections officers.  Steven Ziaja aka Ricky Dukes first sent us a message regarding contract labor personnel involved in a relationship with one of the commissary help inmates.  We have heard about sex in the closets, corrections going to the work site of their inmate love to continue their relationship, we heard about a corrections officer having fun in the parking lot, and now we hear that the sheriff's office has well over 180 telephone conversations between a corrections officer and an inmate.  BTW.  The inmate has recently been released.

The stories go on and on and are repulsive and if true each sexual event between the MCSO employee has with an inmate is a felony.  So! who has oversight over the correction officers?  None other than Mr. Larry Berzett.  Well! Larry is certainly an upstanding conniving individual who was found guilty in a court of milking his elderly relative and had to pay the money back.  Larry is the one who screwed up the security in the new jail, Larry is the one who gets irritated when he is stopped for traveling at high rates of speed and then tries to get law enforcement officers fired for doing their job.  Larry is responsible for the jail, the inmates, housing of the inmates, and oversight of the corrections officers.  This was once a job for the Warden but Larry changed all of that.  The warden's position is now just a slot that can be filled by anybody willing to kiss Larry and Ana's butts.

Let's get back to the employee that allegedly had sex with the help aka an inmate.   The employee had an inmate that tagged along with the employee everywhere she went.  Ana always comes to the defense of the contractor giving them a clothing allowance, MCSO credit card, and a vehicle to drive.  Ana claims she had to do this because it was written up in the contractor's contract that the sheriff's office must furnish these items to the contractor.  It is a shame that the deputies do not have a contract that requires the sheriff to assist them in the payments of their uniforms.  Franklin can reward all of her thugs with perks.  Each one of Ana's goons is being rewarded handsomely for their support of Ana and many have participated in illegal acts.  New vehicles, horse trailers,  posse attire, horses, saddles, briddles, thousands in overtime never worked, a house to live in when Ana is away, and countless other payments to include free trips. 

Monday, November 6, 2017

It's Monday

Who are the players in Ana's world? 

 Bones Wilson.  We believe that Bones is a very dangerous man.  He is known for doing Ana's bidding without challenge.  During the 2014 campaign, he was seen in a white commercial van throwing out two letter plastic drink bottles in the ditches of Morgan County.  What was in those bottles, Bones?  Bones is too lazy to do real work.  Many families on New Center Road recall an illegal Halfway House for women.  The inmates we spoke to told us that METH was being made in the halfway house and the house was sponsored by Sheriff Ana Franklin.  Franklin claimed an enormous number of METH bust in 2013 and 2014 but didn't acknowledge that she sponsored a halfway house where inmates alleged they were making METH.  Bones invested thousands of dollars in the Title Mart and received a hefty compensation for his investment with a 30-day return.  In addition, Bones Wilson received over $100,000.00 dollars in overtime he did not work.  


 Blake Robinson.  Another one of the golden ones.  Assisted Ana in the Keylogger software installation.  Makes false arrests.  Has no fear of the FBI and challenged them to a shootout on the Sheriff's Office front steps.  Blake Robinson is a thug with a weapon.  Blake also made thousands and thousands of dollars working overtime at the sheriff's office while he was detailing vehicles at the Title Mart in Hartselle.  He used the Jeffreys property, facility, and detail equipment bought by Steven Ziaja to clean vehicles so that he and Ziaja could split the money.

 Justin Powell.  Corrections Officer turned Information Technology Specialist under Mama Ana's guidance and instruction.  Franklin taught Powell how to monitor his co-workers, and to do things that most honorable Information Technology Specialist would never do.  Justin Powell handed over the Keylogger software to his informant with instructions on how to use it which allowed the Sheriff and her goons to steal documents, emails, and to video the offices prior to lying to an innocent judge to get a legal search warrant.  The Keylogger software was placed on two computers.  What's interesting about Powell is that he did all of his nefarious work without overtime.  How did Sheriff Franklin manipulate Powell into conducting illegal acts on her behalf?  Granted Powell went from a corrections officer with benefits to an Information Technology Specialist without competition for the job.  Powell is definitely moving on up.  The question is will he land in jail or has he self-reported to outside agencies?

