By: Donald V. Watkins © Copyrighted and Published on March 15, 2020 Tommy Tuberville (left), Jeff Sessions (right), and Donald Trump (right) An Editorial Opinion In the midst of a universally acknowledged global coronavirus pandemic and a declared national emergency to stop the virus from infecting and killing Americans across the nation, two Republican candidates who are vying for the U.S. Senate in the March 31, 2020 Alabama run-off election are talking about "building the wall," "draining the swamp," whether one of them is really a Florida resident," and which one of them is fully committed to supporting President Donald J. Trump. These two candidates are Tommy Tuberville, Auburn University's former head football coach, and Jeff Sessions, Alabama's former U.S. Senator and the former Attorney General of the United States. Nationwide, the coronavirus is spreading at an alarming rate. Test kits are in short supply. Deaths and illnesses from the virus are skyrocketing. Schools are closing. The stock markets are plunging. Sports events have been canceled. Employers are asking employees to work from home. Government agencies are struggling to contain the virus. The list of catastrophic consequences from the coronavirus outbreak is endless. Tommy Tuberville and Jeff Sessions, however, seem to be stuck in an alternative universe. Neither candidate has offered a single suggestion for addressing and mitigating the adverse effects of the coronavirus pandemic. No lucid person in America today is talking about building the "wall." If there is a "swamp" in Washington today, it is filled with swamp creatures and political cronies who are feeding off of the Trump administration's greatly expanded patronage contracts. Just this week, the Federal Reserve System announced a liquidity injection of $1.5 trillion into the U.S. economy, while FEMA announced $50 billion in non-bid coronvirus-related contractual opportunities. These two government actions constitute political patronage on steroids. Nearly all of this money will go to Republican-leaning companies. If Tuberville is truly a Florida resident, as Sessions claims, federal law and party rules would have prevented Tuberville from running for the Senate seat in Alabama. Interestingly, Sessions has not filed a complaint with the Republican Party to disqualify Tuberville based upon an alleged failure to meet the residency requirement. Trump Endorsed Tuberville Tuesday night, President Trump endorsed Tommy Tuberville for the Senate seat. This is no surprise. The morning after the March 3, 2020 Republican primary elections, Trump trashed Jeff Sessions, again. He tweeted a message to his supporters that Sessions didn't have the "wisdom or courage to stare down & end the phony Russia Witch Hunt." Prior to this tweet, Trump labeled Sessions as "incompetent", an "idiot," a "disaster", and an "embarrassment." Trump has stated publicly that his biggest regret after becoming president was appointing Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. The President has mocked Sessions' college education and his deep southern drawl. Trump has made it clear publicly and privately that he despises Jeff Sessions. Trump is correct in his claim that Jeff Sessions deserted him after the President appointed him as Attorney General. Immediately after Sessions' desertion, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Special Counsel Robert Mueller teamed up to launch a full-scale, politically-motivated war on Trump, his family members, and closest friends. This war lasted more than two years and ended with Trump crushing Mueller's team of prosecutors. In early 2018, a publicly humiliated Sessions joined a group of coup d'etat participants consisting of disgruntled Trump administration officials, several cabinet members, a handful of highly-placed White House officials, and other Republican power players who wanted Trump removed from office. The coup leaders believed that Trump was mentally "unfit" for the presidency. They intended to remove the President from office by invoking the disability clause in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Tuberville is Favored to Win the Run-off Race Tommy Tuberville led the March 3rd primary election by 12,000 votes over second place finisher Jeff Sessions. Tuberville is favored to win the run-off race. Barring divine intervention, Trump will be re-elected in November. Tommy Tuberville will become the next U.S. Senator from Alabama. After Trump is re-elected, Jeff Sessions is expected to be indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice early next year for lying to Congress as Trump continues his purge and punishment of the unsuccessful coup d'etat leaders and participants.

By: Donald V. Watkins Copyrighted and Published on March 5, 2021   Sen. Tommy Tuberville and the insurrectionists Dear Sen. Tuberville, Congratulations on becoming a United States Senator from the great state of Alabama! Very few individuals have gone from a non-political citizen status to a U.S. Senator in their first run for public office. You did it and you defeated a seasoned politician to accomplish this remarkable feat. As a long-time political independent and Alabama resident, I observed that your campaign had two simple themes. First, you pledged to support former president Donald J. Trump in whatever he was doing. Second, you vowed to build “The Wall” that Mexico was supposed to be paying for. At the time, I thought those campaign pledges had more to do with electability than anything else. I based this observation on the fact that every Republican running for every elected office in the state ran on a platform of supporting Trump and building “The Wall”. After you secured your Party’s nomination, I thought you would focus on what Alabama needed from the next president, whether it was Donald Trump or Joe Biden. After Biden defeated Trump on November 3 by 7 million votes and a 306 to 232 Electoral College blowout, I just knew you were moving toward a bipartisan agenda that placed the critical needs of Alabama at the top of the nation’s “Things To Do” list. I was wrong. Instead, your first act as a U.S. Senator was to aid and abet insurrection and sedition at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, at the request of Trump. Four other Senators joined you. Five people were killed during the siege of the Capitol by Trump’s “patriots”. Your vote against the certification of the presidential election results will be viewed in history as an act to install “minority rule” in a democratic country. At first, I thought you had spent the time between November 3rd and January 6th looking for the voter fraud that Trump said occurred, but you did not. Then, I thought Trump must have shown you 7 million fraudulent ballots that were cast before you joined the January 6th insurrection, but he did not. Finally, I realized that you had allowed yourself to be used as a political stooge, unlike your colleagues Senator Richard Shelby (R - Al) and Lindsey Graham (R – S. Carolina). I realize that you are a political neophyte whose professional background was in football coaching. I also know that Auburn University fired you as its head coach because you could never take Auburn to a national championship. Now that you are a U.S. Senator, Alabama wants to rank number one in something other than the Crimson Tide’s impressive string of six national championships under coach Nick Saban in 12 years. We want to be number one in scholastic achievement, healthcare for all Alabamians, economic development, medical technology, COVID-19 protection, employment opportunities, research and development at our 32 public universities, equal protection under our laws, fair taxation, defense contracting opportunities, infrastructure development, law enforcement training, prison reform, space technology and programs, urban development, international aviation, and tourism. Your job is to make Alabama a national champion in these areas. This is a hard job because Alabama historically ranks at the bottom of every category that matters except for Nick Saban’s area of responsibility. Nick does his job and does it well. He’s nobody’s flunky. Don’t worry about kissing Donald Trump’s ass anymore. He’s gone, forever. He inspired you to join an insurrection. Hopefully, you will survive the Department of Justice’s criminal investigation of this incident and use your 6-year term to make Alabama number one in all of the quality-of-life areas that matter. No statewide politician in the history of the state has ever accomplished this noble feat. Most of them have been demagogues who only cared about themselves and the oligarchy that runs the state. Finally, stop talking about “The Wall”. Let the senators from states that adjoin Mexico carry that fight. Alabama is NOT threatened by an influx of undocumented migrants from Central and South America. Alabama is threatened by COVID-19, infant mortality, obesity, illiteracy, lack of indigent healthcare, the federal government’s failure to enforce OSHA requirements in the state, air pollution, poor water quality, a grossly inequitable tax structure, and a host of other immediate dangers to the health, safety, and well-being of her citizens. Try to care about something larger than yourself. Do something you never did as a football coach – take Alabama to a national championship in the quality-of-life factors. Anybody can be a political stooge. We have a state full of them. Make the Tuberville name respected in the U.S. Senate like the Saban name is respected in college football. Let that be your legacy. Sincerely yours, Donald V. Watkins All articles are shared on Facebook and Twitter. If you would like to follow Donald Watkins, please click on these links and hit the follow button: https://www.facebook.com/donald.v.watkins https://twitter.com/donaldvwatkins

By: Donald V. Watkins Copyrighted and Published on October 10, 2022 U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) Editorial Opinion Charitably speaking, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) has never been viewed as an intellectual giant. Tuberville is an Arkansas native who tried to make a name for himself as a head football coach at several football factories in the South. Tuberville has a college degree, but it is in physical education. Politicians in the Modern-Era In the modern-era, politicians for Congressional seats, whether black and white, Democrat or Republican, do not have to be smart to get elected. They don’t have to have a game-plan for improving the quality of life for their constituents. They don’t even have to know the substantive issues that are adversely affecting their constituencies or states, or have an agenda to solve these issues. Today, most politicians only have to pledge that they will be reliable “pack-mules” for the corporate oligarchy that runs each state and America as a whole. In political jargon, they must become a dependable “political whore” who can be bought or rented. Without exception, all politicians place their self-interests above the people’s interests. This event occurs as soon as they are sworn-in as public officials. In today’s political arena, there is no sense of “right” or “wrong,” or a generally accepted code of morale conduct. It’s mostly blind loyalty to a political party or special interest group. “Character,” as we knew it growing up, flew out the window with President Richard Nixon’s criminal conduct during the Watergate break-in. Now, criminality appears to be an integral part of public service, whether the official is a city council member or a federal judge. Tuberville “Whores” for Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans Tommy Tuberville “whores” for Donald Trump and the MAGA faction of the National Republican Party. None of them respect him. They only use Tuberville whenever they need a neophyte "pack-mule" to tote a heavy load of MAGA political baggage. Privately, Trump and his inner circle are amazed at how dumb Tuberville is. They originally thought former Alabama U.S. Senator/U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was the dumbest southerner they had met, but now believe