You are on page 1of 61

Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 1 of 61 FILED

2018 Oct-17 PM 04:26


U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

GLENDA LOCKHART, and )


STRAIGHTLINE DRYWALL )
AND ACOUSTICAL, LLC )
)
counter-defendants, )
)
vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.:
) 5:16-cv-1699-MHH
ANA FRANKLIN, ROBERT )
WILSON, BLAKE ROBINSON, )
AND JUSTIN POWELL, ET AL )
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Counter-Plaintiffs. )

COUNTERCLAIM

COME NOW Counter-Plaintiffs, Sheriff Ana Franklin, Lt. Robert Wilson, Sgt. Blake

Robinson, and Justin Powell, without waiving and expressly reserving any and all other defenses

that may be applicable, and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 13, plead the following claims

against Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants Glenda Lockhart and Straightline Drywall and

Acoustical, LLC.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The counter-plaintiffs invoke the jurisdiction of the Court’s supplemental

jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, on Alabama state law claims stated herein. The

allegations herein arise out of the same general transaction and set of facts alleged by Plaintiffs,

Glenda Lockhart and Straightline Drywall and Acoustical, LLC.

1
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 2 of 61

2. The actions which form the basis of this counterclaim, primarily occurred in

Morgan County, Alabama, and therefore venue is proper in this court, on these counterclaims.

PARTIES

3. The counter-plaintiff, Ana Franklin, is over the age of nineteen (19) years and a

resident citizen of Morgan County, Alabama.

4. The counter-plaintiff, Blake Robinson, is over the age of nineteen (19) years and a

resident citizen of Morgan County, Alabama.

5. The counter-plaintiff, Bob Wilson, is over the age of nineteen (19) years and a

resident citizen of Lawrence County, Alabama.

6. The counter-plaintiff, Justin Powell, is over the age of nineteen (19) years and a

resident citizen of Cullman County, Alabama.

7. The counter-defendant, Glenda Lockhart, is an individual who is over the age of

nineteen (19) and is a resident of Morgan County, Alabama.

8. The counter-defendant, Straightline Drywall and Acoustical, LLC, is a

corporation incorporated in Marshall County, Alabama, and that was conducting business within

Morgan County, Alabama, at the time of the incident(s) giving rise to this suit and, additionally,

has continued to conduct business in Morgan County up to and including the date of the filing of

this Counterclaim. At all times relevant hereto, Glenda Lockhart, and others involved in this

case, were acting as an agent, servant, employee, or representative of Straightline Drywall and

Acoustical, LLC.

2
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 3 of 61

FACTS, GENERALLY

9. All facts, claims and causes of action as stated herein are pled either in addition to

each other and/or in the alternative of each other.

THE WHISTLEBLOWER BLOG

10. Counter-defendant, Glenda Lockhart, and/or her business, counter-defendant

Straightline Drywall and Acoustical, LLC (hereinafter “Straightline”), own, operate, and/or

control an internet blog known as the Morgan County Whistle Blower (hereinafter “the blog”),

hosted at the URL: morgan.morgancountywhistleblower.com

11. At all times relevant hereto, Glenda Lockhart organized, controlled, and

conducted the business of Straightline in such a way that it was her personal instrumentality or

alter ego in causing the injuries to the counter-plaintiffs described herein, such that the corporate

veil, otherwise separating liability between her business and her personal assets, was pierced.

12. The blog has the stated purpose and intent of insuring that Sheriff Ana Franklin

“has a hard time during the next election,” by facilitating personal attacks on the counter-

plaintiffs here, who are employed by Morgan County, Alabama in the Sheriff’s Office.

13. In fact, Glenda Lockhart hates Ana Franklin, Bob Wilson, Blake Robinson, and

Justin Powell, and resents everything they stand for.

14. Lockhart has maintained avenues in various forms for publicizing information

pertaining to the Morgan County Sheriff’s Office, since 2011, when she was arrested by the

Morgan County Sheriff’s Office.

3
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 4 of 61

15. The counter-defendant has explained through her blog and statements provided to

news outlets such as AL.com, the Decatur Daily, and even the New York Times, that her animus

towards these individuals originated from this arrest in 2011.

16. To that end, the authors of the blog, including Lockhart and others who are

unknown at this time, have engaged in the nearly daily publication of false, and negligently,

wantonly, recklessly, and/or intentionally defamatory attacks on the counter-plaintiffs.

17. The authors of the blog engaged in this conduct negligently, wantonly, recklessly,

or intentionally knowing that the information published was false or that it was probably false, or

with a reckless disregard for the truth.

18. For the majority of the time, the blog was personally invasive and offensive, but

of little concern to the law-enforcement duties of MCSO.

SUSPICION ARISES CONCERNING GLENDA’S COMMUNICATION WITH JAIL STAFF

19. However, information began to appear on the blog that the MCSO determined

could only have been provided from sources within the Sheriff’s Office, indicating that personnel

within the MCSO was delivering confidential, privileged, law enforcement sensitive information

to Lockhart for publication on her blog without proper authority.

20. On one instance, in November 2015, information concerning an escapee from the

Morgan County jail appeared on the blog before some personnel within the Morgan County

Sheriff’s Office were even aware that an escape had occurred.

21. After an inmate died while in Morgan County custody, the Sheriff’s Office was

unable to locate the decedent’s next of kin.

4
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 5 of 61

22. However, in or around March 1, 2016, a lawsuit was filed by Anna Marie

Contreras against the Sheriff’s Office, who claimed to be the Hispanic inmate’s next of kin.

23. Upon information and belief, Leon Bradley found Anna Marie Contreras.

24. The lawsuit was later amended to add all of the counter-plaintiffs, and was joined

with a second lawsuit alleging substantially the same facts relating to the health of inmates in the

Morgan County jail.

25. Upon information and belief, the lawsuit was solicited by, and Contreras’

Complaint was in fact notarized by Glenda Lockhart on or before February 22, 2016.

26. Other information began to appear on the blog relating to the jail, including

information concerning specific inmates, that only further indicated that someone within the jail

was leaking internal information to the blog.

27. By July of 2016, various members of the Morgan County Sheriff’s Office had

come to suspect that Leon Bradley, the jail warden, was communicating directly with Glenda

Lockhart, and was providing her with internal, law-enforcement information. At that point,

however, the suspicion was little more than an educated guess.

28. By this time Daniel Lockhart had contacted Sgt. Blake Robinson, multiple times.

29. Daniel Lockhart has stated multiple times and even testified under oath, that he

was willing to provide information against his grandmother because he did not like the fact that

Glenda’s activities surrounding the blog was “ruining” his family.

30. On July 11, 2016, Daniel Lockhart, the counter-defendant’s grandson, requested a

meeting with Sgt. Blake Robinson to discuss his interest in working as an informant for the

MCSO.
5
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 6 of 61

31. The meeting between Sgt. Blake Robinson and Daniel Lockhart was recorded.

During the meeting, Daniel listed several people that he was aware was providing information to

the blog, and confirmed that Leon Bradley was one of several people providing information to

Glenda Lockhart.

32. On July 27, 2016, Glenda Lockhart posted a photograph of a document which had

been highlighted in particular places.

33. Upon review, the MCSO determined that the photographed document posted to

the whistleblower site appeared to be the same document, with the same portions highlighted,

that was provided only to Leon Bradley.

LOCKHART PROVIDES INFORMATION TENDING TO INCRIMINATE LEON BRADLEY

34. Communication with Daniel Lockhart continued. By September 28, 2016, MCSO

counts a total of more than 40 separate messages sent by Daniel Lockhart, unsolicited, where

Daniel Lockhart was soliciting Robinson to hire him as a “Confidential Informant” (“CI”) on his

grandmother, Glenda Lockhart.

35. On September 28, 2016, Daniel Lockhart requested another meeting, specifically

with Sheriff Ana Franklin. Ultimately, counter-plaintiffs Ana Franklin, Lt. Bob Wilson, and Sgt.

Blake Robinson attended the meeting, along with Sheriff’s Office attorney, Barney Lovelace.

36. At that meeting, the counter-defendant’s grandson, Daniel Lockhart, in an effort

to prove his bona fides, delivered forty-five physical, hard-copy, pages of documents in a black

notebook, to the Morgan County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”), which documents he claimed he

had taken from Glenda Lockhart’s office at Straightline Drywall and Acoustical, LLC

6
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 7 of 61

(hereinafter “Straightline”). Additionally, Lockhart texted 16 photographs of documents to Sgt.

Blake Robinson, immediately prior to the meeting.

37. The documents provided by Daniel Lockhart reflected numerous emails sent from

ex-warden Leon Bradley’s MCSO email account, to his personal email account, and then

forwarding the email along again to an email account operated by Glenda Lockhart.

38. Among other things, the emails provided included emails forwarded from Bradley

to Lockhart, that otherwise should have been protected as “attorney client privilege,” sent by and

between attorney Lovelace and Sheriff’s Office command staff.

39. The emails confirmed previous statements that Daniel Lockhart had made to

MCSO deputies, to the effect that Leon Bradley was “leaking” information from the MCSO to

Glenda Lockhart.

40. The meeting that took place on September 28, 2016 was recorded, and the

recording remains in the possession of the MCSO.

41. During the two-hour, recorded meeting between the counter-plaintiff’s grandson

and MCSO personnel, Daniel informed the MCSO of all of the following:

a) That counter-defendant Glenda Lockhart had previously “pulled a 357 magnum


[pistol] and put it to [Daniel Lockhart’s] little brother’s head. He's 11 years old
[at that time] walking into his own house getting a 357 magnum put to his
head.”

b) Daniel Lockhart has “a little brother that can't even go to school on time because
[Glenda Lockhart] is more worried about Whistleblowing. They can't even go
to bed at night because she's got these random ass people showing up, talking
randomly.”

c) Glenda Lockhart “paid Ashley Yarbrough to go on dates with [ALEA agent,


Steven] Ziaja.”

d) “Leon Bradley started talking to [Candidate for Morgan County Sheriff] Randy
7
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 8 of 61

[Cavnar]. Didn’t work out with Randy. So they started talking to


Whistleblower.”

e) That Glenda Lockhart has received and retains

1. pay stubs of MCSO employees

2. Blue, vaccination forms for employees

3. MCSO employees’ medical records

4. Original arrest reports that can only be obtained from the Sheriff’s
Office.

5. “Every officer here [at the MCSO] has a file in our freaking office [at
Straightline Drywall]. We have a filing cabinet full. It's a lot. Everything
you got here is probably in her office, and that's what's scary. Who is
giving her all that stuff?”

