DOCUMENT 2

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
12/24/2024 1:25 PM
02-CV-2024-903327.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
SHARLA KNOX, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

PAUL PRINE, *
*
Plaintiff, *
*
v. * CASE NO.: CV-2024 __________
*
*
WILLIAM S. STIMPSON, *
C’ARACHER SMALL JR., *
JOEL DAVES, CORY PENN, *
WILLIAM CARROLL, *
BENJAMIN REYNOLDS, *
THOMPSON COBURN LLP, *
KENYEN BROWN, *
POWERS CONSULTING GROUP LLC, *
TYRONE POWERS, *
JAMES BARBER *
AND ROBERT LASKY, *
*
Defendants. *

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Paul Prine, Plaintiff in the above-styled cause and files the

following Complaint against the above-named Defendants.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Paul Prine (“Prine”) is an adult resident of Mobile County, Alabama.

2. Defendant William S. Stimpson (“Stimpson”) is an adult resident of Mobile

County, Alabama.

3. Defendant C’Aracher Small Jr. (“Small”) is an adult resident of Mobile

County, Alabama.

1
 DOCUMENT 2

4. Defendant Joel Daves (“Daves”) is an adult resident of Mobile County,

Alabama.

5. Defendant Cory Penn (“Penn”) is an adult resident of Mobile County,

Alabama.

6. Defendant William Carroll (“Carroll”) is an adult resident of Mobile County,

Alabama.

7. Defendant Benjamin Reynolds (“Reynolds”) is an adult resident of Mobile

County, Alabama.

8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kenyen Brown (“Brown”) is an

adult resident of Washington, D.C.; is a member of the law firm of Thompson Coburn,

LLP; and at all material times herein was acting in the line and scope of his employment.

9. Defendant Thompson Coburn, LLP is a law firm operating as a limited

liability partnership in Washington, D.C.

10. Defendant James Barber (“Barber”) is an adult resident of Mobile County,

Alabama.

11. Defendant Robert Lasky (“Lasky”) is an adult resident of Baldwin County,

Alabama.

12. Defendant Powers Consulting Group, LLC (“Powers Consulting”) is a

limited liability corporation whose principal place of business is in Baltimore, Maryland.

13. Defendant Tyrone Powers (“Powers”), upon information and belief is a

resident of Baltimore, Maryland and at all times material herein was acting in the line and

scope of his employment with Powers Consulting.

2
 DOCUMENT 2

BACKGROUND

14. Prine has been employed in law enforcement for over 29 years. He started

his law enforcement career with the Chickasaw Police Department in 1995. In 1997, he

was accepted into the Mobile Police Academy where he graduated at the top of his class

earning the Academic Award, The Chief’s Overall Excellence Award and was nominated

by his peers to be class president.

15. In October 2001, Prine responded to a domestic call and was shot multiple

times in the line of duty, sustaining life threatening injuries.

16. In 2021, Prine was appointed as Chief of Police (“Chief”) for the City of

Mobile (“the City”). During the course of his tenure as Chief, Prine lowered the violent

crime rate and attrition in the City and was well liked and respected by his subordinates,

colleagues and the law enforcement community. He was also well liked by the public.

17. James Barber currently serves as the Chief of Staff for the Mayor of Mobile,

Stimpson. At the time Prine was appointed Chief, Barber served as the Chief of Staff for

the City. Barber served as the Chief from 2013 until 2017, when he was appointed to

Public Safety Director.

18. While Barber may have resigned from the Chief’s position to become Public

Safety Director, he continued to assert control over the Mobile Police Department (“MPD”)

as if he were the de facto Chief. When Prine became Chief, Barber attempted to control

Prine for his own purposes but was unable to do so.

19. On or about July 2, 2023, MPD officers responded to a residential burglary.

Mr. Jawan Dallas (“Dallas”) was detained. Dallas attempted to flee which resulted in a

3
 DOCUMENT 2

struggle and Dallas being tased. Mobile County EMS responded and treated Dallas who

subsequently became unconscious and died.

20. Between March 2023 and November 2023, there were six high profile use of

force incidents with the MPD. Upon information and belief, all cases were presented to

the Mobile County grand jury with a “no bill” status.

21. Barber became tired of the Dallas family making a barrage of public attacks

on the administration of the City. On or about October 21, 2023, Barber called Prine into

his office to discuss the negative attention surrounding the Dallas matter and told him that

he had leaked the Dallas autopsy report to Byron Day, a local news anchor with WALA

Fox 10.

22. Barber wanted Prine to be a second credible source to the report, however,

Prine refused because leaking the autopsy to the media while the grandy jury was

considering the matter for an indictment was illegal or at best unethical. Barber began his

crusade to remove Prine as Chief after Prine refused to engage in illegal conduct.

