DOCUMENT 41
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/24/2018 2:05 PM
02-CC-2018-000834.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
STATE OF ALABAMA

)
)
) Case No.:
)
)
)

V.
BRADY MANDY NICOLE
Defendant.
I.

CC-2018-000834.00

ORDER RE: SHOW CAUSE HEARING

II.
Declaration that Alabama Acts 1992-227, 2004-636, 2010-438, 2012-535, 2013-193, Ala.
Code § 12-19-72, Ala. Code § 32-5A-191, and any other Alabama act or statute that requires
the Mobile County Circuit Clerk to remit costs collected in Mobile County—from litigation
taking place within Mobile County—to the state general fund is unconstitutional as applied.
III.

INJUNCTION DIRECTED TO THE MOBILE COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK
AND THE PRESIDING JUDGE, 13TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
__________

I.

ORDER RE: SHOW CAUSE HEARING

A.
Background. Before this court on September 12, 2018 appeared the Circuit Clerk of
Mobile County, Alabama and the Warden of the Metro Jail, Mobile County Sheriff’s Office. Their
appearances were in response to a “show cause” order entered by this Court in the instant
case, State of Alabama v. Brandy Nicole Brady. Testimony was obtained from the Mobile County
Circuit Clerk, Ms. Jo Schwarzauer, and from Metro Jail Warden, N. Price Oliver, III. Court Exhibits
1 through 9A were also entered into evidence.
The background for this hearing is that Brandy Nicole Brady was indicted by the Grand Jury of
Mobile County in December of 2017 for alleged trafficking in methamphetamine in violation of
Ala. Code 13A-12-231(11)(a). See Clerk's record, Doc. 1 (Indictment). Per that statute and her
existing criminal record, Ms. Brady is subject to enhanced punishment per the habitual felony
offender act. Her meth trafficking case was set for a jury trial on Monday, August 27, 2018 at
9:00 a.m. However, despite that this Court revoked her existing bond 11 days before her
scheduled trial-- based on new charges Ms. Brady had picked up-- and despite that she was in
custody and in handcuffs when said bond was revoked-- she did not appear for her scheduled
trial on August 27th. See Clerk's record, Doc.s 25 and 27.
Therefore, because an accused meth trafficker with a prior criminal history was somehow let
out of jail despite my order to the contrary from 11 days before her trial, this Court issued a

 DOCUMENT 41

“show cause” order to the Clerk of the Mobile County Circuit Court, and to the Warden of the
Mobile County Metro Jail to ascertain what happened and why. See Clerk’s record, Doc. 32.
B.
Show Cause Hearing. The Warden for the Metro jail initially responded to the “show
cause” order by e-mail stating that the jail did not find where an order to revoke Mandy Nicole
Brady’s bond was ever sent to the jail by the clerk. See Court’s Exhibit 9. However, an e-mail is
not sworn testimony; it is hearsay. Thus, this Court subpoenaed the Warden to appear, and
Warden Oliver testified to what was contained in his e-mail at the show cause hearing. Simply
put, based on what happened, it was not the Warden nor the jail’s fault that this woman was
set free.
A response to my “show cause” order was also sent by the Mobile County Circuit Clerk via email, stating that Ms. Brady’s mistaken release was in large part due to the lack of personnel in
the Clerk’s office, and the lack of personnel was because of a lack of adequate funding. Since emails are hearsay, Ms. Schwarzauer was asked to testify at the show cause hearing about what
happened that let Mandy Brady get out of jail, and she did. The Clerk testified in sum, that
funding shortfalls have left her office in a position whereby her office is short-staffed to the
point she does not have sufficient experienced trained personnel to handle the workload of this
circuit, and that this was the reason the criminal defendant in this case walked out of jail.
Ms. Schwarzauer testified about a manpower study done by the Alabama Administrative Office
of Courts, whereby the AOC found that the Mobile County Circuit Clerk’s office was supposed to
have 57.7 people working in it during Fiscal year (FY) 2016 (the latest numbers available). See
Court’s Exhibit 6. However, due to funding shortfalls and associated layoffs that have taken
place, the Mobile County Circuit Clerk only has 38 people now. Per this study from the Alabama
Administrative Office of Courts, our circuit clerk is currently short 19.7 folks. Id. Moreover, at
her current inadequate funding level, she cannot compete with local offices like the District
Attorney and the Probate Court when it comes to hiring and at times retaining qualified
employees. See Show Cause Hearing Transcript, p. 17, lines 3-25; p. 18 line 1 to p. 19, line 20; p.
38, lines 1-10.
Ms. Schwarzauer further testified that she, as the Mobile County Circuit Clerk, has the statutory
duty to support Circuit Courts per Ala. Code § 12-17-94 and to support the District Courts per
Ala. Code § 12-17-160. See Court’s Exhibits 3 and 4. Despite these mandates, the lack of
reasonable and adequate funding for her office has adversely impacted the Clerk’s ability to
perform her legal duties.
Ms. Schwarzauer further testified about statistics supporting her claims. Per Court’s Exhibit 7
and manpower studies contained therein, Circuit Courts in Mobile County had 26,373 cases
filed in FY 2016, which is an average case load of 2398 cases per each of the 11 circuit judges. In
comparison, the 10th Judicial Circuit in Jefferson County (Birmingham Division), with 23 circuit
judges in it, had 21,842 cases filed in FY 2016 which was 950 cases per circuit judge.

