Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Dispute Over Oil and Gas Investments Preceded Major Bashinsky’s Mysterious “Suicide”

[Click on link and you will be able to see the lawsuit complaint filed by my father's estate against Chip's company]

William Cobb “Chip” Hazelrig

In the months leading to Major Bashinsky’s death in March 2010, court documents show that his father’s estate was being stonewalled in a lawsuit over proceeds from Oklahoma oil and gas wells.

Is it coincidence that Bashinsky was reported missing just two days after the contentious lawsuit concluded? We do not have a definitive answer to that question. But public records show that Sloan Y. Bashinsky Sr. invested more than $37 million in the wells, via partnerships with W&H Investments of Birmingham, and his estate was trying to determine his share of the profits.

That sounds like it should have been a fairly straightforward endeavor. Code of Alabama 10-8A-403(c)(2) makes it clear that W&H’s Fred Wedell and William Cobb “Chip” Hazelrig had a duty to turn over pertinent information to the estate of a deceased partner. And court documents show that Sloan Bashinsky and his advisers tried to obtain the information while he was alive, in order to prepare an estate disposition plan. Even after Mr. Bashinsky’s death in August 2005, the estate tried to resolve the matter without filing a lawsuit.

Why was a lawsuit required, and why did it drag on for almost four years, with the estate apparently never receiving adequate answers to this question: “What happened to Sloan Y. Bashinsky Sr.’s money?” Why was the process so difficult when it seems clear that the estate was legally entitled to the information it sought? Did the lawsuit become so rancorous that a member of the Bashinsky family became “collateral damage”–paying with his life over issues that did not directly involve him?

We know that Hazelrig has ties to both the gaming industry and to powerful figures in Alabama Republican Party circles. Did the prying eyes of the Bashinsky estate prove so unnerving that someone, perhaps a non-party to the lawsuit, felt the need to send a lethal warning shot?

This much is clear from an objective review of the court record: Hazelrig and Wedell were not anxious to turn over information about their business affairs, and they gave the distinct impression of trying to hide something. The estate had to file at least a half dozen motions to compel during the discovery process–with all of them being granted–and those documents show just how deeply W&H was willing to dig in its heels. Let’s consider information from one of the early motions to compel, filed on August 30, 2007. The full motion can be viewed at the end of this post:

An Elaborate Shell Game?

The estate contends that it notified W&H of the need to maintain records related to Bashinsky’s investments. So what happened? The records, according to court documents, wound up with Enterra Energy Trust, a Canadian outfit that became the operator of Birmingham Exploration Venture (BEV) partnerships, which now is being operated under the name Altex Energy. “They are out of our control and cannot be produced,” W&H responded, in so many words. The estate was not amused. From the motion to compel:

It is a matter of record that Defendants Wedell and Hazelrig, through W&H, once had custody and control of the documents at issue and transferred them to Enterra without Bashisky’s knowledge or consent. Moreover, such transfer was made after Defendants were on notice that the documents were sought by Bashinsky and the representatives of his estate.

Well . . . Well . . . Wells

In how many wells did Bashinsky hold an interest? You might think it would be fairly easy to answer that question–but you would be wrong. From the motion to compel:

To date, Defendants have provided lease assignments regarding a number of wells in which the BEV Partnerships held an interest. Admittedly, in some instances, it is difficult to determine the actual wells to which the lease assignments refer. However, according to the Plaintiffs’ best judgment at this time, the number of assignments provided refers to 43 wells. However, according to the well list prepared by Plaintiffs from the information contained in the BEV Partnerships’ tax records, the BEV Partnerships held an interest in 288 wells. Inexplicably, among those lease assignments produced, twelve were executed in 2006, several months after Bashinsky’s death.

A reasonable observer can understand why the estate had concerns about the W&H record keeping.

What’s In A Name?