23. During or about the week of October 23, 2023, Corporal Katrina Frazier told

Prine that Byron Day stated that Barber had given him the Dallas autopsy report but that

the producer refused to air it during the grand jury proceeding. Upon learning that Byron

Day shared the autopsy information with Corporal Frazier, Prine immediately told Barber.

After a few moments of hesitation, Barber replied: “That mother------; I thought I could

trust him.” Barber then sent Day a text berating him. It is indeed interesting that Prine was

and is being attacked for allegedly saying the F--- word over two years ago, yet Barber can

curse without consequence.

4
 DOCUMENT 2

24. In November 2023, Barber started telling Prine that the City Council was

considering a vote of no confidence regarding Prine’s performance as Chief. On or about

November 16, 2023, Barber’s wife, Faith Barber contacted Prine’s wife through phone

call(s) and text message(s) telling her that the City Council was going to conduct a vote of

no confidence. Believing that Barber was trying to get him to resign, Prine confronted

Barber and asked if he and the Mayor wanted him to resign because Prine would consider

applying for the Chief of Police position at the University of South Alabama. Barber’s

response was: “We’re not there yet.”

25. On or about November 20, 2023, Prine questioned Councilwoman Gina

Gregory and by proxy Councilman Josh Woods and was told they knew nothing of a vote

of no confidence. As such, Barber either fabricated the story about the vote of no

confidence as a means to control Prine or the City administration was colluding with the

Mobile City Council (“Council”) to remove Prine from his position.

26. On November 20, 2023, Prine filed a verbal grievance against Barber relating

to the following:

a. Barber’s solicitation for Prine to act as a second source to validate the

autopsy finding in the Dallas case to the media, despite the report being material evidence

for a pending grand jury. Barber’s actions were intended to influence the grand jury and

public opinion for his own personal and/or political reasons, which is illegal according to

Ala. Code § 12-16-215.

5
 DOCUMENT 2

b. Barber’s threats and lies regarding a public vote of no confidence against

Prine appeared to be an attempt to coerce Prine into resigning or retiring rather than be

publicly humiliated.

c. Contacting Prine’s wife in what appeared to be an effort to rile her emotions

regarding the no confidence vote to control Prine or to influence Prine’s wife to make Prine

resign.

27. After Prine filed his grievance against Barber, there was no formal

investigation into the matter. December 2023, Barber and Lasky summoned Prine to

Barber’s office to discuss the grievance against Barber. Prine refused to discuss the matter

with Barber because the grievance was against Barber. Once again, there was no formal

investigation into the matter.

28. When the Council hired Bill Athanas to conduct an investigation into Prine’s

grievances, the Council limited the investigation to written grievances in order to protect

Barber from Prine’s verbal grievance alleging that Barber engaged in illegal conduct. Even

when the Council, the City administration and Keyen Brown were told that Barber illegally

released the autopsy report to the media, they did not investigate Barber.

29. After Prine refused to be involved in the leak of the Dallas autopsy report

and made a verbal grievance against Barber, Barber began hatching other plans to get rid

of Prine.

30. On or about January 11, 2024, the City administration (Stimpson and Barber)

entered into a contract with attorney Kenyen Brown of Thomspon Colburn, LLP to review

the policies and practices of the MPD, particularly concerning the six high profile officer

6
 DOCUMENT 2

involved incidents. Brown served on the board of directors of the Project Thrive

Foundation with Barber. Brown is Barber’s friend, which is why Barber went to

Washington D.C. to hire a lawyer, rather than a competent, unbiased attorney from the state

of Alabama. The Project Thrive Foundation is an initiative of the MPD to support victims

of gun violence. Brown was not independent, which is supported in his report where he

continually describes himself as “the Independent Investigative Team.” If he was truly

independent, he would not describe himself independent in an attempt to have everyone

believe that he is independent. Brown’s report and public statements are nothing more than

conjecture but presented as facts that caused irreparable damage to Prine’s character and

reputation.

31. While Brown was officially tasked with assessing whether the department

had adhered to its policies in those cases, his investigation was actually a witch hunt against

Prine that was initiated by Stimpson and Barber, who had been accused of illegal conduct.

Brown was not hired to investigate Prine or to do a climate survey, but that is what Brown

did. Upon information and belief, Brown did not interview any of the police officers

involved in the use of force incidents. The people that Brown interviewed with were

selected by Barber and were friends of Barber. Brown’s disparagement of Prine was both

intentional, malicious, and done at the direction of Stimpson and Barber.

32. Powers and Powers Consulting assisted Brown in his investigation and

preparation of Brown’s report. Powers and Powers Consulting are listed as authors of the

Brown report and are responsible for the disparaging, libelous and slanderous statements

made therein.