 DOCUMENT 41

In the four (non-juvenile) 13th Judicial Circuit District Courts, which the Mobile County Circuit
Clerk must also support per Ala. Code § 12-17-160, things are even worse off. The District
Courts in Mobile County had 40,292 cases filed in FY 2016, which equals 10,073 cases per judge.
In comparison, The Jefferson County District Court, Birmingham Division, had 50,848 cases filed,
which equates to 5,085 cases per district judge.
The Clerk then discussed the plight of one District Judge, Hon. Joe Basenberg, who has been
forced to hold dockets in court by himself—ALONE—because his one judicial assistant was
away from work ill and the Circuit Clerk’s office was so short-staffed that it had no one that
could support him. The Clerk testified that when she was properly staffed, personnel from a
fully and adequately funded clerk’s office used to sit with the District Judges in court when they
had docket, and enter orders and such as required (and still required by) Ala. Code §§ 12-17-94
and 12-17-160. Per her testimony at the show cause hearing on September 12th, the lack of
reasonable and adequate funding has prevented this.
Lastly, Ms. Schwarzauer testified that with only 38 persons on staff to support the workload for
the Mobile County Circuit and District Courts, which was a combined 66,665 cases per Court’s
exhibit 7, pages 3 and 4, the Mobile County Circuit Clerk is in imminent danger of not fulfilling
her constitutional and statutory duties. She further recounted other times where defendants
accused of crimes even worse than meth trafficking, had walked out of jail by mistake due to
problems within her office.
The sum of the Mobile County Circuit Clerk’s testimony at the show cause hearing—in plain
English—is this:
Orders such as the bond revocation in the instant case are not being processed properly;
judges both circuit and district are not being supported despite statutory mandates; and
this is because the Mobile County Circuit Clerk is not adequately and reasonably funded.
C.
Court Costs and Fees Imposed on Mobile County Litigants. Despite that their Circuit
Clerk’s office is short-staffed and overwhelmed, the citizens of Mobile County are charged
consistently for access to their court system. In fact, the State of Alabama has enacted court
cost bills that resulted in Mobile County civil litigants, as well as Mobile County criminal
defendant litigants, paying over $7M in case fees and costs in FY 16 (the latest numbers
available). See Court’s Exhibit 8. At the show cause hearing on September 12th, Ms.
Schwarzauer was asked about these court costs and court imposed fees.
She testified that she is required to collect fees and costs from Mobile County litigants per
various court cost bills that have been enacted into law by the State of Alabama. The Clerk was
shown Court’s Exhibit 8, which documents that the Mobile County Circuit Clerk collected
$7,085,354.88 in FY 2016 from litigants appearing in Mobile County Circuit and District Courts.
She was asked about filing fees generated by one such line item on that exhibit, Alabama
Statute 1992-227, which was House Bill 605. Per Exhibit 8, that bill alone generated

