We’re in the process of renewing our contract with our current vendor. They are at 0.05/DID and $0.001/MIN. We have around 54,000 DID. Is anyone getting a better rate out there?
We’re a WISP looking to buy DISH smart Box and Services for one of our commercial clients. Don’t really know anything about it, so looking to partner with someone else on it.
I have a need for a DISH smartbox for an end user with a ~2 week turnaround deadline. Our company does not sell DISH at all, so looking for someone to partner with me on this. Thanks
I have a need for a DISH smartbox for an end user with a ~2 week turnaround deadline. Our company does not sell DISH at all, so looking for someone to partner with me on this. Thanks
Replacing all of the coax cable in a building. Everything terminates to an enclosure that has this connector on the bottom of it. Never seen this connector before. What tool do I need to purchase to be able to open the enclosure? Thanks.
I parked on an incline today and the parking brake normally engages, but it did not engage this time. When I took my foot off the brake, the vehicle launched forward for several inches before it stopped, and you could hear a definite, mechanical impact where something was stopping the vehicle from rolling forward. Then, when I put the vehicle out of park and into reverse, you could hear that mechanical impact disengage. Since this vehicle does not have a transmission in the traditional sense, does it have something that engages to keep the wheels from turning when in park? And how is that any different from a parking brake?
An interesting discussion was had in our company today, and I wanted to see if there were any cellular voice engineers here that could chime in.
Wireless users in certain industries, and in certain government agencies can get access to prioritized telecommunication service. Things like Verizon, Frontline and ATT Firstnet and Tpriority. They can then also layer on top WPS service where they pay extra to the carrier for priority, but only when they dial a special *code prefix before dialing a phone number.
It’s my understanding that 911 calls always get priority, no matter what. It’s my understanding that the network will disconnect an active normal call to free up a line so 911 Call can go through.
But our question was about GETS calling. It’s largely a relic from the landline days. It’s a special phone number in the government area code of 710 that has an auto attendant that asks for a PIN number, and then presents a dial tone for the user to access the PSTN from a high volume Bank of dedicated trunks somewhere in Washington DC.
However, it requires the user to dial that 710 number from their cell phone, and if their cell phone doesn’t have priority, or if the network is just simply congested, will that call go through? Are those 710 area code phone numbers treated with the highest priority the same as a 911 call?
I need to get each of these three capacitors. Where is the best place to get them locally in LA? Thanks
70/7.5 440v
45/7.5 440v
35/5 440v
Edit: This place has them and low cost https://www.fergusonhome.com/
I came across this video and the EMA and SMA strategies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzeHM2qV4lI
For a proper "set it and forget it" strategy where you only buy/sell based on signals, is there any way to get email alerts on these moving averages?
I was planning on using this card for all of my business purchases because of the 3% cashback. But I was just informed by my accountant that there is no way to link the card to QuickBooks to have it automatically flow the transactions. In fact, apparently the transactions can’t even be viewed online, only through a mobile app. Is this accurate? If so, there’s just simply no way to use this card for Business.
Their website works, but no response to online chat requests or email support requests.
In what appears to be a brazen effort to tilt local elections through the criminal justice system, Mobile County Assistant District Attorney Chris McDonough stands accused of weaponizing his office against a political opponent at the behest of higher-ups, including former District Attorney Ashley Rich. Sources close to the case describe a coordinated campaign of selective prosecution, courtroom deception, and backchannel politicking that resulted in the removal of an unopposed constable candidate from the ballot — all while the target had dutifully paid filing fees and faced no other challengers.
[caption id="attachment_1130" align="alignright" width="233"]Mobile County Prosecutor Chris McDonough[/caption]
This is not the impartial administration of justice. This is election interference, Alabama-style, allegedly engineered from within the county prosecutor's office.
According to detailed allegations, McDonough launched an investigation into the constable candidate with clear political motivations. Insiders claim he was acting on direction from District Attorney Ashley Rich's office, turning the machinery of law enforcement against a candidate who threatened the established political order. Rather than allowing voters to decide at the ballot box, prosecutors allegedly moved to eliminate the competition through indictment and disqualification.
The sequence of events raises disturbing questions about the separation between prosecutorial discretion and partisan warfare. After initiating the probe, McDonough is accused of reaching out directly to the Mobile County Republican Party. Party officials, relying on information from the prosecutor's office, then took unprecedented steps to remove the candidate from the ballot. This occurred despite the candidate running unopposed and having complied with all legal requirements, including payment of filing fees. Critics argue this constitutes a direct subversion of the democratic process, using the threat of criminal charges as a cudgel to enforce political conformity.
