Balch’s Alleged Unlawful, Unsavory, and Unconscionable Misconduct Presented to U.S. Supreme Court

Burt Newsome has taken the Newsome Conspiracy Case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Unbelievable indeed!


When the late Schuyler Allen Baker, Jr., Balch’s long-time General Counsel, vowed to fight to the death before settling the Newsome Conspiracy Case, did he ever believe Newsome would have the testicular fortitude to fight the embattled and once-prestigious firm all the way to the highest court of the land?

Probably not.

Newsome, the sole-practitioner attorney, an innocent man who was minding his business when he was allegedly targeted, falsely arrested, and defamed by Balch & Bingham has refused to take it on the chin.

As the well-read legal blog Legal Schnauzer reports:

Birmingham attorney Burt Newsome is seeking review with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in a case alleging individuals connected to the Balch & Bingham law firm conspired to frame him for a crime and then used that information in an [alleged] effort to steal a chunk of his banking-related work and ruin his practice.

Newsome, the proprietor of Newsome Law LLC in North Shelby County, alleges that former Balch attorney Clark Cooper was a central figure in the conspiracy, and the conspirators used prepaid “burner phones” to communicate about their plans and hide those conversations from Newsome and authorities. The matter has become known as the Newsome Conspiracy Case.

Alexandra Siskopoulos, an attorney from New York City, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari … on Newsome’s behalf. She asks the high court to review the Alabama Supreme Court’s judgment in the case, or in the alternative,  summarily reverse the decision and judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 16

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has to make a decision in October if they will grant the petition, the narrative is damning for Balch and their stooges as it outlines the conspiracy, staged arrest, alleged acts of defamation, and the alleged unlawful, unsavory, and unconscionable acts of Balch and the co-conspirators.

And one of the stars of the Writ?

The counterfeit, make-believe court order that was never filed into the Judicial Information System.

This purported order, however, was never file stamped and never entered in the State Judicial Information System (“SJIS”) in Alabama as required by Alabama law. Petitioner Newsome sought a Writ of Mandamus from the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals arguing that the court order that the judge vacate the purported order because it was void based on numerous grounds. On April 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of Alabama denied the Writ and ordered that the June 8, 2016 order be entered in the SJIS system.

And what are the principal federal issues at hand?

When Balch and the co-conspirators allegedly attempted to screw over Newsome with a make-believe, counterfeit order, they based the fabricated order on a release-dismissal agreement, a product from the staged arrest and phony criminal case that collapsed and was dismissed with prejudice.

The release-dismissal agreement in Shelby County was overly broad.

Balch, which was not involved in the proceedings of the phony, baloney criminal trial, used the release to claim they were protected from any litigation by Newsome. At the time of the release, Newsome had no idea that Balch was involved in the conspiracy.

Also the the counterfeit order brings up the issue of the due process of law. As we have commented repeatedly, the judicial branch of Alabama appears to have compromised the Rule of Law for the benefit of their cronies and political boosters at Balch & Bingham.

From the petition:

The Supreme Court of Alabama’s decision is the ideal vehicle to address whether a release-dismissal agreement pursuant to this Honorable Court’s guidelines can encompass non-governmental persons and entities which were never contemplated in the seminal holding of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386 (1987). Further, this Honorable Court must address whether these increasingly overbroad release-dismissal agreements can waive a litigant’s right to pursue a criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court of Alabama’s decision is also an ideal vehicle to address whether a state court judge can withhold the formal filing of a final decision/order and still be in accord with due process principles established by our Constitution.

And while Balch and their defenders may believe that SCOTUS will deny the Newsome petition, our understanding is a rock-solid RICO suit will come thereafter.

Through the corrupt judicial system of Alabama, Balch defenders probably thought they had squashed, destroyed, and ruined Newsome when the reality is quite the opposite.

And all the while Balch has lost millions, tarnished their brand, and lost numerous money-making partners.

“Ruining a rival” appears to have ruined Balch.