Tommy Tuberville has surpassed Sessions’ intellectual shallowness. Tuberville was Donald Trump’s proud ally when the former president lost the 2020 election and attempted to overthrow the duly-elected presidency of Joe Biden on January 6, 2021. He gave aid and comfort to the Trump “patriots” who stormed the U.S. Capitol that day. Today, Tuberville is a choir boy for Trump at MAGA rallies for GOP Senatorial candidates. It is in this capacity, that the entire nation discovered how ignorant and racist Tuberville truly is. Prior to Saturday, Tuberville had been in the news for trying to follow fellow Alabama U.S. Richard Shelby’s template for getting rich while serving in the Senate. Basically, this template involves (a) using “insider” information gleamed in closed-door Senate hearings to make personal stock trades, and (b) using your Senate position to pressure/persuade corporate America to contribute to your campaign and contract with your friends. Shelby proved that these friends, in return, will shower a compromised politician with unreported gifts and other love offerings. What is more, Justice Clarence Thomas proved that even a Supreme Court Justice can sell his/her vote on the U.S. Supreme Court to whatever interest group is willing to hire his/her spouse as a consultant, and everybody in Washington will look the other way. Prime-Time Racism On Saturday, Tuberville’s "whoring" was on full display at a MAGA rally with Donald Trump in Nevada. This is what Tuberville said about Democrats and crime: " They are not soft on crime. They're pro-crime. They want crime. They want crime because they want to take over what you got. They want to control what you have. They want reparations because they think the people that do the crime are owed that. ” Not only were Tuberville’s comments racist in nature, they are also divorced from history. Discussions in the American political arena about reparations have always been predicated on slavery-era conduct. Slavery is and has always been viewed by intelligent people as a crime against humanity. Everybody in America concedes this point, except for the Trump “patriots” and MAGA loyalists who control the Republican Party. Tuberville falls within the group that has never acknowledged the horrors of slavery in America, or condemned it. Nothing in Tuberville’s educational background suggests that he is literate in American history. In fact, everything in his background suggests that Tuberville is hopelessly trapped in the customs, traditions, and social mores of the Old Confederacy. If Tuberville was a more enlightened man, he would know that America awarded slavery-related reparations to white slave owners, starting in 1862. They received cash money for the slaves who were freed and the return of their confiscated plantations (after the Civil War ended.) I recommend that Tuberville read Jessica M. Parr’s April 16, 2018 article on “ The Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862 .” Ms. Parr is a Lecturer in History at Simmons College, and an Affiliate Assistant Professor of Women’s Studies at the University of New Hampshire at Durham. She specializes in the Early Modern Black Atlantic World, with focuses on race, religion, memory studies, and digital history. Parr is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and has received fellowships from the Boston Athenaeum, Duke University, the Congregational Library, Mystic Seaport, and the Gilder-Lehrman Institute. Ms. Parr is currently the Managing Editor for The Programming Historian , and writes for The Junto: a Group Blog for Early American History , as well as Black Perspectives , the online journal of the African-American Intellectual History Society. Her first book, Inventing George Whitefield: Race, Revivalism, and the Making of a Religious Icon was published in 2015 by the University Press of Mississippi. Here is what Tuberville, or his Senate staff members, can learn about slavery-era reparations in America from Ms. Parr’s insightful article: “With a stroke of his pen, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the Compensated Emancipation Act on April 16, 1862, officially ending slavery in Washington, D.C. The Act reflected a new direction in the longstanding debate over slavery and emancipation in the nation’s capital. While a far cry from full emancipation, it was an important step towards the abolition of slavery. The law ending slavery in the nation’s capital provided compensation for the owners of the roughly 3,185 slaves it freed. A three-person commission heard petitions of the former slave owners and made determinations on how much money they should receive for the loss of their human property. In the end, the total compensation amounted to nearly one million dollars. A second Compensation Act, which Lincoln signed into law on July 12, 1862, allowed former slaves to petition for reimbursement for their own value, so long as their former masters had not already been compensated. It also allowed former slaves who had purchased the freedom of family members to claim remuneration for the money they had spent to free loved ones. This corrected a flaw in the original Act. Under the original law, black claims were automatically discounted if challenged by a white petitioner. The revision required claims to be weighted equally, regardless of the petitioner’s race." With this knowledge of history, Tuberville should be prepared to debate these questions (assuming he is intellectually capable of doing so): (1) Should the U.S. government provide slavery-era reparations to African-American who are the documented descendants of slaves in America (excluding the descendants of slaves who were compensated under the second Compensation Act of 1862)? (2) If so, what is the appropriate form and amount of compensation for each descendant who qualifies for such compensation and who files a petition for reparations? All articles are shared on Facebook and Twitter. If you enjoyed this article, please click on these links to follow Donald Watkins: https://www.facebook.com/donald.v.watkins https://twitter.com/donaldvwatkins

By Donald V. Watkins Copyrighted and Published on October 28, 2023 IMAGE: Norman E. Jones (left), John D. Joes (center), and Daniel K. Wims (right), Alabama A&M University's "rat" pack. Editorial Opinion After I exposed the nest of alleged sexual predators in the top ranks of Alabama A&M University's administration (past and present) in a series of recent investigative articles, several male friends of mine in the world of historically black colleges and universities asked me privately why was it necessary to do so. These friends are very familiar with the personal histories of Trustee Kevin Ball , President Daniel K. Wims , Provost John D. Jones , and former Alabama A&M Assistant Vice President for Finance Norman E. Jones . They also know them as longtime “ womanizers .” As detailed in the articles I published about these men, their personal histories and allegations of their unwanted sexual advances against women subordinates (and one male) were fairly easy for me to discover and document. In two instances, there are written findings of actual sexual misconduct. Out of respect for the victims' privacy, I only published the least graphic written report. What is more, the job applications and resumes of Daniel Wims, John Jones, and Norman Jones were scrubbed and sanitized in a way that was intended to prevent background checkers from discovering their alleged propensities to prey upon female members of the university community. Fortunately, I am specially trained to look for evidence of sexual misconduct and other improprieties, even when it is obscured by incomplete, sanitized, and grossly misleading resumes. The Reasons for the Articles There are two reasons why I wrote and published my articles about these men. First, I wanted to alert women faculty, staff, and students on campus about who these men really are. I have looked beyond their fancy titles and exposed what, in my view, is the documented dark side of their male being. Second, I wanted to make it easy for the next victim of their alleged sexual aggression to be able to hold Alabama A&M trustees personally liable in a court of law for any future act of sexual harassment that may be committed by these men on the university's campus. By outing them now, the next alleged sexual abuse victim of these men may be able to make a sustainable legal claim against each university trustee in his/her individual capacity. The future victim(s) will be able to readily establish that Alabama A&M's trustees had actual knowledge about the alleged propensity of these men to engage in unwanted sexual advances, or they reasonably should have known this information (based upon my articles and other published reports). Any experienced trial lawyer with “walking around sense” could have found the information I published in my articles and should have reported this information to university trustees. For whatever reason, this did not happen before I published my articles about these men. What I also learned about Alabama A&M is this truism : The board of trustees, as a whole, is so weak and compromised that most of the trustees did not want to know the truth about these men or their personal histories. What is worse, it is an open secret in Huntsville that President Daniel Wims is engaged in an ongoing "special personal relationship" with one of the university's trustees. The board of trustees has turned a blind eye to this inappropriate relationship. Now that my articles are in the public domain, the next alleged victim of these men has a realistic chance to get true justice in the court system. Additionally, by exposing the alleged acts of fraud that were committed in scrubbing and sanitizing the resumes of Daniel Wims, John Jones, and Norman Jones in order for them to get appointments to their current jobs, this may prevent the ability of trustees to access insurance proceeds and/or taxpayer funds to pay (a) potential sexual abuse court judgments against them, in their individual capacity, and (b) any attorney's fees awarded to the victim. What is more, the next sexual abuse victim could reasonably argue in court that each man procured his university job under false pretenses, which is now a situation that is actually known to the university. It appears that nothing will change on Alabama A&M’s campus in the zone of sexual harassment until the next sexual abuse victim wins her/his case against university trustees, when they are sued in their individual capacity . That’s when the situation will get real for them. Until then, the board of trustees, led by board chairman Roderick D. Watts , will simply look the other way. Zero Tolerance for Sexual Predators I have NEVER cared to develop, nurture, or coddle a personal or professional relationship with a known sexual predator. That’s not my cup of tea. I have zero tolerance for them. Wherever I find a nest of sexual predators who are feasting off taxpayer dollars, I try to remove the predators from the government payroll. When I exposed Gov. Robert Bentley (Alabama), U.S. District Judge Mark E. Fuller (Montgomery), U.S. District Judge Jack Camp (Atlanta), and U.S. District Judge Dean Buttram (Birmingham) for their sexual misdeeds, not one person in the state's black community asked me a single question about why I exposed these men. Of course, all of the men in this group are white. All of them lost their jobs. Two of them were subsequently charged with and convicted of crimes that arose from their sexual escapades. I do not have a double standard for sexual predators -- a strict one for white predators and a non-existent one for black predators. I have one standard and it is applied uniformly – I hold all of sexual predators fully accountable for their misconduct, without hesitation or reservation. I do not care what color they are, or what job title they hold. Finally, no one has disputed the factual information or documents presented in the articles I published on Kevin Ball, Norman E. Jones, John D. Jones, and Daniel Wims. They simply cannot do so. Stay tuned! Much more is coming your way.