6. According to Daniel’s statement on September 28, 2016, “[s]he’s got


files in her office that are confidentiality files and that's illegal for her
to even have those.”

f) That “[s]omeone in [the MCSO] is taking pictures of it or getting it from


somewhere. I mean, I can’t tell you specifically that it’s from [the MCSO
office], but why would she mess with health department crap? She only cares
about the sheriff’s department.”

g) Daniel led the MCSO to believe that he had access to and permission to use
Glenda’s computers by making statements such as that he “was on [Glenda’s]
computer last week”, and at that time she had thousands of pictures, including
pictures of Lt. Wilson, Sheriff Franklin, and former ALEA agent Steven Ziaja.
But then Daniel further explained that when he got on Glenda’s computer “this
week, last night,” that is September 27, 2016, there were no pictures. Daniel
explained “[a]ll your pictures are gone. All that stuff has been printed out and
hid. Stuff I could usually find, I couldn't find.”

h) That Glenda Lockhart, or other operatives working for the Whistleblower blog,
may have installed GPS trackers on multiple MCSO vehicles including those
of the counter-plaintiffs.

i) Daniel Lockhart also disclosed that on at least one occasion, Glenda Lockhart
rode in the passenger seat of an automobile that trespassed onto Ana Franklin’s
real property where Sheriff Franklin lives – indeed, the Whistleblower website
contains numerous examples of photographs taken from locations physically
8
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 9 of 61

located on Sheriff Franklin’s real property, of Sheriff Franklin’s personal


property.

42. Daniel Lockhart was willing to inform on his grandmother, and he did exactly

that. Daniel stated that he was willing to cooperate with the MCSO because Glenda Lockhart’s

obsession with Sheriff Franklin was “tearing our family apart. I got a little brother that can't even

go to school on time because she is more worried about Whistleblowing.” And then later Daniel

Lockhart explains: “[Glenda] thinks that people are trying to get to her, thinks people is trying to

hurt her. But it’s gone too far when you put a gun to my little brother’s head.” He even testified

under oath to the Circuit Court of Morgan County that he talked to the MCSO because “[Glenda

Lockhart] had been ruining the family for the past couple of years being so focused on Ana

Franklin.”

43. The documents provided by Daniel Lockhart on September 28, 2016 included

inmate records which had come into the possession of Glenda Lockhart, and which Daniel

Lockhart was representing to the MCSO, also appeared to have been provided by Leon Bradley.

44. Lockhart’s statement to the MCSO, coupled with the emails and documents he

provided, prompted the MCSO to inspect Bradley’s Morgan County office, as well as to inspect

Bradley’s Morgan County issued computer. No warrant was necessary to inspect Bradley’s

county issued equipment, on site at the Sheriff’s Office.

45. The inspection of Leon Bradley’s Morgan County office and computer shockingly

revealed, among other things, numerous pornographic and/or nude images of multiple females.

This activity is, in and of itself, a terminable offense under MCSO policy.

9
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 10 of 61

46. The inspection further confirmed that Bradley was collecting internal, law

enforcement sensitive materials and memoranda, and was sending them outside the Sheriff’s

office to his personal email account, matching the same methodology reflected in the emails to

whistleblower that Daniel brought to MCSO.

47. The information received from Lockhart gave probable cause for the Morgan

County Sheriff’s Office to request a search warrant for Leon Bradley’s home, to inspect, among

other things, his personal computers at his home.

48. On about October 3, 2016, Sheriff Ana Franklin called the Alabama Attorney

General’s office and spoke with Assistant Attorney General Andrew Arrington.

49. Out of an abundance of caution considering that the MCSO was, itself, a victim of

Bradley’s actions; because Bradley was a member of Franklin’s own command staff; and

because Franklin had been the victim of highly personal attacks by Lockhart’s blog; Franklin

asked whether the Attorney General’s Office could assist the Sheriff’s Office by taking the

information provided by Daniel on September 28, 2016, and taking over the investigation.

50. Notwithstanding the Sheriff’s concerns, Arrington informed Sheriff Franklin that

the Attorney General’s Office had no one available who could be dedicated to such a task at that

time, and further advised that because she had collected the information and was the highest law

enforcement officer in Morgan County, it was within Sheriff Franklin’s responsibility to move

forward with any further investigation.

51. The next day, on or about October 4, 2016, Sgt. Blake Robinson went to Judge

Glen Thompson, where he submitted a sworn affidavit stating, among other things, that he had

“developed a reliable confidential informant involved with the dissemation [sic] of the email to
10
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 11 of 61

the public domian [sic].” None of the information provided by Robinson to Thompson was the

product of keylogger spyware.

52. Daniel Lockhart was, of course, the confidential informant, identified in the

affidavit.

53. While much has been made publicly about whether Daniel was “involved in the

dissemination of the email to the public domain,” the fact is that Daniel Lockhart was (1)

“involved” in the business of Straightline, which was in turn “involved in the dissemination of

the email to the public domain,” (2) he represented that Glenda had paid him to be “involved” in

other aspects of the whistleblower blog, including paying Daniel $300 to take pictures of the

Sheriff at the “posse rodeo” to be posted on the blog, and represented that on at least one other

occasion Glenda was responsible for sending Daniel to follow someone as far as to Pulaski, TN

and to surveil their private activities there, for purposes of the blog; (3) That Daniel had

personally trespassed at and surveilled Sheriff Franklin’s property, where her house was located,

with Glenda Lockhart, and had personal knowledge of a fourth occasion when Glenda Lockhart

rode with Patrick Walker to surveil Sheriff Franklin’s house; (4) Daniel had demonstrated at the

meeting on September 28, 2016, that he had working knowledge of the operations of the

Whistleblower, knowledge of conversations relating to dissemination of MCSO information on

the blog, the methodology that Glenda uses to get information on the Morgan County Sheriff’s

Office, and that he had previously had access to Glenda’s office, and had access to her

“Whistleblower” email account.

11
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 12 of 61

54. All information provided to Judge Glen Thompson in the subject affidavit was

absolutely true, in so far as it was reported to the MCSO, and no counter-plaintiff misled or

misrepresented any information to Judge Glen Thompson.

55. To the extent that a better description of Daniel’s “involvement” was that Daniel

“had personal knowledge concerning dissemination of the email to the public domain”,

ultimately, Daniel Lockhart’s “involvement,” however characterized, specifically with

“dissemination of the email to the public domain” is and was immaterial to issuance of the search

warrant on Bradley’s home.

56. The material fact, necessary to establish “probable cause” for issuance of the

search warrant on Leon Bradley’s residence was clearly stated: the confidential informant had

provided information tending to prove “that Bradley sent MCSO sensitive information to his

personal email accounts, from those accounts he then provided law enforcement sensitive

information to an outside non-law enforcement source.”

57. This was information known to Daniel Lockhart because of his “involvement”

with Glenda Lockhart – he was her grandson, worked at her business, and lived at her house –

and because of his knowledge of those with whom Glenda was communicating, and who was

giving her information.

58. Based on these facts, Circuit Judge Glen Thompson issued the requested warrant

on Leon Bradley’s home on October 4, 2016.

59. The MCSO and the individual Complainants here, not only had “probable cause”

for the issuance of the search warrant permitting a search of Leon Bradley’s residence, as will be

shown and supported by the evidence, the resulting search and seizure at Bradley’s home
12
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 13 of 61

confirmed that Bradley did in fact, without authority, remove and retain more than 350 physical,

hard-copy, files consisting of over 7,000 pages of documents. Many were original files, removed

from the locked and secured filing cabinets on the premises of the Morgan County Sheriff’s

Office.

60. Bradley’s actions, including removal of files from the Sheriff’s Office, appear to

have been in violation of Ala. Code §13A-10-12, concerning tampering with governmental

records.

61. Files recovered from Bradley’s home included portions of original personnel files

of MCSO employees, as well as files pertaining to inmates, which files in turn included law

enforcement sensitive documents and confidential medical records.

62. Such records are useful and necessary to the day to day management of the

employees of the MCSO, and the inmates housed at the Morgan County Jail. Removing the files

interferes with those daily management duties.

63. The files are necessary for assisting employees who seek employment at another

law enforcement department. The files are necessary for the purpose of responding to discovery

in the event that an employee, an inmate, or a third party initiates civil litigation against the

MCSO.

64. Moreover, and most problematic, many of the files contain private health

information and personal identifying information. The files included in those recovered from

Bradley’s residence, contained just such information. Removing these files from the otherwise

locked and secured filing cabinets at the MCSO human resources office, and moving the files to

13
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 14 of 61

an unsecure, off-site location at Bradley’s house subjects the MCSO and the State of Alabama to

potential HIPAA violations and legal exposure.

65. Leon Bradley has never denied removing – in direct contradiction to Sheriff

Franklin’s orders – the more than 350 physical, hard-copy, files from the locked and secured

filing cabinets on the premises of the Morgan County Sheriff’s Office found at his home, nor has

he denied emailing the numerous electronic files to others outside the MCSO, all of which files

he knew neither he nor third parties were authorized to remove or retain, and which files pertain

directly to the operation and law enforcement actions of the Morgan County Sheriff’s Office.

66. The search and seizure of MCSO documents and other materials from Leon

Bradley’s home, led to a lengthy interview, at his request, with Leon Bradley that took place in

the late afternoon and early evening on or about October 5, 2016.

67. Prior to the interview, Bradley was properly mirandized, verbatim from a Miranda

card, at his home by Lt. Bob Wilson, though he was not placed under arrest at that time.

68. Bradley subsequently requested to speak with Sheriff Franklin. Bradley’s county

issued vehicle had been seized, so Lt. Wilson drove Bradley to the MCSO to allow him to talk to

Franklin.

69. During the interview with Sheriff Franklin, which conversation was also recorded

and remains in the possession of the defendants/counter-plaintiffs, Leon Bradley further

implicated the actions of Glenda Lockhart.

70. According to Bradley, Glenda Lockhart represented to Bradley that “everything

she’s doing she’s reporting to [FBI agent Chris Hendon] or the [local district attorney’s office]”

14
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 15 of 61

to the point that Bradley believed Glenda Lockhart was holding herself out as working for and

with the FBI and or Assistant District Attorney, Jerry Knight.

71. After admitting that he sent materials to Glenda Lockhart, which she had no

business receiving, Bradley stated “this is my mindset, this is the FBI and if they are

investigating coercion, they can get that.”

72. Though never definitively stated by Bradley, Glenda Lockhart was leading

numerous people, including Bradley, to believe that she was working as a part of a federal and

state criminal investigation, thereby prompting and encouraging Bradley and others to divulge

otherwise non-public information, under the expectation that Lockhart was then providing the

information to law enforcement investigators.

73. Lockhart was then using that information to post to her blog. Whether Lockhart

may actually have been forwarding information to federal and state law enforcement, her role as

intermediary allowed Lockhart unauthorized access to information to which she would not

otherwise have been privy.