7
 DOCUMENT 2

33. On or about January 22, 2024, MPD Chief of Staff Joseph Kennedy informed

Prine that Lasky had attempted to get Levy to prepare what was described as a “fill-in-the-

blank-presentation” to give to the Mayor. The presentation was intended to make Prine

look bad by falsely highlighting that Prine did not support Levy, the Intelligence Division

or the Echo Stop Program. Levy testified under oath during the investigation that followed

that Lasky in fact ordered him to put a presentation together to discredit Prine to get him

out of office. Barber conspired with Lasky to get Levy to file a false and damaging report

against Prine, yet Stimpson has the gall to state Prine is paranoid when he was 100%

correct.

34. On January 22, 2024, Prine filed a grievance against Lasky for the following:

a. Making disparaging comments about Prine to city employees Tony

McCarron and police subordinate Regan Clegg.

b. Conspiring with Levy to write a false report about Prine regarding the Echo

Stop Program.

35. On or about March 14, 2024, Prine received via email a third-party peer

review from Lasky. The report was presented as a third-party peer review prepared by

321z Insights, LLC (“321z”). In fact, the cover letter prepared by Jonni Baker, the owner

of 321z, clearly represents that the report was prepared by her and her company, when she

is by profession a proofreader and possibly a technical writer. The review blamed the MPD

leadership for the failure of the Echo Stop Program. Even though the report was

purportedly prepared by 321z, it was actually prepared by Levy at the direction of Lasky

8
 DOCUMENT 2

with the intent to disparage Prine. Baker only proofread the report for spelling and

grammatical errors.

36. 321z did not exist when Levy began negotiations with Baker and her husband

to assist in getting the intelligence unit certified. 321z was paid $92,000 but did nothing

to assist the intelligence unit getting certified. The only thing 321z did for the City for

$92,000 was to proofread Levy’s report.

37. It is interesting that Prine was an at will employee with the City who could

be terminated without reason. Rather than terminate Prine, the City administration and

Council unnecessarily and maliciously went to great effort and expense to disparage

Prine’s reputation before he was terminated, simply so that the City administration would

not look bad if its skeletons were revealed, because Prine would lose credibility and

because the City administration and city counselors wanted Prine gone because of the

weekly barrage of attacks from the Dallas family and Prine refusing to assist Barber in a

criminal act of releasing the Dallas autopsy report.

38. On March 20, 2024, Brown interviewed Prine. Prine was accompanied by

James Harred, the department’s legal adviser. Brown’s questions focused on department

policies, particularly the use of foul language. At one point, Brown asked whether Prine

was aware that some MPD staff members were teaching officers that it was acceptable to

use inappropriate language towards citizens. Prine strongly disagreed with this assertion

and Harred stated that he had been present during the staff interviews and had never heard

such claims. Rather than discussing the issue with Harred to discover the truth, Brown

admonished Harred for speaking.

9
 DOCUMENT 2

39. During the interview, which Prine recorded, Brown never questioned Prine

regarding the comments allegedly made at roll call two years prior, and Brown never

questioned Prine about the morale of the MPD as he did the others that he interviewed.

40. Prine advised Brown that the investigation appeared to be designed to

discredit his leadership, rather than to accomplish the stated purpose in the contract

between Brown and the City administration. The Brown report without question is a hit

piece intended to damage Prine’s reputation and to support his termination. Prine was not

consulted about who would be interviewed nor was he kept informed about the process

until the week before he was interviewed. Prine told Brown about the vindictive action

after filing the verbal grievance filed against Barber and written grievance against Lasky.

Prine told Brown about how his strategic plan lowered crime, improved officer attrition

and improved moral. None of these statements made it into Brown’s report and no action

was ever taken against Barber.

41. On or about March 22, 2024, Prine spoke to Ricardo Woods, the Mayor’s

legal counsel, regarding the Brown investigation. In particular, Prine complained that

Brown was performing a climate survey to disparage his reputation, rather than what he

was hired to do. Prine also told Woods that the 321z third-party peer review was used to

disparage his leadership and validated Prine’s grievance against Lasky, which again

Stimpson referred to as frivolous, a conspiracy theory and called Prine paranoid. Finally,

Prine told Woods that Barber vindictively initiated the 321z report and the Brown report

because Prine filed a grievance against him. Prine asked Woods if he should file another

10
 DOCUMENT 2

grievance against Barber. Woods suggested that he do not because it would backfire on

Prine.

42. On March 27, 2024, Stimpson texted Prine and told him to meet at Ricardo

Woods’ office. Upon arrival, Prine was told to leave his phone outside the conference

room and was given two letters by drafted Ricardo Woods.

43. Letter A drafted on Burr Forman Letterhead had two options for Prine to

consider

(1) Retire with severance and the Brown report would be mitigated to protect

Prine’s reputation.