By: Donald V. Watkins Copyrighted and Published on August 16, 2024 Charles Wallace, owner of Wallace & Wallace Chemical & Oil Corporation. A Special Report on Black Entrepreneurship My start in the oil and gas business began in 1977 when I met Mr. Charles Wallace in Tuskegee, Alabama.  Wallace, who was Black, was attempting to build a $300 million oil refinery and a new town on 2,000 acres of what was once the Old Sharpe Airbase property in Tuskegee. Wallace was also building a 214-mile oil transport pipeline from the Port of Mobile, Alabama to the refinery site in Tuskegee.   I was impressed with Charles Wallace because I had never met a Black entrepreneur who owned a retail fuel oil distribution company and was expanding his operations to include a 150,000 barrels-per-day oil refinery in Tuskegee and a oil transport pipeline. This project was a massive undertaking and it was led by a confident, cool, brave, and wealthy Black businessman in America's oil and gas industry. Site of Wallace & Wallace's planned oil refinery in Tuskegee, Alabama. Charles Wallace, who was 45 years old when we met, started a multimillion-dollar oil company in 1968 named Wallace & Wallace Chemical & Oil Corporation with a single antiquated 1949 International-brand oil truck. The company's oil sales skyrocketed from $25.9 million in 1979 to $80 million in 1980 ( which is $305.4 million in today's dollars ). Wallace & Wallace advanced to second place on the 1981 Black Enterprise list of 100 Black-owned businesses from tenth place in 1980.   Wallace & Wallace had a long-term crude oil supply contract with Venezuela to lift at least 10,000 barrels-per-day and a processing agreement with Mobil Oil corporation under which Mobil agreed to refine the Venezuela crude oil during the period in which the Wallace & Wallace refinery was under construction.   Wallace & Wallace was NOT a minority “ front ” company for Whites in the oil supply and refinery business.  In fact, Charles Wallace was featured in the February 23, 1977 edition of the New York Times as a solid businessman, a sophisticated operator, and a tough competitor in the retail fuel oil business. Wallace was quoted as saying: " I make no excuses for doing whatever I am legally allowed to do in politics and I make no excuses for getting from the Government whatever I am legally entitled to and I make no excuses for using the white man's system to get for my people whatever the white men get for theirs. . . . .The Government has been holding my people back for 200 years, now it's time for the same Government to do everything possible to help my people.” Charles Wallace's public statements and confident attitude angered many Whites in Alabama and some powerful ones within America's oil and gas industry. They viewed Wallace as an " arrogant, uppity, Nigger ." Surprisingly, Alabama Gov. George Wallace was a staunch supporter of the oil refinery project. The Governor saw the project as an econmic boom for Macon County and the state of Alabama. The refinery would provide more than 3,500 construction jobs and more than 8,000 permanent jobs when it was completed. Charles Wallace had arranged financing for the refinery from private sources in New York and government sources in Washington. A cool and confident Charles Wallace (right) updates Alabama Gov. George Wallace (left) and the public on the status of his oil refinery project in Tuskegee. Site preparation for the Tuskegee refinery began in late 1973. Gov. George Wallace provided various state and local economic incentives to aid in financing the project. The Governor also arranged for the state to grant the necessary rights‐of‐way for a 214‐mile pipeline from the Port of Mobile to Wallace & Wallace's proposed refinery site in Tuskegee. Finally, Gov. Wallace supported a $40 million bond issue for dock improvements at the Port of Mobile to facilitate the pipeline for the refinery project. After Gov. Wallace left office in 1979, obstructionists in Gov. Fob James's administration joined forces with White property owners in Tuskegee from 1979 to 1983 to derail Charles Wallace’s financing for the project, via time-consuming, costly, and adverse litigation. The obstructionists were motivated by a degree of racism that Wallace & Wallace could not overcome in the legal fights that snaked their way up to the Alabama Supreme Court in 1982.   As a result of this sustained campaign of obstruction, construction of the Wallace & Wallace oil refinery project never commenced. Blacks in Alabama’s political establishment were powerless to help Wallace & Wallace.  Many of them suffered from a severe form of " Crabs in a Barrel Syndrome " and were jealous of Charles Wallace’s demonstrated success in the retail fuel oil distribution business.  Others privately mocked Charles Wallace for engaging in “ White folks’ business .”   "If You Can See It, You Can Be It"   I saw what Charles Wallace was doing in the oil business and believed that I could do it, too. I loved his confidence, tenacity, vision, business preparation and execution, swagger, and wealth creation strategies. In my talks with Wallace, I learned as much as he would teach me about the oil and gas business.  Wallace graciously gave me his time and the sound advice I needed to enter and succeed in the oil and gas business.  Over the years, I followed Wallace’s advice with passion, focus, and confidence.   First, I saved as much money as possible from my hugely successful legal career.  I did not buy a big home in an exclusive neighborhood.  I did not buy luxury cars and clothes.  I did not waste money on VIP parties and expensive social events. I banked all the disposable money that I could get my hands on.   In 1986, I co-founded a full-service investment bank with Nathan A Chapman in Baltimore, Maryland.  We took the bank public (along with its three affiliates) on the NASDAQ several years later. This event was my introduction to the world of high-finance and market-makers.   In 1998, I entered the world of business on a full-time basis.  I started by buying Pencor Orange Corp., a waste-to-fuels company in New York state, in an all-cash deal. My ownership of Pencor gave me a right of first refusal to buy the equity shares in OxyNol Solutions (formerly known as Masada Resource Group, LLC ), which is Pencor's separately owned parent company.   In 2000, I co-founded and opened Alamerica Bank , a full-service commercial bank in Birmingham using the proceeds from a bank stock loan and the personal money I had saved from my law practice.  My bank ownership expanded my credentials the world of high-finance and global commerce.   In 2007, I entered the world of international business with the first of forty planned $300 million OxyNol Solutions waste-to-fuel projects in global markets where the indigenous populations are peoples of color.  This business strategy was a prophylactic measure that was designed to avoid, if possible, or minimize the racism Wallace experienced in the U.S. oil and gas business.   In 2011, I co-founded Nabirm Energy Service (Pty) Ltd ., an oil and gas exploration company, with Olayinka Arowolo in Windhoek, Namibia.  African-based GRAFFI DBA Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd . became a Nabirm shareholder in 2014.  U.S.-based Horizons, LLC (Huntsville, Alabama) , became a shareholder in 2020.   Today, Nabirm is focused on the geotechnical work required to extract at least 522 million barrels of “unrisked” recoverable Brent crude oil and 583 billion cubic feet of “unrisked” methane natural gas from its assigned offshore oil block in the Walvis Bay.   Working in the energy production business outside the United States has allowed me to lessen the gravitation pull of the racism that obstructed the growth and expansion of Charles Wallace’s oil company in the 1970s and 80s.  From 2018 to 2022, White state and federal officials in Alabama tried to derail my energy businesses for the same reasons they sabotaged Charles Wallace’s oil refinery project -- they perceived me as an arrogant, uppity, Black businessman. Fortunately for me, Namibian oil and gas officials refused to become complicit in old Alabama-style racism. Epilogue   Charles Wallace and Wallace & Wallace Chemical & Oil Corporation paved the way for my success in the international oil and gas business.  What Wallace was able to accomplish in the U.S. oil and gas industry with limited capital, little to no industry support, marginal Black political support, engrained racism, and aggressive state and federal governmental obstruction was truly remarkable.   Wallace, the adopted son of sharecroppers, became the first known Black millionaire from Thomasville, Georgia.   He died at age 53 on June 5, 1986. Each day that I work on Nabirm’s oil block in Namibia, I think of Charles Wallace and what he was able to accomplish in the face of Alabama-style racism.  I am thankful that Wallace freely shared his industry knowledge, business acumen, vision, and strategies for success with me. For these reasons, I dedicate the work we are doing at Nabirm Energy Services in honor of Charles Wallace and Wallace & Wallace Chemical & Oil Corporation. "If you can see it, you can be it," truly works.   [ Author’s Note : We acknowledge the photos and content made available for this article from the Jack Hadley Black History Museum in Thomasville, Georgia. The Museum was established in 1995 to educate the public about the history and culture of African Americans locally and nationally. The Museum was founded by African American historian, James “Jack” Hadley, who preserved over 4,669 pieces of African American artifacts with emphasis on Thomasville’s first Black achievers and state and national achievers to commemorate their lives and accomplishments.]

By: Donald V. Watkins Copyrighted and Published on December 9, 2025   The City of Praxis, a planned "for-profit" city in the U.S. An Editorial Opinion During his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised he would develop 10 “charter cities” or “ freedom cities ” in the U.S. on undeveloped federal lands. He committed to using federal funds to develop these cities.  The new cities will have near autonomous governance.     The concept is described in a December 5, 2025, Financial Times article titled, “ Tech elites are starting their own for-profit cities. ”  According to the article, which is summarized below, proponents of "charter cities" want to escape from regulation and ‘failing’ democracy.   Trump's stated goal in building these cities was to boost American innovation in light of the U.S.-China technology race. His real goal was the enrichment of the Trump family.   The infrastructure money and necessary bond financing tax credits for building these cities are already in place. Trump has aligned himself with tech elites and pardoned criminals to bring his plan to life.  Of course, the Trump family's real estate development company has an undisclosed role in these projects.   What was a fringe concept a few years ago is now attracting more interest as scrappy start-up chief executives and aggrieved billionaires contemplate the allure of tech-friendly havens unbound by legacy rules and regulations.   There are now about 120 “start-up societies” in the works. A few of them have received hundreds of millions of dollars in venture capital from funds from multibillionaire investors like Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen, OpenAI founder Sam Altman, and Brian Armstrong, Coinbase's chief executive. Thiel and Armstrong are two of Trump's 37 "Big, Beautiful Ballroom" contributors.   Próspera, California Forever, and the Praxis Movement are Early Experiments in “Charter Cities”   The most evolved prototype for this bold experiment in "charter cities" and alternative governance is Próspera, a gated private community on a Honduran island run by a Delaware-based company, where close to 1,000 residents enjoy co-working spaces, a beach resort, and a golf course. As a "for-profit" semi-autonomous zone, Próspera has low taxes, its own labor rules and an arbitration system run by retired Arizona judges who hear its cases online. Bitcoin is one of the currencies of choice.   The special legislation that allowed for Próspera to be established was championed by former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández , whom Trump released from prison last week. Hernández was serving a 45-year prison sentence for trafficking 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S. and for weapons crimes. Trump’s pardon set him free.   Meanwhile, Silicon Valley billionaires including Marc Andreessen, Reid Hoffman, and Michael Moritz have put money into California Forever, a group that has quietly bought up $1 billion worth of land in Solano County in its bid to build a walkable mega-development with affordable housing and a shipping complex — without extra autonomy.   Also, the Praxis Movement recently announced plans to start a “defense-focused spaceport city” called Atlas at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California, already home to companies including Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin. Project sponsors have assembled 150,000 prospective citizens. Among them are key members of Elon Musk’s controversial so-called Department of Government Efficiency initiative.   Connecting the Dots   The Trump family’s real estate development company, headed by Eric Trump, will be quietly co-developing the 10 U.S. “charter” or “freedom” cities in a "ghost" developer's role.   Trump has also hooked up a U.S. rare earth minerals company backed by Donald Trump, Jr.’s private equity firm 1789 Capital with lucrative Pentagon contracts and exclusive rare earth minerals concessions worth up to $24 trillion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.   This is a level of corruption and grifting on a scale NEVER seen in America before an immunized Trump arrived in the presidency for his second term.   Now, Americans can fully understand Trump’s seemly bizarre presidential pardons for narco-trafficking kingpins, cryptocurrency crooks, imprison politicians, and Wall Street fraudsters.