THE MOTIVE BEHIND THE BLOG

74. Lockhart’s stated motive behind the blog arises out of an incident in July 2011

when Lockhart and her husband, Harold “Hal” Lockhart, were arrested by deputies of the

Morgan County Sheriff’s Office for obstruction of justice.

75. According to a court order entered by the criminal court, “[t]he evidence tended to

show the Morgan County Sheriff’s Office received a 911 call [on July 30, 2011] about a possible

domestic violence situation at a home near Falkville. The street number on the home was 2661.”

15
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 16 of 61

76. According to Lockhart’s own sworn testimony, her son Patrick had experienced

serious mental illness, including bipolar disorder, psychotic episodes and hearing voices.

77. Prior to the incident on July 30, 2011 the Morgan County Sheriff’s Office had

been called to her home multiple times, more than five according to Lockhart, to assist with

Patrick’s behavior.

78. According to sworn testimony by sheriff’s deputy Chad Smith, he had been called

out to the Lockhart’s home on at least one occasion previously because Patrick had apparently

overdosed on some cocaine.

79. On July 30, 2011 Deputy Smith was again sent to the Lockhart’s home after the

county received a 911 call reporting shots fired on the property.

80. Hal Lockhart, Glenda Lockhart’s husband, greeted the deputies at a gate to the

Lockhart property, where he informed the deputies that a grandson with mental problems was

afraid of fireworks he had heard earlier, and therefore had called 911.

81. Hal Lockhart failed to inform the deputies that gun shots had, in fact, been fired

as a result of a dispute between Patrick and his mother, counter-defendant Glenda Lockhart.

82. In fact, Glenda Lockhart later admitted that a shotgun had been fired on the

property, claiming that she had fired a shotgun during an argument with her son, Patrick.

83. Upon entering the property, other witnesses – including several minor females

who were having a sleepover – informed the deputies that shots had, in fact, been fired, directly

contradicting the prior statements by Glenda’s husband, Hal Lockhart.

84. According to the deputies, the Lockharts were instructed to remain outside the

home while they sorted through discrepancies in witness accounts.


16
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 17 of 61

85. At that time, Glenda’s Grandson, Daniel Lockhart – who at the time was

approximately 13 years old – was still “missing in the woods,” after gunshots had been reported.

The fact that Lockhart’s son, Patrick, was also missing, both apparently missing following the

gunshots, all contributed to warrant a continued search of Lockhart’s property in an effort to

locate and assist, if necessary, Daniel Lockhart and/or Patrick Lockhart.

86. As time passed while the deputies continued their investigation, the Lockharts

became increasingly irritated with the law enforcement officers on their property.

87. Eventually, the Lockharts were arrested after they disobeyed direct instructions

to remain outside of the Lockhart home while the investigation was completed.

88. Due to the nature of the 911 call, the criminal court held that the exigencies of the

circumstances warranted an initial investigation including a warrantless search of the property.

89. The criminal court did rule, however, that the continuation of the Sheriff’s

warrantless search and investigation beyond an initial safety check – initiated by the 911 call

reporting shots fired on the expansive property – took too long, and therefore dismissed the

criminal case, finding that the continuing search became an unlawful search without a warrant.

90. Thereafter, Lockhart filed a civil suit against the various Morgan County Sheriff

deputies, including Tony Vest, Kristen Barnet, Chad Smith, and Chris Dutton, 5:12-CV-01023-

TMP.

91. Following more full testimony by the deputies and the Lockharts, and other

witnesses to the events of July 30, 2011, Federal District Judge Scott Coogler granted the

deputies’ Motion for Summary Judgment in full.

17
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 18 of 61

92. Deputy Tony Vest, had not moved for summary judgment on Lockhart’s claims

against him for false arrest and false imprisonment, conceding that disputes of material fact

existed with regard to those claims. These remaining claims against Vest were voluntarily

dismissed by stipulation of the parties two weeks later.

93. Lockhart has remained embittered towards the Morgan County Sherriff’s Office,

ever since.

94. Counter-defendant Lockhart has indicated to AL.com journalist, Ashley Remkus,

on or before April 12, 2017 that the blog arises out of a personal vendetta against the Sheriff of

Morgan County following the arrest:

“It's often been asked why Glenda Lockhart has used the blog to publish articles critical
of Franklin.

The answer to that question also relates to another old lawsuit against the sheriff.

...

Lockhart said she decided to start the blog after [Lockhart’s] arrest. It was a way, she
said, ‘to be a voice for the people who really feel like they've been done wrong by the
sheriff's office.’”

(emphasis added).

95. Prior to September 28, 2016, the MCSO had been informed that the blog had been

set up by, and was “in the name of,” Glenda’s grandson, Daniel. And reported this to Daniel, on

September 28, 2016.

96. It now appears that at all relevant times, Glenda Lockhart was and is the owner

and operator of this blog and other related blogs since Sheriff Franklin took office in 2011.

18
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 19 of 61

97. According to the counter-defendant, through her blog, “Franklin has cheated ...

me and my family. I resent Sheriff Ana Franklin and her thugs, Robert “Bones” Wilson, Justin

Powell who made three mirrored copies of my office hard drives (only one copy of the hard

drives went to forensics), Larry Berzett and wife Pam, the Goodwins, Steven Ziaja who is a thug

and a common criminal.”

98. The apparent animus and malicious hatred verbalized by the counter-defendants,

including but not limited to Glenda Lockhart, against Sheriff Franklin and her deputies, is born

out of nothing less than resentment and a vindictive intent towards the counter-plaintiffs for

performing their sworn duties to enforce the laws of this state and Morgan County.

99. Her actions are born out of resentment, and is nothing less than a vendetta and

personal vengeance.

100. In the last two years, the blog has personally attacked each of the counter-

plaintiffs on occasions too numerous to recount each herein.

101. Nevertheless, evidence uncovered in this case confirms that Glenda Lockhart has

manufactured the basis for the allegations against the counter-plaintiffs in this case, and in

others, all in furtherance of her goal to destroy the reputation of each of the respective law

enforcement officers who are counter-plaintiffs, here, by whatever means necessary.

ALLEGATIONS OF KEYLOGGER SPYWARE

102. In his September 28, 2016 meeting, Daniel alerted the MCSO of his personal

concern for his own physical safety, telling them that Glenda Lockhart’s behavior had changed in

recent days leading up to the September 28, 2016 meeting, and that it was “almost as if she knew”

what Daniel was doing. Perhaps she did.


19
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 20 of 61

103. Within two weeks of the execution of the search warrant, Glenda Lockhart filed the

instant cause of action on October 18, 2016, asking for an emergency hearing.

104. This Court set a hearing on October 19, 2016.

105. During the October 19, 2016 hearing, after Glenda Lockhart raised concerns about

the potential financial harm of withholding her business computers, this Court instructed the

MCSO, and counter-plaintiffs here, essentially to use whatever means were necessary to preserve

the evidence relevant to this case and ongoing criminal investigations, and then to return

Lockhart’s personal property within 10 days.

106. As this Court is aware, the allegations by Glenda Lockhart concerning the illegal

installation of keylogger spyware, were first made during the second day of the emergency hearing

on Glenda’s emergency motion for injunctive relief, on October 21, 2016.

107. The various iterations of Glenda Lockhart’s complaint, and the allegations in each

amendment, have morphed over time.

108. Daniel Lockhart made a statement, around November 15, 2016, which was not

sworn, but was in the format of a deposition, with Daniel responding to verbal questioning from

Lockhart’s attorneys, Brandy Lee and Brice Johnson.

109. In that statement Daniel Lockhart stated that he had installed the keylogger spyware

on Glenda’s home computer and on every computer in the Straightline Drywall office.

110. However, the latest amended Complaint, Doc. 79, as well as testimony elicited from

Daniel Lockhart under oath during a hearing on April 24, 2018 allege that on September 30, 2018,

Daniel Lockhart claims to have installed keylogger spyware only on one computer at Straightline,

Glenda Lockhart’s computer.


20
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 21 of 61

111. According to every allegation made thus far, Daniel Lockhart obtained the

keylogger spyware from Justin Powell.

112. According to Glenda and Daniel Lockhart, by and through the Third Amended

Complaint at Doc. 79, the November 15, 2016 statement, and the April 24, 2018 testimony under

oath, Daniel called MCSO employee Justin Powell, asked if Justin could provide keylogger

spyware, and then met Justin at the Falkville fire department to receive it.

113. According to the counter-defendants’ allegations, Powell downloaded the

keylogger to a USB thumb drive, and showed Daniel Lockhart how to use it.

114. On November 15, 2016, less than 45 days since he had allegedly done it, Daniel

was asked how the keylogger spyware worked, Daniel explained, “the keylogger would be on a

USB drive. I would put it in your computer. I’d download it to your computer, pull the USB drive

out, and walk away.”

115. Daniel Lockhart further explained what he did: “I mean I keylogged [Glenda’s

Gmail account] and had the information sent to me through a keylogger where she types her

password into the computer. And when she typed that password into the computer, I came in after

hours, I got the password off the computer because I had a secret file set up behind the background

where she couldn’t see it. And I opened it up, wrote the passwords down, and gave it to the Morgan

County sheriff’s office.”

116. Daniel Lockhart’s sworn testimony from April 24, 2018 was similar, but

significantly less detailed, as though he was backtracking from previous statements: “I can’t really

tell you much about it other than you download it on a computer. Once you download it you put it

in a file and come back after hours and open it back up and it will show whatever someone typed.”
21
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 22 of 61

117. Though accounts differ, testimony and pleadings thus far have stated that Daniel

installed the keylogger spyware that Justin Powell gave him, at Straightline Drywall on September

30, 2016, after the September 28, 2016 meeting with MCSO.

118. According to Daniel “Blake was pulling perimeter around the office and telling me

if my grandmother was pulling up. That’s where I installed the keylogger on the computer and

started copying every file I could find. I took a video inside the office, and that’s what I turned in

to the sheriff’s office.”

119. Under cross examination by Assistant Attorney General Andrew Arrington,

Arrington challenged Daniel about his previous statement on November 15, 2016, that he installed

keylogger spyware on “all the computers at the office.”

120. Under Arrington’s cross examination, Daniel recanted his original statements, and

admitted that he had not installed keyloggers on all those computers. That was a “misstatement.”

According to Daniel, he installed keylogger spyware only on Glenda’s computer at Straightline.

ANALYSIS OF GLENDA LOCKHART’S COMPUTERS

121. Daniel’s testimony tells a sordid tale of deceit and espionage. It is compelling

testimony.

122. Except Daniel’s account concerning his installation of keylogger on Glenda’s

computer is false.

123. Per this Court’s direction concerning the return of Lockhart’s personal property,

MCSO engaged Dan Henry, a Marshall County investigator associated with the North Alabama

Computer Forensics Task Force (“NACFTF”), to assist in analysis of the computer data.