(2) Public disparagement of Prine’s reputation, the Brown report would not be

mitigated, and the council votes were there to terminate him.

44. It is astounding that Letter A explicitly states that the City administration

(Stimpson and Barber) would publicly disparage Prine’s reputation if he did not agree to

item 1. Websters Dictionary defines disparage as: “to belittle the importance or value of

someone.” It is even more astounding that Stimpson was sitting in the room and agreed

that Prine’s reputation would be disparaged.

45. Letter B drafted on city letterhead placed Prine on administrative leave and

relieved him of his command. Prine, Woods and Stimpson agreed that Prine could have

21 days to consider the offers according to federal law due to his age.

46. On March 31, 2024, Prine went to police headquarters to gather his personal

documents to meet with his attorney to discuss the options presented to him by Stimpson

and Woods. When he arrived, Prine’s access card did not allow him to access the building

11
 DOCUMENT 2

and he was disconnected from the MPD email server. Prine’s attorney called Woods about

Prine being denied access to the MPD building and email. Prine’s access was restored that

afternoon.

47. On April 9, 2024, Prine received threats to accept the deal, or the City

administration would have no choice but to release information to the media about Prine

being on administrative leave. Once again, a threat to disparage Prine. Someone with the

City administration leaked to WKRG 5 that there had been a shake up with MPD command.

Woods advised Prine that the deal was no longer available, however, Prine could go public

with his retirement with a script prepared by the mayor’s office for the media. Prine refused

to go public with the script prepared by the mayor’s office knowing that the Brown report

would be used to ruin his reputation and without a non-disparagement in place.

48. The City asked Prine to mediate and he concurred. On April 13 and 14, Prine

met with his attorney, Stimpson, Woods and the mediator Cooper Thurber. No agreement

was reached.

49. On April 23, 2024, Woods stated at a pre-council meeting that the City

administration was offering another agreement to settle with Prine that had a one-way non-

disparagement agreement in favor of the City. There was no negotiation unless Prine

agreed to a one-way non-disparagement agreement and Prine had until April 26, 2024 to

accept. No formal agreement was ever offered due to Prine’s refusal to agree to a one-way

non-disparagement agreement. Once again, Barber and the City administration wanted to

hide their skeletons and bad acts and did not care if they ruined Prine in the process.

50. On April 30, 2024, Prine was voted out as Chief of Police by the Council.

12
 DOCUMENT 2

51. The following are the defamatory statements maliciously made by Stimpson

from the time period beginning April 9, 2024 and ending a few months after Prine was

terminated.

a. After Prine was placed on administrative leave on March 27, 2024, “Chief

Prine is AWOL from duty, “No one was at the helm”, “He cleared out his office,” “I could

not in good conscious allow MPD to continue to operate without clear leadership at the

helm and made the determination it was time to place Prine on Administrative leave”

b. “Chief Prine rules by authoritarian leadership as he admitted it openly.”

c. “Chief Prine set a negative cultural tone by making a derogatory statement

to the police officers early in his tenure.”

d. “Chief Prine grievances were investigated and found to be frivolous.”

e. “Chief Prine was paranoid and into conspiracy theories about those out to get

him.”

f. “Chief Prine did not trust the Mayor.”

g. “Chief Prine was insubordinate with Lasky and Barber.”

h. “Chief Prine was responsible for the communications breakdown with

Levy.”

i. “Chief Prine was not cooperative with the Brown investigation.”

j. “Chief Prine could not get along with his peers.”

k. “Chief Prine became combative.”

13
 DOCUMENT 2

l. “There was an effort to target offenders and not neighborhoods while

building trust between the department and the community. Chief Prine was not open to

that approach.”

m. On May 16, 2024, Stimpson stated on the Sean Sullivan Show that Prine was

not fired as a result of the Brown report.

52. The defamatory statements made by Council members and Defendants

Daves, Smalls, Penn, Reynolds, Carroll and Woods are as follows:

a. Chief Prine abandoned his job and went AWOL.

Smalls:

a. Chief Prine needed to retire because he was giving the City a black eye.

b. The Chief is holding the City hostage.

c. Chief Prine threw the Mayor under the bus.

d. If his employee dogged him out, he would not trust the employee either.

e. Chief Prine was wrong how he treated his boss man.

f. Chief can’t get along with his bosses, the citizens suffer.

Daves

a. The Chief caused everything that we have gone through in the last three

weeks.

b. Chief has left the job.

c. We don’t have a chief of police.

d. Chief has abandoned his job.

e.

14
 DOCUMENT 2

Reynolds

a. Chief Prine just before work week April 8-11, 2024, cleared out his office

and failed to report to duty.

Penn

a. A man of faith would not use Language.