Court records suggest that the estate was perplexed that Mr. Bashinsky’s funds were transferred to various entities without his knowledge. And the estate seems particularly suspicious of the relationship between W&H and Enterra, the company based in Canada:

Defendants have produced no contracts between W&H and Enterra subsidiaries Altex Resources/Energy to operate wells in which the BEV Partnerships have an ownership interest. Therefore, Plaintiffs are unable to determine the specifics of the operating agreement or the compensation paid to Altex Resources/Energy for operating the wells. Defendants would instead have Plaintiffs accept at face value computer data generated by Defendants’ accountants, after the fact, without any supporting records to verify the validity and accuracy of the data. Plaintiffs can only conclude from the lack of written operating agreements between W&H and Enterra that the two entities have an especially close relationship.

One gets the impression that Mr. Bashinsky, during his life, was kept in the dark about the relationship between W&H and Enterra. And it appears that deception continued after his death.

Why was someone trying to hide information about Mr. Bashinsky’s investments? And did that game of hide-and-seek, involving perhaps $100 million or more, contribute in some way to Major Bashinsky’s death?

We will continue to examine that question.

(To be continued)

Zimmerman Prosecutors In Huge Screw-Up

Photo of dead Trayvon Martin, college docs mistakenly released

AUGUST 9–In an embarrassing screw-up, Florida prosecutors today accidentally distributed a post-mortem photo of Trayvon Martin as well as copies of George Zimmerman’s college records, material that Florida law considers confidential and exempt from disclosure.
The documents were inadvertently included in supplemental discovery records distributed this morning by prosecutor Angela Corey’s office. The material was sent to a variety of media outlets, including TSG, that have paid fees to receive discovery provided by the government to Zimmerman’s lawyer.
The photocopied picture of Martin was one of three taken by an unnamed witness. The photo mistakenly released by Corey is a black and white copy of an image depicting the teenager lying face down on a lawn.
After distributing the picture, a Corey aide sent an e-mail to reporters noting that a “photo depicting the killing of a person” was “confidential and exempt” pursuant to state law.
Zimmerman’s Seminole State College of Florida records–61 pages in total–include his original application to the community college and his class transcripts. The documents detailed Zimmerman’s poor grades, which landed him on academic probation last year.
Zimmerman, who was studying for an associate degree in criminal justice, did not graduate last year due to a failed class. Following the February 26 shooting of the unarmed Martin, Zimmerman “was issued administrative withdrawals” for three classes in the Spring 2012 term “with no fees charged against his account.” (3 page)I replield to J:YIKES!!!

I never did care for this Special Prosecutor, praying with the Martin family was the first GIANT RED FLAG. Now she has gone and done another unthinkable. I bet the criminal lawyers I know would be filing a motion to dismiss all charges due to prosecutorial misbehavior making it impossible for Zimmerman to get a fair trial anywhere in America.

I came out a nap dream before you wrote to me today, thinking a lot more was coming in today re the Martin-Zimmerman case.

I feel even more sorry for the Judge now. Wouldn’t surprise me if he removed the Special Prosecutor from the case and granted a defense motion to dismiss all charges.

 

What a spectacle.

This is the most absurd article I have ever read. The author claims objectivity. Yet there is no evidence that he understands the law : the fact that it does not apply in the Trayvon Martin case. It exaults retreating from criminals, giving them the upper hand, the benefit of being able to persue a victim unfettered. The author, like so many, wants to be the judge of exactly when a person can decide to defend themselves against a threat. Should it be when the assailant punches them? No, according to the author. Should it be when one has been cornered and the assailant is on top of them, as in the Geroge Zimmerman case? Should it be when the victim has been minorly injured – no says the author. All of this happening in seconds, and the victim must time it so that he defends himself just before he is critically injured or rendered unconscious. The proper course for society to take is to educate their children that there are consequences to physically attacking another person. They should be educated that being followed, questioned, or even called names does not justify hitting or attacking anyone. What George Zimmerman did was not a crime. The stand your ground law is a great law. It puts the responsibility where it belongs – on those who think they can use violence to solve their problems. The author thinks it is OK to defend oneself in his home, but not on the street in his real castle – his body. The author states that Jesus was not armed, but Jesus did advocate carrying two swords to defend oneself. The author states there is no feminine energy in the NRA, yet the NRA if full of females. The NRA is a diverse group of Americans, who realize that their well being is best placed in their own hands. They are the most law abiding citizens of this country, and they are the most responsible members of the community. In parting I would like to give the author insomnia by stating there are other Gun advocate groups, including Grannies with guns, working hard for everyone to have the right to defend themselves against the Trayvon’s of the world.