By: Donald V. Watkins Copyrighted and Published on March 1, 2024 An Editorial Opinion After reading an October 29, 2021 article written by Mario Seiglie and published in Beyond Today , together with numerous supporting scientific journals, it appears that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for the intelligent creation of the Universe and the existence of God as its creator.   To my surprise, this scientific evidence of creationism is congruent with the version of creationism presented in the Bible . For a timeline reference, parts of the Hebrew Bible were written in the 10th century BCE . The final redaction and canonization of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) took place during the Babylonian Exile (6th–5th century BCE). The entire Hebrew Bible was complete by about 100 CE . As such, the Biblical version of creationism does not present empirical scientific data, laws of physics, biochemical analyses, mathematical algorithms, and/or theorems about the origins of the Universe that would be documented and validated in scientific journals thousands of years later. However, the Biblical and scientific versions of creationism match -- perfectly.   Here are seven scientific findings presented by Mario Seiglie (and independently vetted by a host of capable and qualified scientists) that prove the existence of God.   1. Science has discovered ample evidence that the Universe had a beginning.   The scientific consensus 100 years ago was that the Universe was eternal. This idea began to unravel with the implications of Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity back in 1916, where his equations pointed to an expanding universe. Yet, he didn’t like that outcome and so added a constant to his equation that nullified the expansion. Later, he admitted it had been the biggest mathematical blunder in his life.   Then in 1929 astronomer Edwin Hubble affirmed he saw galaxies expanding outward, which meant they had been much closer together in the past. Einstein, intrigued, wanted to see the evidence for himself and in 1931 he visited the Mt. Wilson Observatory in Los Angeles, Calif. Einstein peered through the telescope, examined the evidence and then concluded, “I now see  the necessity  of a beginning.” This started a change in the scientific attitude toward the cosmos.   In 1965, two U.S. scientists detected the remnants of the initial burst of energy of the creation event typically called the “Big Bang.” They both won a Nobel Prize in physics.  One of them, Arno Penzias, later declared, “The best data we have [about the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole” (“Clues to Universe Origin Expected,”  The New York Times , March 12, 1978, p. 1).   2. Science has found the Universe to be fine-tuned for life.   In 1973, cosmologist Brandon Carter found that the independent constants or laws in physics have one highly unusual characteristic in common— they are precisely the values needed to establish and sustain a universe capable of producing life.   This is another enormous and virtually uncontested proof for a universe that has been carefully designed.   Scientists have found some 30 constants or laws of physics that govern the Universe. All are unrelated to each other and yet are finely tuned to incredible proportions to make life possible. The evidence points to “ Someone ” spending a lot of time tuning all of these laws so they would work in unison.   3. Scientists can’t explain the origin of life and its genetic code apart from an Originator.   Contrary to what many have been led to believe, scientists have no realistic explanation for how life arose.   Even the famous atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins admitted regarding the appearance of life,  “Nobody knows how it happened”  ( Climbing Mount Improbable,  1996, p. 282). Furthermore, one of the discoverers of the DNA code, the atheist Francis Crick, concluded, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense,  the origin of life  appears at the moment to be  almost a miracle,  so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going” ( Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature,  1981, p. 88).   In the last 60 years, biologists have found that life began with an enormous amount of precise information  already embedded  in the cell. The human genome alone is a molecule with approximately 3 billion genetic letters, all precisely ordered to give instructions to the cell. Moreover, scientists have never found inorganic matter to create a coded system of information and the machinery to interpret it. From the most primitive cells to human beings, all have the same basic operating system of mind-boggling complexity, with codes, transmitters and receivers all working together.   In addition, the origin of life puzzle has a “chicken-and-egg question”—which came first, the chicken or the egg? In this case, to get life to occur, you need  both  the complete genetic code and the proteins—the machine parts—that read the code and build new proteins. Without the code, you can’t build proteins. And without proteins, you can’t process the code. So how could both have arisen at the same time?   4. Science has proven that biological life runs by millions of exquisitely programmed “robotic machines.”   To understand what is happening inside a cell, a good illustration is picturing a large city teeming with life and movement.   Biochemist Michael Denton describes the cell this way: “To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a billion times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design . . .   “We would see around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines. We would notice that the simplest of the functional components of the cell, the protein molecules, were astonishingly complex pieces of molecular machinery, each one consisting of about three thousand atoms arranged in highly organized 3-D spatial conformation.   “We would wonder even more as we watched the strangely purposeful activities of these weird molecular machines, particularly when we realized that, despite all our accumulated knowledge of physics and chemistry, the task of designing one such molecular machine—that is one single functional protein molecule—would be completely beyond our capacity at present” ( Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,  1986, p. 329).   This is why biochemists have a hard time believing and explaining that blind evolution can construct such machinery—and get all the parts to function together from the start. Additionally, to keep the human body functioning, biologists calculate that “about  330 billion cells  are replaced  daily,  equivalent to about 1 percent of all our cells” (Mark Fischetti, “Our Bodies Replace Billions of Cells Every Day,”  Scientific American,  April 1, 2021).   5. Science has found the earliest evidence of life to be of great variety, fully formed and without transitions.   Though Darwin titled his book  On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,  he was never able to substantiate that assumption. Many people assume that the theory of evolution, with its countless mutations and natural selection as the means of change, can account for the origin and development of all the living things on this planet.   Yet, this is sleight of hand, since evolution can account for  micro evolution, or changes  within  the species (such as dogs of varying sizes, shapes, and colors), but not  macro evolution, or changes from one kind of creature to another. Natural selection can tell you something about the  survival  of the species, but nothing about the  arrival  of the species. It certainly cannot trace the origin of the approximately  10 million species  on earth. These are classified into some 33 main body types or phyla, such as sponges, worms, insects, and mammals.   Darwin predicted that as more of the fossil record was uncovered, it would show types of species gradually appearing, beginning with one or a few, and then multiplying from simple to more complex life forms. He wrote, “If numerous species . . . have really  started into life at once,  the fact would be  fatal  to the theory of evolution through natural selection” ( Origin of Species, 1859, p. 305). Yet, that is precisely what has been found—major body types appearing at what’s considered the  beginning  of the fossil record rather than in deposits laid down later.   Scientists call this “the Cambrian Explosion,” referring to major types of plants and animals suddenly appearing  fully formed  in that fossil layer. This is the  opposite  of what Darwin and evolutionists had claimed would be found—and they have no real explanation or answers. Of the 33 main body types, 23 of them (or 70%) appear at the recognized  beginning  stage of the fossil record.   What we are talking about here, by analogy, would be like finding together such different inventions as a washing machine, a refrigerator, a bicycle, a car, and an airplane. Although they do have some features in common, they have very distinct functions and purposes. Similarly, the major types of creatures found in the Cambrian layer, such as sponges, worms, trilobites, and jawless fish, are quite diverse, complex and appear suddenly, with no evidence of these main body types evolving from other creatures.   As paleontologist Niles Eldredge admitted: “If life had evolved into the wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, then there should be some fossiliferous record of those changes . . . But no one has found any evidence of such in-between creatures . . . All of the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links” (George Alexander, “Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered,”  Los Angeles Times,  Nov. 19, 1978).   6. Science has shown the earth to be a unique planet with so many “just right” conditions to sustain life.   In 1966, Carl Sagan hosted the famous TV documentary series  Cosmos.  He thought in order to have life you just needed two conditions—a right kind of star and a planet at the right distance. This conclusion proved to be totally off base.    In the last decade, scientists have come to the realization that  more than 200 conditions  have to be “just right” for life to exist and thrive. As author Eric Metaxas explains: “Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life— every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.   Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing” (“Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God,”  The Wall Street Journal,  Dec. 25, 2014).   7. Science reveals the Universe is precisely mathematically designed while allowing for free will.   Incredibly, the universe has been found to be mathematically designed. It follows orderly laws that can be described in mathematical terms. Sir James Jeans, one of the great astronomers of the 20th century, remarked: “From the intrinsic evidence of his creation, the Great Architect of the Universe  now begins to appear as a pure mathematician  . . . The universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine” ( The Mysterious Universe,  1930, pp. 134, 137).   A big problem for evolutionists and atheists is this:  Evolution can’t do math, since it is based on random variations and mutations, and math requires an intelligent agent who can first prepare a mathematical blueprint of laws before creating things so they will be orderly. This is why the present cosmos can be traced back to mathematical rules.     As Albert Einstein noted, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” He meant that it could be understood in  mathematical  terms but that an explanation for that was beyond math.   As far back as the early 1900s, scientists were discovering the laws that govern the subatomic realm, the tiny microcosm described by quantum mechanics. It has very different rules than our macro world and appears to make room for such things as free will to arise.   Many scientists came to realize that  not all is determined by matter and energy. Experiments show that an observer can alter a particle through means of observing it. The implications are that we can determine the outcome of our lives by the choices we make.   What Does This Scientific Evidence Mean?   The scientific evidence confirms what I learned as a child – God created the Universe and every life form within it.  Nobody but God could create these life forms.   Within this Universe is planet Earth and the life forms on it.  Earth has pristine and precise conditions for the existence of life, which were NOT man-made. Man, however, can destroy them.   The overarching question on this scientific journey is whether mankind will destroy our planet through the exercise of human free will.