The prosecution itself has been slammed as malicious. Court filings and hearing transcripts reviewed by multiple parties allege that McDonough engaged in a pattern of false misrepresentations to the court — some described as outright lies designed to prejudice the judge and jury against the defendant.
The most egregious example reportedly unfolded during the bond hearing. McDonough allegedly painted the constable candidate as a dangerous flight risk, urging the court to impose a high cash bond to prevent escape. His purported justification? The candidate had a relative from India.
This claim, sources say, was deployed with dramatic flair to stoke fears of international evasion. Never mind that the candidate had never traveled to India, does not speak any Indian languages, possesses no passport, and has deep roots in the community with no history suggesting flight. Despite these readily verifiable facts, McDonough's arguments reportedly swayed the judge, resulting in an excessively high bond that treated the defendant like a hardened international fugitive rather than a local public servant facing contested charges.
Such tactics erode public trust in the judiciary. When prosecutors fabricate or wildly exaggerate risk factors to deny reasonable bail, they transform pretrial detention into a punitive tool rather than a safeguard. In this case, it allegedly served the dual purpose of humiliating the candidate and disrupting any remaining campaign efforts.
[caption id="attachment_1129" align="alignleft" width="258"]Mobile County Prosecutor Chris McDonough[/caption]
Further undermining confidence in the process, the Mobile County Sheriff's Office was later held in contempt of court for refusing to return property seized during a search warrant authored by McDonough. This extraordinary judicial rebuke points to potential overreach in the initial warrant and a troubling unwillingness by law enforcement to correct course once ordered by the court.
Why the resistance to returning lawfully protected property? Detractors suggest it was part of a broader strategy to keep pressure on the defendant, prolong uncertainty, and perhaps extract a guilty plea from a weary target. The contempt finding raises serious questions about coordination between the prosecutor's office and sheriff's personnel — and whether warrants were issued with incomplete or misleading information.
This episode does not occur in a vacuum. Mobile County's justice system has faced scrutiny before over questions of impartiality, but the alleged targeting of an elected official candidate crosses a dangerous line. Prosecutors wield immense power: the ability to investigate, charge, detain, and destroy reputations. When that power is allegedly directed by political considerations — especially in coordination with party officials — it threatens the very foundations of representative government.
Ashley Rich, who long helmed the District Attorney's office, has not been directly implicated in public statements, but sources insist McDonough was operating under her influence or with her knowledge. The timing, the targeting of an unopposed candidate, and the rapid involvement of the Republican Party all point to a top-down effort rather than a rogue assistant prosecutor. McDonough has built a reputation handling serious cases, including cold cases and victim support initiatives. Yet none of that excuses what witnesses describe as a deliberate effort to rig an election through indictment.
The constable candidate, stripped of his ballot access and saddled with serious charges, continues to fight the accusations, maintaining innocence and pointing to procedural abuses. Supporters call for an independent investigation by the Alabama Attorney General's office or the U.S. Department of Justice into civil rights violations and election law breaches.
This case demands transparency. Voters deserve to know if their local prosecutor's office has become a political hit squad. Elected officials, party leaders, and the judiciary must answer hard questions:
What evidence justified opening the investigation in the first place?
Why contact the Republican Party directly regarding an active criminal probe?
On what factual basis was the "flight risk" argument made, given the complete absence of international ties or travel history?
Why did the Sheriff's Office defy a court order on property return?
Until these questions receive satisfactory answers, the shadow of election interference will hang over Mobile County. Chris McDonough and those who allegedly directed him owe the public a full accounting. If the allegations hold, this was not mere prosecutorial zeal — it was a corrupt abuse of authority aimed at disenfranchising voters and punishing political participation.
[caption id="attachment_1130" align="alignright" width="233"]Mobile County Prosecutor Chris McDonough[/caption]
The people of Mobile County, and indeed all Alabamians who value fair elections, should demand better. Justice cannot be selective. The rule of law cannot be a weapon. And elections must be decided by citizens at the ballot box — not by assistant district attorneys in backroom dealings. The eyes of the state are now on Mobile. Any cover-up or further stonewalling will only deepen the scandal.
Former Mobile County District Court Judge Joe Basenberg has resurfaced far from the Alabama courthouse where critics say his brief judicial career became a case study in political appointment, questionable judgment, and the dangers of putting an inexperienced criminal-law novice in control of people’s freedom.