I replied:

This is part of a larger conversation about power at the last supper. Jesus’ disciples had apparently been unable to understand the meaning of his discussions on suffering and nonviolence. Over the course of this dinner conversation, Jesus had been trying to tell them that the kingdoms of this world wield power and demand service, but his kingdom was about serving others and self-sacrifice. As in many cases where Jesus would draw out props to make a point (e.g. the coin in the fish’s mouth), Jesus here needs to draw out a dangerous prop: the sword.
To prove his point, Jesus helps his disciples remember that they don’t need anything—which they acknowledge. With that in mind, he will help them understand that they also do not need a sword.
Very explicitly, Jesus equates the carrying of a sword with being a “transgressor.” This phrase references the beautiful passage of Isaiah 53 on how God’s glory is best known through humiliation and suffering and not apparent strength or majesty. To teach one of his most radical lessons on nonviolence, Jesus will incur the embarrassing reputation of going down with terrorists and insurgents, and not the potentially meaningful status of a blameless martyr. “He will be numbered with the transgressors.” Jesus even stripped his self of the ennobling innocent appearance of nonviolence. While he could go down with his unblemished personal character intact, to teach a lesson he will risk the misguided and violent wills of his disciples marring his reputation. (His final healing miracle will then be to clean up after the mess of his disciples’ violence by healing an arrestor’s ear.) This makes radical, counter-intuitive claims about the very nature of God and even what we mean by the word “God.” Is not humiliation and suffering the very opposite of God? Now he will appear before court as being one of the insurgent terrorists who cut people’s ears off*.
If calling the sword the transgressor’s tool is not obvious enough, the outcome of the lesson is unequivocally clear. The very next scene is in Gethsemane where the disciple will use those swords. His disciples ask, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” As one disciple strikes an arrestor, Jesus yells, “No more of this!” and heals the wound. This is the commonly known time when Jesus also states, (in other gospels) “put your sword away,” and “those who live by the sword die by the sword.” After healing his arrestor, Luke’s gospel shows Jesus punctuating this lesson of nonviolence with a question, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns” (Luke 22:53).

Nowhere in all of the New Testament is a disciple of Jesus found carrying a sword again.

Played party bridge with the Marathon ladies again yesterday.

One of them told the other two I’d called them “older women” on my blog.

I said I had called myself an older man.

One asked me how old I am?

I said 70 in October. That made me older than one, I think, younger than the other two.

I said what I wrote about that was related to my having been called a sociopath, and there I was playing party bridge with three older women. They remembered the part about my being called a sociopath.

One asked, isn’t a sociopath someone who can’t feel anything?

I said no empathy, they only think about themselves.

One said I am not a sociopath, but leave off the older women stuff. Women will do.

I said I am a sociopath when it comes to politicians and liars.

One said that’s not sociopath, that’s normal.

I said I might write about the party bridge women again.

One said women is good.

The one who said it’s normal not to like politicians and liars said she always got along well with Libras. She said she was Scorpio.

But throughout the afternoon, she kept reminding us which side was vulnerable, and which side was not vulnerable, when it came to scoring.

I kept saying I’m always vulnerable when I’m surrounded by women.

For a fact, I know women invented they are the weaker sex. Seven wives and a few girlfriends proved it.

Later yesterday I received a link from a right-wing acquaintance in Birmingham, with this statement:

“gosh I hope I don’t accidentally discover that I’m actually Kenyan or Muslim, cause some fools might elect me to sumptin!!”

I replied, “After they let you out of intensive care.”

