DOCUMENT 67

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
2/18/2025 4:55 PM
02-CV-2024-903327.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
ASHLEIGH LONG, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

PAUL PRINE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 02-cv-2024-903327
)
WILLIAM S. STIMPSON, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

ANSWER ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

BARBER, LASKY, AND STIMPSON

Defendants James Barber (“Chief Barber”), Robert Lasky (“Director Lasky”), and William

S. Stimpson (“Mayor Stimpson” and collectively, “Defendants”), in response to the Complaint

filed by Plaintiff Paul Prine (“Plaintiff” or “Prine”), answer as set forth herein.

COMPLAINT

Prine’s Complaint attempts to assert claims against Defendants based on alleged

defamatory statements one or more of the Defendants made about Prine at or around the time Prine

was suspended from his position as Chief of Police pending the City Council’s approval to

terminate him. The true facts concerning the events leading to Prine’s termination and the alleged

defamatory statements are set forth below and establish Prine’s allegations and attempted claims

are baseless. While omitted from the Complaint, within hours of the City administration’s April

9, 2024 announcement confirming Prine had been suspended and placed on administrative leave,

Prine provided the first of numerous media interviews, initiating a very public smear campaign

targeted at Mayor Stimpson and his administration, including Chief Barber, Director Lasky, and

others. Prine accused Mayor Stimpson and/or members of his administration of corruption,

apparent financial impropriety, and a vindictive plan to remove Prine as Chief of Police ‒ allegedly

1
 DOCUMENT 67

in retaliation for so-called “grievances” Prine submitted months prior purportedly reporting

unlawful or unethical conduct against “two of the highest ranking [City] officials.” Despite

extensive investigation, none of Prine’s accusations against Defendants have been (or can be)

substantiated. At the time, however, Prine’s public accusations naturally were alarming and

raised questions by the media and community that Defendants, in their capacities as public

officials, were duty-bound to address by providing the true and accurate facts. In addition to being

the absolute truth, the statements on which Prine’s claims against Defendants are based were made

in the course of performing Defendants’ official duties and with respect to matters of public

concern. In sum, and as further outlined in the Answer below, while the alleged statements at

issue are neither false nor defamatory, Prine’s attempted claims fail for the additional reason that

Defendants’ alleged statements are subject to one or more privileges protecting public officials

from liability for the claims asserted in the Complaint.

Notably, while Prine’s public attack of the Defendants and his Complaint attempt to paint

himself as a “whistleblower” who was fired for reporting alleged unlawful or other serious

misconduct, Prine is the opposite of a whistleblower. Indeed, rather than “blow the whistle” by

properly reporting the so-called misconduct when it allegedly occurred, none of Prine’s purported

“grievances” mentioned unlawful or even unethical conduct. In fact, Prine never reported any of

the alleged misconduct he broadcasted to the media until Prine was facing termination. Even

then, Prine only raised his allegations for leverage to negotiate a more lucrative severance package,

with the hope of intimidating Defendants and the City of Mobile (“the City”) into paying Prine’s

exorbitant monetary demand or in furtherance of Prine’s other personal interests. As the evidence

will establish, Prine’s self-proclaimed whistleblower status is as disingenuous as the other self-

serving and unsupported allegations in his Complaint.

2
 DOCUMENT 67

PARTIES

1. While paragraph 1 of the Complaint does not allege facts against these Defendants,

on information and belief, Defendants admit Plaintiff is an adult resident of Mobile County.

2. Mayor Stimpson admits he is an adult resident of Mobile County, and therefore,

Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

3. While paragraph 3 of the Complaint does not allege facts against these Defendants,

on information and belief, Defendants admit Defendant C’Aracher Small Jr. (“Small”) is an adult

resident of Mobile County.

4. While paragraph 4 of the Complaint does not allege facts against these Defendants,

on information and belief, Defendants admit Defendant Joel Daves (“Daves”) is an adult resident

of Mobile County.

5. While paragraph 5 of the Complaint does not allege facts against these Defendants,

on information and belief, Defendants admit Defendant Cory Penn (“Penn”) is an adult resident

of Mobile County.

6. While paragraph 6 of the Complaint does not allege facts against these Defendants,

on information and belief, Defendants admit Defendant William Carroll (“Carroll”) is an adult

resident of Mobile County.

7. While paragraph 7 of the Complaint does not allege facts against these Defendants,

on information and belief, Defendants admit Defendant Benjamin Reynolds (“Reynolds”) is an

adult resident of Mobile County.

8. While paragraph 8 of the Complaint does not allege facts against these Defendants,

on information and belief, Defendants admit (i) Defendant Kenyen Brown (“Brown”) is an adult

resident of Washington D.C.; (ii) Brown is currently employed by Thompson Coburn, LLP
3
 DOCUMENT 67

(“Thompson Coburn”); (iii) when Mayor Stimpson approved the decision to engage Brown to

conduct an investigation of six (6) use-of-force incidents occurring between approximately March

– November 2023 (the “Brown Investigation”), Brown was employed by the law firm, Hughes

Hubbard & Reed, LLP (“HH&R”), but Brown later joined Thompson Coburn; and (iv) during the

period Brown was engaged to conduct the Brown Investigation, he was acting within the line and

scope of his employment with either HH&R or Thompson Coburn. Defendants deny any

allegation in paragraph 8 of the Complaint not admitted above.