Basenberg, now listed in public legal profiles with a Longmont, Colorado location, left the Mobile County bench after deciding not to seek another term. To his critics, that exit was not a quiet retirement. It was an escape from accountability after a controversial tenure that drew fire from citizens, defendants, attorneys, and law-enforcement observers who questioned whether he ever belonged in a criminal courtroom in the first place.
[caption id="attachment_1124" align="alignright" width="112"]Judge Joe Basenberg[/caption]
Basenberg was appointed in 2013 by then-Gov. Robert Bentley to fill a Mobile County District Court vacancy. Bentley would later be arrested, impeached, and removed from office for corruption. At the time, his own former law firm described his background as “general civil litigation and admiralty,” along with transactional work, product liability, and mass tort cases... not criminal defense, prosecution, or criminal procedure. Hand Arendall’s announcement praised his long civil-law career, but that praise only sharpened later criticism: Mobile County District Court is not a maritime-law seminar. It is a high-volume front door of the criminal justice system.
Under Alabama law, district courts have exclusive original trial jurisdiction over most misdemeanors and handle felony preliminary hearings. Alabama Code § 12-12-32 gives district courts misdemeanor trial authority and felony preliminary-hearing authority, while Alabama Code § 15-11-2 gives district courts exclusive jurisdiction over felony preliminary hearings. In plain English: district judges decide whether people sit in jail, whether felony cases advance, whether misdemeanor defendants are convicted, and whether ordinary citizens are dragged deeper into the system.
Critics say Basenberg entered that job with the wrong résumé and the wrong preparation. According to accounts from the time of his appointment, Basenberg acknowledged he had not practiced criminal law, had not represented criminal defendants, had not attended criminal trials, and would need to spend significant time learning the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. For critics, that was not humility. It was a flashing warning light.
One of the harshest criticisms comes from a man who says Basenberg convicted him in a misdemeanor harassing-communications case after he wrote a demand letter arising from a business dispute. According to the man, the letter was not a threat but a civil demand seeking resolution from a business. He says Basenberg initially recognized the letter for what it was, but prosecutors ultimately persuaded the judge to treat it as criminal conduct. Basenberg convicted him and sentenced him to 30 days in jail, suspended to serve five days, according to the man’s account. The conviction was appealed and later overturned in Mobile County Circuit Court, and the man says he never served jail time.
That case, critics argue, reflects the central complaint against Basenberg: a civil lawyer turned criminal judge who allegedly allowed prosecutors to stretch a business dispute into a criminal conviction.
The same man says his concerns about Basenberg grew worse years later. After filing a small-claims case that landed before Basenberg, he moved for the judge to recuse himself, believing Basenberg remained biased because of the overturned misdemeanor conviction and prior courtroom friction. Basenberg agreed to step aside in that civil matter, according to the man. To critics, that recusal was telling. If Basenberg recognized a conflict or appearance of bias in a small-claims case, they ask, why did he later remain involved when the same man appeared before him on serious felony allegations?
According to the man, Basenberg later set a cash bond of more than $600,000 and refused to allow use of a bail bondsman, despite the man having no prior felony convictions. The man says he spent about three weeks in jail before the case was transferred to another judge, who sharply reduced the bond to roughly $150,000 and allowed a bondsman. Critics call that sequence one of the clearest examples of alleged bias from the bench: a judge who had previously stepped aside later making a bond decision that effectively kept the defendant locked up.
Basenberg’s supporters may argue judges must make hard calls, particularly in serious felony cases. But critics say the problem is not merely that he set a high bond. The problem is the broader pattern: a judge with limited criminal-law background, a prior history with the defendant, an earlier recusal, and then a bond decision that another judge later dramatically softened.
Basenberg also drew public attention in 2020 when he ended a bond hearing after a defendant yawned during court proceedings. Reporting on the incident said Basenberg called the behavior “insolent” and postponed the hearing until the next day. KVIA, carrying CNN/WALA reporting, reported that Basenberg told the defendant to “continue his nap.” To some, the incident showed a judge demanding respect for the courtroom. To others, it showed a temperament problem: a judge willing to delay a liberty hearing over a yawn.
Basenberg’s legal profile remains tied to civil litigation, admiralty and maritime law, business, and personal injury, not criminal law. Avvo lists him as licensed in Alabama for decades, with practice areas including litigation, admiralty and maritime, personal injury, and business. That background may have made him a respected civil lawyer. It did not necessarily make him ready to preside over misdemeanor trials, felony preliminary hearings, bond disputes, and defendants whose liberty depended on his understanding of criminal procedure.