I get lots of racist forwards from him. If he woke up one day and realized he was Kenyan or Muslim, he would go insane in a nano-second.

Even so, I took the political quiz at this link, and marked “Agree” on the first seven, and “Disagree” on the last three.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

I got a label of “liberal” on the quiz, but actually it was about half way between liberal and libertarian on their chart.

I wondered whose definition of liberal they used? They didn’t consult me.

Barack Obama is a liberal, and I can’t stand his politics. Couldn’t stand George Bush’s politics, either. Ralph Nader is more my speed, because he tells the truth.

Maybe they need to redesign their quiz: I feel sorely discriminated against, there was no place for me to fit in. No place for angels. No place for rednecks.

I pulled this from Wikipedia and highlighted the parts I figured would please my conservative relations … I please my liberal relations in other ways … stay tuned …

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)

[1] is a broad political ideology or worldview founded on the ideas of liberty and equality.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as capitalism (either regulated or not), constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights and the free exercise of religion.[3][4][5][6][7]

Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace both Traditionalism and absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.

The revolutionaries in the

American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies were on the winning side in both world wars and liberalism survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism. Today, liberal political parties remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents.

One way I please my liberal relations is to ask them how does one accept the Nobel Peace Prize while waging two of George W. Bush’s wars?

That’s a trick question, sort of like, “Mr. Jones, when did you stop beating your wife?” And, “Mrs. Jones, did you tell Mr. Jones you were fucking his brother?”

Liberals don’t breathe too well after hearing the second of those questions.

Come to think of it, though, I can’t recall any conservatives who breathed well either. Maybe liberals and conservatives are evolutionary dead-ends?

No, I don’t talk like that around the women who sometimes ask me to play party bridge. One of them is on my email hit list, receives everything I publish. I leave it up to her to tell the others.

sloanbashinsky@hotmail.com

• If Major Bashinsky’s alleged murderer really wanted to make a point, and other details Legal Schnauzer may not yet have considered, or published

Major Bashinsky death scene
I raised the following question in a recent post: Is Sloan Bashinsky Jr. Intentionally Trying to Muddy the Water On Reporting About His Brother’s Death?

The post addressed a number of issues connected to the 2010 death of Alabama lawyer Major Bashinsky, in a case that was ruled (dubiously, in my view) a suicide. Sloan Bashinsky Jr., writing at various blogs from his base in Key West, Florida, has agreed with the official finding and taken me to task for raising questions about it.

I raised a provocative question about Sloan’s reasons for dismissing evidence that suggests Major did not kill himself, so it’s only fair to point out I that I have unintentionally muddied the water on the case myself. I came to that realization after conducting additional research on the issue of stippling in a gunshot wound. My reports on that issue, it turns out, were off target, and I regret the error.

I want to acknowledge my mistake and clear up confusion that it has caused. Also, it seems a good time to reconsider the forensic evidence and possible motives surrounding the death of Major Bashinsky. We will do that by examining several issues in the wake of some spirited back and forth between Sloan Bashinsky Jr. and yours truly:

* The Essence of Stippling–I screwed up on this one, and here is how: The medical examiner’s report says in its summary that Major Bashinsky died from a contact wound to the head. Earlier in the report, it states there was an absence of stippling, which is a pattern of abrasions around an entrance wound. Based on my reading of an article titled “Practical Pathology of Gunshot Wounds,” I reported that these two findings were contradictory, and the ME appeared to have made a mistake. But my assertion was incorrect.

Where did I go wrong? I relied too heavily on one journal article. The article I cited stated the following about stippling:

The principle indicator of close range fire is stippling, that is, a pattern of tiny, punctuate abrasions in the skin surrounding the entrance wound . . . . Stippling is caused by unburned particles of gunpowder striking the skin. In contrast to other substances that may be deposited on the skin, such as soot, stippling cannot be washed away. The presence of stippling indicates that the muzzle of the gun was within 2 feet of the victim’s body when it was discharged.