 DOCUMENT 41

$244,782.63 in combined filing fees from litigants in Mobile County. Ms. Schwarzauer was then
shown the language in HB 605/Alabama Act 1992-227, in which the legislature declared the that
stated intent of that Act:
“It is the intent of the Legislature that the funds generated by the fee increases provided
for in this bill shall first be used to maintain on the district and circuit court and Clerks of
Courts payrolls of Court the positions jeopardized by proration in the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1992.”
See http://arc-sos.state.al.us/cgi/actdetail.mbr/detail?year=1992&act=227&page=subject
(visited September 12, 2018).
Indeed, this Court takes judicial notice of the fact that there are many such acts and statutes
that require the Mobile County Circuit Clerk to remit costs collected in Mobile County—from
litigants in Mobile County--to the state general fund. These include but are not limited to
Alabama Acts 1992-227, 2004-636, 2010-438, 2012-535, 2013-193, Ala. Code § 12-19-72 (circuit
and district court filing fee – distribution), and Ala. Code § 32-5A-191 (court fines imposed for
DUI).
If one looks at just what was collected in Mobile County last fiscal year, this means that Mobile
County litigants funded 70.85% of the entire State judicial FY 2017 budget.
Making citizens pay for access to their court systems via court costs and fees imposed, and then
taking those fees and using them for extra-judicial purposes--leaving the court clerks
underfunded to where access to the court system is restricted or reduced-- must certainly be
unconstitutional.
II.
Declaration that Alabama Acts 1992-227, 2004-636, 2010-438, 2012-535, 2013-193, Ala.
Code § 12-19-72, Ala. Code § 32-5A-191, and any other Alabama act or statute that requires
the Mobile County Circuit Clerk to remit costs collected in Mobile County—from litigation
taking place within Mobile County—to the state general fund is/are unconstitutional as
applied.
A.
Analysis. As we begin our analysis of whether Alabama Acts 1992-227, 2004-636, 2010438, 2012-535, 2013-193, Ala. Code § 12-19-72, Ala. Code § 32-5A-191, and any other Alabama
act or statute(s) collecting money from litigation in Mobile County and sending same to the
State general fund is constitutional as applied, we recognize that “we must look to the entire
Act instead of isolated phrases or clauses; Opinion of the Justices, 264 Ala. 176, 85 So.2d 391
(1956). Moreover, just as statutes dealing with the same subject are in pari materia and should
be construed together, League of Women Voters [v. Renfro, 292 Ala. 128, 290 So.2d 167 (1974) ],
parts of the same statute are in pari materia and each part is entitled to equal weight.” Darks
Dairy, Inc. v. Alabama Dairy Comm'n, 367 So.2d 1378, 1380–81 (Ala. 1979).

 DOCUMENT 41

Regarding adequate funding for the judiciary, just as the Supreme Court did in the 1993
proration case, Folsom v. Wynn, we note with approval Chief Justice Heflin’s discussion of Ala.
Const., Amend. 328, § 6.10. in his dissent in Morgan County Commission v. Powell:
“The constitutional mandate ‘adequate and reasonable financing ’ in [Ala. Const.,
Amend. 328, § 6.10] is more expansive than the clause ‘adequate and reasonable
appropriations ’ and there is no limitation of this responsibility to a specific branch
following the clause ‘shall be provided’.... Further, it seems clear that adequate and
reasonable financing of the court system of this state is a constitutional priority for
nowhere else in the Constitution do the words ‘adequate and reasonable’ appear in
relationship to financing and appropriations.” Morgan County Commission v. Powell, 292
Ala. 300 at 326, 293 So.2d at 854–55. (Heflin, C.J., dissenting; emphasis in the original;
footnote omitted.)
We further quote Folsom v. Wynn:
“Not only is the Legislature required to make adequate and reasonable appropriations
for the entire judicial system under § 6.10; all three branches are charged with a
constitutional duty to ensure adequate and reasonable financing for the Judiciary.
Plainly, the constitutional requirement of reasonable and adequate financing
encompasses the various administrative costs, including equipment and personnel,
necessary to deliver constitutionally mandated judicial services.” Folsom v. Wynn, 631
So. 2d 890, 900 (Ala. 1993).
In the present financial situation for the Clerk supporting the 13th Judicial Circuit, the
constitutional requirement of reasonable and adequate financing encompasses the various
administrative costs, including equipment and personnel, necessary to deliver constitutionally
mandated judicial services. Thus, it is more the effect of these court cost acts and statutes that
take money away from our circuit clerk leaving her unable to fully support our courts Circuit and
District that is problematic, rather than their language.
B.
Lack of Reasonable and Adequate Funding for the Judicial Branch of Government. The
lack of adequate funding for Alabama’s judiciary is an ongoing problem. The Alabama Supreme
Court previously stated the obvious:
“With respect to the Judicial Branch, funding cannot be reduced below what is
“adequate and reasonable,” Ala. Const., Amend. 328, § 6.10, for the performance of
those duties that are constitutionally required of the Judiciary.” Folsom v. Wynn, 631 So.
2d 890, 895 (Ala. 1993).
***
“[A]ppropriations for the costs of administrative support essential to the delivery of
constitutionally mandated judicial services may also not be reduced by proration below
an adequate and reasonable level.” Id. at 897.
***