Sheriff Ana Franklin Queen Bee aka Mama Ana.  The sheriff of Morgan County.  An impressive position for a person who is shallow, a thief, who has committed abuses of power, a dysfunctional defunct leader who is responsible for serving and protecting the citizens of our county.  A sheriff who has lied at every turn.  Franklin lied to the press, the citizens, the Decatur Daily, her employees, she cheated her employees out of pay, she lied to her employees and has no respect in this county. Ana claims that the whistleblower has multiple criminal arrests.  Ana denies any activity in the Keylogger.  Ana denies the property in Saraland exists.  Ana fires employees because she doesn't trust them to keep or know about her dirty little secrets.  The 55-year-old Franklin living a life of crime while hiding behind her position. Franklin was instrumental in setting up her gang of goons to install Keylogger software on the whistleblowers' computer, having the office broken into, stealing information, claiming that the whistleblowers had committed over 170 felony counts of crime, claiming that Warden Bradley sent the whistleblower sheriff's office confidential information via email.  Everything to date that Franklin and her attorney Billable Barney have said are lies.  Franklin is the kind of dysfunctional sheriff that you read about but you would never expect in your own backdoor.  The backdoor being Morgan County.  Corruption is alive and well in Sheriff Ana Franklin's world.

 Greg Steenson.  What can we say.  Steenson is a criminal with a long history of manipulating others, stealing their money, stealing money from banks, money from individuals, and from his own family.  The kind of guy that only a mother could love that is except that this time around with the Title Mart debacle he involved his family, cousin Ana, Steven Ziaja, Bones Wilson, Blake Robinson, and a host of others.  All with the plan of screwing Mr. Jeffreys.  Plans to circle their wagons and blame Mr. Jeffreys for everything.  How's that working out for ya Greg?  Did you mention what came out of the creek?  Did you tell Ana?  She sure made multiple calls on the day of the creek dive trying to find out what was going on at the creek.  

Larry Berzett.  Ana promised him the moon.  How's that working out for ya Larry?  Will you be caught up in the criminal conduct revolving around the Sheriff?  We know you partake of posse funds.  Did Ana buy you the new truck she promised you?  Is it in your name personally?  Did you pay cash for it?  Larry a speeding fool but when he is stopped by law enforcement he wants the law enforcement officers fired for doing their job.  Larry Berzett the Jail Administrator with no respect in Morgan County.  Larry the big man on campus.  Tell us, Larry, where you get the food to feed the inmates these days?   

Ron Livingston.  A man worth mentioning.  Where are all of the lost weapons Livingston was responsible for?  Ron Livingston whom Sheriff Ana Franklin now wants to get rid of.  What's a sheriff to do?  Franklin claims that Livingston is old and she can't place him in positions to support the troops.  Too old to do his job.  Franklin also fumes that right now she cannot do anything to get rid of Livingston or Bili.  Livingston and Berzett do not get along.  Who does Ana side with?  Berzett of course.  Franklin wants to know what the hell Bili is doing with the deputies.  She has no faith in any of the command staff to include suck up Corley.  