By Donald V. Watkins ©Copyrighted and Published on December 15, 2018 A lot of people have asked me about the bogus wire and bank fraud charges federal prosecutors in Birmingham, Alabama brought against my son, Donald V. Watkins, Jr., and me last month. I have discussed these charges in several recent articles. There is some irony in the fact that this case will likely represent a “bookend” to a very fulfilling and exciting 45-year legal career. It comes at a time when I was planning to retire from the active practice of law at the age of 70. As I have done throughout my career, I will secure one more dramatic courtroom victory for the history books. My first “bookend” experience occurred while I was a second year student at The University of Alabama’s School of Law. It was just as challenging and dramatic. The story below describes what happened. I graduated from a small racially segregated high school in Montgomery, Alabama in 1966. I attended college at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, Illinois from 1966 to 1970. My SIU years were filled with boundless multiculturalism. I thrived in SIU’s fully integrated and highly competitive university environment of 25,000 students. When I arrived on campus at UA for law school, I knew right away that I was in for a different experience. Remember, this was a year before there were any black athletes at UA, and only a small number of black undergraduate students were matriculating on campus. The warmth and camaraderie I experienced at SIU was absent at UA. I was one of two black students in my freshman class of 150 law students. The other black student was George Jones from Miles College in Birmingham. I was attending the law school on a desegregation scholarship from the NAACP in New York. Our class was divided alphabetically into two sections. George was placed in one section and I was in the other one. I often refer to my law school days at UA from 1970 to 1973 as the longest and loneliest three years of my life. One of my classmates was John David Whetstone. He was my moot court partner during our second year of law school. I had studied David’s classroom performance during my entire freshman year. This guy was tough, smart, disciplined, and extremely mature. David was really good on his feet and had a thundering voice with a strong Southern drawl. David was a 1963 graduate of Greenville High School, who served in the Air Force after high school. He was honorably discharged as a sergeant in 1968. David had worked his way through the University of West Florida and law school at UA using the G.I. Bill. As I entered my second year, I needed a moot court partner. I figured nobody was going to choose me, so I decided to approach David. The way he carried himself suggested to me that David had been exposed to black people and he had no problem treating them with dignity and respect. I approached David in the fall of 1971 and told him that I had studied his performance as a law student. He seemed startled. I also told David that I thought he was “good enough to be my moot court partner” and I stuck my hand out to shake his hand. He paused for a moment, smiled, and said “okay”, as he shook my hand in return. That handshake meant the world to me. It was the start of an unbreakable and lifelong friendship between David and me. David and I competed ferociously in the moot court competition. All year long, we outscored and eliminated all of the teams we faced. I enjoyed being David’s teammate. He could research cases and write briefs very well; he would argue points of law with passion; and he rolled over opponents with ease. David was a warrior and he was fighting side-by-side with me. In March of 1972, David and I had eliminated all of our competitors through the end of the semi-final round. We were slated to represent our class section as “finalists” in the annual Law Day competition against the team of George L. Galbraith and George W. Ashbee. This prestigious event would be held on Saturday, April 8, 1972, in front of a large crowd of students, faculty, and parents. Three distinguished Alabama judges would decide the Law Day winner. This was a huge event for any law student. I was very proud of what David and I had accomplished. I called my parents and told them we had made it into the Law Day final round of competition. My mother started crying because she knew how isolated and lonely my law school experience had been. My father, who was President of Alabama State University, was excited that David and I might win it all. I could feel my parents’ pride and excitement beaming through the phone. Our celebration was short-lived. After winning our semi-final round, the student Moot Court Committee met secretly and changed the original criteria for advancing in the moot court competition. After making this change, the Committee designated the team we had just defeated as the “finalists” who would compete in the Law Day event against Galbraith and Ashbee. I was shocked, angry and hurt beyond words. I told David that we could not let this unfair treatment go unchallenged and that I needed him to stand and fight with me on this issue. Suddenly, I watched the Air Force sergeant and patriot emerge in David. He snapped to attention, shook my hand, and told me we were in this fight together. On April 7, 1972, David and I filed a written challenge with Dean Thomas W. Christopher protesting our unfair elimination as finalists for Law Day. Dean Christopher wrote us a letter on the same day stating that he would investigate this matter. He also assured us that the Law Day competition on April 8th would be subject to the outcome of his investigation. I did not go to the Law Day competition on April 8th. Instead, I sat inside my car outside of the law school building -- Farrah Hall -- and cried uncontrollably while the event was taking place. The person who found me in my car and consoled me that day was Mr. Ramus Rhodes , the janitor at the law school. He was my friend, confidant, academic coach, and mentor. He knew I was devasted. This was one of those days when Mr. Rhodes had to carry me because I did not have the strength to carry myself. On April 18, 1972, following an April 12th hearing before a five-person hearing panel of four professors and one outside attorney, Dean Christopher issued his decision. Calling the Moot Court Committee’s action “an error in judgment”, Dean Christopher took the following administrative actions: (1) he declared that David and I should have been selected as finalists using the criteria established at the beginning of the competition; (2) he announced to the entire student body and the Moot Court Board that we should have been selected to compete in the Law Day competition as finalists; (3) he wrote a personal letter to our parents to explain how well David and I had performed in the overall competition and stated in his letter that, “but for an error in judgment by the student Moot Court Committee, [David and I] would have been in the final argument itself”; (4) he ordered prize monies paid to David and me as if we were finalists; (5) he ordered a match between the winners of the Law Day round and our team; (6) he took full responsibility, as dean of the law school, for this “error in judgment”; and (7) he personally thanked David and me for our “constructive and fair attitudes in the resolution of this matter”. David and I pondered Dean Christopher’s offer of a match between the team of Galbraith/Ashbee and us. We decided that Galbraith/Ashbee had done nothing wrong in this matter. They were two innocent competitors who had fairly won the Law Day round of competition against a team we had defeated. David and I decided that we would not take away the victory Galbraith/Ashbee had won in front of their parents and the crowd that had gathered to watch their winning performance. We did not have it in our hearts to subject Galbraith/Ashbee to the emotional pain that had been inflicted upon us. With that in mind, we waived our right to this matchup and allowed Dean Christopher to declare the Galbraith/Ashbee team the “winners” of the 1972 Moot Court Competition. David graduated in January 1973. I graduated in May of that year. David enjoyed a long and distinguished career as an assistant district attorney and later as the district attorney for Baldwin County, Alabama. As was the situation in law school, David was the consummate professional as a career prosecutor. He is the yardstick by which I measure all prosecutors. To this day, I have not met a federal or state prosecutor whose integrity matches David’s. God works in mysterious ways. I never thought my first case would be my own and that I would have to represent myself. My father taught me as a child that a man who will not fight for himself or his family, will not fight for others. David and I put it all on the line to fight against a painful injustice. In the process, we earned the respect of our dean, student peers, faculty and staff members, and larger communities. Out of a heartbreaking experience in law school came a friendship bond with John David Whetstone that has stood the test of time. In 2012, while going through one of my mother’s scrapbooks, I found Dean Christopher’s letter to my parents and a copy of his ruling in our moot court case . I immediately called David to reminisce about our moot court experience 40 years earlier. David asked me to send him a copy for his family. I told David it was important that his children and grandchildren know our story and also know that he had tremendous courage when it was needed and counted. In my book, John David Whetstone has earned a permanent place on the right side of history. As for me, my friendship with David is one more example of why I never judge anyone on the basis of his/her race, gender, age, political affiliation, sexual orientation, or any other artificial factor. I judge every individual solely on the content of his/her character. And, in many cases, a person’s true character is revealed only when he/she is faced with adversity. As life would have it, my legal career started with my own case in law school. In that case, I defeated an awful injustice without causing harm to two innocent students. After I defeat the federal prosecutors in my current case, I will likely walk away from the gladiator arena for the last time with an inner peace that I gave it my best for 45 years and that thousands of ordinary Americans are in a much better place today because I fought and bled for their dignity and legal rights in the arena. This is what makes these two cases the “bookends” of my legal career. PHOTO: Farrah Hall on the campus of The University of Alabama is where I argued and won my first case in 1972. It was the start of an exciting and fulfilling 45-year legal career. As fate would have it, my first case was my own.