9. While paragraph 9 of the Complaint does not allege facts against these Defendants,

on information and belief, Defendants admit Thompson Coburn is a law firm located in

Washington, D.C. Defendants are without sufficient information at this time to admit or deny how

Thompson Coburn is organized or operates, and therefore, Defendants deny the remaining

allegations in paragraph 9 of the Complaint.

10. Chief Barber admits he is an adult resident of Mobile County, and therefore,

Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 10 of the Complaint.

11. Director Lasky admits he is an adult resident of Baldwin County, and therefore,

Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Complaint.

12. While paragraph 12 of the Complaint does not allege facts against these Defendants,

on information and belief, Defendants admit Defendant Powers Consulting Group, LLC (“Powers

Consulting”) is located in Baltimore, Maryland. Defendants are without sufficient information at

this time to admit or deny how Powers Consulting is organized, and therefore, Defendants deny

the remaining allegations in paragraph 12 of the Complaint.

13. While paragraph 13 of the Complaint does not allege facts against these Defendants,

on information and belief, Defendants admit: (i) Defendant Tyrone Powers (“Powers”) resides in
4
 DOCUMENT 67

Baltimore, Maryland; (ii) Powers is employed by Powers Consulting; and (iii) during the period

Powers and/or Powers Consulting was assisting with the Brown Investigation, Powers was acting

in the line and scope of his employment with Powers Consulting. Defendants deny any allegation

in paragraph 13 of the Complaint not admitted above.

BACKGROUND

14. Paragraph 14 of the Complaint alleges general background facts related to Prine’s

former employment with the City and does not allege facts against Defendants. To the extent a

response is required, on information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 14.

15. Paragraph 15 of the Complaint alleges Plaintiff was shot in the line of duty more

than twenty (20) years ago and does not allege facts against Defendants. To the extent a response

is required, on information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 15.

16. Defendants admit only the allegation in paragraph 16 of the Complaint alleging

Prine was appointed as Chief of Police in October 2021. Defendants cannot admit the remaining

allegations in paragraph 16 because they mischaracterize and omit material facts. As stated in

paragraph 16, the allegations are misleading, untrue, and are denied. Paragraph 16, for example,

inaccurately suggests any successes or accomplishments in reducing violent crime made possible

by the Mobile Police Department (“MPD”) and/or the City administration were attributable to

Prine. Further, paragraph 16 alleges, in self-serving fashion, that Prine was well-liked and

respected by subordinate officers and the public. Neither allegation is entirely accurate, as Prine

acknowledged in public statements admitting his abrasive and direct style was “not always

popular.” In fact, during his tenure as Chief of Police, including within the first six (6) months of

his appointment, several of Prine’s direct reports (the “Command Staff”), who are veteran law

enforcement professionals, complained about Prine’s unprofessionalism, including his use of

5
 DOCUMENT 67

vulgar language and his demeaning approach to managing subordinate officers. The Command

Staff complaints necessitated engaging a third-party management consultant to survey officers in

the MPD concerning their observations of Prine and other aspects of the work environment. Based

on the survey results, officer concerns regarding Prine’s effectiveness and leadership style ranked

among the highest of all work-related concerns. Following receipt of the survey results, the

decision was made to hire Joe Kennedy (“Kennedy”) as Prine’s Chief of Staff in an effort to

support Prine in his relatively new role and try to improve the relationship between Prine and the

officers in his chain of command. Kennedy was selected for the role based on his prior service

and success as Assistant Chief of Police, earning Kennedy the respect of the MPD. As for the

allegation that Prine was well-liked by the public, particularly in the last year of his employment

when the six (6) use-of-force incidents occurred, Prine’s public perception was deteriorating,

leading the City Council to approve engaging a separate outside management consultant to assist

with improving Prine’s image and relationship with the public. Defendants deny any allegation in

paragraph 16 of the Complaint unless admitted above.

17. Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Complaint only to the

extent they allege Chief Barber currently serves as Chief of Staff to Mayor Stimpson and that he

formerly served as Chief of Police and Public Safety Director. Defendants further respond to the

allegations of paragraph 17 to clarify the timeline and positions held by Chief Barber since 2013:

• From 2013 – 2017, Chief Barber served as Chief of Police. In approximately late March
2017, Chief Barber was promoted and appointed to be Public Safety Director. Chief
Barber’s appointment to Public Safety Director was a promotion and one that came with
additional job responsibilities, including the responsibility to oversee both the MPD and
Mobile Fire & Rescue Department.

• In approximately late 2020, Chief Barber was appointed as Mayor Stimpson’s Chief of
Staff while still serving as Public Safety Director. From approximately December 2020
until 2021, Chief Barber served in dual roles as Public Safety Director and Chief of Staff.

6
 DOCUMENT 67

• In 2021, Lawrence Battiste (“Battiste”) was appointed (and subsequently approved by the
City Council) to serve as the full-time Public Safety Director. Once Battiste transitioned
to full-time Public Safety Director, Chief Barber served only as Mayor Stimpson’s Chief
of Staff. In May 2023, Battiste resigned as Public Safety Director. From May 2023 until
approximately October 2023, Chief Barber once again held dual roles, continuing to serve
as the Mayor’s Chief of Staff and as the interim Public Safety Director.

• On or about November 1, 2023, Director Lasky was appointed as Public Safety Director.
Since Director Lasky’s appointment in November 2023, he has performed the duties of
Public Safety Director, and Chief Barber has performed the duties of Chief of Staff to
Mayor Stimpson.

18. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. Defendants

respond further to clarify the allegations mischaracterizing Chief Barber’s job responsibilities,

including during the periods he served as Chief of Staff, Public Safety Director, and/or when he

worked in both roles. Unlike the Chief of Police, the Public Safety Director is responsible for

overseeing both the police and fire departments. Similarly, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff is tasked

with overseeing numerous City operations, including departments and matters affecting public

safety. Once Prine became Chief of Police in October 2021, Chief Barber was either serving as

both Chief of Staff to the Mayor and interim Public Safety Director or only in the role of Mayor

Stimpson’s Chief of Staff. In either and certainly in both roles, Chief Barber had responsibilities

for overseeing the MPD. As Chief of Police, Prine reported to both the Public Safety Director

and the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, which (for the majority of the period relevant to the Complaint)

included Director Lasky and Chief Barber. Based on the actual facts, as set forth above, the

allegations that Chief Barber improperly asserted control over Prine and/or the MPD or attempted

to act as “de facto” Chief of Police in furtherance of personal “purposes” are completely false.

Defendants deny each allegation in paragraph 18 of the Complaint unless admitted above.

19. Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 19 of the Complaint accurately

describe the July 2, 2023 incident involving Jawan Dallas (“Dallas”).

7
 DOCUMENT 67

20. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 20 of the Complaint because not all

six (6) use-of-force incidents have been presented to the grand jury. Defendants admit that most

of the incidents were presented to the grand jury resulting in a no-bill determination.

21. Defendants deny each of the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Complaint

asserting Chief Barber told Prine he had “leaked” the Dallas autopsy report to local news reporter

Byron Day (“Day”). To be clear, Chief Barber did not tell Prine on October 21, 2023 (or any

other time) that he had provided or “leaked” the Dallas autopsy report to Day, or, for that matter,

any other media representative. Chief Barber would not have told Prine that because it is not true,

and Chief Barber did not provide the Dallas autopsy report to Day or any media. Additionally,

Defendants deny the allegations that Chief Barber grew “tired of the Dallas family” and their

barrage of public attacks against the City administration because, as stated, the allegations suggest

Chief Barber was frustrated or annoyed by the Dallas family and their natural and understandable

concerns about the delay in receiving information about the cause of their son’s death. In all

fatality investigations, including police use-of-force incidents, once the cause of death has been

confirmed it normally is shared with the family. If anything, Chief Barber felt compassion for

and sympathized with the Dallas family. He understood their concerns and pressing need to

understand how their son died, and the allegation suggesting Chief Barber found the Dallas

family’s inquiries tiresome is false and denied.

22. Defendants deny each of the allegations in paragraph 22 of the Complaint and

respond further to correct the patently false allegations in paragraph 22, and throughout the

Complaint, on which Prine’s entire case theory is based. According to the Complaint, Prine’s

theory supporting the reason any of the Defendants allegedly were conspiring or working to oust

him from his position is that Defendants were retaliating against Prine for making two (2) so-
8
 DOCUMENT 67

called “grievances” that allegedly reported illegal, or, at best, unethical conduct, including that

Chief Barber allegedly urged Prine to “leak” the Dallas autopsy report in violation of the Alabama

Grand Jury Secrecy Act, Ala. Code § 12-16-214 – 226 (the “Act”). Prine’s theory does not even

makes sense – if Chief Barber already “leaked” the autopsy report, as Prine alleges, there would

be no need for, or reason to ask Prine to serve as, a second source for the autopsy report. More

substantively, Prine’s theory is debunked by the actual facts:

It is patently false that Chief Barber (i) provided the Dallas autopsy report to reporter

Day, (ii) told Prine he had done so, or (iii) urged Prine to provide the Dallas autopsy report to

Day. While those allegations are untrue, even if they were true, none would violate the Act or

any other law. Most glaringly, Prine’s retaliation theory is defeated by the fact that at no time

during his employment did he complain about alleged illegal conduct by Chief Barber. Tellingly,

if Prine genuinely believed Chief Barber was asking him to engage in illegal or unethical conduct

on October 21, 2023, Prine did nothing to properly or promptly report the alleged misconduct as

required by City policies ‒ neither after the October 21 discussion nor any other time before he

was removed from his position pending formal termination. In fact, as alleged elsewhere in the

Complaint, albeit falsely, Prine waited nearly a month, until November 20, 2023 – after the grand

jury had already decided the Dallas case ‒ before mentioning the alleged October 21 discussion

with Chief Barber. (See Compl. at 25). Prine’s alleged verbal grievance on November 20 had

nothing to do with “leaking” the Dallas autopsy report or complaining about alleged illegal

conduct. Finally, the allegation that during the October 2023 timeframe Chief Barber was

beginning a “crusade” to remove Prine as Chief of Police is sorely mistaken and denied. To the

contrary, until concerns developed regarding Prine’s job performance and deteriorating

relationships with his colleagues in the months preceding Prine’s termination, Chief Barber was

9
 DOCUMENT 67

one of Prine’s biggest defenders. Chief Barber did his best to support Prine in the midst of

escalating public and City Council concerns about the recent and multiple use-of-force incidents,

resulting in skepticism about Prine’s competency and professionalism.