Carroll

a. Our former Chief of Police removed himself from his office and position of

responsibility without notice, leaving the city without a commanding officer.

b. Prine abandoned his post and walked out the door. Prine made that decision

when he left the job.

c. Chief Prine was insubordinate which created the problem.

53. The defamatory statements made by Kenyon Brown, Thompson Coburn,

LLP, Powell and Powell Consulting are as follows:

a. “When asked about the police department’s standards regarding the use of

profanity, Chief Prine highlighted that circumstances surrounding the use of profanity are

important to his analysis of its appropriate use. Chief Prine categorizes the use of profanity

into three categories: (1) malicious, (2) intentional, and (3) incidental. If the use of

profanity was incidental, such as profanity used in the heat of a fight or when the officer is

in fight or flight mode, he would not reprimand the officer. If the use of profanity was

malicious, the officer would be asked to leave, and if the use of profanity was intentional,

the officer could, or could not, face punishment. In sum, Chief Prine analyzes the use of

profanity on a sliding scale. Chief Prine said that before he became Chief, there was no

15
 DOCUMENT 2

standard on the use of profanity within the police force. The Independent Investigative

Team finds this remark to be disingenuous. The Independent Investigative Team also notes

that Chief Prine’s articulation of how he handles an officer’s use of profanity does not

appear anywhere in MPD’s General Orders, Memorandum Orders or any other MPD

regulation. Rather, MPD officers, as well as Chief Prine, should be guided by MPD General

Order #26.8.5, which reads, “A member (officer) or employee shall not use disrespectful,

profane, abusive, demeaning, belittling, or insulting language and/or gestures to any

person.” Adopted February 1, 2005.)”

Truth:

Prine recorded the interview with Brown, so there can be no dispute about what

Prine said or didn’t say in the interview. Brown completely misrepresented what Prine

said to formulate his narrative that Prine was autocratic. Prine discussed the fight or flight

syndrome to articulate why and how to evaluate proper discipline when an officer is found

guilty of language misconduct due to past administrations being heavy handed. Prine

discussed profanity misconduct and how it was determined if the misconduct was

incidental, intentional or malicious in nature. What Prine explained sums up the Douglas

factors which are part of the MPD policy Memorandum 2024-01: Pre-Disciplinary hearing

procedures amended January 16, 2024, which reads in part: “The Merit Systems Protection

Board in its landmark decision, Douglas vs. Veterans Administration, 5M.S.P.R. 280

(1981), established criteria that supervisors must consider in determining an appropriate

penalty for an act of employee misconduct: ‘B. The Douglas Factors’”. Prine never said

there was no standard of language policy. There has always been a policy regarding rules

16
 DOCUMENT 2

of conduct. Brown further stated in the interview that if you are in a fist to cuff you have

to do what you have to do, which is contrary to what he put in his report and shows that

the report was intended to disparage Prine.

b. “The Chief reiterated that the use of profanity while under duress is okay, but

it is not okay when giving commands to citizens and when not under duress.”

Truth:

Prine actually made it clear that under no circumstances were officers to use foul

language. He stated that he was not a fan of reprimanding officers for using foul language

unless the conduct continued in multiple complaints, or there were aggravating

circumstances which in essence is the Douglas factors.

c. “The Independent Investigative Team asked Chief Prine about other areas of

training, such as de-escalation and the duty to intervene. Chief Prine did not provide a clear

answer regarding what de-escalation training was given to officers. When asked when the

duty to intervene begins, he said that the duty to intervene policy does not address the

timing of the duty. He reiterated that officers have a duty to intervene, and that he has a

standing order for every officer to ‘do the right thing.’”

Truth:

Brown made a statement about de-escalation training and stated that he knew that

Prine did not have the training hours on top of his head but never asked Prine a question

about de-escalation training. After that statement Brown did not wait for an answer; he

immediately went into mental illness training.

17
 DOCUMENT 2

Brown wanted to know Prine’s philosophy, not policy, about duty to intervene and

when does the duty begin. Prine told Brown what the duty to intervene policy states and

that it did not cover Brown’s assertions of recognizing an officer’s demeanor before the

officer started his shift but thought that was a good idea to include in the policy. Prine even

suggested to Harred to review the policy. The duty to intervene falls under MPD policy

General Orders: Rules of Conduct: 26.1.1.20.02: Force, dated January 22, 2021. Prine told

Brown that he has taught every officer from Lieutenant and below during annual service

training for the past two years the MPD strategic plan and leadership. During that training

Prine always talks about duty to intervene. Prine stated that since 1995 he had a standing

order with any police officer that he worked with that do things the right way or he would

have to report them. Prine never said that he had this standing order when he was Chief.

Brown completely misrepresented what Brown said to enforce the false idea that Prine was

autocratic.