That is the heart of the Basenberg controversy. Mobile County did not merely get a judge who made unpopular rulings. It got a judge critics say was elevated into a criminal-heavy court without the criminal-law experience the job demanded. And when the criticism mounted, he did not face voters again. He left the bench, left Alabama, and is now associated with Colorado.
For critics, the story of Joe Basenberg is not just about one former judge. It is about a judicial appointment system that can place politically connected lawyers into criminal courtrooms where mistakes are not academic. They cost people money, freedom, jobs, families, and reputations. Basenberg may be gone from Mobile County, but the questions raised by his tenure remain: Who vetted him? Why was criminal-law experience treated as optional? And how many defendants paid the price while he learned the rules from the bench?
I am seeing quite a bit of news sites popping up that are entirely AI created. They appear to be ranking pretty well in Google also. Most of them appeared to be taking articles from national news sites and rewriting them on random other websites. Most of these websites have strange names that have nothing to do with News.
But I’m actually seeing some local news sites that are popping up appearing to do the same thing. As an example, a local TV station Will post an article about a deadly crash at a certain intersection. Or, an article about a house fire. These are hyper local news stories for a specific city or community. Many times, the news article is based upon information that came from a Police or fire department press release.
Are there any copyright laws or guidance on where the sites fall within copyright law? I’m aware of the fair use doctrine and the news reporting exception to copyright law. The AI writing these articles appears to be rewriting everything about the article, so there are no quotes or copy and paste it sentences, the article is entirely new and rewritten, it just simply incorporates the same ideas as the original article.
An Alabama orthodontist is coming under fire after a series of public customer reviews raised serious concerns about the way patients are allegedly treated after signing up for braces. The complaints, posted by parents and patients, paint a troubling picture of an orthodontic office where families say they paid thousands of dollars expecting attentive, doctor-led care, only to later feel ignored, rushed, or handed off to staff members they believed were not providing the level of professionalism they expected.
The criticism centers on Dr. Bennett and Bennett Orthodontics, where reviewers allege that the orthodontist may be highly visible during the sales or consultation stage, but far less involved once treatment begins. Multiple complaints suggest that patients rarely saw the doctor for meaningful periods of time, or saw him only briefly during appointments. That allegation strikes at the heart of orthodontic care. Braces are not a cosmetic impulse purchase; they are a long-term medical and dental treatment plan involving children, families, bite alignment, tooth movement, oral health, and thousands of dollars in financial commitment.
One of the strongest themes running through the complaints is the claim that families felt they were sold into expensive treatment and then left to rely heavily on staff for the actual hands-on work. Parents who bring their children to an orthodontist are not just buying brackets and wires. They are relying on a licensed professional to supervise treatment, evaluate progress, catch problems, and personally ensure that the plan is being carried out properly. When customers begin saying the doctor was barely present, the concern becomes larger than bad customer service. It becomes a question of trust.
[caption id="attachment_1067" align="alignright" width="640"]Todd Bennett Orthodontist in Mobile AL[/caption]
One reviewer warned others to “GET A SECOND OPINION,” stating that a dentist and two other orthodontists allegedly told her that one of her children did not need braces, only for Bennett Orthodontics to recommend otherwise. That kind of complaint is especially damaging because it suggests that some families may question whether treatment recommendations were always necessary or whether high-dollar contracts were being pushed too aggressively. The reviewer still described Dr. Bennett as caring and having good bedside manner, but the underlying warning was clear: kindness at the front end does not erase the need for careful, independent verification before agreeing to years of treatment.
Another parent described the office as expensive and claimed that Dr. Bennett was friendly at first to persuade the family into a contract, but that the experience changed after braces were already installed. According to that review, the child later received care from staff the parent described as unprofessional. The same reviewer alleged that a staff member chipped the child’s tooth during cleaning and offered no apology. If accurate, that kind of allegation is not a minor scheduling complaint. A chipped tooth is permanent damage, and families have every right to expect transparency, accountability, and immediate concern when something goes wrong during dental or orthodontic care.
The sanitation-related allegations are also disturbing. One reviewer claimed that staff members handled their hair, touched jewelry, picked items up from the floor, and then used the same gloves inside a patient’s mouth. The reviewer said this was not a one-time issue and that she raised concerns repeatedly. In any dental setting, glove discipline and infection-control practices are basic expectations. Patients and parents should not have to police whether staff are maintaining sanitary procedures before putting their hands into someone’s mouth.