23. Defendants deny each of the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Complaint. The

allegations that Chief Barber gave the Dallas autopsy report to reporter Day or told Prine he had

done so are false. The allegation that Chief Barber sent reporter Day a “berating” text likewise is

false as can be easily proven. The last allegation in paragraph 23 attempts to draw an analogy

between (i) Chief Barber allegedly using an expletive in reference to a reporter during a private

conversation; and (ii) Prine openly stating “F--- the Public” in the presence of numerous MPD

officers. While the allegations in paragraph 23 against Chief Barber are untrue and denied, calling

a reporter an expletive in a private conversation hardly compares to the Chief of Police using

disrespectful and demeaning language about the community he was appointed to serve in the

presence of multiple subordinate officers. Why Prine finds it “interesting” that he was “attacked”

for his highly unprofessional statement, as alleged in paragraph 23, is unclear. Regardless,

Defendants deny that Prine’s unbecoming conduct was either interesting or acceptable for the

City’s Chief of Police.

24. Defendants deny each of the allegations in paragraph 24 of the Complaint and

answer further to clarify that there is no such procedure as a “vote of no confidence” to remove an

appointed employee. As Chief of Police, Prine was an appointed, at-will employee with statutory

protection, meaning Prine could be terminated for any reason at any time on the recommendation

of the Mayor and subject to a super majority vote by the City Council. Regardless, Chief Barber

never told his wife, Prine, or anyone else that the City Council was considering “a vote of no

confidence” regarding Prine’s performance as Chief of Police in November 2023 or thereafter.

10
 DOCUMENT 67

Notably, Prine alleges there are text messages proving Chief Barber’s wife told Prine’s wife the

City Council was going to conduct a vote of no confidence, which is yet another baseless allegation

easily disproven by the text messages. Nowhere in the text messages is there any mention of an

alleged forthcoming “vote of no confidence.”

25. Defendants are without sufficient information at this time to admit or deny the

allegation that Prine questioned two Council members about the alleged “vote of no confidence,”

and therefore, deny the allegations. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 25

of the Complaint, including that Chief Barber fabricated the City Council’s alleged contemplated

“vote of no confidence” or was “colluding” with the City Council to remove Prine in November

2023. To the contrary, as discussed, supra, at ¶ 24, Prine was the only person fabricating alleged

texts or other communications about the so-called “vote of no confidence.”

26. Defendants deny each of the allegations in paragraphs 26 of the Complaint,

including, but not limited to, the allegations contained in subparagraphs (a) – (c). The allegations

in paragraph 26 claiming Prine filed purported “grievances” mischaracterize Prine’s complaints

and the alleged conduct reported in this complaints. In further response to paragraph 26,

Defendants state that the allegations that Prine’s November 20, 2023 verbal complaint alleged any

of the misconduct identified in subparagraphs (a) – (c) of paragraph 26 are false and expressly

denied. The verbal complaint to Chief Barber, in fact, consisted of a conversation lasting

approximately five (5) minutes as Chief Barber was heading to a meeting. During their

discussion, Prine accused Barber of lying to Prine about whether the City Council was concerned

about Prine’s leadership. Chief Barber referred Prine to Mayor Stimpson to further discuss his

concerns, and Prine spoke with Mayor Stimpson and separately, the City attorney, the same day.

Similar to Prine’s discussion with Chief Barber, the allegation Prine made to Mayor Stimpson and
11
 DOCUMENT 67

the City attorney was his suspicion that Chief Barber was trying to remove Prine as Chief of Police

and lying to and/or concealing from Prine Chief Barber’s so-called plan to oust him. Prine did

not complain to Mayor Stimpson or the City attorney that Chief Barber allegedly encouraged Prine

to leak the Dallas autopsy report a month earlier. Nor did Prine mention or “report” alleged illegal

conduct. Mayor Stimpson and the City attorney knew Prine’s suspicion that Chief Barber was

working on a plan to remove him was unjustified, and both had personally observed Chief Barber

defend and attempt to protect Prine, particularly as criticism of the MPD increased based on the

highly publicized and recent use-of-force incidents. Since Prine shared no facts or evidence to

support his suspicion about Chief Barber’s alleged plan to remove him, there was nothing to

investigate. Nevertheless, Mayor Stimpson met with both Chief Barber and the City attorney to

discuss Prine’s allegation, which could not be and were not substantiated.

27. Defendants admit only the allegation in paragraph 27 of the Complaint alleging

that in approximately December 2023, Chief Barber asked Prine to meet with him and Director

Lasky in an effort to allay Prine’s suspicion that Chief Barber was working to remove Prine as

Chief of Police. Defendant deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 27, and answer further

to clarify as follows:

(i) Prine’s alleged “grievance” is a misnomer. The grievance, investigation, and

appeal procedures under the Mobile County Personnel Board (“MCPB”) Rules apply only to merit

system employees. The MCPB Rules did not apply to Prine as an appointed employee, and Prine

had no right or process to file a “grievance” that would trigger the formal investigation and

additional steps under the MCPB Rules. While the MCPB Rules apply only to merit system

employees, all City employees, including Prine, are subject to the City handbook and Code of

Conduct, which require employees to report suspected violations of City policy or unlawful

12
 DOCUMENT 67

conduct to the employee’s department head or to the Office of Professional Responsibility

(“OPR”). OPR is a distinct department tasked with the responsibility for investigating complaints

of misconduct or serious violations of City policies that are either made directly to OPR or assigned

to OPR by the Mayor. In short, and without belaboring the policies and complaint reporting

procedures applicable to non-merit system employees, the information included in Prine’s verbal

complaint did not require formal investigation.

(ii) With respect to the remaining allegations in paragraph 27, while Prine’s verbal

complaint about his suspicions related to Chief Barber did not trigger the requirements of a formal

investigation, absent alleged facts, policy violations, specific acts of misconduct, and/or supporting

evidence (i.e., documents, examples, eye witnesses), there also was nothing to justify or even

facilitate further informal investigation.