I took this to mean that the absence of stippling, as stated in the ME’s report on Major Bashinsky’s death, means the shot was fired from a distance of more than 2 feet. That is true, but there is an exception–and that is when the gun is placed against, or right next to, the skin. That is a contact wound, and my most recent research indicates stippling is not present in such instances. This is from an article titled “Forensic Pathology“:

Contact wound: Muzzle of gun was applied to skin at time of shooting. Classic features include an impression of the muzzle burned around the entrance wound and absence of fouling and stippling (see below). Contact wounds over the skull may have a stellate appearance because of expulsion of hot gases from the barrel which are trapped against the outer table of the skull and blow back toward the exterior, ripping apart the skin around the entrance wound.

The bottom line? Stippling is present on gunshot wounds of intermediate distance–from roughly 6 to 8 inches to 2 to 3 feet. It is not present on contact wounds or shots fired from greater than 2 to 3 feet.

* Forensics and Major Bashinsky–What does my goof mean in the context of the Major Bashinsky case? Not much, really. I focused on stippling because I thought it was part of a contradictory statement in the ME’s report. Turns out I was wrong about that. But it’s still correct to say that the ME’s report offers no scientific evidence to support a finding of suicide. And it’s still correct to say that manner of death in the Bashinsky case should have been classified as “undetermined,” followed by the kind of thorough police investigation that apparently never took place.

The presence or absence of stippling is relatively minor compared to these key facts that remain about the evidence in the Bashinsky case:

(1) The gun found in the golf-course water hazard, where Major Bashinsky’s body was recovered, has never been tied to him;

(2) The ME’s report offers no evidence that Major Bashinsky pulled the trigger on that gun–or any other gun that might have been used in his death;

(3) No bullet was recovered at the scene, raising major questions about the official story that Bashinsky shot himself in the pond.

All of these suggest the suicide finding is based on shaky footing.

* The Tao of Sloan–Bashinsky Jr. has become rather surly in recent posts about my reporting on his brother’s death, even referring to my blog as “muttface.blogspot,com.” Did angels provide him with that kind of clever humor? We might never know. Sloan deserves credit for being right on the stippling issue, but he continues to raise a number of points in curious ways. Let’s ponder a few of those from recent days:

(1) In a post dated July 31, 2012, Sloan’s headline refers to an “alleged murderer” in connection with my reporting on Major’s death. But I’ve never alleged that Major was murdered. In fact, it’s not my role to allege anything; as a journalist, it’s my role to find facts, analyze available information, and go where that takes me. My focus has been on weaknesses in the official finding of suicide, mainly because it provides no scientific evidence that the deceased shot himself, and we have no reports indicating he intended to kill himself–no suicide note, no reports of depression or erratic behavior, no tell-tale statements. The Major Bashinsky case obviously does not present a natural death or an accidental death, so the options are suicide or murder. But my focus has been on reporting about weaknesses in the official finding of suicide. I’ve never said that the finding should have been murder. As noted above, my research indicates the manner of death should have been classified as “undetermined.”

(2) In the July 31 post, Sloan refers to my reporting about the scene at Highland Park Golf Course water hazard and states that Major’s body was found in “the middle of the pond.” That’s curious because I’ve seen nothing in published reports that says the body was found in the middle of the pond. I’ve been on the course, and played that hole, a number of times–and it features a pretty sizable body of water. I would say “pond” is a good description because it’s bigger than your standard water hazard. My impression is that the body was found fairly close to shore, but Sloan might know something that I don’t.

(3) In both the July 31 post and another dated August 1, 2012, Sloan asks if I am going to inform my readers about information he has reported regarding his brother’s death. I’ve referred to Sloan’s writings a number of times, but I’ve never made it my aim to report everything he writes about Major’s death. For one thing, I’m not sure how much Sloan knows about the case; he lives in Key West, Florida, almost 1,000 miles from Birmingham, and it appears he and Major had been more or less estranged for several years. For another, I have no idea about the accuracy of certain items Sloan reports as fact; after all, this is a guy who says he talks to angels, so that doesn’t help his credibility as a news source. For another, Sloan does not strike me as terribly objective about the case; he seems invested in the official finding of suicide, even though it is weak (at best) or deeply flawed (at worst). Finally, folks who are interested in Sloan’s take on things can go directly to his blog–and I’ve provided the links above; there is no reason for me to repeat everything here.