Brown also asserted during the interview that the use of profanity was okay at MPD

and that staff members were teaching that profanity was okay and acceptable. His

statement is demonstrably false.

d. “Chief Prine also confirmed that an officer was sent to Texas for training

encountering the mentally ill, and the officer’s training is going to be taught to the force.”

Truth:

Brown once again misrepresented what Prine told him to make it look like Prine did

not care about training officers to deal with the mentally ill. Prine actually told Brown that

he sent 5-6 officers to Texas for training and that the MPD has been training officers for

18
 DOCUMENT 2

the last several years on mental health issues since the MPD entered into a partnership with

AltaPointe.

e. “Finally, the Independent Investigative Team inquired about the use of pre-

dawn raids. Chief Prine stated that his personal views on pre-dawn raids do not matter

because state law dictates the use of raids. However, he noted that just because the officers

are allowed to do something does not mean they should. He stated that as long as the state

law requirements for use of a pre-dawn raid are met, then the raid is permissible. However,

he changed the pre-dawn raid policy in conjunction with the Mayor to show cooperation

with the Council.”

Truth:

Brown did not ask Prine about policy. He asked about Prine’s methodology for

morning raids and the importance of threat assessment. Prine did state that his

methodology does not matter because state law dictates what can and can’t be done;

however, Prine agreed that the MPD does risk and threat assessment for planning purposes.

Brown appears to say and or imply that Prine did not value human life when preparing a

search warrant, which is not true.

f. “Chief Prine articulated that there must be an element of fear within the

department particularly in regards discipline. He compared the fear he tries to instill in his

officers as the same he tries to instill in his children.”

Truth:

This must be the part of the Brown report that Stimpson references when he stated

that Prine has an authoritarian leadership style and that Prine admitted it, which is not true.

19
 DOCUMENT 2

What Prine actually stated was that he taught every officer in the department how he views

discipline so that if an officer engages in malicious or intentional conduct that is

aggravating, they know there will be consequences. Prine suggested that there must be an

element of fear of wrongdoing in work and likened it to raising your children at home.

Brown took Prine’s statement completely out of context to disparage Prine. Rules of

conduct are adversarial by nature and spell out the discipline if found guilty. Chief Prine

was making it clear the officer misconduct would not be tolerated.

g. “Moreover, Chief Prine articulated that he didn’t feel the need to engage with

that segment of the community because they would never be happy or satisfied.”

Truth:

Prine does not recall making this statement nor was he able to locate it in the audio

recording. Brown simply made up this statement to disparage Prine.

h. “MPD currently has multiple and parallel tracks to administratively review

officer involved shootings, all of which appear to be discretionary in execution at the Chief

of Police’s election.”

Truth:

This statement is demonstrably false and made to disparage Prine as an autocratic

leader. MPD has guidelines when investigating criminal and administrative investigations

as delineated in MPD General Orders 52.1.7: Operational Procedures, Liaison with

prosecutor’s office. Prine did not have discretion. Every incident has followed the policies

of the department. If the policy was not followed in some manner, it was done without

Prine’s knowledge or consent.

20
 DOCUMENT 2

i. “The Independent Investigative Team takes note that Chief Prine was placed

on administrative leave subsequent to the Independent Team providing its preliminary

findings to Mayor Sandy Stimpson and other officials of his administration. Since that

time Chief Prine has engaged in a sustained campaign to discredit the integrity of this

report. He has also made what appear to be a series of unsubstantiated claims that Mayor

Stimpson, his Chief of Staff, the Public Safety Director and others within MPD who have

been critical of his tenure as chief, have engaged in illegal and unethical conduct. It is the

Opinion of the Independent Instigative Team that Chief Prine’s recent actions are

emblematic of his autocratic tendencies and are consistent with his prior actions of:

• Trying to intimidate Council members in the lead up to the vote as to the ordinance

to ban “no knock warrants” and pre-dawn raids.

• Demeaning or dismissing certain segments of the community that are critical of

MPD’s treatment of them.

• During press conferences, denigrating the character of persons subject to police use

of force.

• Engaging in an unconstitutional quest to find, and make public, derogatory

information about people subject to police use of force.

• The probable unconstitutional transport and detention of a decedent’s family

members demeaning MPD staff when he initially became chief.

Unfortunately, a portion of MPD has adopted Chief’s Prine’s autocratic demeanor

in the way it executes its public responsibilities. Chief Prine’s autocratic tendencies in

isolation, or perhaps in another vocation, may be acceptable. However, as stated in the

21
 DOCUMENT 2

preamble of this report, “Police are the only entity in the United States of America that

have the legal authority to restrict freedom and or seize and individual based on law,

discretion and training,” and indeed, legally utilize fatal use of force, under color of law.

If this authority is wielded from an autocratic mindset, constitutional violations will abound

and the dignity due to every citizen, as well as the sanctity of life, will be subordinated.