Another complaint came from a patient who said she repeatedly asked for a bracket to be repositioned on a front tooth, only to feel that her concern was brushed aside. Her review stated that the office “circle[d] around” the complaint each time. Bennett Orthodontics responded publicly, saying it was sorry to hear about the discomfort and wanted the patient to call so the office could investigate, while also saying it did not recognize the case from the information provided. That response may be standard customer-service language, but to frustrated patients, it can feel like another layer of deflection: a public apology without a public answer.
The complaints also raise concerns about the office’s online reputation. One parent questioned how the practice accumulated so many five-star reviews and alleged that, immediately after her child’s braces were removed, a staff member texted her asking her to leave a review right then. The parent suggested that asking for a review at the emotional high point, after the braces come off and the child sees the final smile, may pressure families into giving glowing feedback before fully weighing the months or years of frustration that came before. That allegation matters because online reviews are one of the main ways parents choose medical and dental providers. If review requests are timed in a way that captures excitement but suppresses criticism, the public picture may not reflect the full patient experience.
[caption id="attachment_1066" align="alignleft" width="348"]Todd Bennett Orthodontist in Mobile AL[/caption]
Another reviewer made an even broader allegation, claiming that minority customers may receive poorer treatment at the clinic. That is a serious claim and should not be treated lightly. It is also the kind of allegation that demands scrutiny, because families seeking medical or dental care should never have to wonder whether race or background affects the level of attention their child receives. The reviewer's statement is an allegation based on her experience, but it adds to the larger pattern of customers saying they felt disrespected, dismissed, or treated differently after committing to treatment.
Taken together, the reviews describe a practice where some families felt the front-end sales experience did not match the long-term care experience. That is one of the most common and most serious complaints in high-cost health-related services: the provider is warm and persuasive before the contract is signed, but once the patient is financially committed, the attention allegedly fades. In orthodontics, that dynamic can be especially frustrating because families cannot easily walk away after braces are installed. Switching providers can be expensive, complicated, and disruptive. Parents may feel trapped, even when they are unhappy.
The financial pressure cannot be ignored. Orthodontic care often costs thousands of dollars, and parents frequently stretch budgets, finance treatment, or make monthly payments because they believe they are investing in their child’s health and confidence. When those same parents later say they waited more than an hour, barely saw the orthodontist, dealt with staff problems, or felt their concerns were ignored, the anger is understandable. They are not complaining about a cheap service or a one-time inconvenience. They are describing a long-term treatment relationship that they believe failed to meet basic expectations.
The most damaging part of these complaints is not any single review. It is the pattern. One person complains about rushed or insufficient doctor involvement. Another complains about staff professionalism. Another complains about sanitation. Another complains about being pressured for a review. Another complains about high prices and feeling trapped after braces were already placed. Another says a concern about bracket placement was repeatedly avoided. Each complaint may be disputed individually, but together they raise a question that prospective patients should take seriously: is this an office where the patient remains the priority after the contract is signed?
Bennett Orthodontics may deny these allegations, and online reviews alone do not prove misconduct. Any business can receive unfair reviews, exaggerated complaints, or one-sided criticism. But when the business is a healthcare provider working inside children’s mouths, the standard is higher. A pattern of complaints involving sanitation, rushed doctor oversight, staff conduct, alleged damage to a tooth, and perceived pressure to leave positive reviews deserves more than a canned response. It deserves direct answers.
Families considering treatment should ask pointed questions before signing anything. How often will Dr. Bennett personally examine the patient? How long does a typical doctor evaluation last? Who performs wire changes, adjustments, cleanings, scans, and bracket work? What training and credentials do those staff members have? What happens if a parent believes a bracket is misplaced? What is the process for reporting a sanitation concern? If a tooth is damaged during treatment, how is that handled? Can a family transfer care without being financially punished? Are reviews requested in the office, and if so, when?
Parents should also get a second opinion before agreeing to braces, especially if the need for treatment is not obvious or if another dentist has said braces may not be necessary. A second opinion is not an insult to any orthodontist. It is common sense. Orthodontic treatment can affect a child’s mouth for years and cost a family a substantial amount of money. No parent should feel rushed, pressured, or charmed into a contract without understanding whether the treatment is truly needed and who will actually be providing the care.
[caption id="attachment_1065" align="alignright" width="200"]Todd Bennett Orthodontist in Mobile AL[/caption]
The public complaints against Bennett Orthodontics should serve as a warning to families across Alabama: do not judge an orthodontic practice solely by its smiling photos, polished marketing, or high review average. Read the negative reviews. Look for patterns. Ask whether the doctor is truly involved throughout the process or mainly present at the beginning. Pay attention to how the office responds when concerns are raised. A beautiful smile at the end of treatment does not excuse poor communication, questionable staff practices, or a patient experience that leaves families feeling ignored.