28. Defendants deny each of the allegations in paragraph 28 of the Complaint.

Additionally, to correct the distorted description of Prine’s verbal or written complaints and the

actual reason Special Counsel Bill Athanas (“Athanas”) was appointed to conduct an investigation,

Defendants further answer paragraph 28 as follows:

A. Prine’s Two Written “Grievances”

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 28 of the Complaint suggesting that any of

Prine’s complaints or “grievances” submitted during the time he was employed reported that Chief

Barber released the Dallas autopsy report to the media or reported alleged unlawful conduct.

Prine’s alleged grievances include: (i) Prine’s November 20, 2023 verbal complaint about Chief

Barber, discussed, supra, at p. 11 ¶ 26; and (ii) two written complaints, which are summarized as

follows:

13
 DOCUMENT 67

i. Prine’s January 22, 2024 email regarding “Grievance Lasky” sent to Chief
Barber and OPR

On January 22, 2024, Prine sent an email to Chief Barber and a separate email to OPR

stating that (a) on January 19, 2024 Director Lasky made an unprofessional comment about Prine;

and (b) on January 22, 2024, he learned that Director Lasky was encouraging the then Commander

of Intelligence Kevin Levy (“Levy”) to put “together a package” describing Levy’s issues with

Prine, which Prine believed was a “hostile work environment.”

Starting with item (b) above, as described in further detail below at p. 18 ¶ 28 B, Chief

Barber knew Prine’s complaint about an alleged “package” Levy was being pressured to prepare

about Prine was misinformed and untrue. In fact, a month or so earlier, Chief Barber had

requested Director Lasky to determine the reason for the lack of coordination and related tension

between the MPD and the technology center Levy was managing to try and “fix” the issue.

Neither Chief Barber’s request to Director Lasky nor Director Lasky’s subsequent request to Levy

asked Levy to prepare a “package” criticizing or attacking Prine, and Chief Barber knew there was

nothing “hostile” or improper in trying to identify the root of and resolve the problems between

two City departments.

Turning to item (a) and Prine’s allegation concerning his complaint about Director

Lasky’s comment that Prine contends was never formally investigated, pursuant to MCPB Rules

and OPR policies, Prine’s purported “grievance” did not require formal investigation. However,

it was informally investigated by Chief Barber who questioned Prine and Director Lasky about the

incident. Chief Barber’s discussions confirmed Director Lasky made the comment: “I’m tired of

Prine’s s---” to Public Safety Recruiter Tony McCarron (“McCarron”) who reports to Director

Lasky. Specifically, on January 19, 2024, Director Lasky called McCarron, who was driving back

14
 DOCUMENT 67

from training out of town. As the two were discussing renewing the MPD’s digital recruiting

campaign, McCarron relayed that Prine disagreed with renewal, and Director Lasky made the

above comment about Prine. Prior to calling McCarron, there was a meeting attended by Director

Lasky, Prine, and others. During the meeting, Director Lasky observed Prine speak to one of the

staff members in a manner Director Lasky found disrespectful. The call with McCarron followed

the recent meeting and is what led Director Lasky to express frustration with Prine (i.e., that he

was tired of Prine or tired of Prine’s s---) to McCarron. Unbeknownst to Director Lasky, at the

time of the call, McCarron’s phone was on speaker, and Director Lasky’s comment was overheard

by another officer.

When Chief Barber met with Director Lasky about the incident, Director Lasky readily

accepted responsibility for making the comment, agreed it was unprofessional, and assured Chief

Barber he would refrain from making similar comments going forward, which he did. There were

no further alleged inappropriate comments by Director Lasky, demonstrating Chief Barber’s

response to the incident was both appropriate and effective. Nevertheless, Prine was not satisfied

with the response and believed Director Lasky should be made to apologize and that Prine should

be removed from Director Lasky’s chain of command. Disrupting the chain of command over a

single comment that Director Lasky acknowledged was inappropriate and would not be repeated

was neither necessary nor practical.

Defendants deny any allegation in paragraph 28 or elsewhere in the Complaint alleging

Prine’s January 22, 2024 written complaint about Director Lasky reported any misconduct other

than as described above, including any alleged illegal or unethical conduct.

15
 DOCUMENT 67

ii. Prine’s March 18, 2024 email regarding “Operation Echo Stop Third Party
Review and Chief Rebuttal” sent to Mayor Stimpson and, separately, the City
Attorney.

On March 18, 2024, Prine emailed a complaint to Mayor Stimpson and, separately, the

City attorney making various allegations against Director Lasky, Chief Barber, and also Levy. In

Levy’s former role as Commander of Intelligence, he was responsible for overseeing the Gulf

Coast Technology Center (“GCTC”), which operates a forensics lab and provides cyber tech and

other resources for gathering intelligence for federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies,

including the MPD.

Prine’s March 18 email included: (a) allegations and complaints about Director Lasky,

Chief Barber, and Levy; (b) a “P.S.” at the end of his email referencing a link to a statement

Director Lasky gave the media in 2017 concerning a school shooting in Parkland, Florida, which

Prine’s email described as a “failure of biblical proportions”; and (c) an attachment consisting of

a March 14, 2024 memo Prine prepared titled: “Response to Peer Review Report of Operation

Echo Stop Dated March 11, 2024” (the “Prine Rebuttal”).