124. Henry represented that the analytical needs of the MCSO were beyond his skill set.
22
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 23 of 61

125. Nevertheless, he did offer that he could go ahead and create a forensic image of

each of the electronic devices seized from Straightline and Leon Bradley, for analysis by others.

126. Henry created several forensically verifiable, “mirrored” images of the computer

data contained on each of the electronic devices seized from Bradley and from Straightline. Those

images were to be used for forensic analysis.

127. Then, MCSO directed that one complete set of the images be provided to Michael

Canfield, an outside consultant who was retained to analyze the data collected for purposes of the

civil case, and a second complete set was provided by Dan Henry directly to the United States

Secret Service’s National Computer Forensics Institute (“NCFI”), which is based in Hoover,

Alabama.

128. MCSO provided this evidence for a complete, and fully independent analysis to

uncover the absolute truth.

129. MCSO hired Michael Canfield, who provided the initial report on his analysis.

According to Canfield, after a complete review of the mirrored images associated with “Item #4,”

that is the images created from the personal computer of Glenda Lockhart, Canfield stated that his

analysis revealed no evidence that any keylogger spyware had been installed on “Item #4,”

Glenda’s computer, which is the only computer that Daniel Lockhart testified under oath on which

he had installed keylogger spyware.

130. A review of the forensic data contained on Item #4 reflects that Item #4 is the source

for the emails provided by Daniel Lockhart to the MCSO. It confirms the MCSO’s suspicions that

Glenda Lockhart was engaged in illegal activity.

131. It is no secret that since the allegations by Glenda Lockhart, the actions of the
23
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 24 of 61

counter-plaintiffs have come under heightened scrutiny by numerous law enforcement

investigators.

132. In a related interview between FBI special agent Christopher J. Hendon and Sgt.

Blake Robinson, in January of 2018, agent Hendon indicated that he had knowledge there was a

“problem” with Canfield’s report. He would not reveal how he knew there was a “problem” or

what the problem was.

133. Since the initial report and the subsequent interview with Hendon, numerous efforts

by MCSO and its counsel to reach Canfield have been unsuccessful.

134. On April 27, 2018, Judge Glen Thompson entered an Order, surprisingly directing

that the MCSO destroy any and all evidence collected in this case.

135. As this Court is aware, the counter-plaintiffs moved this Court to enter an order

protecting the evidence from destruction, in light of the fact that it was directly relevant to the

allegations of this case and may in fact have provided evidence either confirming or contrary to

the allegations of Glenda Lockhart.

136. In June of 2018, the counter-plaintiffs contacted computer analysts with the NCFI,

to ascertain the location of the computer images Dan Henry sent to them back in October 2016,

for analysis, and the status of their analysis.

137. The Secret Service has stated that it had other, higher priority, cases to work. Given

the nature of this lawsuit, and the Presidential election ongoing at that time, this is almost certainly

true.

138. As of June 2018, agents for the Secret Service had not performed any analysis of

the images provided to them by MCSO over a year and a half prior, around the latter half of
24
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 25 of 61

October of 2016.

139. In June 2018, the MCSO requested return of the evidence, and custody of the

evidence was returned to the MCSO from the NCFI.

140. The MCSO also requested, and the Secret Service agreed, to make forensically

verifiable copies of the mirrored images of Glenda Lockhart and Leon Bradley’s electronic

devices.

141. Upon receipt of these forensically verifiable copies from the Secret Service the

counter-plaintiffs sent a copy to a fourth entity for analysis.

142. In the course of extensive analysis, the counter-plaintiffs have learned and represent

to this Court that – in direct contradiction to Daniel Lockhart’s only sworn testimony – Item #4,

Glenda Lockhart’s Computer at Straightline Drywall, contains no evidence suggesting that

keylogger spyware was ever installed by Daniel Lockhart.

143. Acting on behalf of MCSO, forensic analysts found something much more

remarkable.

GLENDA LOCKHART WAS CLEANING HER COMPUTERS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AFTER


MCSO EXECUTED A SEARCH WARRANT ON LEON BRADLEY

144. Recalling Daniel’s statements during the September 28, 2016 meeting, Daniel

Lockhart represented to the counter-plaintiffs that he had been on Glenda Lockhart’s computer

“last week” and at that time, “she had thousands of pictures on it,” including pictures of the

counter-plaintiffs. But, he explained, “this week, last night when I was there,” that is the night of

September 27, 2016, there were “no pictures. Everything was wiped.”

145. Daniel continued: “All of [Steven] Ziaja's pictures are gone. All your pictures are

25
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 26 of 61

gone. All that stuff has been printed out and hid. Stuff I could usually find, I couldn't find.”

146. These statements by Daniel not only confirm that he had access to Glenda

Lockhart’s computer long before the September 28, 2016 meeting, and “usually” could find

material relevant to the MCSO on the computers, but it also fits with the evidence found by forensic

analysis performed on behalf of the counter-plaintiffs.

147. The counter-plaintiffs have confirmed that on five separate occasions in a fourteen-

day span between September 21 and October 5, 2016, someone initiated a program on Glenda

Lockhart’s computer, Item #4, that was designed to target and “wipe” clean certain files from the

memory on Glenda Lockhart’s computer.

148. When a file is deleted through Windows’ file explorer, alone, as a user of ordinary

skill would do, it does not permanently remove the electronic data – the 1’s and 0’s – saved to the

hard drive. Instead, Windows merely removes a place holder, referencing the information. Because

the place holder is removed, given enough time, Windows may eventually overwrite the 1’s and

0’s by other files. But it is not automatic, and a forensic evaluation can piece the 1’s and 0’s back

together to form the original files.

149. However, the “wiping” program, identified as “CCleaner,” is believed to have two

basic settings: (1) a “targeted” setting, allowing a user to target specific files she wants deleted and

wiped, or (2) a more brute force setting, whereby the wiping program methodically overwrites

every space of memory on the computer until the entire computer is completely wiped clean. In

either setting, CCleaner overwrites the files with meaningless 1’s and 0’s to eliminate the

possibility of recovering any meaningful, residual information.

150. The program Glenda Lockhart used is so effective, that files that are wiped cannot
26
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 27 of 61

be recovered by law enforcement. The memory wiping software on Glenda’s computer was

activated twice on October 5, 2016 alone, the day after the MCSO executed the search warrant on

Leon Bradley’s home, after Leon Bradley implicated Glenda Lockhart, and the same day the

MCSO executed a search warrant on Straightline.

151. In 2014, Lockhart had engaged an IT company by the name of YelTek L.L.C. which

is owned and operated by Heath Williams.

152. YelTek was engaged by Lockhart to setup a remote user account that could access

the Straightline Drywall computers, doing so remotely from YelTek’s offices.

153. Forensic analysis proves that on October 5, 2016, YelTek remotely logged into

Glenda’s computer, and activated the cleaner program, wiping nearly 70 folders containing files,

with labels referencing “ana,” “ana again,” “ana pictures,” “Franklin,” “Ziaja,” “Stover,” “Larry

Berzett,” “Henden” (presumably a reference to the FBI special agent), “TEDAC TURNER”

(TEDAC is an anacronym for the “Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center” based in

Huntsville), dozens of references to generic folders containing photographs, and even folders with

references to information about “King” and “steve.”

154. On October 5, 2016, merely a few hours after the search warrant was executed on

Leon Bradley’s home on October 4, 2016, and anticipating that a search warrant could be executed

on Glenda Lockhart, Glenda Lockhart targeted and deleted hundreds of specific files potentially

relevant to a criminal investigation, as well as anticipated civil litigation.

GLENDA LOCKHART INSTALLED KEYLOGGER SPYWARE ON HER OWN COMPUTERS

155. Consistent with Daniel’s representation to the MCSO on September 28, 2018 that

“[i]t's almost as if [Glenda] knew what I was doing there last night,” MCSO has confirmed through
27
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 28 of 61

extensive computer analysis that, while Glenda’s computer – the computer containing information

that led to Leon Bradley’s search warrant – has no keylogger spyware on it, two other computers

at Straightline Drywall did have Ardamax spyware installed on them.

156. Glenda’s computer, while not reflecting any evidence that it contained the Ardamax

spyware, contained computer language matching language known to serve as a firewall

permission, thereby allowing other computers to send Ardamax Keylogger reports, through her

firewall, directly to her computer.

157. These facts are consistent only with the actions of someone with a heightened level

of technical expertise, such as would be had by an IT person installing keylogger spyware with

administrative permission on multiple computers at Straightline, and setting firewall permissions

on her own computer to receive Ardamax Keylogger reports from these other computers.

158. Forensic analysis proves a set of facts that is so totally inconsistent with the

plaintiffs’ fairytale that has been told up to this point, that Daniel Lockhart could not have installed

keylogger spyware on the other computers in the operable time periods, nor could he have used

the keylogger provided by Justin Powell.

159. Glenda Lockhart knew there was keylogger spyware on her computers, and she

knew that none of the counter-plaintiffs were involved in installing it, and attempted to delete all

files tending to prove her knowledge, to cover her tracks.

160. The fact that Glenda had keylogger spyware installed on her own computers would

explain why as early as October 21, 2016, before her computers or the mirrored images were ever

returned to Glenda, Glenda was prepared to present evidence to this Court that spyware had been

used to hack her computer.


28
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 29 of 61

161. It would explain why Daniel stated her mood appeared to change: “today she was

very irrational with me. She was just like -- she was just kind of pissy. She's never been like that

so.” Perhaps Glenda knew Daniel had been in her office and on her computers to find incriminating

evidence.

162. It would explain why, before Daniel ever gave sworn testimony, he had been

prepped to state during his “deposition” on November 15, 2016, less than 30 days later, that he

had installed keylogger spyware on all of Glenda Lockhart’s office computers.

163. However, in the classic case of lying when the truth would be better, the story

changed. And, while under oath on April 24, 2018, Daniel Lockhart adamantly maintained in open

court that he had installed keylogger spyware only on one computer, Glenda’s Computer, Item #4.

164. Only, spyware was never installed on Item #4 by Daniel. Spyware was never

installed on Item #4 at all.

165. Daniel Lockhart never installed the keylogger spyware on any computers. He didn’t

need to. He had access and permission to use Straightline computers, and that was all he needed.

166. Contrary to stated findings of fact and holdings by Judge Glen Thompson in his

order entered April 27, 2018, information provided by Daniel Lockhart to the MCSO was not

obtained through illegal subterfuge, or coercion.

167. Glenda Lockhart knew – and to this day knows – that the story she has been

perpetuating isn’t true, and yet she has actively facilitated and engaged in fraud, deceit, fraud on

this Court, and fraud on the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama.