For an orthodontic office, trust is everything. Parents are handing over their children, their money, and their confidence that a licensed professional will provide careful care over months or years. If customers are saying they rarely saw the orthodontist, paid high prices, dealt with unprofessional staff, questioned sanitation, or felt pressured into positive reviews, those allegations deserve public attention. At minimum, they demand that prospective patients slow down, ask hard questions, and get another opinion before signing a contract they may later regret.
[caption id="attachment_1078" align="alignleft" width="470"]Customer Complaints Against Todd Bennett Orthodontist[/caption][caption id="attachment_1072" align="alignleft" width="470"]Customer Complaints Against Todd Bennett Orthodontist[/caption][caption id="attachment_1077" align="aligncenter" width="470"]Customer Complaints Against Todd Bennett Orthodontist[/caption][caption id="attachment_1076" align="alignleft" width="470"]Customer Complaints Against Todd Bennett Orthodontist[/caption][caption id="attachment_1075" align="alignleft" width="470"]Customer Complaints Against Todd Bennett Orthodontist[/caption][caption id="attachment_1074" align="alignleft" width="470"]Customer Complaints Against Todd Bennett Orthodontist[/caption][caption id="attachment_1073" align="alignleft" width="470"]Customer Complaints Against Todd Bennett Orthodontist[/caption]
Herbert Earl “Zeke” Aull did not leave the University of South Alabama Police Department with a celebratory farewell. After more than a decade as chief, Aull was placed on paid administrative leave amid serious allegations involving sexual harassment and misuse of his authority. Two months later, while an internal investigation remained underway, he resigned.
[video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://wynnfieldmobile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/University-of-South-[Alabama](https://wynnfieldmobile.com/alabama-orthodontist-faces-mounting-scrutiny-as-families-allege-rushed-doctor-visits-high-costs-and-troubling-patient-care/)\-police-chief-placed-on-leave-ba1GnasU6LY.mp4"\]\[/video\]
The publicly reported record does not establish that Aull was formally fired. It shows something nearly as consequential: a police chief removed from active command and ultimately gone from office while facing allegations that struck at the heart of his integrity as a public official.
Aull had led the campus police department since 2010 and was earning more than $101,000 annually when his career at the university abruptly unraveled. On June 8, 2022, the university announced that he had been placed on administrative leave pending resolution of what it called a “personnel matter.” Capt. Phil Fishel was immediately installed as interim chief. FOX10 reported that a contract employee had accused Aull of sexual harassment.
The accusations did not stop there.
According to a source cited by FOX10, the contract employee also alleged that Aull violated university policies involving employee pay, the hiring of contractors, the use of student workers and unauthorized remote work. Those allegations raised questions extending far beyond inappropriate personal behavior. They implicated Aull’s administration of personnel, public resources and the authority entrusted to him as the leader of a law-enforcement agency.
A police chief occupies a position that demands exceptional judgment. The chief controls assignments, influences hiring, oversees discipline and exercises substantial authority over employees whose careers may depend on remaining in the chief’s favor. Allegations of sexual harassment in that environment are therefore not merely a private workplace dispute. They raise fundamental concerns about power, vulnerability and whether employees could safely challenge the person commanding the department.
A separate warning had already surfaced when, as NBC15 reported, an officer filed an ethics complaint against Aull. The existence of a complaint does not prove every allegation it contains, but it demonstrates that concerns about Aull’s conduct had become serious enough for someone inside law enforcement to take them outside the department’s ordinary chain of command.
[video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://wynnfieldmobile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Officer-files-ethics-complaint-against-U.-of-South-Alabama-Police-Chief-NBC-15-WPMI-LVPiVP-rD4M.mp4"\]\[/video\]
That distinction matters. Police organizations are built around rank, loyalty and obedience. Filing a formal complaint against a sitting chief can carry enormous professional risk. When an officer is willing to attach a name and career to such a challenge, the public deserves to know precisely what was alleged, how the complaint was investigated and what conclusions were reached.
Instead, the university revealed little.
When Aull was placed on leave, the university confirmed only that a personnel matter was pending. Aull declined to comment to FOX10. The institution’s silence may have reflected employment-law concerns, but it also left students, employees and taxpayers without meaningful answers about the man entrusted with policing their campus.
Then came the resignation.
On August 9, 2022, Aull resigned effective immediately. An email from Dr. Mike Mitchell, the university’s vice president for student affairs and dean of students, confirmed the departure. Fishel remained in interim command, and the university announced that it would search for a permanent replacement. FOX10 described the resignation as occurring amid the internal investigation.