Starting with item (c), the Prine Rebuttal was in response to a March 11, 2024 report

titled: “Final Report and Analysis of Operation Echo Stop Peer Review” (“OES Review”). The

OES Review evaluated a law enforcement initiative known as Operation Echo Stop. Operation

Echo Stop and the issues that arose related to the program are explained further below. In sum,

contrary to the allegations in paragraph 28 of the Complaint, neither Prine’s March 18 email nor

the accompanying Prine Rebuttal mention leaking the Dallas autopsy report, much less allege

unlawful conduct, and Defendants deny the allegations.

Turning to Prine’s email complaint (item (a) above), Prine’s scattered allegations of

alleged misconduct were baseless, as Mayor Stimpson knew. For example, Prine’s email alleges

16
 DOCUMENT 67

that Levy could not have engaged a third-party company to review Echo Stop without getting Chief

Barber’s approval of the contract, which Prine claimed was done without his knowledge. As

Mayor Stimpson knew, Chief Barber does not approve contracts, and that was another obviously

misinformed and unsupported allegation. Prine’s email makes the additional allegations that

during a recent meeting, Chief Barber made a statement suggesting he had security clearance when

he did not; Director Lasky “has absolutely no connection with the local FBI”; and in 2015, almost

a decade ago, Chief Barber stole one of Prine’s ideas related to a separate law enforcement

initiative known as Bridging the Gap. As Mayor Stimpson already knew, none of the above

allegations were true. First, Chief Barber was assigned and had top secret security clearance by

the Department of Justice. Similarly, Director Lasky, who is former FBI, has relationships with

numerous local FBI members. Last, Bridging the Gap was an initiative Director Lasky, Chief

Barber and others started and that Prine had no involvement in developing.

While Prine’s Rebuttal was the subject of subsequent investigation, the allegations in

his March 18 email were so obviously false, conducting an investigation was unnecessary. If

Prine believed otherwise, nothing prevented him from pursuing his complaint directly with OPR,

which he did not do. Also, and notably, based on Prine’s “P.S.” statement at the end of his email,

Prine’s allegations, particularly about Director Lasky, appeared to involve an ulterior motive,

including Prine’s insubordinate plan to intimidate Director Lasky and tarnish his reputation. As

mentioned above, Prine’s March 18 email concludes by describing Director Lasky’s involvement

many years earlier in the Parkland incident as a “failure of biblical proportions.” That is rank

speculation and falsely suggests Director Lasky was determined to be at fault in the investigation

of the Parkland incident, which also is provably false.

17
 DOCUMENT 67

Following a thorough investigation, Director Lasky was completely exonerated of any

wrongdoing, including any violation of procedures or other misconduct in the Parkland case. Had

Prine bothered to inquire about or determine the true facts related to Director Lasky’s involvement

in Parkland, as any reasonable person would do before making such a serious accusation about a

veteran law enforcement professional (particularly a superior), Prine would know his disparaging

comments about Director Lasky were false. Prine was not concerned with the truth or the harm

his reckless and false rumors might cause Director Lasky, and Prine mentioned the wholly

unrelated Parkland incident in his January 22 email for no other reason than to disparage and

embarrass Director Lasky. Prine’s petty and spiteful aspersions against Director Lasky only

raised additional questions about the purpose and credibility of Prine’s March 18 complaint. 1

B. Operation Echo Stop and Disputes over Control of the GCTC

Echo Stop began in 2022 as a law enforcement initiative to reduce gun violence using

technology and investigative resources provided by the GCTC, which Levy managed. When

Echo Stop began, it received funding that was expected to pay the initiative’s operating expenses

for the next approximate three (3) years, and it was well known by everyone involved with Echo

Stop that the success of the initiative would be evaluated in the third year to determine whether to

obtain additional funding for and continue Echo Stop. In fact, when the program was announced

1
On the evening of March 25, 2024, Prine forwarded his March 18 email to Mayor Stimpson
and included an additional allegation about the Brown Investigation, asserting it was a “vindictive
action” in retaliation for Prine’s alleged verbal grievances on November 20, 2023 and prior written
grievance on January 22, 2024. Considering Mayor Stimpson made the decision to engage
Brown, he was well aware of the use-of-force incidents and resulting public outcry necessitating
an independent investigation of the MPD’s procedures related to the use of force. Mayor
Stimpson knew Prine’s alleged “grievances” were not the reason for the Brown Investigation, and
Prine’s March 25 email included more baseless and obviously false allegations.
18
 DOCUMENT 67

to the public in 2022, the announcement included that Echo Stop would be reevaluated toward the

end of the 3-year budget.

As Echo Stop became operational, tension arose between the GCTC and MPD concerning

the MPD’s use of GCTC resources, and Levy and Prine disagreed who should control the day-to-

day operations of the GCTC and other issues related to the proper chain-of-command. In

approximately December 2023, as the chain-of-command dispute and struggle for control of the

GCTC continued between Levy and Prine, Echo Stop was starting the third and final year in its

budget. Chief Barber met with Mayor Stimpson to discuss Echo Stop, including budgetary issues

and whether to continue the program, and also how to repair the breakdown between the GCTC

and MPD, including the disputes between Levy and Prine. Following their meeting, Chief Barber

asked Director Lasky to review Echo Stop, both for budgetary purposes (i.e., to assist the City with

determining whether to continue the program) and separately, for suggestions on how to “fix” the

breakdown and better align the GCTC and MPD.