GLENDA HAS ENGAGED IN EGREGIOUS DEFAMATION WITH ACTUAL MALICE

29
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 30 of 61

168. In the last two years, the blog has personally attacked each of the counter-

plaintiffs on occasions too numerous to recount each herein.

169. The apparent animus verbalized by the Defendants, including but not limited to

Glenda Lockhart, is born out of nothing less than resentment and a vindictive intent towards the

counter-plaintiffs for performing their sworn duties to enforce the laws of this state and Morgan

County. It is born out of resentment, and is nothing less than vengeance.

170. According to the Defendant, through her blog, “Franklin has cheated ... me and

my family. I resent Sheriff Ana Franklin and her thugs, Robert “Bones” Wilson, Justin Powell

who made three mirrored copies of my office hard drives (only one copy of the hard drives went

to forensics), Larry Berzett and wife Pam, the Goodwins, Steven Ziaja who is a thug and a

common criminal.”

171. Lockhart has repeatedly used her blog to accuse the counter-plaintiffs, including

Franklin, Wilson, Robinson, and Powell, of breaking in and stealing files from Straightline.

172. On September 26, 2018, Glenda Lockhart used her blog to allege that Sheriff Ana

Franklin, Bob Wilson, Blake Robinson, and Justin Powell lied about the aforesaid investigation;

are evil and corrupt; and lied under oath to Judge Glen Thompson.

173. These allegations are not true, and Glenda Lockhart knows they are not true.

174. As recently as April 2, 2018, Glenda Lockhart posted an article from the New

York times, wherein Glenda is quoted as having told a writer for the New York Times that she

discovered keylogger spyware on her home computer and took it to the FBI.

175. Either Glenda is intentionally engaging in defamation; or Daniel Lockhart, who

testified that he gave the thumb drive to the FBI, has lied under oath.
30
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 31 of 61

176. A post from February 12, 2017, states that Franklin, Wilson, Robinson, and

Powell, conspired to break-in to Lockhart’s business, and also conspired to give Lockhart

keylogger spyware, which was installed on Lockhart’s computers. Of course, the forensic

evaluation proves what the MCSO counter-plaintiffs have always represented: her allegations

were 100% false.

177. The same article also accuses Franklin of stealing inmate food funds, which

accusation is false.

178. On September 16, 2018, Lockhart posted to her blog, making the unfounded

allegation that deputy Whittle was somehow acting on directions from either counter-plaintiff

Wilson or Robinson, when he shot deputy Zach Dockery in the face with a bean bag round.

179. The allegation and innuendo therein is 100% false.

180. On October 7, 2018, Glenda Lockhart wrote a blog post that calls Circuit Judge

Jennifer Howell “a smart ass judge who has no compassion,” and further blames Judge Howell

and Sheriff Ana Franklin for failing to prevent the murder of Morgan County citizen Kay

Stevens by her ex-husband Roger Stevens, specifically suggesting that Sheriff Franklin didn’t

prevent the murder of Kay because she was friends with Roger. The allegation is 100% false,

scurrilous, and it is absolutely reprehensible.

181. The article accuses Franklin of having “jumped in the truck with Roger” and she

was allegedly, just hanging out, “sipping whiskey” with Stevens, following the murder.

182. The allegation intentionally misrepresents Sheriff Franklin’s actions in a way

intended to paint her in a false light. It is intended to make Franklin look reckless, like she was

31
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 32 of 61

just cutting up with a known killer, or worse: potentially complicit with the murder. None of

these allegations are true.

183. Among other things that were factually incorrect, while Stevens was drunk,

Franklin was not drinking with Stevens.

184. The same article goes on to accuse both Howell and Franklin of illegally using

inmates to work at their personal residences. While Franklin cannot speak for Howell, she has a

good faith belief that the allegations about Judge Howell is completely false, and knows that the

allegation that Franklin herself was using inmates for personal reasons, was 100% false.

185. Similarly, the blog has repeatedly accused Sgt. Blake Robinson of improperly

using inmate labor at his auto detailing shop; an accusation that, if true, would constitute a state

ethics violation, and a violation of other criminal statutes. Nevertheless, the accusations are

verifiably and absolutely false.

186. Recently, Lockhart’s blog has made reference to, and even perpetuated, a bizarre

theory that Sheriff Franklin was participating in some elaborate plot, along with the Morgan

County Commission, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Vice President Mike Pence to

assassinate President Donald Trump, thereby paving the way to make Vice President Pence the

President. The allegation is 100% false, and nothing could be further from the truth.

187. “Anonymous” comments from her blog on September 6, 2018 imply that Sheriff

Franklin was offering sexual services to Vice President Pence, in exchange for “help” in Morgan

County. The whistleblower has allowed these “Anonymous” comments, and other, equally

scurrilous comments, to remain. In any case, the allegation is 100% false.

32
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 33 of 61

188. An article posted by Glenda on September 2, 2018, accuses Franklin, Wilson, and

Robinson of involvement in the inner workings of Greg Steenson’s and Harold Jeffrey’s

Priceville Partners business, doing business as Title Mart. The article calls the counter-plaintiffs

criminals, and accuses Franklin of stealing from helpless and needy children, stating that such

actions are not merely illegal, they are sinful; and alleging that there is a “special place in hell”

for such people. The substantive allegations of the article are 100% false.

189. Bob Wilson has been accused of numerous forms of reckless and even criminal

activity on the blog.

190. On November 24, 2017, Lockhart used her blog to accuse Bob Wilson of nothing

less than murder, when she accused him of “shoot[ing] and kill[ing] a man by shooting him in

the back of the neck while he is walking away from you.... Laughing at what you did.”

191. The blog intimates that the shooting was nothing less than an execution, and

regularly refers back to this incident in such a way as to intentionally associate Wilson with

criminal activity.

192. The allegation that Wilson has ever shot anyone in the back of the neck is 100%

false; as is any implication that Wilson has executed anyone, or laughed about it.

193. The same article expounds on a common theme, accusing Wilson of shooting

“family pets.” Lockhart asserts: “[y]ou kill 30+ dogs for sport and you laugh about it. We are not

talking about vicious dogs in most cases. We are talking about family pets. Bones you are sick

and a coward. That sickness will not keep you out of jail.”

194. Another post claims Wilson shot a chihuahua, during a drug bust, causing its head

to separate from its body and rolling down a hallway at the home.
33
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 34 of 61

195. The post questions Wilson’s manhood, confidence as a law enforcement officer to

need to shoot a small pet like a chihuahua, and describes the incident in such a manner as to

convey that Wilson is “gun happy,” heartless, sadistic, and unnecessarily cruel to animals.

196. Yet there is no truth to this allegation in the first place. Wilson has never shot a

chihuahua and no dog’s head has rolled down a hallway because of anything Wilson has ever

done.

197. This accusation has been repeated as recently as September 7, 2018, wherein

Lockhart once again accuses Wilson of shooting a chihuahua’s head off.

198. Franklin has been accused of various forms of prostitution, using drugs, buying a

home in Saraland – which, it is implied, could only have been paid for with illegally obtained

funds – and other baseless attacks on Franklin’s character. There is no truth to any of the above

accusations against Franklin

199. Glenda has even gone so far as to hire a private plane to fly over an enormous

estate in Saraland, a horse farm, and take pictures which were then posted to the blog.

200. Not only has Sheriff Franklin not purchased anything with “illegal funds,” but

she has no property in Saraland, much less a sprawling estate with a working horse farm.

201. Lockhart, and others acting at her direction, have personally trespassed on

Franklin’s private property.

202. Lockhart, or her operatives, have taken photographs from the seclusion of

Franklin’s real property of personal property purchased by Franklin, and posting the same to the

blog, and have used these photos as “evidence” supporting the false light in which the counter-

defendants desire to paint Franklin and the other counter-plaintiffs.


34
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 35 of 61

203. Whistleblower posts have shown photographs of Franklin and romantic interests

at private dinners, and falsely accused Franklin of indulging too heavily in alcoholic drinks while

in public.

204. Numerous posts have falsely accused Wilson and Franklin of engaging in a sexual

relationship, which is another false allegation.

205. The blog repeatedly associates each of the counter-plaintiffs with Harold

Jeffrey’s business venture, which sells used cars through Title Mart franchises, directly stating

that the individual counter-plaintiffs named herein were all criminal co-conspirators in some sort

of grand criminal scheme.

206. Based on bankruptcy records it is evident that local businessman, Harold Jeffreys,

and numerous other local citizens (many of whom have no connection to the Morgan County

Sheriff’s Office whatsoever), invested in the business by loaning money to the title mart business

on the promise of a 17% return on investment. Many of these investors earned the promised 17%

return. Many lost the money they loaned. Some lost significant sums of money.

207. These loans did not come with ownership interest. Yet the blog, with a blatant

disregard for the truth, repeatedly accuses the counter-plaintiffs and others of being owners in the

failed Title Mart businesses.

208. The blog repeatedly associates the mere fact of investment in the failed business

with criminal activity, accusing the counter-plaintiffs of engaging in criminal conduct. Yet the

blog ignores countless other honest individuals who also invested and lost money in Jeffreys’ car

dealership.

35
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 36 of 61

209. On multiple occasions, the blog implies that personal vehicles that are seized

and/or impounded by the Morgan County Sheriff’s office are improperly sold through the Title

Mart franchise.

210. The significance of ownership, according to the blog, is the implication that each

of the counter-plaintiffs personally profited from their actions in seizing and impounding

vehicles in their capacity as law enforcement officers, especially when those same cars were then

purchased and sold by a business they owned. There is no truth in any part of this accusation.

211. While several of the counter-plaintiffs did invest small amounts of money in the

Title Mart business, none of them invested the significant sums regularly suggested in the blog.

212. The blog falsely alleges that Bob Wilson invested over $100,000 in the Title Mart

business. The counter-defendants, by and through the blog, ponder “I wonder if he used the

money that we talked about before that was said to of been hidden from the divorce until one of

the honest MCSO employees ratted him out? Ethics Violation. Did you know that Bones also

received checks from the Title Mart upwards of $27,000? Ethics Violation.” There is no truth in

these statements.

213. The blog repeatedly but falsely, addresses overtime pay received by Robinson and

Wilson.

214. A post from November 4, 2017 asserts that due to Franklin’s favoritism, both

Wilson and Robinson received excessive amounts of overtime in a single year, specifying that

Wilson received $109,000 while Robinson received $59,000, in a single year, in overtime alone.

Again, the claim is outrageously false in every part.

36
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 37 of 61

215. Robinson is regularly, falsely accused of lying under oath, and is supposedly at

the heart of an alleged conspiracy to blackmail Daniel Lockhart against his grandmother.