Therefore, the Independent Investigative Team recommends that MPD Command

staff and Executive Leadership Team consistently undertake leadership training with the

understanding that officers – especially young officers will follow their example – from

dress to mannerism – to the language and philosophy of the leadership and Command

Staff.”

Truth:

The foregoing statements are false and clearly show that Barber and Stimpson were

using Brown to disparage Prine and wasted over $200,000 in taxpayer money in doing so.

Brown irreparably disparages Prine by saying that he’s not fit to be Chief due to his

autocratic tendencies, which is demonstrably false. As a former U.S. Attorney, Brown

should know that Barber’s release of the Dallas autopsy report while the grand jury was

deliberating is illegal. The television stations knew that publishing the report was not

proper, yet Brown chose to label Prine as autocratic rather than question Barber when

Barber is the textbook definition of autocratic. Brown’s disparagement of Prine was

intentional and done to disparage Prine’s reputation and done at the instruction and request

of Stimpson and Barber.

22
 DOCUMENT 2

54. In the Brown interview on Fox 10 WALA, April 23, 2024, Brown

maliciously made the following false statements about Prine:

a. Chief Prine should not denigrate the suspects (deceased) during a press

conference.

b. Chief Prine did not articulate policies and procedures as written.

c. Chief Prine articulated policies and procedures in a way that was not written

and only in his head.

d. The Chief’s autocratic style did not adhere to oversight by Mayor.

e. Chief Prine attacks those who are critical of him.

55. Thomson Colburn LLP’s website disparaged Prine as follows:

“There are numerous constitutional violations including the beating of a handcuffed

suspect, the going into or the attempt to [unconstitutionally] go into cell phones repeatedly,

the denigration of suspects of deadly force during press conferences, and illegal and

unconstitutional detentions without probable cause,” Brown said. “The report also covers

police policies and makes recommendations for changes, and it is critical of the leadership

of the department’s chief, who was suspended from his position amid the investigation.”

Truth:

The foregoing statements are intentionally false, malicious and clearly made to

disparage Prine. Not only are the statements about Prine intentionally false, but it is also

beyond stupid for Brown and his law firm to make those statements when the City is being

sued by one or more of the suspects mentioned by the law firm. The statements are a false

admission of liability on behalf of the MPD, when the MPD did nothing wrong. The

23
 DOCUMENT 2

foregoing shows how far Stimpson, Barber and Brown would go to disparage Prine, even

if the City may have to pay a large judgment because of the forgoing statements by Brown

and his law firm.

COUNT ONE
Slander Per Se

56. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-55 of

the Complaint as if set forth fully and completely herein.

57. Defendants Brown, Thompson Colburn, LLP, Powell and Powell

Consulting’s statements that Prine engaged in unconstitutional conduct by engaging in a

quest to find and mail public derogatory information about people subject to police use of

force, transportation and detention of decedent’s family members, illegal; unconstitutional

detention without probable cause; repeatedly attempting or going into cell phones to

retrieve information; and illegal detaining people are false.

58. The Defendants acted with knowledge of the falsity of the statements made

by them or with reckless disregard for their truth and falsity.

59. The Defendants made such statements falsely and maliciously.

60. In making these willful, false, malicious, defamatory and slanderous

statements, the Defendants intended to injure the Plaintiff’s reputation and character.

Further, the Defendants’ conduct was intended to bring the Plaintiff into scandal, public

ridicule, disgrace, odium, contempt and professional dispute to future employers.

61. As a proximate result of Defendants’ malicious publication and

dissemination of the false statements and information as set forth above, Plaintiff has been

24
 DOCUMENT 2

deprived of public confidence that he had prior to the acts of the Defendants and his

reputation has been damaged.

62. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ malicious publication and

dissemination of the false information as set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered damage,

including but not limited to lost income, lost future income, mental anguish and emotional

distress.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Brown, Thompson

Coburn, LLP, Powell and Powell Consulting for compensatory and punitive damages in

excess of $50,000, plus costs of court.

COUNT TWO
Slander Per Quod

63. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-62 of

the Complaint as if set forth fully and completely herein.

64. All the above statements are false.

65. The Defendants with knowledge of the falsity of such statements made them

intentionally or with reckless disregard for their truth and falsity.

66. In making these willful, false, malicious, defamatory and slanderous

statements, the Defendants intended to injure the Plaintiff’s reputation and to deprive the

Plaintiff of the respect and confidence essential for him to have future employment

equivalent to the job as Chief. Further, Defendants’ conduct was intended to bring the

Plaintiff into scandal, public ridicule, disgrace, odium, contempt and professional disrepute

before the police force and the citizens of Mobile.