Steven Ziaja.  Sheriff Ana Franklin's ex-boyfriend.  Lover for years.  That is until she sucked him dry.  Ziaja supported Franklin then and now.  Ziaja was at an event a couple of weeks ago singing Ana's praises.  He loves him some Ana.  Ana, on the other hand, would just as soon as run over Ziaja with a bush hog.  Oh! the disappointment when a relationship ends.  Ana blames Ziaja for the Title Mart debacle.  She blames him because he gave her all his money.  She blames him for involving her family to include Alyssa in the Title Mart.  She blames him for her investment and those of her employees such as Blake and Bones.  She blames him for stepfamily involvement, the only person Franklin hasn't blamed is herself.  Franklin stole money from the inmate food funds to invest but don't be fooled Ana began her thieving ways of partaking of the inmate food funds in 2013.  Ana has told so many lies that she can't remember the truth.  The only truths Ana knows are the ones she makes up in her head.  Ana also claims that even if Keylogger software was installed on the whistleblowers' computers she has immunity.  Franklin thought she had immunity for causing a wreck in South Alabama that severely injured two elderly people.  She was not immune.  We could go on and on with Ana's accolades but we believe most folks already know about Ana's adventures.  Thank You, Morgan County.






Saturday, November 4, 2017

Blake Robinson - Bones Wilson -Steven Ziaja

Robert "Bones" Wilson and Blake "Flake" Robinson:  Wow!  Look at the money these guys have made.  No wonder Blake made the battle cries for the FBI to bring it on.  Bones and Robinson are making more money on overtime than some of the employees make per year. Do the guys on patrol realize how much money you are making?  The hours they actually submit and get in overtime comes close to the hours the rest of the employees actually work?  It's a staggering amount of money. Blake's overtime pay at approximately $59,000.00 does not come close to Bones' overtime pay coming in at approximately $109,000.00.  All of the overtime paid out has been under Sheriff Ana Franklin's watchful eyes.  Blake and Bones applied for staggering amounts of overtime at the same time the deputies were told to limit their gas usage.  No play for pay for the deputies and other MCSO employees who are not included in Franklin's games, rodeo travel, and excursions.

How much money did Blake, Ziaja, and Bones make from Title Marts?

Blake Robinson and Steven Ziaja opened an auto detail shop in the Hartselle Title Mart to earn extra cash while they were supposed to be working their regular day jobs at the same time Robinson was claiming 100's of hours of overtime at the sheriff's office. 

How did any of the law enforcement officers have time to do their regular jobs?  Blake Robinson made over 38,000.00 dollars detailing vehicles for the Title Marts that his boss (Ana Franklin) invested in.  How did Blake have time to perform his regular job?  Steven Ziaja purchased equipment for the detail shop using a Performance Auto Sales credit card.  He and Robinson had an agreement that they would split any proceeds from the business.  

Blake Robinson and Bones Wilson also invested thousands of dollars in the Title Mart dealership with Greg Steenson and received up to 27% interest return within 30 days of the investment.  They got their money back.

Steven Ziaja received a whopping 45% interest for his investments that he claimed he never received a return on.  These guys are all corrupt cops.  They made money from cheating their respective law enforcement agencies by investing in the Title Mart businesses, working at the Title Marts during their normal duty day that should be been fighting crime and not being the criminals.  They purchased equipment and was reimbursed by poor old Mr. Jeffreys.  

On April 30, 2015, Ziaja bought a bunch of miscellaneous tools to be used at the Hartselle Title Mart location from K&K Sales in Cullman (invoice #639882).

The tally on these tools came to $1,067.11.

One of the most notable items that Ziaja bought is a Simpson 2700 PSI pressure washer that Blake Robinson used at the detailing business he operated out of Hartselle Title Mart.  Blake did not try to hide what he was doing in the detail shop he also used Alyssa and LuLu.  They, however, did not get a cut of the free cash.

Where are all of those tools (pressure washer included)?

Since Performance compensated Ziaja for this purchase, he should be required to return these tools.

(Compliments of Dumpster Divers, LLC)




These men are criminals.  Blake is so dangerous he wants to fight the FBI on the front steps of the sheriff's office.  We bought him some adult diapers (Depends) so that when he initiates the fight he will not poop all over himself for the entire community to see.

All of these people should be on the Sheriff's most wanted list however you must owe the courts money, be on a failure to appear, or back child support to make that list.  These guys are hardened criminals and they are dangerous men carrying a weapon.