216. Finally, the blog appears to generally associate each of the counter-plaintiffs,

Robinson, Wilson, and Powell, with Sheriff Ana Franklin’s decision to use money allotted to her

under ALA. CODE §14-6-1, ALA. CODE §14-6-40, Ala Code §36-22-1, and Attorney General

Opinion No. 2008-062, March 17, 2008, to invest in the Title Mart business.

217. The blog has spent considerable time and energy accusing Franklin of criminal

conduct in using these funds, particularly because of what may have been a technical violation of

a 2009 consent order applied against the Sheriff of Morgan County when Greg Bartlett was in

office.

218. More recently, however, Federal District Judge Abdul K. Kallon ruled that the

applicable provision found at paragraph 22 of the order which Franklin had violated, was due to

be terminated and was no longer required because the provision was no longer “necessary to

correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right,” did not “extend[] no further than

necessary to correct the violation of [a] Federal right [of the inmates at the Morgan County

Jail],” and was no longer “narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation”

per 18 U.S.C. §3626(b)(3).

219. In other words, while Sherriff Franklin may have technically violated Judge U.W.

Clemon’s 2009 order put in place because of the actions of former Morgan County Sheriff Greg

Bartlett, by borrowing money from the food fund, in turn to loan to Priceville Partners, Franklin

has shown that the Sherriff’s Office was properly caring for the inmates’ nutritional needs, and

the provision in Clemon’s order has now been terminated.


37
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 38 of 61

220. Regardless of the advice that Sheriff Franklin acted on, on how to best manage

the funds in the inmate food account, nevertheless the blog regularly and falsely accuses Franklin

of using state funds, and far more than the $150,000 from the sheriff’s food account, including

allegations that Franklin has converted millions of dollars of state funds to her personal use.

These allegations are totally false.

221. In a September 23, 2018 article, Lockhart accuses Franklin of taking far more

than Etowah County Sheriff Todd Entrekin, alleged to be at least $750,000, without regard for

the (lack of) truth of such statements. Again, the main issue surrounds the significant amount of

money alleged to have been taken by Sheriff Franklin, as well as the allegation that they are state

funds. The implication is, of course, that the only way Franklin saved and accrued more than

$750,000, was through some form of corruption. Again, totally false.

222. Moreover, she regularly accuses each of the counter-plaintiffs of participating in a

far reaching criminal conspiracy and violating state ethics codes.

223. The sinister nature of this allegation is found less in the allegation that counter-

plaintiffs may or may not have invested in the Title Mart business – which is decidedly not an

ethics violation as counter-defendants casually accuse, as though it is accepted fact – but in the

blogs repeated allegations falsely asserting counter-plaintiffs made large financial investments.

224. The numbers provided by the counter-defendants are simply false, and

exponentially higher than actual investments made by any of the counter-plaintiffs.

225. For one thing, Powell invested no money in the title mart business, but is

regularly accused of criminal activity, along with the other counter-plaintiffs, as though he did.

38
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 39 of 61

226. The problem is found in the entire theme of the blog, which attempts to paint the

counter-plaintiffs as dirty, on-the-take, law enforcement officers who have repeatedly abused

their positions. A casual reader of the blog may be inclined to believe the overall picture the

counter-defendants are actively attempting to paint of the counter-plaintiffs – the false light in

which the counter-defendants have placed the counter-plaintiffs – by assuming the answer to the

pregnant question: “afterall, how could career law enforcement officers have so much to invest

in a business like Title Mart except through fraud and corruption.”

227. The truth is, however, the counter-plaintiffs did not have this kind of money to

invest – and did not invest such alleged amounts of money. The premise is false in the first place

and in its entirety.

228. The blog accuses Franklin of lying to the court over how much was withdrawn

from the account. An accusation that has no basis in fact or reality.

229. Moreover, the blog has repeatedly and purposefully given publicity to private

financial information pertaining to the counter-plaintiffs, publicizing photographs of private

property, and divulging private and, more often than not, false information about the counter-

plaintiffs, with the intent to harm the counter-plaintiffs.

230. Upon information and belief, private matters and documents publicized through

the blog, are believed to have been obtained by Lockhart and or one or more other counter-

defendants, or operatives for the counter-defendants, through nefarious means.

231. Other more reputable – legitimate – news sources, such as AL.com have refused

to publish the same information because of the private nature of the materials which Lockhart

negligently, wantonly or intentionally blasted to the world wide web.


39
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 40 of 61

232. Lockhart herself knew that none of these accusations were true, but were false and

defamatory, or she recklessly disregarded the fact that they were shameless lies knowing that

harm could result.

233. Lockhart and other counter-defendants, by and through the blog, have posted

other private information concerning the counter-plaintiffs, giving publicity to it; and in some

cases, posting information obtained by intrusion into the solitude or seclusion or the private

affairs or concerns of the counter-plaintiffs.

234. Regardless of why the money was withdrawn, or whether such activity was a

sound financial investment, in any case such actions are isolated to Franklin, alone. Franklin, as

Sheriff of Morgan County, is solely responsible for feeding the inmates with the funds paid for

that purpose. Her actions do not involve counter-plaintiffs Robinson, Wilson, or Powell, and no

evidence will ever reveal that it did.

235. Yet the blog regularly associates each and all of the counter-plaintiffs, and anyone

else even remotely associated with them, with decisions to illegally use state funds for personal

benefit, equating each counter-plaintiff, including the Sheriff, to criminals, accusing each of

them and any of their associates of dishonesty, corruption and graft in the use of the inmate food

funds and other Sheriff’s office funds.

236. Finally, the blog falsely and knowingly accuses both Wilson and Robinson of

perjury in obtaining warrants for the search and seizure of items from Lockhart’s office.

237. Each of these blog posts were false and defamatory in their material accusations.

238. Our society values freedom of speech, but under our Constitution, there is no

value in speech that conveys false facts.


40
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 41 of 61

239. The blog posts are intended to, and have actually, harmed the counter-plaintiffs’

reputations in the community by conveying nothing less than the very sort of “false facts” that

are repugnant to our Constitution and American jurisprudence.

240. For example, as this Court is aware, a sitting judge has made the extraordinary

finding of fact – in a case without jurisdiction over them and in which they were denied due

process and representation of counsel – that Wilson, Robinson, Powell, and Franklin each lied to

the Circuit Court of Morgan County to coverup criminal activity.

241. However, Judge Thompson’s findings are premised on a contemptuously false set

of facts, perpetuated by fraud and deceit on the part of Glenda Lockhart and others working the

blog. The process leading to the order denied the counter-plaintiffs their Constitutional rights to

due process (by denying them the right to counsel, the right to cross examination of their accuser,

and the right to a hearing before a fair and impartial tribunal), and amounts to nothing less than

an order procured by “fraud on a court.” Fraud perpetuated by Glenda Lockhart and others

working with and for her.

242. Indeed, it is the blogger’s stated purpose – by harming Franklin’s reputation in the

community – to ensure she has a harder time getting elected during the next election cycle; that

is the 2018 election cycle.

243. That’s all well and good, if there were any truth to the matters published by the

counter-defendants. However, because the substance of Lockhart’s blog is false, and because the

counter-defendants knew they were false, and posted the matters with actual malice, the blog is

defamatory.

41
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 42 of 61

244. Each counter-plaintiff has been repeatedly asked by friends and family about the

truth of the allegations in the blog, to the point of embarrassment.

245. By way of example, around Christmas of 2017, Robinson discovered that a

neighbor had approached his wife.

246. The neighbor reported to Robinson’s wife that she had received information that

Robinson and Wilson had met several women, known for their lack of mores, at a club.

According to the neighbor, Robinson and Wilson were believed to be engaging in an extra-

marital, sexual affair with one or more of these women. The allegation is completely false.

247. Robinson discovered that his wife had been holding this information, bearing the

burden of all that it implies, for months, to the point that it jeopardized the stability of their

marriage.

248. Upon information and belief, Robinson’s neighbor received this information from

Lockhart or an associate of hers acting at Lockhart’s direction.

249. Needless to say, this incident was a particularly heinous example of how

Lockhart, and those associated with her, have made affirmative efforts to destroy every aspect of

the counter-plaintiffs’ respective lives, even beyond the activities of the blog.

250. The unfounded allegations of the blog have jeopardized the careers of the law

enforcement officers involved.

251. The unfounded allegations found on the blog, as well as baseless accusations by

Lockhart have caused and facilitated various investigations by governmental entities, which have

repeatedly investigated allegations of corruption.

42
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 43 of 61

252. As a result of Lockhart’s campaign of deceit, Thompson’s April 2018 order calls

into question the veracity of the officers whose responsibility has previously included testimony

in criminal cases.

253. Lockhart has abused the legal system and its process with these baseless and

defamatory accusations.

254. Lockhart has personally filed frivolous legal actions against the counter-plaintiffs

in civil court, including the instant action.

255. Upon information and belief, the counter-defendants, including but not limited to

Lockhart, acting because of an ulterior purpose, have incited others to file baseless civil actions

against one or more of the counter-plaintiffs. The counter-defendants have used the blog in its

various forms to repeat these baseless stories in a nearly daily campaign of deceit, to the point of

becoming believable merely by repetition.

256. Though relentlessly repeated, the stories are repeatedly false. While the blog

remains operational, counter-defendants jeopardize not only the careers and reputations of the

counter-plaintiffs, but also their safety as law enforcement officers. And, by falsely and unfairly

undermining their authority as the individuals empowered by the state of Alabama to enforce its

laws, the blog may even jeopardize the safety of Morgan County Citizens, undermine pending

criminal cases over which the counter-plaintiffs are case officers, and harm victims of true

criminal activity.

257. The counter-defendants, acting through the blog have, on several occasions, even

suggested that readers shoot one or more of the counter-plaintiffs.

43
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 44 of 61

258. According to Lockhart, herself, the blog regularly gets well over 10,000 daily hits.

A counter on the blog proudly displays over 1,400,000 “hits” to the site. The blog has significant

publicity.

259. Additionally, portions of the blog have been picked up by the Decatur Daily and

AL.com, giving credence to the blog and increasing its public exposure.

260. Lockhart, who may have been acting in her capacity as an agent, servant,

employee, or representative of Straightline Drywall, as well as others who are unknown at this

time, published these false and defamatory posts, knowing that they were disgustingly false. In

the alternative, the counter-defendants, including Lockhart and others, disregarded the

overwhelming likelihood that the material was false.

261. In some cases, Lockhart and or her business, and others working for her may have

negligently published false information, but information not pertaining to anything of legitimate

concern to the public.

262. The stories, in many cases, were purely fabricated – they have no truth.

263. Some stories that may have a “grain of truth,” warp the truth to depict the counter-

plaintiffs in a false light.

264. Where Lockhart claims information was received from other sources, these

sources were, upon information and belief, either non-existent, or unverified and/or anonymous.

In all cases, the sources were not reliable.

265. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described individual and combined

wrongful conduct of counter-defendants, named and others who are unknown at this time,

44
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 45 of 61

counter-plaintiffs Robinson, Franklin, and/or Plaintiff Wilson, have all been and continue to be

damaged as follows:

a. Their reputations have been damaged in the community;

b. They have lost monies;

c. They have suffered damage to and/or lost the use and enjoyment of their privacy;

d. They have been caused to suffer physical and emotional stress, mental anguish, and
emotional distress;

e. They have come under criminal investigation as a result of the false complaints and
allegations by Lockhart, and she has facilitated and perpetuated false and frivolous
litigation;

f. Their careers, including current positions and the prospect of future employment,
have been jeopardized;

g. Their safety has been jeopardized;

h. They have incurred interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses

i. They have been otherwise injured and damaged;

j. Counter-plaintiffs claim all damages to which they are entitled under Alabama law,
both compensatory and punitive, and further request that the Court grant any and all
injunctive relief against the counter-defendants that may be necessary and
appropriate.

COUNT I
Invasion of Privacy
(False Light Invasion of Privacy)

266. Counter-plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference the averments and

allegations of the preceding paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

267. Within the last two years, the counter-defendants have regularly and repeatedly

publicized information and matters concerning one or more of the counter-plaintiffs, which

45
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 46 of 61

information places the counter-plaintiffs before the public in a false, even if not necessarily

defamatory, light in an invasion of their respective privacy.

268. The false light in which the counter-defendants have placed the plaintiff was

highly offensive to the counter-plaintiffs, and would be highly offensive to any reasonable

person.

269. The counter-defendants knew the information about the counter-plaintiffs was

false when it was published to the blog.

270. At all relevant times, the counter-defendants acted with a reckless disregard for

whether the information publicized on the blog was false.

WHEREFORE, counter-plaintiffs demand judgment against counter-defendants, and

any other individuals who may be identified through discovery and added in time, jointly and

severally, in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court, to be determined by a jury,

which will fairly and adequately compensate counter-plaintiffs for injuries and damages

sustained, together with interest from the date of injury, and the costs of this proceeding, any and

all injunctive relief that is appropriate and available under Alabama law, plus such punitive

damages as the jury shall find and impose to punish and deter counter-defendants from any such

future conduct.

COUNT II
Invasion of Privacy
(Giving Publicity to Private Information)

271. Counter-plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference the averments and

allegations of the preceding paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

46
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 47 of 61

272. Within the last two years, the counter-defendants have regularly and repeatedly

publicized information and matters concerning the private life and matters of one or more of the

counter-plaintiffs.

273. That these private matters were publicized by the actions of the counter-defendant

is highly offensive to the counter-plaintiffs, and would be highly offensive to a reasonable

person.

274. The private information publicized about the counter-plaintiffs, whether true or

false, was of no legitimate concern to the public.

275. The counter-defendants knew the information about the counter-plaintiffs was

private information, and published the information to the blog and via other methods, doing so

intentionally and while knowing that the information was either false, or was of no legitimate

concern to the public.

276. At all relevant times, the counter-defendants acted with a reckless disregard for

whether the information publicized on the blog was false, which information places the counter-

plaintiffs before the public in a false, even if not necessarily defamatory, light in an invasion of

his or her privacy.

277. In the alternative, counter-defendants may have negligently publicized false or

private information that is of no legitimate concern to the public.

WHEREFORE, counter-plaintiffs demand judgment against counter-defendants, and

any other individuals who may be identified through discovery and added in time, jointly and

severally, in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court, to be determined by a jury,

which will fairly and adequately compensate counter-plaintiffs for injuries and damages
47
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 48 of 61

sustained, together with interest from the date of injury, and the costs of this proceeding, any and

all injunctive relief that is appropriate and available under Alabama law, plus such punitive

damages as the jury shall find and impose to punish and deter counter-defendants from any such

future conduct.

COUNT III
Invasion of Privacy
(Intrusion upon Seclusion)

278. Counter-plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference the averments and

allegations of the preceding paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

279. Within the last two years, the counter-defendants have intruded into the private

solitude and seclusion of the counter-plaintiffs.

280. In some cases, the counter-defendants have physically intruded into the seclusion

of the counter-plaintiffs in order to photograph private property, which photos were then

publicized throughout the blog.

281. In other cases, it is believed, counter-defendants have intruded into the solitude,

seclusion, private affairs, or concerns of one or more of the counter-plaintiffs, by examining

private communications, and private bank account information of one or more of the counter-

plaintiffs.

282. In many of the cases of intrusion, if not in every case, the Plaintiff has used

excessively objectionable and improper means of gathering the private information.

48
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 49 of 61

283. Publication of these matters obtained through intrusion upon the private seclusion

of the counter-plaintiffs was highly offensive to the counter-plaintiffs, and would be highly

offensive to a reasonable person.

284. In some cases, the intrusion and subsequent publication of this information, has

jeopardized the physical safety and wellbeing of these counter-plaintiffs, who are employed in

law enforcement, and their families.

285. The private information obtained by intrusion, and then publicized about the

counter-plaintiffs, was of no legitimate concern to the public.

286. The counter-defendants knew the information about the counter-plaintiffs was

private information, and published the information to the blog and via other methods, doing so

intentionally and while knowing that the information was either false, or was of no legitimate

concern to the public.

WHEREFORE, counter-plaintiffs demand judgment against counter-defendants, and

any other individuals who may be identified through discovery and added in time, jointly and

severally, in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court, to be determined by a jury,

which will fairly and adequately compensate counter-plaintiffs for injuries and damages

sustained, together with interest from the date of injury, and the costs of this proceeding, any and

all injunctive relief that is appropriate and available under Alabama law, plus such punitive

damages as the jury shall find and impose to punish and deter counter-defendants from any such

future conduct.

COUNT IV
Negligent, Wanton, Reckless, or Intentional Trespass on Real Property

49
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 50 of 61

287. Counter-plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference the averments and

allegations of the preceding paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

288. Upon information and belief, counter-defendants had no right, either expressed or

implied, to enter upon any of the counter-plaintiffs’ real property.

289. counter-defendants knew or by reasonable diligence should have known, that they

had no right, either expressed or implied, to enter upon the counter-plaintiffs’ real property.

290. Counter-defendants, or others acting on her behalf, on at least five occasions

specifically identified by Daniel Lockhart, and other known occasions, did in fact enter onto

counter-plaintiffs’ real property, for the purpose of surveilling one or more of the counter-

plaintiffs.

291. The counter-defendants’ trespass was attended with rudeness, wantonness,

recklessness or an insulting manner, or was accompanied by circumstances of fraud and malice,

oppression, aggravation, gross negligence insult or contumely.

292. Among other things, the trespass has violated the security of one or more of the

counter-plaintiffs, causing each or all of them, to fear for their own safety while in their own

home.

293. Specifically, the counter-defendants’ entry upon counter-plaintiffs’ property,

including for the purpose of taking photographs or surveilling the private activities of the

counter-plaintiffs, has caused damage, including mental and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, counter-plaintiffs demand judgment against counter-defendants, and

any other individuals who may be identified through discovery and added in time, jointly and

severally, in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court, to be determined by a jury,
50
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 51 of 61

which will fairly and adequately compensate counter-plaintiffs for injuries and damages

sustained, together with interest from the date of injury, and the costs of this proceeding, any and

all injunctive relief that is appropriate and available under Alabama law, plus such punitive

damages as the jury shall find and impose to punish and deter counter-defendants from any such

future conduct.

COUNT V
Defamation

294. Counter-plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference the averments and

allegations of the preceding paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

295. Within the last two years, the counter-defendants have published numerous false

and defamatory statements regarding the counter-plaintiffs, communicating these statements to

one or more third parties, on a nearly daily basis.

296. The statements were intended to and, in fact, have harmed the reputation of one or

more of the counter-plaintiffs, so as to lower him or her in the estimation of the community, and

to deter members of the community from associating or dealing with any of the counter-

plaintiffs.

297. The statements made by the counter-defendants, by and through the blog and

other sources, falsely and maliciously imputed crime and moral delinquency to the counter-

plaintiffs.

298. Public comments available on the blog, reveal that the blog posts have exposed

the subjects of the posts, i.e. the counter-plaintiffs, to “disgrace, ridicule, odium, or contempt in

the estimation of ... the public, with resulting damage to [the counter-plaintiffs’] reputation.”

51
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 52 of 61

299. The blog posts have prompted several criminal investigations into the activities of

the counter-plaintiffs, relating to those false allegations outlined on the blog.

300. There is no question that an ordinary reader of average intelligence, reading the

articles posted to the blog by the counter-defendants, would find that the articles impute

dishonesty or corruption to the counter-plaintiffs, directly intended to prejudice them in their

profession.

301. The counter-defendants have publicized this information with actual malice,

knowing that the information was false, or with reckless disregard of the fact that the information

was probably false.

WHEREFORE, counter-plaintiffs demand judgment against counter-defendants, and

any other individuals who may be identified through discovery and added in time, jointly and

severally, in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court, to be determined by a jury,

which will fairly and adequately compensate counter-plaintiffs for injuries and damages

sustained, together with interest from the date of injury, and the costs of this proceeding, any and

all injunctive relief that is appropriate and available under Alabama law, plus such punitive

damages as the jury shall find and impose to punish and deter counter-defendants from any such

future conduct.

COUNT VI
Abuse of Process

302. Counter-plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference the averments and

allegations of the preceding paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

52
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 53 of 61

303. The counter-defendants have utilized the civil courts of Alabama and the federal

judicial system for Alabama, filing frivolous civil actions against one or more of the counter-

plaintiffs.

304. Upon information and belief, the counter-defendants, including but not limited to

Lockhart, have also incited and acted in concert with others to file civil actions against one or

more of the counter-plaintiffs, which cases are based in the same set of meritless facts.

305. To be certain, the instant action it premised on a set of facts that is untrue, and

which the Plaintiffs and counter-defendants know to be untrue, to wit: the counter-plaintiffs had

no part in the installation of keylogger spyware on the counter-defendants’ computers, and the

counter-defendants knew or should have known that this was the case.

306. Counter-defendants, anticipating expected litigation, both criminal and civil,

engaged in spoliation of evidence by attempting to delete most of the relevant evidence – but not

all – pertaining to installation of the keylogger spyware and its origin, and files tending to

incriminate the counter-defendant.

307. Moreover, and because the counter-defendants knew or should have known that

the counter-plaintiffs, deputies of the MCSO, had no part in the installation of keylogger spyware

on the computers of Glenda Lockhart or Straightline, likewise counter-defendants knew or

should have known that the information providing probable cause for a search warrant, was not

obtained through deceit, coercion, any clandestine activities, or any other illicit means.