Aull’s resignation ended his authority, but it did not answer the central questions surrounding his departure. The cited reports do not disclose whether investigators substantiated the sexual-harassment accusation, whether university policies were found to have been violated or how the ethics complaint was ultimately resolved. Nor do they indicate whether the university completed and preserved a final investigative report after Aull resigned.
That lack of closure is deeply unsatisfactory.
[caption id="attachment_1085" align="alignright" width="527"]Herbert Earl "Zeke" Aull[/caption]
Resignation should not become an institutional escape hatch that allows serious allegations against a powerful public employee to disappear from view. The public interest does not evaporate when the subject of an investigation hands in a resignation letter. If anything, an abrupt departure during an investigation makes transparency more important.
Aull was not an obscure employee working beyond public view. He was the chief of a sworn police agency with statewide law-enforcement authority. He drew a six-figure salary from a public university and exercised authority over officers, contractors and student workers. The standards applied to his conduct should have been at least as demanding as those his own department imposed on students and employees.
The university owed its community more than the sterile phrase “personnel matter.” It owed students and employees an accounting of whether their police department had been administered fairly, whether anyone experienced retaliation, whether public resources were misused and whether safeguards failed beneath Aull’s leadership.
The allegations against Aull remain allegations unless supported by official findings. Fairness requires saying that plainly. But fairness does not require pretending that his departure was routine. A chief placed on leave amid allegations of sexual harassment and policy violations, following a separately reported ethics complaint, and then resigning during the resulting investigation is not the story of an ordinary retirement. It is the collapse of a public official’s command under a cloud of unanswered questions.
Aull’s badge and title are gone. The demand for accountability should not have disappeared with them.
Less than three months after resigning as University of South Alabama police chief amid an internal investigation, Herbert Earl “Zeke” Aull began working inside a State Farm insurance office in Daphne, Alabama.
As of June 27, 2026, State Farm’s official website identifies Aull as a licensed “Account Representative” working for State Farm independent contractor agent Mitch Kitchens. Aull’s biography says he joined Kitchens’ office in October 2022, approximately two months after his August 9 resignation from the university. He is listed under Alabama insurance license number 3002201370. State Farm’s page says Aull helps customers review auto, homeowners and life-insurance needs.
That swift transition from a police command engulfed in controversy to a customer-facing insurance position raises legitimate questions about the background-review procedures employed by Kitchens’ office and the safeguards State Farm requires before someone is permitted to work under its nationally recognized name.
Aull was placed on paid administrative leave in June 2022 after a contract employee accused him of sexual harassment, according to FOX10’s reporting. The same source alleged that Aull violated university policies concerning pay, contractor hiring, student workers and unauthorized remote work. A separate NBC15 report said an officer had filed an ethics complaint against him.
[video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://wynnfieldmobile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Officer-files-ethics-complaint-against-U.-of-South-Alabama-Police-Chief-NBC-15-WPMI-LVPiVP-rD4M.mp4"\]\[/video\]
Those allegations were not reported as criminal convictions or final administrative findings. Aull declined to comment when FOX10 reported his suspension, and the University of South Alabama publicly described the investigation only as a personnel matter. The available reports do not reveal whether every allegation was substantiated.
Nevertheless, this was not an ordinary career change.
Aull resigned while the internal investigation was pending after serving as chief since 2010 and earning more than $101,000 annually. His departure left significant questions about his management of employees and institutional resources. Just weeks later, he entered an industry founded on trust, confidentiality and responsible handling of customers’ personal affairs.
According to his published biography, Aull offers to help customers review insurance needs involving their automobiles, homes and lives. Those conversations can concern property, family members, beneficiaries, driving histories, coverage limits and personal financial responsibilities.
There is no evidence in the cited sources that Aull has misused State Farm customer information or violated insurance laws. But consumers are entitled to ask what scrutiny preceded his appointment and whether the circumstances surrounding his departure from the university were examined.
Did Kitchens’ office know that Aull had been placed on leave amid sexual-harassment and policy-violation allegations?
Did Aull disclose the pending investigation and the circumstances of his resignation?
Did State Farm conduct any review beyond confirming that he possessed an Alabama insurance license?
Were the NBC15 ethics complaint and FOX10 reports considered when determining whether Aull was an appropriate person to represent customers under the State Farm name?
The public pages reviewed do not answer those questions.