25
 DOCUMENT 2

67. As a proximate result of Defendants’ malicious publication and

dissemination of false statements and information as set forth above, Plaintiff has been

deprived of public confidence that he had prior to said acts of the Defendants and of the

ability to get another job comparable to the Chief position.

68. As a proximate result of Defendants’ malicious publication and

dissemination of the false statements set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered damage,

including but not limited to, mental anguish, emotional distress, lost income and loss of

future income.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants for

compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $50,000, plus costs of court.

COUNT THREE
Libel Per Se

69. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-68 of

the Complaint as if set forth fully and completely herein.

70. Defendants Brown and Thompson Coburn, LLP acted maliciously,

intentionally and recklessly by disseminating the false and slanderous information set forth

above in writing.

71. The Defendants acted with knowledge of the falsity of the statements made

by them or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.

72. In making these willful, false, malicious statements in writing, Defendants

intended to damage Plaintiff’s reputation and to deprive Plaintiff of the respect and

confidence needed for him to keep his job as Chief, to obtain another job as Chief or a

26
 DOCUMENT 2

comparable job. Further, Defendants’ conduct was intended to bring the Plaintiff into

scandal, public ridicule, disgrace, odium, contempt and professional disrepute before the

citizens of Mobile, the MPD and future employers.

73. As a proximate result of Defendants’ written publication and dissemination

of the information as set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered damage, including but not

limited to lost income, lost future income, mental anguish and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Brown and

Thompson Coburn, LLP for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $50,000,

plus costs of court.

COUNT FOUR
Libel Per Quod

74. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-73 of

the Complaint as if set forth fully and completely herein.

75. Defendants Brown, Thompson Coburn, LLP, Powell, Powell Consulting,

Carroll and Stimpson made or caused written false statements and information as set forth

above to be published and disseminated is writing.

76. Defendants made such false and defamatory statements willfully and

maliciously.

77. In making these willful, false, malicious, defamatory and slanderous

statements, the Defendants intended to damage Plaintiff’s reputation and livelihood and to

deprive Plaintiff of the respect and confidence in obtaining future employment. Further,

Defendants’ conduct was intended to bring the Plaintiff into scandal, public ridicule,

27
 DOCUMENT 2

disgrace, odium, contempt and professional disrepute before the citizens of Mobile, the

MPD and future employers.

78. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ malicious publication and

disinformation as set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered damage, including but not limited

to loss of income, loss of future income, mental anguish and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Brown, Thompson

Coburn, LLP, Powell, Powell Consulting, Carroll and Stimpson for compensatory and

punitive damages in excess of $50,000, plus costs of court.

COUNT FIVE
Civil Conspiracy

79. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-78 of

the Complaint as if set forth fully and completely herein.

80. Defendants Stimpson, Brown and Lasky combined to accomplish an

unlawful purpose, or to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means.

81. Defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy to destroy Plaintiff’s reputation,

credibility, his job and ability to seek future employment.

82. As a proximate result of the civil conspiracy, Plaintiff has suffered damage

including but not limited to lost income, lost future income, mental anguish and emotional

distress.

83. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants for

compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $50,000, plus costs of court.

28
 DOCUMENT 2

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Thomas H. Benton, Jr.

THOMAS H. BENTON, JR. (BEN028)

OF COUNSEL:

Benton Law Firm, LLC

169 Dauphin Street, Suite 300
Mobile, AL 36602
Telephone: 251-604-1123
tom@benton-law.com

/s/ James J. Dailey

JAMES J. DAILEY (DAI005)

OF COUNSEL:

James J Dailey, PC
1111 Dauphin Street
Mobile, AL 36604
Telephone: 251-441-9946
jim@jimdailey.com

DEFENDANTS TO BE SERVED VIA CERTIFIED MAIL:

William S. Stimpson
65 Oakland Avenue
Mobile, AL 36608

C’Aracher Small Jr.

7027 Smith Street,
Theodore, AL 36582

Joel Daves
21 Drury Lane
Mobile AL 36608-2354

Cory Penn
2113 Beau Terra Dr W
Mobile, AL 36618-1530

29
 DOCUMENT 2

William Carroll
254 S Broad Street
Mobile, AL 36603

Benjamin Reynolds
3908 St. Andrews Loop E
Mobile, AL 36693

Thompson Coburn LLP

1909 K St NW #600
Washington, DC 20006

Kenyen Brown
1909 K St NW #600
Washington, DC 20006

Powers Consulting Group LLC

1644 Walterswood Rd
Baltimore, Maryland, 21239

Tyrone Powers
1644 Walterswood Rd
Baltimore, Maryland, 21239

James Barber
1108 Heron Lakes Cir
Mobile AL 36693

Robert Lasky
30951 Parapet Ct
Spanish Fort, AL 36527

30