 DOCUMENT 41

“The Judiciary is a separate, independent, and co-equal branch of government, and the
United States Constitution and the Constitution of Alabama describe its duties at some
length. *** Without attempting to list every specific duty that is constitutionally
required of the Judiciary, we note that the courts are, in many respects, the means by
which the people of this nation assure their most fundamental individual rights. The
courts are the forum where the guarantees set out in the Bill of Rights, Amendments I–
X, to the United States Constitution, and in the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution
of Alabama, Art. I, §§ 1–36, gain meaning and limit governmental power.” Id.
***
“The Alabama Constitution also requires the delivery of judicial services in civil
proceedings. Each person in this State has, along with many other enumerated rights, a
constitutionally guaranteed right to a forum for the enforcement of his or her contracts,
Ala. Const. Art. I, § 22; a right to prosecute a civil cause, Ala. Const. Art. I, § 10; and a
right to a jury trial, Ala. Const. Art. I, § 11. Federal constitutional requirements also
directly require the delivery of similar services by the courts of this State.” *** The
right to a timely civil jury trial, for example, is especially important to American
jurisprudence, and that right is constitutionally guaranteed by both our Federal and
State Constitutions. Under the appropriate circumstances, Federal courts have held that
the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution means that in the Federal
courts citizens may not be deprived of this essential right by financial considerations.”
Id. at 898.
***
We conclude that the civil jury trial system may not be suspended for lack of funds.
Specifically, we conclude that the seventh amendment right to a civil jury trial is violated
when, because of such a suspension, an individual is not afforded, for any significant
period of time, a jury trial he would otherwise receive.” Folsom v. Wynn, 631 So. 2d
890, 895, 898 (Ala, 1993).
Obviously, no state judge can fulfill his or her constitutional obligations without the support of
the circuit clerk and his or her staff. However, because of a lack of adequate funding, the Mobile
County Circuit Clerk’s office is now in a position where it can barely function. Moreover, the
entire court system of the State of Alabama has been essentially underfunded for many years.
This underfunding is further evidenced by the fact that the Legislature has had to pass acts and
statutes such as the ones referenced herein, using the courts as a source of revenue for the
general fund, but still not adequately funding the court system. See Court’s Exhibit 9A, page 2,
para 2.
As noted above, at hearing on September 12th, the Circuit Clerk testified that she is required to
collect fees and costs from Mobile County litigants per various court cost bills that have been
enacted into law by the State of Alabama. Ms. Schwarzauer was then shown the language in
just one of the many such court cost bills which declared their initial stated intent:

