Probate Judge seems to ignore purpose of law, promote disrespect of citizens

Russell County (AL) Probate Judge Alford M. Harden, Jr.Photo byRussell County, Alabama

On January 19, a video was posted to YouTube of Russell County (AL) Probate Judge Alford M. Harden, Jr., and county staff at the Russell County Courthouse encountering a member of the press. Through the encounter, the journalist, identified as Russ, was seemingly ignored by county staff and told that he was unwelcome there.

Russ, who was visiting the courthouse to gauge the reaction of public employees and officials to a member of the public attempting to oversee how tax dollars are put to work, only engaged those who would engage him first. So long as nobody was speaking to him, he stood quietly out of the way and took his video. A couple of employees did appear to show concern about Russ’s presence with a video camera, asking if there was a problem and telling him that he was not allowed to take video in government offices.

Russ operates Georgia Transparency on YouTube and through a websitePhoto byGeorgia Transparency

The “Tag & Tax Office” called for sheriff deputies to appear in response to the taking of the video. When the deputies arrived, they told Russ that he was not allowed to take video even though he was in a public area. They called for a supervisor and followed Russ as he continued to move through the building.

The deputies followed Russ to various offices and stayed with him as the supervisor, Sgt. Amber Lisle, arrived to the scene. At this point, Russ was located in the Probate Judge office and was questioning the charge for copies of documents even if the “copies” were photographs that he would be taking.

Sgt. Lisle stated that she and the sheriff, Heath Taylor, had already discussed the matter and determined that taking video footage in public areas was legal. The Probate Judge staff then advised again that there is a charge of $1.00 per page for copies of any records and that this was set by state statute.

Sgt. Amber Lisle, Russell County (AL) Sheriff's OfficePhoto byScreenshot from YouTube video

Alabama Code § 36-14-3 does state, “The Secretary of State may charge the person for whom the service is rendered…” in discussing fees that can be charged for the reproduction of documents. Subsection (1) of this Section reads, “For reproducing any law or other material where the copy is desired, $1.00 per page, and for the annexation of the seal of the state, $1.50.”

This seems to be the statute to which the staff is referring, even though not even Judge Harden would specify the law under which the fee is being charged, as no other section of the Alabama Code discusses charges for copies of public documents. The purpose of charging for copies is generally to reimburse the office for the expense incurred in making the copy. Russ’s contention through the discussion is that there should be no charge for a photograph of a document taken by a member of the public as there was no work performed or materials used in reproducing the document.

Judge Harden arrived on the scene and confirmed his staff’s understanding of the law and that there would be a charge of $1.00 for the page that Russ “photographed” with his video camera. When Russ disputed the charge since no office time or material was used, Judge Harden stated that, if Russ refused to pay the $1.00 fee, then Russ would need to delete the photo.

If Judge Harden’s contention is correct that the fee is required by state statute, and if Russ refused to pay for the photo that he took himself of a document, then Russ seemingly would be committing a criminal act by not paying the fee. The photograph or video of the document would be evidence of this should the matter be escalated. By stating that Russ would need to delete the photo or video of the document, then Judge Harden seems to be encouraging the destruction of evidence of what he perceives as a crime.

Later in the conversation, Judge Harden seems to take issue with the press taking a look at how his office is operated. The judge “allows” Russ to maintain the video he’s taken without having to pay the fee, but then begins to question Russ about his ties to Russell County. Judge Harden takes the stance that he is indebted to the citizens of Russell County and to no one else in his position.

Proudly proclaiming that he has a copy of the United States Constitution on the wall in his courtroom, his attempts to thwart Russ’s reporting on records in the office, which include marriage records segregated by race, and his seeming issue with “outsiders” seem to indicate a lack of understanding of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution that he states he holds dear.

The First Amendment provides the guarantee of a free press, while the Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection and access.

Acting in a judicial capacity, Judge Harden seems to ignore the wording “for whom the service is rendered” in applying the requirement for a fee to be charged. He further attempts to restrict a journalist’s rights to report on this fact by suggesting that the journalist should pay a fee or delete the video footage. He also indicates that he is prejudiced against those who did not vote him into office.

Finally deciding that the discussion about the fee is over, Judge Harden explains his staff’s concern about the video by implying that Russ may be a terrorist or a pedophile. He then states that he is through talking with Russ after making several accusations about Russ’s motives.

At the end of the conversation between Judge Harden and Russ, the judge, who has seemingly not listened to anything Russ has said even if he had heard it, storms away when he is asked if Russell County is still a part of the United States. As the judge passes, Russ provides his assessment of the judge’s knowledge by stating that he is an “ignorant judge,” a fair assessment in the opinions of many. To this, Judge Harden begins taking his jacket off and turns back toward Russ as if he is going to reapproach and take physical action.

Judge Harden is seen apparently taking offense to Russ's commentPhoto byScreenshot from YouTube video

Sgt. Lisle, to her credit, steps in and makes sure that the judge does not have that opportunity. At this point, though, she seems to take over Judge Harden’s tyrannical tendencies.

Despite several United States Supreme Court rulings that speech critical of public officials is completely acceptable, Sgt. Lisle tells Russ that there will be no “name calling.” While attempting to keep the peace, her statement is seen by many as a chilling restriction on Russ’s First Amendment right to petition for redress of his grievances with the judge.

Moving to another area of the building, where Russ is to attempt to submit an Open Records Request, Sgt. Lisle refuses Russ entry into a public lobby on the premise that there is a couple in there performing what could be private business. Even when Russ questions why they are conducting private business in a public lobby, Sgt. Lisle continues to seemingly violate Alabama Criminal Code § 13A-6-40, which prohibits “intentionally or knowingly restrict a person’s movements unlawfully and without consent, so as to interfere substantially with his liberty…by: a. Physical force, intimidation, or deception…”

Originally upholding Russ’s rights in confirming his legal ability to take video footage in public offices, Sgt. Lisle seemed to take the lead of Judge Harden and refuse to allow Russ to exercise those same rights.

It seems that Judge Harden is, as Russ stated, ignorant of the proper application of the Alabama Code in charging fees for copies of documents, and in the rights of all citizens, regardless of whether they hail from Russell County or not. Further, his actions and speech in seeming to disrespect citizens become contagious and encourage others to violate their oaths of office.