By: Donald V. Watkins Copyrighted and Published on July 17, 2022 Photo of 93-year-old U.S. Circuit Judge United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit, Gerald Bard Tjoflat, an intellectual racist. An Editorial Opinion People of interracial goodwill often ask me to help them understand how systemic racism works in Alabama. I will use my own case to breakdown a real-life example of systemic racism within the criminal justice system. I chose this example because the business transactions that formed the basis for the criminal allegations against me were first reviewed by career federal prosecutors in New Jersey who specialized in major economic crimes, who did not know me, and who had no pre-existing biases against me. After a full review of the underlying allegations and pertinent evidence over a six-month period in 2015 and early 2016, these unbiased federal prosecutors cleared me of all wrongdoing and wished me well in business. For reasons they have never explained, Alabama-based federal judges and prosecutors have never acknowledged or publicly discussed this baseline event. In my view, this event serves as a yardstick by which we should measure the conduct of Alabama-based law enforcement and judicial officials. Nearly two years after I was cleared of any wrongdoing by New Jersey federal prosecutors, Birmingham federal prosecutors clamored for my case. These prosecutors wanted an opportunity to nail me to the cross even if they had to manufacture a criminal case to do so. This is exactly what they did. To succeed, these federal prosecutors needed a friendly judicial forum that would allow them to divorce the business transactions in question from the existing contractual obligations between the individuals they labeled as "victims" and myself. They found one at the federal courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama. They also needed to divert the public's attention from the fact that the "victims" were "accredited investors" who were represented by lawyers and Wall Street financial advisors in the transactions at the center of the case. Southern-Style Justice From my indictment in November 2018 to my sentencing in July 2019, my case was assigned to a white U.S. Magistrate, who was a former federal prosecutor in Birmingham. My trial judge was also the Chief U.S. District Judge in Birmingham. She was appointed to the federal bench by Republican President George W. Bush. She, too, is white. These two judges controlled what I could and could not present as evidence in the case. They also held closed-door "star chamber" proceedings in the case on legal matters that are still sealed even though the trial has been over for more than three years. The U.S. Attorney and First Assistant U.S. Attorney in my case were Jay Town and Lloyd Peeples, respectively. Both men are white. Prior to his appointment as U.S. Attorney, Town was an "attack ad" political operative for U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama), who is white. President Donald J. Trump appointed Town to the U.S. Attorney's job on Shelby's recommendation. Lloyd Peeples is a homegrown racist and failed pizza restaurant operator who needed a job. Town gave him one. On April 26, 2022, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held oral arguments in Montgomery, Alabama in the appeal of my conviction on wire, mail, and bank fraud charges. This panel consisted of Judges Gerald Tjoflat, Ed Carnes, and Kevin Newsom, all of whom are white. All of these men were appointed to the federal bench by Republican presidents. Judges Carnes and Newsom are based in Alabama. On Friday, July 15, 2022, the three-judge panel issued an opinion written by Judge Tjoflat that upheld the convictions in my case. Click here to read the opinion. By way of background, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals hears federal civil and criminal cases arising out of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. It is the most conservative federal appellate court in the nation. There are 12 judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and 9 "senior" (or semi-retired) judges on this Court. All of these judges are white, except for one. To put this skewed racial composition in perspective, blacks make up more than 25% of the aggregate population in the three states that are served by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Who Are the Three Appellate Judges in My Case? Judge Tjoflat, who is 93-years-old, wrote the July 15, 2022 opinion affirming the criminal conviction in my case. Tjoflat was appointed to the federal bench by President Gerald Ford. He was serving as Acting Chief Justice of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals when Chief U.S. District Court Judge Mark E. Fuller (Montgomery) beat his wife in an Atlanta hotel room in on August 9, 2014 to the point that she had to be hospitalized. A drunken Fuller was arrested at the scene. Fuller is another white Republican judicial nominee. I broke the news of Fuller's Atlanta arrest and detailed his serial wife-beating conduct. I also published Fuller's mugshot and detailed his history of beating his first and second wives, his history of drug abuse during court trials, and his notorious reputation for engaging in sex with a female law clerk and a courtroom bailiff. Despite Fuller's utter unfitness to continue serving as a federal judge after his arrest, Judge Tjoflat tried to save Fuller's job by claiming that the workload among federal district judges in Montgomery was too great for Fuller to resign. In a press statement issued on August 12, 2014, Judge Tjoflat was quoted as saying: "Judge Fuller recognizes that he needs to deal with these serious issues quickly so when he returns [to the bench] there is as little disruption to his cases as possible." On August 25, 2014, I responded to Judge Tjoflat's media comment by filing a complaint with U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. , about Fuller's wife-beating conduct and Judge Tjoflat's attempt to downplay it. I also kept the spotlight on Fuller's misconduct on the federal bench for well over a year. In the end, Mark Fuller was forced to resign his judgeship after a Judicial Inquiry Commission determined that he had lied to investigators about: (a) his abusive behavior towards his wives, (b) his reported sexual relations with his female law clerk and another courthouse staffer, and (c) his reported "pill-popping" conduct during trials. Fuller's resignation occurred shortly before Congress commenced impeachment proceedings against him. The second 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel member on my criminal case -- Judge Ed Carnes -- was appointed to the federal bench by President George H. W. Bush. Carnes worked in the same courthouse with Mark Fuller. Like Judge Tjoflat, Judge Carnes has taken "senior" status. Despite his long tenure on the federal bench, Judge Carnes' judicial opinions have never been known to advance or protect the civil rights of black litigants. Judge Kevin Newsom was appointed to the Court of Appeals by President Trump. Prior to his appointment, Judge Newsom served as a law clerk at the all-white, nine-judge Alabama Supreme Court (in a state that is 25% black). He is also a former solicitor general for the state of Alabama. Judge Newsom was the former head of the Birmingham-based Bradley Arant law firm's appellate practice. Bradley Arant is the law firm that employed attorney Abdul Kallon prior to his appointment as a federal judge in Birmingham. Kallon is the former business partner of Jonathan Dunning, a successful black Birmingham businessman who was targeted by federal prosecutors in 2013, indicted in 2014, and tried and convicted in 2016 on specious "fraud" charges. Judge Kallon unexpectedly resigned from the bench on April 6, 2022 in the wake of a reported outside federal investigation into the infamous North Birmingham Bribery Scandal, Investigation and Trial. Kallon was the trial judge in this bribery case. Jay Town was the U.S. Attorney who failed to prosecute a litany of major companies and top corporate executives who participated in the $360,000 bribery of state Rep. Oliver Robinson. In writing his judicial opinion in my case, Judge Tjoflat failed to disclose his personal conflict of interest with me. Tjoflat also failed to mention the fact that I filed a 2014 complaint against him for the way in which he mishandled the Mark Fuller wife-beating scandal. Excluding Defense Evidence The three 11th Circuit judges upheld the trial judge's decision to exclude defense evidence that went to the heart of the case. Specifically, during my trial, I attempted to introduce the complete transactional file of the National Football League/St. Louis Rams purchase documents (from 2007 to 2010) as evidence that the energy company in which my investors purchased an economic interest had real monetary value. Goldman Sachs (New York City) represented the Rosenbloom family who were selling their 60% stake in the Rams. JP Morgan Chase (New York City) advised me in the monetarization transaction. Seymour Pierce, Ltd. (London), a 138-year-old investment banking firm specializing in the sale and purchase of major professional sports teams, arranged the necessary financing with Citibank (New York City) for my purchase of the Rams. Law firms in London, Los Angeles, Houston, Atlanta, and Kansas City represented me in the transaction. Goldman Sachs' vetting process established that I was a qualified and capable buyer for the Rams. I progressed through each stage of the acquisition process. At the end of the process, the Rams organization presented me with the proposed purchase agreement, which was subject to Stan Kroenke exercising his first right to buy the Rosenbloom's 60% interest. Kroenke was a 40% limited partner in the Rams. At the last minute, Kroenke exercised his purchase right, thereby making him the 100% owner of the team. Prosecutors objected to my introduction of this evidence on the grounds that it was "irrelevant, immaterial, and would only confuse the jury" in their "fraud" case. Peeples conceded (outside the presence of the jury) that the Rams purchase documents were genuine and that my interaction with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Seymour Pierce regarding the Rams purchase transaction was a real deal. The trial judge sustained Peeple's objection and blocked this evidence from being presented to the jury. After the judge barred this evidence, prosecutors successfully argued to the jury that my energy company had no monetary value. This excluded evidence was relevant and material because the handful of professional athletes who invested in my energy company did so primarily because they wanted to also participate with me as economic participants in the Rams transaction. Because I was leveraging energy company assets in which all of us held an economic interest in order to buy the team, these investors would have been entitled to receive an automatic and proportional economic interest in the Rams, as well. Epilogue I am a longtime civil rights activist and former Montgomery City Council member (1979 to 1983) whose departure from office in 1983 caused then-Montgomery mayor/former chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, Emory Folmar, to publicly declare that my departure from the council was " one of the greatest blessings since the Union troops went home in 1870. " Republican politicians in Alabama consistently target me for beatdowns because of my success in law, business, and life. They also hate my intelligence and outspokenness. They only like ingratiating, deferential "Negroes." The major difference between the New Jersey federal prosecutors and the local Birmingham courthouse crowd was this: The New Jersey prosecutors reviewed the corporate governance agreements that set forth the rights and responsibilities of the contracting parties. They concluded that I had the exclusive right and lawful authority under these agreements to "determine what constituted valid business purposes for expending funds." The Birmingham federal prosecutors and judges in my case never cited any action that I took as CEO of my company that was not expressly authorized under the governance agreements signed by the signatory parties. They simply ignored these agreements, without explanation. Likewise, they ignored existing federal bank regulations that expressly authorized the two transactions they claimed were bank fraud. In short, I was railroaded at trial and in the Court of Appeals. Now you know why. Alabama is notorious for railroading black litigants. Finally, in Alabama, most white judges seek to cloak the injustices they routinely mete out to black litigants in legitimacy by getting other white judges of a similar political and ideological persuasion to ratify and affirm their injustices. The attempt to sanitize systemic judicial racism in my case by using all-white peer-group affirmation is a time-honored tradition in Alabama. All articles are shared on Facebook and Twitter. If you enjoyed this article, please click on these links to follow Donald Watkins: https://www.facebook.com/donald.v.watkins https://twitter.com/donaldvwatkins