 DOCUMENT 41

“It is the intent of the Legislature that the funds generated by the fee increases
provided for in this bill shall first be used to maintain on the district and circuit court
and Clerks of Courts payrolls of Court the positions jeopardized by proration in the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1992.”
See Alabama Act 1992-227/H 605 available at <http://arc-sos.state.al.us/cgi/actdetail.mbr/
detail?year=1992&act=227&page= subject> (visited September 12, 2018) (emphasis added).
Indeed, this Court takes judicial notice of the fact that there are many such acts and statutes
that require the Mobile County Circuit Clerk to remit costs collected in Mobile County—from
litigants in Mobile County--to the state general fund. These include but are not limited to
Alabama Acts 1992-227, 2004-636, 2010-438, 2012-535, 2013-193, Ala. Code § 12-19-72 (circuit
and district court filing fee – distribution), and Ala. Code § 32-5A-191 (court fines imposed for
DUI). Granted, not all of these bills declare their intent like 1992-227/H 605. However, if their
intent is not to use the money to adequately fund the court system, then what these court cost
bills really do is tax only the segment of the population that needs access to the court system to
prop up the Alabama general fund.
Taxing a segment of the State population who needs access to the court system, and then using
those tax revenues to support the State’s entire population is also unconstitutional. In fact, we
fought a revolution against England in part because of this. Remember for example: “No
taxation without representation” which was a phrase generally attributed to James Otis about
1761 that reflected the resentment of American colonists at being taxed by a British Parliament
to which they elected no representatives and became an anti-British slogan before the American
Revolution? See Mark Kelly, The Root Causes of the American Revolution (last modified Apr. 20,
2018) https://www.thoughtco.com/causes-of-the-american-revolution-104860 (visited Sept. 17,
2018).
Given that the stated purpose of the court costs collected in Mobile County Alabama “is to
maintain on the district and circuit court and Clerks of Courts payrolls of Court the positions,”
and given that the vast majority of the funds collected are not used to fund the courts, this
Court is of the opinion and below declares that these court cost statutes are unconstitutional as
applied to the citizens of Mobile County Alabama.
C.

Declaration. Alabama Code § 6-6-222 states:
“Power of courts of record; form and effect of declarations.
Courts of record, within their respective jurisdictions, shall have power to declare rights,
status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No
action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory
judgment is requested. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and
effect, and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment.” Id.

 DOCUMENT 41

Because this Court has the inherent power conferred by statute to “declare rights, status, and
other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed,” and because the facts
of this case prove that underfunding the Circuit Clerk of Mobile County Alabama has created a
situation whereby access to the court system is being restricted, and whereby a criminal
defendant accused meth trafficker was allowed to walk out of jail creating a danger to the
public, the court will make specific written findings of fact in support of its ruling.
·

Finding of Fact 1: Undersigned is a duly elected circuit judge, and has constitutionally
and statutorily mandated duties he must perform in his official position. See e.g. Ala.
Const. of 1901 art. VI, § 142. See also Ala. Code §§ 12-17-21 through 94.

·

Finding of Fact 2: The Mobile County Circuit Clerk is a duly elected official, and has
constitutionally and statutorily mandated duties she must perform in her official position
to support the circuit and district courts she serves. See e.g. Ala. Code §§ 12-17-94 and
12-17-160.

·

Finding of Fact 3: The Mobile County Circuit Clerk’s office has lost experienced
personnel because of the lack of reasonable and adequate funding, and is currently short
19.7 people on staff to support the combined 66,665 Mobile County Circuit and District
Court cases last year.

·

Finding of Fact 4: In addition to being under staffed and losing experienced personnel, at
her current inadequate funding level, the Circuit Clerk of Mobile County cannot compete
with other local governmental offices like the District Attorney of Mobile County and the
Probate Court of Mobile County for qualified employees. See Show Cause Hearing
Transcript, p. 17, lines 3-25; p. 18 line 1-p. 19, line 20; p. 38, lines 1-10.

·

Finding of Fact 5: The constitutional requirement of reasonable and adequate financing
for the court system encompasses the various administrative costs, including equipment
and personnel, necessary to deliver constitutionally mandated judicial services. Folsom
v. Wynn, 631 So. 2d 890, 895, 898 (Ala, 1993).

·

Finding of Fact 6: Collected fees and costs generated by litigation in the Circuit and
District courts in Mobile County alone generated revenue for the State in the amount of
$7,085,354.88 for the fiscal year October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016. See
Court’s Exhibit 8. Of this amount, filing fees alone generated $1,951,985.26 in revenue.
Id.

·

Finding of Fact 7: The Mobile County Circuit Clerk is in imminent danger of not fulfilling
her constitutional and statutory duties to support her courts, circuit and district, because
of inadequate funding. Therefore, constitutional rights of litigants in undersigned’s
courtroom, as well as constitutional rights of all litigants in all courtrooms within the 13th
Judicial Circuit, are in jeopardy.

 DOCUMENT 41

·

Finding of Fact 8: With regard to public safety, meth trafficking is a danger to the general
public, and to the citizens of Mobile County Alabama in particular.

·

Finding of Fact 9: Because the Mobile County Circuit Clerk’s office is under-funded and
thus short-staffed, an accused meth trafficker was allowed to go free and is currently at
large and is now a danger to the public.