The Alabama Department of Insurance requires resident producer applicants to undergo fingerprinting for state and federal criminal-history checks. It also requires applicants to pass an examination and satisfy licensing qualifications. Aull’s presence on State Farm’s page with a license number indicates that he passed through the state licensing process.
That does not necessarily mean his entire professional history was investigated.
[video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://wynnfieldmobile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/University-of-South-Alabama-police-chief-placed-on-leave-ba1GnasU6LY.mp4"\]\[/video\]
A criminal-background check is designed principally to identify arrests, charges and convictions reported through state and federal criminal-history systems. It may not reveal unresolved employment allegations, internal university investigations, ethics complaints that did not result in criminal charges, or the circumstances surrounding a resignation.
This distinction is critical. A person may satisfy the minimum legal requirements for an insurance license while still presenting reputational or supervisory concerns that a prudent employer should examine independently.
Alabama law permits regulatory action against a producer for dishonest practices or demonstrated untrustworthiness in conducting insurance business. But the allegations involving Aull concerned his previous public employment, not reported conduct in the insurance industry. That may explain why the allegations did not prevent licensing, but it does not eliminate the need for meaningful hiring scrutiny.
State Farm describes its local agents as independent contractors. According to the company, those agents hire their own employees, make employment decisions and remain responsible for their offices’ operations. That structure suggests Mitch Kitchens, rather than State Farm’s corporate human-resources department, may have made the decision to hire Aull.
But the separation is unlikely to satisfy consumers completely.
[caption id="attachment_1085" align="alignright" width="527"]Herbert Earl "Zeke" Aull[/caption]
Aull is displayed on an official State Farm webpage. He works from an office carrying State Farm’s trademarks and sells or services State Farm-branded insurance products. Customers walking through the door are unlikely to distinguish between an independent contractor’s employee and a corporate employee. They see State Farm.
When a company lends its name, systems and reputation to thousands of independently operated offices, it assumes an obligation to impose meaningful standards for the people presented to customers as representatives of that brand. Allowing each agent to make hiring decisions does not resolve the larger question of what oversight the insurer exercises after those decisions are made.
Aull’s published biography emphasizes more than 30 years in law enforcement and describes that experience as evidence of his commitment to service. It says nothing about his administrative leave, the sexual-harassment allegation, the reported policy-violation accusations, the ethics complaint or his resignation during an internal investigation.
A biography need not catalog every controversy in a person’s career. But presenting Aull’s law-enforcement history exclusively as a credential, while omitting the highly public circumstances under which that career ended, creates an incomplete portrait for prospective customers.
The timing makes the omission more striking. Aull’s biography says he joined Kitchens’ team in October 2022. FOX10 reported his resignation on August 9, 2022. This was not a decades-old controversy buried deep in an employment history. It was a public and recent event when he entered the insurance business.
None of this proves that Aull is legally disqualified from selling or servicing insurance. The reported allegations were not criminal convictions, and the available news reports do not establish that he committed insurance misconduct.
The issue is transparency and judgment.
[caption id="attachment_1091" align="alignright" width="300"]Herbert Earl "Zeke" Aull[/caption]
Customers entrust insurance professionals with decisions affecting their homes, businesses, vehicles and families. They have a reasonable expectation that those professionals have undergone more than the narrowest possible regulatory screening.
Mitch Kitchens and State Farm should explain what background-review standards were applied, whether Aull’s departure from the University of South Alabama was disclosed and what controls govern his access to customer records. The Alabama Department of Insurance should also be able to confirm the current status and authorized lines of Aull’s license.
Aull’s move from a police department investigation to a State Farm office may be lawful. But legality is only the starting point. For an industry that sells trust as much as it sells policies, the public is entitled to know who was watching the door.
Just got a dump of over 40 hours of bodycam video of a SWAT standoff that lasted 3 days. There’s no way that I have time to go through all of the video and pull out or find things of importance. If this were documents, it would be very easy to upload these to an AI tool and get summaries or ask it to find important parts. Is anyone aware of a tool that will do this for long video? For context, this is hundreds of gigs of video, but we can convert it to a much lower resolution for upload, and then use the AI tool to find the important parts to use in the full resolution video.
Just got a dump of over 40 hours of bodycam video of a SWAT standoff that lasted 3 days. There’s no way that I have time to go through all of the video and pull out or find things of importance. If this were documents, it would be very easy to upload these to an AI tool and get summaries or ask it to find important parts. Is anyone aware of a tool that will do this for long video? For context, this is hundreds of gigs of video, but we can convert it to a much lower resolution for upload, and then use the AI tool to find the important parts in the full resolution video.