By Donald V. Watkins ©Copyrighted and Published on March 15, 2019 The fair administration of justice requires an appeal in my case. On March 8, 2019, a federal jury in Birmingham, Alabama convicted me on all ten counts of conspiracy, bank fraud, and wire fraud charges following a three-week trial. The jury also convicted my son, Donald, Jr., of conspiracy and one count of wire fraud. Our sentencing is scheduled for July 16, 2019. In the aftermath of these convictions, my family, friends and supporters have asked me whether I will appeal the guilty verdicts in my case. The answer is “yes.” Here is why: The wire fraud convictions arise out of a business scenario where seven high net worth individuals purchased an economic interest between 2007 and 2010 in a company I owned named Watkins Pencor, LLC. This company holds my equity interests in the Masada Resource Group, LLC, family of waste-to-energy companies. Under the applicable corporate governance agreements, I had an absolute right to sell a portion of my economic interest in Watkins Pencor to these purchasers. In 2012, one of these individuals also purchased an economic interest in an oil and gas exploration company I co-own named Nabirm Global, LLC. Again, under the applicable corporate governance agreement, I had a right to sell a portion of my economic interest in Nabirm to this purchaser. Six of the purchasers had lawyers and investment advisors representing them at the time of their transaction. The seventh purchaser was a lawyer. I interacted directly with some of these professionals prior to the execution of the purchase agreements in question. The sale of my economic interest in Watkins Pencor and Nabirm was irrevocable in each case. I permanently diluted the economic interests I held in these two companies in favor of the purchasers. The money from the purchase transactions legally belonged to me, to be used as I saw fit. The money was wired to one of my bank accounts and was reported on my personal tax returns. Each purchaser still holds his/her economic interest in Watkins Pencor and Nabirm today. Each company is an ongoing business enterprise. An eighth purchaser executed an identical purchase agreement in Watkins Pencor in 2009. He understood that the money from his purchase transaction legally belonged to me, to be use as I saw fit. This purchaser is also my business partner. His name is Ralph Malone. He is a Georgia Tech engineering graduate, a former NFL player, a member of the Georgia Tech Engineering Hall of Fame, and a member of the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission. The Government’s theory in my case is that the seven purchasers who testified as prosecution witnesses were “victims” of wire fraud and that the written agreements did not embody the business interest these “victims” thought they were purchasing from me. The Government used a criminal prosecution to override the contractual rights and obligations between the seller and purchasers, even though the purchasers were represented by lawyers and financial advisors at the time of their transactions and one of them was a lawyer. The theory of the defense is simple: Each purchaser received exactly what he/she negotiated in the purchase transaction. Additionally, I answered all questions about the nature and scope of the purchase transactions in a truthful manner before the agreements were executed. There was no evidence that any of the seven “victims” lost any money in the purchase transactions. Likewise, not one of the seven “victims” produced a single document supporting his/her decade-old recollection of the “fraudulent” representations the Government claims I made to them prior to their purchases. In contrast, I produced all documents that were provided to the purchasers. After the purchases were made, I complied with an express provision in my 2004 divorce decree when I sent a portion of the sales proceeds from these Watkins Pencor transactions to my ex-wife. In my opinion, it is legally impossible to commit fraud by complying with the express payment provisions in my divorce decree. Interestingly, I was the first person to initiate litigation regarding the issue of who owns the money from the sale of my economic participations in Watkins Pencor when I initiated an AAA arbitration proceeding in June 2013 against one of the prosecution’s witnesses. Two months later, this purchaser filed a lawsuit against me on this issue. His lawsuit was dismissed four years later, with prejudice. In 2015 and 2016, the same issue was investigated by a federal grand jury in New Jersey, which took no action against me. This issue was raised again in a "fraud" lawsuit filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission against me on September 1, 2016. In 2018, the SEC dropped all of the allegations regarding my sale of Watkins Pencor economic participations to the individuals who were later labeled as “victims” in this criminal case. Against this backdrop, it is very important to all private business entities that I appeal my criminal conviction on the following threshold legal question: Whether an executed purchase contract that was negotiated at arms-length between sophisticated business parties who were represented by financial and legal professionals is subject to a prosecutorial override 10 to 12 years later solely because the purchaser’s refreshed recollection of the nature and scope of the transaction differs from the written purchase agreement? Another issue that is ripe for appeal involves three loan transactions between Charles Barkley and me between 2010 and 2013. The issue is simple: Whether introductory emails between Barkley and me regarding loan transactions trump (a) the plain language of the promissory notes that were specifically approved by the lender’s financial advisor and (b) the authorized uses of proceeds that are specified in the applicable corporate governance agreements? Finally, the bank fraud convictions give rise to this issue on appeal: Whether a bank fraud conviction can be sustained in a case where I, as a bank “insider,” complied with the plain language of a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation regulatory provision (Reg. O) that expressly permits a loan transaction by a business partner (Dr. Richard Arrington, Jr.) in a "bona fide transaction" where the loan proceeds were used to acquire “goods”, “services,” and “property” from the insider? The underlying facts relating to these three appellate issues are not in dispute. These are issues of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and they are important to the entire business community. This is why I must fight.

By Donald V. Watkins ©Copyrighted and Published on July 29, 2018 Lloyd Peeples ran a "Your Pie" pizza restaurant in Homewood, Alabama before he took over the U.S. Attorney's Office in Birmingham in October 2017. On October 3, 2017, U.S. Attorney Jay E. Town tapped Lloyd Chandler Peeples, III, as the new First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. This is the office’s number two post. With this announcement, a “pizza man” took charge of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Birmingham. Town, who lives in Huntsville, Alabama, rarely works in the Birmingham office. As a result, Town has delegated nearly all of his job duties to Peeples while he quietly tends to the political needs of the Republican Party’s oligarchy in Alabama. In 2016, Town openly campaigned for Senator Richard Shelby and was rewarded in 2017 with a presidential appointment to his current job. As the First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Lloyd Peeples supervises the Criminal, Civil, Appellate and Administrative Divisions and handles administrative matters, in periodic consultation with Town. Peeples worked as a federal prosecutor in Birmingham from 2003 until 2012, handling a variety of fairly routine civil and criminal matters. Peeples left the U.S. Attorney’s Office in February 2012 to assist in managing his father’s manufacturing business. Following his father’s death in 2013, Peeples took over as chairman of the board and chief executive officer and served in that capacity until December 2016. In 2017, Peeples was running a pizza business in Homewood, Alabama called “Your Pie” when Town gave Peeples his “dream” job. Peeples, who was born in Dothan, Alabama, attended the private Walker School in Marietta, Georgia. After graduating in 1991, Peeples attended Washington and Lee University, where he received his bachelor’s degree in 1995. Peeples obtained his law degree from Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law in 1998. Peeples worked as a judicial clerk and in private practice in Birmingham before joining the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Birmingham as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in 2003. Tilting at Windmills Within a couple of weeks after assuming his job as First Assistant U.S. Attorney’s job, Lloyd Peeples opened a grand jury investigation into my international energy businesses and me. He assembled a posse of prosecutors, FBI agents, IRS officials, and other law enforcement agents who work everyday on gathering, reviewing, and analyzing every aspect of my business and personal affairs. Peeples started by looking into the same allegations of “securities fraud” that were leveled against me in a September 1, 2016 lawsuit by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He sent for and received the entire SEC file in my case. On July 13, 2018, the SEC surreptitiously announced in a court filing that the agency would be dropping all of the allegations in its lawsuit, except for a bogus claim of "fraud" involving three loans from Charles Barkley to my companies. With this announcement, the SEC’s lawsuit plunged from a $6 million sensationalized case to a $2.1 million dud lawsuit. By the end of the case, the SEC's lawsuit will likely be dismissed in its entirety. Furthermore, Barkley is still one of my business associates. The SEC’s abandonment of its primary claims represents the second time these baseless allegations have been leveled against me in a highly public fashion and later dropped. The first time this scenario occurred was when a former professional football player for the New York Jets sued me for alleged “securities fraud” in 2013. The lawsuit was splashed all over the Internet. In 2017, he quietly and voluntarily dismissed his case, with prejudice. This individual is still one of my business associates. Lloyd Peeples was undeterred when he learned that a New Jersey federal grand jury, which was led by career federal prosecutors with specialized training in investigating and prosecuting economic crimes, reviewed the same “securities fraud” allegations in 2015 and closed its investigation in early 2016 after finding no wrongdoing on my part. Peeples, who lacks credible training or substantial trial experience in prosecuting economic crimes, decided he could do a much better job of investigating me than his New Jersey counterparts. A Propensity for “Twisting” Evidence and Facts Until They Become “Lies With Legs” The New Jersey federal prosecutors never designated me as the “target” of their six-month grand jury investigation. Lloyd Peeples departed from applicable Justice Department guidelines and made me a “target” of his investigation on day one. This designation provided Peeples with the "cover" he needed to use aggressive "Blitzkrieg" techniques in investigating me. Peeples and members of his posse routinely misrepresented the evidence and facts in my case to the grand jury. They have also misled grand jury witnesses and have attempted to build a circumstantial case based upon false witness statements and grossly manipulated witness testimony. In March, Peeples tried to block me from appearing before the grand jury. When I finally got the opportunity to appear before the grand jury in April, I discovered that Peeples and his posse had engaged in far greater “twisting” of evidence in my case than I had ever witnessed as a former prosecutor or defense attorney in any case. This "twisting" continues today. Additionally, Peeples knowingly, deliberately, and repeatedly withheld exculpatory evidence in his possession from grand jurors who were seeking the truth. When I looked into Lloyd Peeples’ personal history, I realized that he has a propensity for “twisting” evidence and fabricating facts until he can give birth to “lies with legs.” What is worse, Peeples does not care about creating false narratives because, in his mind, the end result justifies the means he must use to reach it. A Darker Side of Lloyd Peeples Lloyd Peeples’ background reveals clues on why he cheats to win. This is a man who has an axe to grind with women and minorities. Additionally, Peeples’ success in law and business has been anything but stellar. Now, he is free to use a powerful government platform and vast sums of taxpayers’ dollars to impose his political and personal will. In a November 1994 article he wrote on "Coeducation" as a senior editor for W&L Spectator (a student-run news magazine with far right-wing views), Lloyd Peeples shed some light on who he really is. Peeples criticized the University’s efforts to create “ more programs and workshops about date and acquaintance rape .” He opined that, “ courses on women’s studies, more housing, a student center, more aggressive hiring of female faculty and administrators, and the other sorts of recommendations made in the [University’s Coeducation Review Committee] report are going too far. ” Peeples further observed that “ [t]he school should not feel that it has to provide every single thing that women and minorities claim would make them happy. ” He concluded the article by reminding the Washington and Lee University family to view the report “ with a grain of salt and decide where to go from here, remembering that there [are] lies, damn lies, and facts. ” In the U.S. Attorneys Office, Peeples has mastered the art of creating and using “lies” and “damn lies” to drive his warped personal and political agendas. Peeples’ November 1994 article was accompanied by a companion piece written by Doug Burns, Ray Craig, and Jeffrey Laborde titled, “White Males: The Label, The Dilemma.” The article’s promotional tag line claimed that, “ [t]he civil rights movement has gone astray and has created a very hostile environment for white males. ” Charitably speaking, the article was a clarion call for the protection of white males at a time when America was trying to diversify its workforce. What is more, in the May 1994 issue of W&L Spectator , Lloyd Peeples penned an essay that sided with the Singapore government’s imposition of a caning punishment for 18-year-old American teenager Michael Fay for spray painting cars in the country, which was considered an act of vandalism under Singapore law. The court in Singapore lowered the number of caning strokes administered to Fay from six to four following heavy pressure from President Bill Clinton to show leniency. Yet, Peeples praised Singapore’s severe punishment of Fay and suggested that America should follow suit. In doing so, Peeples rebuffed claims from international human rights groups that Singapore was a “police state” and salivated over the severity of Michael Fay punishment. When Jay Town, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate for his job, handed his duties over to Lloyd Peeples, who was hired away from a pizza restaurant to effectively serve as the U.S. Attorney in Birmingham, there was no Justice Department vetting of Peeples’ derogatory remarks about women and minorities, or about his close association with colleagues and friends who held extremist views toward African-Americans in the workplace. Finally, Lloyd Peeples has failed to disclose any of this pertinent character and background information to the grand jury that is sitting in my case. Based upon his words and deeds, Peeples' motivations in my case are anything but pure. Stay tuned for more shocking information about Lloyd Peeples and the deal he cut with Jay Town.