* Corporate Matters Vs. Estate Matters–Both Sloan and I have reported on matters surrounding the Bashinsky family in the days and months leading up to Major’s disappearance and death. In his July 31 post, Sloan addresses a possible murder scenario and notes a letter that was attached to Major’s body at the scene. In all caps, he writes:

IS THAT HOW YOU WOULD HAVE DONE IT, ROGER, IF YOU HAD WANTED TO BE SURE YOU GOT A WAY WITH IT? IS THAT HOW YOU WOULD HAVE DONE IT, TO MAKE A SURE EVERYONE KNEW MAJOR WAS MURDERED? IS THAT HOW YOU WOULD HAVE DONE IT, TO MAKE A POINT? TO TERRIFY PEOPLE RELATED TO MAJOR BY BLOOD OR MARRIAGE? TO PUSH THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE DEMAND IN THE TYPED THREAT LETTER IN THE BOTTLE ATTACHED BY ROPE TO MAJOR’S BODY – THAT THE COMPANY STOP PAYING OUT GOLDEN ENTERPRISE DIVIDENDS TO THE GREEDY BASHINSKYS AND GREEDY MANAGEMENT, AND KEEP THE DIVIDENDS IN THE COMPANY FOR THE HEALTH OF THE COMPANY AND ITS EMPLOYEES?

Not sure why he’s addressing this to me because “what I would have done” is beside the point. But as you can see, Sloan focuses on issues at the family business, Golden Enterprises, the maker of Golden Flake snack foods.

I, meanwhile, have focused on a lawsuit styled Estate of Sloan Y. Bashinsky Sr., et al v. W&H Investments, et al, which reached a curious settlement just two days before Major disappeared. The case involved a possible accounting of some $37 million that the family patriarch, Sloan Bashinsky Sr., had invested in oil and gas wells. Court records indicate that the estate never received much of the information it sought, and it appears the investment firm engaged in serious stonewalling.

Why? Sloan Bashinsky Jr. doesn’t seem interested in that question. I most certainly am interested, and we will return to those issues in upcoming posts.

I replied:

Now you have returned to the business dealings my father had with Chip Hazelrig’s oil and gas company.

As I told you before, and wrote in posts a few times, unaided by angels, Chip told me in Key West that my father had done business with his oil and gas firm for about 20 years. Chip was not complimentary of the lawyers and accountant my father’s widow and trustees were using to try to get an accounting from Chip’s company re its dealing with my father. The lawyer was the family lawyer, the executor of my father’s estate, and one of the trustees. The accountant was the family’s accountant, the company’s outside accountant, and also one of the trustees. The settlement they agreed to with Chip’s company basically covered the lawyer-trustee’s legal fee and the accountant’s fee in the litigation – several hundred thousand dollars. The estate got nothing, as the result of the litigation. The settlement was approved by the lawyer trustee, the accountant trustee, the other trustees, and my father’s widow, also a trustee – all according to what Chip told me. I told Chip that sounded like them. I knew them all well.

I also told you, and wrote in posts, that Chip told me of a meeting called by my father’s wife, Golden Flake’s CEO John Stein, also a trustee, and perhaps other trustees, to which my father, then still living, was dragged along with Chip and perhaps his partner in the oil and gas business. After my father’s wife and John Stein had worked my father and Chip over for a while, wanting details of my father’s dealings with Chip and his company, my father told them to run the potato chip company and he would run the oil and gas business. I laughed, I told Chip that was just like my father.