Friday, November 3, 2017

There's bones and then there's Bones



s

Bones



Billable Barney

Something significant must be going on this week for Sheriff Ana Franklin to be in the office on Wednesday and Thursday.  How's that working out for ya Ana?  What about good ole Larry.  Are you two up to no good.  My goodness you two need to get away and relax.  Go to Saraland for a few days and relax.  Roam the open trails of your property.  You could even invite Dee and her hubby.  We hear Dee needs a break.  Traveling all of the county to purchase food for the inmates.  Why are they doing that you might ask.  To save money  of course.  The more money Ana saves on the commissary the more retirements funds that go into her pocket.  Hey! Has anyone seen Ana's big dream horse trailer lately?  Well! The last we heard it was in Cullman at Dee Goodwin's mother's house.  Why would Ana think she has to hide the monster trailer?  She hasn't hidden ole Blue that she also purchased in Mississippi using county funds.  Ole Blue only cost the county about $3,500.00. 




The whistleblower has heard Billable Barney time and time again say that the whistleblowers are going to jail.  For what Barney?  Is it because we are telling the truth about your meal ticket?  One thing is for sure someone or perhaps more than one someone is going to jail for their conduct and criminal activity?  Why do you keep saying it's the whistleblower, Barney?

From what I understand Barney is still making money from the companies looking for assistance from the Industrial Development Board (IDB).  Which we believe is a major conflict of interest and is taking money out of the pockets of our community.  This has gone on for years and unless the City Council does something to stop the practice it will continue to go on for years to come.

Barney screamed, yelled, and jumped up and down until he found out who the whistleblower is.  He has screamed that the whistleblower is a criminal.  He sure doesn't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.  Same goes for Franklin so it seems like each side will have to wait to see who is going to jail.



 Barney needs to take a chill pill.  Everything will come out in due time to include Saraland.  You see there is no need to jump each time Barney screams foul.  Barney had him a good ole friend in Luther Strange, Barney had him a good ole friend in Huntsville, Barney thinks he controls the court systems both state and federal.  Barney. Barney. Barney.  Just like the whistleblower is just a little ole drywall company you are just a little ole attorney.  Neither you nor I can control the outcome if the judicial system.   So, calm down and wait for the wheels of justice to turn.  That's all we can do and that is all you can do.

No matter what the outcome of the claims we have made against Sheriff Ana Franklin this will all pass.  Some of us will have egg on our faces and some of us will go to jail and life goes on.  Some of us will celebrate our victory.


Thursday, November 2, 2017

Good Morning Morgan County - What's a girl to do?

Another day is looming over Morgan County without the sheriff being cuffed.  Ana is questioning herself shall I stay or shall I go.

Enjoy the day.  Deputies, corrections officers, and clerks continue performing your job.  

There!  I feel much better now.  On to the subject at hand.

Ana is at still another crossroads in her professional life.  Rumor has a political heavyweight demanding an answer to Are you going to run or not?  We're here to help.

As we see it, she has three, maybe four alternatives.
First, she does nothing,  stands pat and let the force of circumstance wash over her and hope it all turns out all right.  It won't of course.  Outside agencies are circling, allies are defecting, your choices are more limited every day.  Deciding not to decide is a bad decision but it is the easiest to do.
Or
She announces right now that she's in the race, takes all the initial heat from the press, plots revenge on her enemies, tells the feds to bug off, and if she can just stay out of jail, she just might win because a lot of our fellow citizens won't even pay attention until after the super bowl, no, after the NBA playoffs, no then there's the Stanley Cup, whaddaya know, football pre-season.  Staying out of jail is a big IF.  But 
Or
She starts quickly and quietly moving all her portable assets offshore as well as liquidating real estate, including (sob) Saraland, and right before the US Marshals pounce, charter a jet with a 5000-mile radius.  Can't go commercial because then she'll be on a no-fly list. Here's where you can go.  Better brush up on your language skills.  Not everybody speaks redneck. Just trying to be helpful.