By: Donald V. Watkins © Copyrighted and Published on January 3, 2020 Mary Magdalene with Jesus The Bible, as we know it today, is a selection of works known as the "Gospels." None of the Gospels in the New Testament was written during Jesus' lifetime. All of them are based upon second and third-hand hearsay. Collectively, the Gospels represent man's view of God's word and Jesus' teachings, as liberally censored, edited, revised, glossed, and rewritten by human hands at different periods in history. The Bible is the most famous and revered history book in the world. However, it reflects the theological views and personal biases of the man who compiled it, as well as the men who ratified it. The revisions to the Bible over time reflect the theological narratives within various sects of Christianity. The Bible could well include far more books and writings than it actually does. The missing books were deliberately excluded by the men who compiled, ratified, and revised the original version of the Bible. In A.D. 367, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria compiled a list of works to be included in the New Testaments. His list was ratified by the all-male Church Council of Hippo in A.D. 393 and again by the all-male Council of Carthage four years later. These conclaves of clerics decided on a fairly arbitrary basis what books belonged in the Bible and what books did not. Since then, the Bible has been subjected to fairly drastic editing, censorship, and revisions. Some very important and historically credible books were simply suppressed because they did not conform to Bishop Athanasius' theological views and those of the ratifying conclaves. The books in the Bible conformed to the needs of certain vested religious interests that had an important stake in the matter. The Gospels of Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John Present the Life of Jesus Modern scholars are unanimous in agreeing that the Gospels in the New Testament do not date from Jesus' time. The Gospel of Mark was composed between A.D. 66 and 74. The Gospel of Luke was composed around A.D. 80. The Gospel of Matthew was composed around A.D. 85, and was written by someone other than the disciple named Matthew. The Gospel of John was composed around A.D. 100 by an unknown author. It is deemed by Biblical scholars to be the most reliable book in the New Testament even though it, like the others, has been subject to doctoring, editing, expurgation, and revision. These four Gospels present the life of Jesus from his birth to his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. The New Testament, as it exists today, is essentially a product of fourth-century editors and writers -- custodians of Roman Catholic orthodoxy and "adherence to message," with the Church's vested interests protected. The Marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene After I published "Mary Magdalene: Was She Jesus' Wife?" on November 10, 2019, some readers impulsively dismissed the fact of this marriage because it is not expressly stated in the Bible. In addition to the many Biblical references discussed in my article, there are ample historical and credible books, scrolls, and Biblical texts (a) documenting the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and (b) explaining why explicit references to the marriage were excised from the Bible when it was compiled in A.D. 367. There is no explicit statement in Bishop Athanasius' version of the Bible that Jesus was or was not married. Many of the disciples were, in fact, married. Unlike Catholic priests, Jesus did not preach celibacy, and there is no evidence that he practiced it. In fact, Matthew 19:4-5 suggests that Jesus favored marriage. According to the Judaic custom during his time, it was mandatory that an adult Jewish man be married. Celibacy was vigorously condemned. It would have been considered freakish for Jesus to be unmarried and celibate at the time. Jesus' rabbinical training and acknowledged Rabbi status in the Jewish community made it certain that he was married. Jewish Mishnaic law commanded it. The Gospel of John describes the wedding at Cana, which was attended by Jesus and his mother. John 2:3-10. Jesus performed the duties at this wedding that are ascribed to the "bridegroom" under Jewish law. The wedding was attended by hundreds of wealthy and influential people like Joseph of Arimathea. Jesus transmuted water into wine at the request of his mother. This was his first public miracle. The Book of Revelations, at 19: 7-9 and 21:9, attests to the marriage of the "Lamb" and his "wife." Revelations describes Jesus as the "Lamb." Revelations 19:9 says, "Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife." Revelations 21:14 describes Jesus' twelves disciples as the "twelve apostles of the Lamb." According to the Nag Hammadi scrolls -- a collection of Gnostic Biblical texts from about A.D. 150 that were excluded from the Bible -- Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. The male disciples, particularly Peter, resented her spousal influence on Jesus. The Nag Hammadi scrolls, some of which predate the Gospels in the New Testament, rest upon first-hand knowledge and/or eyewitness sources -- oral accounts by Jews fleeing the Holy Land. They escaped censorship and revisions of later Roman Catholic orthodoxy. They were written for an Egyptian audience, not a Romanized audience. The Gospel of Philip describes three women who were always with Jesus -- His mother, his mother's sister, and Mary Magdalene, who Jesus called his "companion." In Jesus' era, the word "companion" was translated as "spouse." "Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth," according to the Gospel of Philip. Near the end of this Gospel appears this statement: " There is the Son of man and there is the son of the Son of man. The Lord is the Son of man, and the son of the Son of man is he who is created through the Son of man." On the basis of the New Testament references cited in my previous article (e.g., Luke 23:28-29) and the Nag Hammadi scrolls, there is strong and credible evidence of a hereditary bloodline that descended directly from Jesus and Mary Magdalene -- the birth of a "son of the Son of man." The Royal Bloodline is Well-Documented in European History Jesus is a lineal descendant of a royal bloodline. The Book of Matthew 1:1-17 describes Jesus' bloodline, which spans 42 generations. Jesus' bloodline includes King Solomon and King David. Jesus experienced marriage and produced offspring with Mary Magdalene. He was not a celibate and unmarried man, as portrayed in the Roman Catholic orthodoxy or King James' version of the Bible. After Jesus' crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, Mary Magdalene, along with at least one of Jesus' children, was smuggled out of Jerusalem and into Gaul in the southern part of France where there was an established Jewish community already existing. Inexplicably, there is no further reference to Mary Magdalene in Biblical history after the ascension of Christ. Respected historians and scholars in Europe have documented the fact that the Jesus-Mary Magdalene Royal Bloodline perpetuated itself, intact and incognito, in Europe for the next four hundred years. During the fifth century A.D., this bloodline intermarried with the Royal Bloodline of the Franks, thus engendering the Merovingian dynasty. Despite all efforts to eradicate it, the Jesus-Mary Magdalene Royal Bloodline -- the Merovingian bloodline -- survived. As an example of the Catholic Church's tacit recognition of the power and influence of the Jesus-Mary Magdalene Royal Bloodline, the Church installed and openly displayed Michelangelo's Pieta in St. Peter's Cathedral, Vatican City. This statue portrays Jesus lifeless body in the arms of his loving wife, Mary Magdalene, after his crucifixion. Finally, there are at least a dozen families in Europe today -- with numerous collateral branches -- who are of direct Merovingian lineage and who are members of the Jesus-Mary Magdalene Royal Bloodline. The names and history of these families will be the subject of an upcoming article. [Author's Note: An excellent history of the Royal Bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is presented in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, published in Great Britain by Jonathan Cape Ltd., 1982. This well-researched, New York Times bestseller served as one of my reference sources for the many verified historical and Biblical facts evidencing the Jesus-Mary Magdalene marriage and Royal Bloodline. As Americans have seen in history books about the birth of this nation, historians tend to present narratives that reflect the cultural norms and biases existing in the periods of history that are presented. The demeaning and degrading treatment of Native Americans ("Indian Savages", "Redskins") and African-Americans ("Niggers", "Coons", "Savage Beasts", etc.) in early American history books represents a classic example of recorded history that incorporates the personal biases and social norms of the writers of that period. Women have suffered a similar fate in recorded history around the world during times of extreme male dominance. The Bible, as we know it, is no different in its biased treatment of Mary Magdalene and other prominent women.] All articles are shared on Facebook and Twitter. If you would like to follow Donald Watkins, please click on these links and hit the follow button: https://www.facebook.com/donald.v.watkins https://twitter.com/donaldvwatkins