Chip said my father was very conservative with his personal investments and the Golden Flake profit sharing plan, but he allowed himself to pay [play] and gamble with oil and gas deals they brought to him, some of which he went along with, some of which he didn’t. Chip said my father like doing business on a handshake, and I said that was just like my father, he hated getting lawyers involved and did so only when he had to – which he had to with Golden Flake and in his estate planning and real estate deals. But he kept the lawyers out of his oil and gas investments. Chip said my father did pretty well, if you took into account royalties the good wells paid and the large tax write-offs. That also sounded just like my father, large tax write-offs always were important to him.

I also wrote how Chip and I got together that day in Key West. He called me out of the blue from Duval Street, and we agreed to meet a few minutes later at a place near where he was, which I knew would be quiet. When we met, I asked Chip how he had gotten my cell phone number? I had no other phone. He said he went into a bar on Duval Street and asked the first person he saw if he knew Sloan Bashinsky? The fellow said, yes. Chip asked if he knew how to contact me? The fellow said no, but the fellow he was with at the bar said he had my cell phone number. So that was how Chip got my cell phone number.

I also wrote that Chip told me he had come down from Birmingham with a friend, who kept a fishing boat in Ft. Lauderdale, as I recall the location of the marina. They ran the boat down to Key West, where his friend wanted to fish. His friend was a fishing fanatic, like I used to be, and wanted to be on the water all day. Chip wore out after a couple of days and took a day off to wander around Key West. He had heard I lived in Key West and decided to try to find me.This was shortly after Major went missing, before his body was found.

I wrote that Chip and I talked briefly about that, and about Major. Then, mostly we talked about Chip’s relationship with my father and the litigation, as describe above. We talked maybe an hour, said our goodbyes, and I didn’t see Chip again.

All of that I published, and you read it. From that, you wrote more than once that Chip came all the way to Key West to see me. I refuted that every time you wrote it. You intimated Chip was in on Major’s disappearance. I refuted that.

Since you keep slamming me for saying angels guide me, I will say it has occurred to me more than once that you are being guided by demonic entities.

Sloan Bashinsky

I sent the link to this post above to Lori Moore, the co-author of the Schnauzer article which reported it was not a contact wound, but was a gun shot from over two feet away. Lori replied:

Subject: Re: fyi
From: bamanewsgirl@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 13:11:10 -0500
To: keysmyhome@hotmail.com

I believe he stated that he was incorrect in regards to the stippling and noted that on his blog. He also included the references that led him to the wrong conclusion. I wouldn’t call that making something up but rather correcting his mistake publicly.

I replied:

Say what?

Shuler, and you, as co-author, made heap to do about there being no stippling, therefore the shot had to be fired from more than two feet away, even though the Coroner’s report plainly said it was a contact wound (muzzle pressed against the skin) and there was no stippling, in keeping with a contact wound.

I wrote to you about that after just after I read your and Shulter’s article, and gave you bloody hell, and you did not reply. I took you both to task in a post, and heard nothing back from either of you.

When I raised it again in a reply to yet another Shuler swipe at Major’s death not being suicide, I said Shuler made up it was not a contact wound. Shuler then published that I was wrong. When I explained in a sequel post that Shuler was wrong, he, and I suppose you, finally looked at the Coroner’s report, perhaps for the first time, and saw you were wrong, and Shuler published his lamer than lame explanation.

What do you call all of that, if not inventing? By both of you.

What do you make of an identical antique Browning .32 automatic being on display in my father’s home when Major was shot with its twin, which was found in the pond?

Why didn’t you and Shuler publish that?

And you call yourselves investigative journalists?

Sloan

Lori replied:

Not quite sure why your panties are in a wad. Either way, it doesn’t change anything. So the person who pulled the trigger obviously held the gun right up to his head.

I replied:

That was what the Coroner reported: contact wound, no stipppling (gun muzzle pressed against the side of the head when shot was fired.)

You and Shuler wrote an entire post claiming the pistol was fired from over two feet away, to prove Major could not have shot himself like the Coroner had determined Major did.

Shuler’s and your readers were left with that false information for over a year, even though I told you both you were wrong.

I read Shuler’s lame lame excuse. What’s your lame lame excuse, Lori?