·

Finding of Fact 10: The lack of reasonable and adequate funding of the Mobile County
Circuit Clerk’s office caused the inadvertent release of someone who is a danger and
threat of harm to the citizens of Mobile County.

·

Finding of Fact 11: Any state statute or act that charges litigants in Mobile County
Alabama any fee involving litigation, which then takes said funds away from this county
leaving the Clerk and her staff underfunded, thereby causing the inadvertent release of
someone who is a danger and threat of harm to the citizens of Mobile County, is
unconstitutional as applied.

WHEREFORE, this court holds unconstitutional as applied Alabama Acts 1992-227, 2004636, 2010-438, 2012-535, 2013-193, Ala. Code § 12-19-72, Ala. Code § 32-5A-191, and any other
Alabama act or statute that requires the Mobile County Circuit Clerk to remit costs collected in
Mobile County—from litigation taking place within Mobile County—to the state general fund-leaving the Clerk and her staff underfunded.
III.

INJUNCTION

To the Mobile County Circuit Clerk and to the Presiding Judge, 13th Judicial Circuit, per Ala. R.
Civ. P. Rule 65 (a) and (d)(2), the following is respectfully ordered:
1.
Because the Mobile County Circuit Clerk’s office does not have adequate and reasonable
funding to ensure it can perform its’ constitutional and statutorily mandated duties in support
of the Circuit and District Courts of the 13th Judicial Circuit-- as outlined in the findings of fact
and declaration of unconstitutionality of court cost statutes and acts in the order above, in
addition to the funding she currently receives, the Mobile County Circuit Clerk is ordered to
withhold 10% of the court fees and costs collected from litigants in Mobile County starting
October 1, 2018 continuing month to month until such time as the State of Alabama has
adequately and reasonably funded her office. See Declaratory Judgment in Part II of this
combined Order and Injunction, above.
2.
The funds ordered withheld will be accounted for by the Clerk at the end of each month
starting at the end of October 2018, and then paid to the presiding judge of the 13th Judicial
Circuit at the end of each month. The Presiding Judge is authorized to hold said funds collected
in an appropriate interest-bearing account until they are needed (because hiring 19.7 people

 DOCUMENT 41

will probably take time). Id. The Presiding Judge will then use these funds to pay salaries and
benefits for up to 19.7 support personnel for the Mobile County Circuit Clerk’s office as required
by the AOC manpower study referenced in the findings of fact above, so that this Circuit can and
will administer justice in a manner and in conjunction with is actual case load.
3.
These funds are not—repeat--not to be used to hire law clerks for the judges or
employees that work directly for a judge. These funds are also not to be used to purchase
equipment, except to the extent that such equipment is necessary to buy or fund work stations
for the 19.7 additional personnel required in the Clerk’s office. Id.
4.
However, these funds can be used at the Presiding Judge and the Circuit Clerk’s
discretion to fund normal promotions and merit raises for deserving Circuit Clerk’s office
employees, so that the Clerk’s office can do its best to compete with other offices like the
Mobile County District Attorney, and the Mobile County Probate Court, for competent and
qualified employees. See Show Cause Hearing Transcript, p. 17, lines 3-25; p. 18 line 1-p. 19,
line 20; p. 38, lines 1-10.
5.
Henceforth, so long as this injunction must last, after each fiscal year (a fiscal year being
from 1 October to 30 September) any funds withheld per this injunction in excess of what is
required to pay salaries and benefits and equipment for workstations for additional support
personnel shall be returned to the State of Alabama in the same manner as the other collected
court fees and costs. Id.
6.
This injunction will terminate upon the Mobile County Circuit Clerk (or her successor)’s
declaration to undersigned (or his successor) that she has been reasonably and adequately
funded by the State, and that she has not had to look for local earmarks or otherwise go
begging for funds to pay her personnel that the state should allocate to the Judicial Branch of
Government and her office.
7.
Given this injunction concerns money collected as court costs per various Alabama Acts
and statutes, the Circuit Clerk of Mobile County is directed to provide notice of this injunction to
the Alabama Attorney General, to the Presiding Judge, 13th Circuit, and to herself per the
Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65 and Rule 5. See Ala. R. Civ. P. Rule 65 (d)(2).
DONE this 24th day of September, 2018.
/s/ JAMES T. PATTERSON
CIRCUIT JUDGE