Accordingly, Director Lasky asked Levy to provide: (i) an evaluation of Echo Stop’s

successes for budgetary purposes; and (ii) a summary of what Levy viewed as the source of the

problems between the GCTC and MPD. In response to the second request, Levy explained to

Director Lasky that the MPD was depleting GCTC resources and not providing necessary support,

but Levy failed to offer specific details or examples. Levy’s vague explanation did not provide

Director Lasky with enough detail to allow him to determine whether Levy’s explanation was

accurate or help identify solutions to “fix” the problem. Director Lasky asked Levy to provide

specific examples, but Levy resisted. Levy’s reluctance to provide the requested information was

because Levy was concerned any criticism of the MPD would be shared with Prine or other MPD

leadership and Levy would be blamed or caught in the middle.

19
 DOCUMENT 67

Over the next few weeks, Director Lasky continued to press Levy for a more detailed

assessment of the problems between the MPD and GCTC in addition to the separate budgetary

evaluation of Echo Stop. To help Levy with the budgetary evaluation, on or about January 19,

2024, Director Lasky sent Levy the shell of a draft PowerPoint that included a slide with bullet

point topics describing the type information Director Lasky was looking for Levy to provide.

Levy did not complete the PowerPoint then or at any time, and it was not until on or around March

11, 2024 that Director Lasky received what he understood to be a third-party evaluation of Echo

Stop for budgetary purposes. Specifically, on March 11, 2024, Levy emailed Director Lasky to

provide the OES Review, which purported to be a “peer review” of Echo Stop conducted by a third

party company known as 321z Insights. (See discussion of OES Review, infra, at ¶ 28 D.).

C. The March 8, 2024 Meeting and Prine’s Ultimatum to Levy

Shortly prior to receiving the OES Review, while Director Lasky was still waiting for

Levy’s separate explanation of the problems between the GCTC and MPD, Prine continued to

express disagreement about who should control the GCTC. In an effort to resolve the clash

between the two department leaders, a March 8, 2024 meeting was held that was attended by Levy,

Chief William Jackson, Prine, and Prine’s Chief of Staff, Kennedy. Though the purpose and spirit

of the meeting was intended to be amicable and productive, that is not how the meeting went.

Rather than discuss a compromise or make reasonable suggestions for resolution, Prine presented

a written ultimatum and demanded Levy accept one of two options, both of which involved giving

Prine control over the GCTC. After presenting his ultimatum, Kennedy, recognizing the

unreasonableness of Prine’s counterproductive tactic, attempted to intervene. Kennedy’s

opposition appeared to further irritate Prine, and the meeting became even more contentious to the

point that Kennedy resigned that evening.

20
 DOCUMENT 67

D. The OES Review

As mentioned above, within a few days of the March 8, 2024 ultimatum meeting leading

Kennedy to resign, Levy sent Director Lasky the March 11, 2024 OES Review outlining the

strengths and weaknesses of Echo Stop. The OES Review is printed on 321z Insights letterhead

and signed by its President, Jonni Baker. 321z Insights is a third-party company that had been

engaged with City Council’s approval months earlier, mostly for the purpose of reviewing the

GCTC’s forensic lab standards. Upon receiving the OES Review, Director Lasky understood the

report to be exactly as described in the March 11, 2024 cover letter and report title (i.e., a third-

party peer review and analysis of Echo Stop). After receiving the OES Review from Levy,

Director Lasky, in turn, provided it to Chief Barber, Prine, and, separately, to Mayor Stimpson.

The OES Review did not conclude Echo Stop was a total failure or mention Prine by name, but it

did note several areas for improvement, including better support from MPD leadership.

E. Prine’s Rebuttal

After Prine received the OES Review, he interpreted the report as blaming him and the

MPD for failures or marginal successes related to Echo Stop. In response, prepared the Prine

Rebuttal. Prine’s Rebuttal disputes the accuracy of the assertions in the OES Review, pointing to

the MPD’s lack of support as impeding the program’s success and alleges that Echo Stop was

entirely controlled by Levy. According to the Prine Rebuttal, Levy excluded the MPD from

providing input in the plans for Echo Stop from the start of the initiative. Notably, Prine’s

Rebuttal challenged only the methodology of the “peer review” and accuracy of the findings in the

OES Review. Nothing in the Prine Rebuttal included the type allegations he subsequently raised

only after he had been terminated and/or knew he would be terminated, including that 321z

Insights was not a legitimate company or questioning the propriety of the 321z Insights contract.

21
 DOCUMENT 67

To be clear, Prine never reported such concerns, either verbally or in his written complaints, at any

time prior to March 27, 2024 when he was presented with the option of resigning or being

terminated. To the extent Prine alleges otherwise, in paragraph 28 or elsewhere in the Complaint,

Defendants deny the allegation.

F. The March 27, 2024 Separation Meeting

Following the March 8 ultimatum meeting, in a final attempt to resolve the controversy

between Prine and Levy and tensions surrounding the MPD’s use of the GCTC, a meeting was

held on March 15, 2024 to discuss a compromise. The March 15 meeting was attended by Mayor

Stimpson, Chief Barber, Director Lasky, Prine, Levy, Chief Jackson, and Curtis Graves. During

the meeting, they discussed the option of assigning Levy to oversee the GCTC lab functions while

assigning a lieutenant or captain from the MPD, who would report directly to Prine, to be

responsible for tactical and gun intelligence at the GCTC. Prine opposed the suggestion and

instead, similar to the March 8 ultimatum meeting, proposed that the GCTC be under his control

with Levy answering directly to Prine. Following the March 15 meeting, it was apparent the

disagreement and conflicts between Prine and Levy were irreconcilable.