308. Indeed, the actions of the counter-defendants constitute a perversion of regular

and valid process.

53
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 54 of 61

309. Daniel Lockhart willingly and voluntarily provided evidence to the counter-

plaintiffs giving, probable cause to request a search warrant.

310. Counter-defendants Glenda Lockhart and/or Straightline knew, or should have

known, that the instant lawsuit was frivolous, and falsely accused the counter-plaintiffs of

wrongdoing.

311. In filing these frivolous actions, and conspiring with others to do so as well, one

or more of the counter-defendants, including Glenda Lockhart, Straightline, or one or more of

her operatives, to be identified in due time, have wrongfully abused the judicial process, doing so

with malice and an ulterior purpose or motive.

312. The counter-defendants had, as their goal, the purpose of achieving some result

not germane to these processes and not properly achieved by the process undertaken.

WHEREFORE, counter-plaintiffs demand judgment against counter-defendants, and

any other individuals who may be identified through discovery and added in time, jointly and

severally, in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court, to be determined by a jury,

which will fairly and adequately compensate counter-plaintiffs for injuries and damages

sustained, together with interest from the date of injury, attorneys fees, and the costs of those

frivolous proceedings, any and all injunctive relief that is appropriate and available under

Alabama law, plus such punitive damages as the jury shall find and impose to punish and deter

counter-defendants from any such future conduct.

54
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 55 of 61

COUNT VII
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

313. Counter-plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference the averments and

allegations of the preceding paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

314. Counter-defendants have demonstrated a clear and express intent to cause severe

emotional distress to one or more of the counter-plaintiffs.

315. The counter-defendants, Glenda Lockhart and Straightline, by and through herself

or one or more operatives, have engaged in outrageous conduct.

316. One or more of the counter-defendants, acting intentionally or recklessly, engaged

in extreme and outrageous conduct directed at one or more of the counter-plaintiffs, intended to

cause the counter-plaintiffs severe emotional distress.

317. The counter-defendants’ actions go beyond all bounds of decency, and is the very

sort of intentionally atrocious activity that is utterly intolerable in civilized society.

318. One or more of the counter-plaintiffs have been caused to suffer emotional

distress that no reasonable person should be forced to endure.

WHEREFORE, counter-plaintiffs demand judgment against counter-defendants, and

any other individuals who may be identified through discovery and added in time, jointly and

severally, in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court, to be determined by a jury,

which will fairly and adequately compensate counter-plaintiffs for injuries and damages

sustained, together with interest from the date of injury, and the costs of this proceeding, any and

all injunctive relief that is appropriate and available under Alabama law, plus such punitive

55
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 56 of 61

damages as the jury shall find and impose to punish and deter counter-defendants from any such

future conduct.

COUNT VIII
Negligence per se by Criminal Surveillance

319. Counter-plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference the averments and

allegations of the preceding paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

320. Upon information and belief, counter-defendants had no right, either expressed or

implied, to enter upon any of the counter-plaintiffs’ real property.

321. Counter-defendants knew or by reasonable diligence should have known, that

they had no right, either expressed or implied, to enter upon the counter-plaintiffs’ real property.

322. Counter-defendants, on at least five occasions specifically identified by Daniel

Lockhart, and other known occasions, did in fact trespass on private party when they entered

onto counter-plaintiffs’ real property, for the purpose of surveilling one or more of the counter-

plaintiffs.

323. While trespassing on one or more of the counter-plaintiffs’ respective property,

counter-defendants including but not limited to Glenda Lockhart, or one or more operatives

operating on her behalf or on behalf of her business, Straightline, did engage in the secret

observation of the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the

privacy of the counter-plaintiffs observed, in direct violation of Ala. Code §13A-11-32 and Ala.

Code §13A-11-32.1.

324. Moreover, in violation of Ala. Code § 13A-11-35, counter-defendants did

knowingly or recklessly use or divulge information obtained through criminal surveillance.

56
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 57 of 61

325. One or more of the counter-plaintiffs were damaged by the acts of criminal

surveillance committed by the Defendants, including the fact that Lockhart and/or Straightline

has published information obtained through the acts of criminal surveillance, and used

information obtained to paint one or more counter-plaintiffs in a false light, thereby also

invading their privacy.

WHEREFORE, counter-plaintiffs demand judgment against counter-defendants, and

any other individuals who may be identified through discovery and added in time, jointly and

severally, in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court, to be determined by a jury,

which will fairly and adequately compensate counter-plaintiffs for injuries and damages

sustained, together with interest from the date of injury, and the costs of this proceeding, any and

all injunctive relief that is appropriate and available under Alabama law, plus such punitive

damages as the jury shall find and impose to punish and deter counter-defendants from any such

future conduct.

COUNT IX
Fraud and Deceit

326. Counter-plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference the averments and

allegations of the preceding paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

327. That counter-defendants, Glenda Lockhart, Straightline, and one or more

operatives acting on her behalf, have perpetuated a fraudulent and deceptive story, to wit: that

one or more counter-defendants engaged in criminal conduct, including but not limited to placing

keylogger spyware on computers owned or operated by Glenda Lockhart and Straightline, for the

intended purpose to obtain information from them without a search warrant.

57
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 58 of 61

328. Counter-defendants, Glenda Lockhart, Straightline, and one or more operatives

acting on her behalf, have engaged in this conduct, knowing that the representations were false

and deceptive, and knowing, instead, that the keylogger spyware could not have been installed as

previously described by the counter-defendants, but instead was in fact installed by one or more

agents, servants, employees, or representatives, acting with permission and at the direction of the

counter-defendants.

329. At all times material hereto, and knowing that the story counter-defendants

perpetuated was false, counter-defendants have intended to mislead and deceive, and have in fact

misled and deceived, one or more individuals, to the detriment of the counter-plaintiffs.

330. Counter-defendants, anticipating expected litigation, both criminal and civil, then

engaged in spoliation of evidence by attempting to delete most of the relevant evidence – but not

all – pertaining to installation of the keylogger spyware and its origin, as well as files tending to

incriminate the counter-defendant.

331. Among other things, the misrepresentations of fact, and the deceitful presentation

of facts, aided in procuring, on or about April 27, 2018, a ruling, order, verdict, and or judgment,

without jurisdiction over these defendants, but which judgment made a finding of fact that

prejudices these defendants.

332. By doing so, did in fact cause harm to the counter-plaintiffs by their actions.

333. Judge Thompson’s order was procured by fraud, in that it was premised upon the

falsified belief that one or more personnel from the MCSO conspired to install keylogger

spyware, when, in fact, Glenda Lockhart and Straightline, installed keylogger on her own

computer.
58
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 59 of 61

334. Counter-plaintiffs have been harmed by the order, procured by the fraud

perpetrated by counter-defendants, in that they have been wrongfully accused of wrongful

activity, have been prejudiced their profession, and their ability to testify as law-enforcement

officers has been severely undermined by the findings of fact contained therein.

WHEREFORE, counter-plaintiffs demand judgment against counter-defendants, and

any other individuals who may be identified through discovery and added in time, jointly and

severally, in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court, to be determined by a jury,

which will fairly and adequately compensate counter-plaintiffs for injuries and damages

sustained, together with interest from the date of injury, and the costs of this proceeding, any and

all injunctive relief that is appropriate and available under Alabama law, plus such punitive

damages as the jury shall find and impose to punish and deter counter-defendants from any such

future conduct.

COUNT X
CONSPIRACY

335. Counter-plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference the averments and

allegations of the preceding paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

336. The actions taken by Glenda Lockhart and Straightline were actions in concert

with other counter-defendants, as of yet unknown, but believed to include Leon Bradley and

Rick Sherman, and others who will be added in due time, constituting a conspiracy to do (a)

something that is unlawful, oppressive or immoral; (b) something that is not unlawful,

oppressive or immoral by using unlawful, oppressive or immoral means; or, (c) something that is

unlawful, oppressive or immoral by using unlawful, oppressive or immoral means.

59
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 60 of 61

337. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s individual and combined

above-described conduct, Plaintiffs were caused to be injured and damaged as aforesaid.

WHEREFORE, counter-plaintiffs demand judgment against counter-defendants, and

any other individuals who may be identified through discovery and added in time, jointly and

severally, and any other defendants who conspired therewith in causing or contributing to the

damage suffered by counter-plaintiffs, in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court,

to be determined by a jury, which will fairly and adequately compensate counter-plaintiffs for

injuries and damages sustained, together with interest from the date of injury, and the costs of

this proceeding, any and all injunctive relief that is appropriate and available under Alabama law,

plus such punitive damages as the jury shall find and impose to punish and deter counter-

defendants from any such future conduct.

JURY DEMAND

Counter-plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by struck jury.

/s/ William P. Gray, Jr.


WILLIAM P. GRAY, JR. (ASB-5268-R78W)
DOUGLAS N. ROBERTSON (ASB-1128-O76R)
JOHN DAVID GRAY (ASB-0797-N52G)
Attorneys for Counter-Plaintiffs
Gray & Associates, LLC
3800 Colonnade Parkway, Suite 350
Birmingham, Alabama 35243
(205) 968-0900
wgratty@aol.com

60
Case 5:16-cv-01699-MHH Document 133 Filed 10/17/18 Page 61 of 61

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 17th day of October 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF electronic document filing system which sends
notification of such filing to the following attorneys of record:

LEE LAW FIRM, LLC Counsel for Defendants Robert Wilson,


The Landmark Center Blake Robinson,
2100 First Avenue North and Justin Powell
Suite 600 Rick Howard, Esq.
Birmingham, AL 35203 Mark Dukes, Esq.
Phone: (205) 328-9445 HOLTSFORD, GILLILAND, HIGGINS,
Fax: (800) 856-9028 HITSON, AND HOWARD, P.C.
brandy@leelawfirmllc.com Post Office Box 4128
Montgomery, AL 36103-4128
JOHNSTON LAW FIRM, P.C. rhoward@hglawpc.com
The Landmark Center mdukes@hglawpc.com
2100 First Avenue North
Suite 600 Counsel for All Defendants
Birmingham, AL 35203 William P. Gray, Jr., Esq.
Phone: (205) 328-9445 John David Gray, Esq.
Fax: (800) 856-9028 GRAY & ASSOCIATES, LLC
brice@johnstonfirmpc.com 3800 Colonnade Parkway, Ste. 350
Birmingham, AL 35243
Counsel for Defendant Sheriff Ana wgratty@gmail.com
Franklin: jdgratty@gmail.com
Robert M. Spence, Esq.
ROSEN HARWOOD, PA
2200 Jack Warner Parkway
Suite 200
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401
rspence@rosenharwood.com

/s/ John David Gray


John David Gray
Of Counsel

61