Within a few days of the March 15 meeting, Mayor Stimpson was advised that Brown had

completed his investigation of the MPD procedures and use-of-force incidents. Mayor Stimpson

was out of town from approximately March 20-24, 2024, but upon returning on March 25, 2024

Mayor Stimpson’s staff debriefed him on Brown’s preliminary observations from his investigation

pending his forthcoming written report. As the debriefing meeting confirmed, among other issues

related to MPD operating procedures, Brown’s Investigation revealed serious concerns about

Prine’s leadership, management style, professionalism, and culture that had developed under

Prine’s tenure as Chief of the MPD.

22
 DOCUMENT 67

Considering the totality of the issues with Prine over the last several months, Mayor

Stimpson determined Prine could no longer continue as Chief of Police. The breakdown in and

Prine’s deteriorating relationships with Levy, Chief Barber, and City Council members seemed

irreparable and was impacting morale and the effectiveness of the MPD. Also, while no one had

seen Brown’s final written report yet, based on the preliminary information Mayor Stimpson was

provided during the March 25 meeting, it was apparent that Brown’s Investigation only solidified

the concerns about Prine’s effectiveness as Chief of Police.

On March 27, 2024, Mayor Stimpson and the City attorney met with Prine to present him

with the options of resignation or termination. Prine seemed to accept the decision and told

Mayor Stimpson and the City attorney he would resign. Toward the end of the March 27 meeting,

Prine mentioned for the first time his suspicions about the propriety of engaging 321z Insights,

including the cost and questions about when and how 321z Insights was formed. In response to

the new information Prine provided, Mayor Stimpson requested the City attorney conduct a full

investigation of the 321z Insights contract.

Based on Prine’s assurances in the March 27 meeting, Mayor Stimpson and the City

attorney understood Prine was selecting the resignation option, which of course mooted the

termination option and eliminated the need to place Prine on administrative leave pending the City

Council’s formal approval to terminate. Following the March 27 meeting, Prine remained in

active duty status and was expected to continue performing his job duties as the parties worked to

negotiate separation terms. However, for the next approximately ten (10) days, though Prine was

physically present at MPD headquarters, he was absent from his command and neglected his

duties. Indeed, Prine either cancelled or did not attend important meetings, barely spoke to the

Command Staff (including the Assistant Chief of Police), and failed to provide the Command Staff

23
 DOCUMENT 67

necessary direction or supervise the day-to-day operations of the MPD. Prine’s abandonment of

his duties left the Command Staff without leadership, causing a member of the Command Staff to

express concern on April 8, 2024. As he reported to Director Lasky and Chief Barber, Prine had

essentially checked out from his position, leaving the Command Staff unable to make necessary

decisions that required Prine’s input or approval. Simultaneously, the media began making

inquiries about Prine’s employment status, and it was clear to the City administration that a final

decision concerning Prine’s separation needed to be made quickly. The City attorney had

extensive discussions with Prine and Prine’s then attorney, but without success. It was apparent

that negotiating a separation pursuant to which Prine would resign was not possible. Out of

concern for the Command Staff and facing pressure to respond to media inquiries about Prine’s

status, Mayor Stimpson determined the decision could not be delayed any longer. On April 9,

2024, Mayor Stimpson suspended Prine and placed him on administrative leave, pending the City

Council’s approval to terminate, and approved informing the media of the decision.

G. Prine’s Public Accusations Leading the City Council to Appoint Special

Counsel to Conduct an Investigation

Immediately after Mayor Stimpson’s early evening decision on April 9, 2024, later that

same evening Prine made numerous statements to the media accusing City leadership of unethical

and corrupt conduct and describing himself as a “whistleblower.” Prine accused City leadership

of (i) unethical conduct that Prine claimed was the subject of “grievances” he filed that went

unaddressed and were the impetus for the alleged conspiracy to oust Prine as Chief of Police; (ii)

permitting a “high ranking [City] official” to fabricate information in an attempt to blame Prine

for certain failed law enforcement initiatives (e.g., Operation Echo Stop); (iii) using the Brown

Investigation to target Prine for the purpose of “controlling the narrative” in the community

24
 DOCUMENT 67

concerning the use-of-force incidents; and (iv) engaging in financial impropriety, including misuse

or waste of taxpayer funds.

Because Prine elected to make his accusations publicly, and considering the seriousness of

his accusations, it was incumbent on the City Council to take action to determine the merit of the

accusations and otherwise address them. On April 30, 2024, pursuant to Resolution 60-372, the

City Council approved appointing Special Counsel to conduct an investigation of Prine’s recent

public accusations, and Athanas led the investigation. Subsequently, following council meetings

to discuss the scope of the investigation, the City Council approved Resolution 60-473 identifying

four (4) categories of alleged misconduct for Athanas to investigate. The fourth category asked

Athanas to investigate: “any allegations made by Chief Prine that written grievances filed or

submitted by him were not properly addressed or investigated.” See City Council Resolution 60-

473 at ¶ 1(d)). This topic related to Prine’s accusation to the media that he had “filed” grievances

reporting serious and unethical misconduct by high-ranking officials. Contrary to the allegations

in paragraph 28 of the Complaint, limiting Athanas’s investigation to written grievances or

complaints Prine made was responsive to Prine’s public accusation claiming he had “filed”

grievances formally reporting alleged misconduct. Thus, investigating written grievances would

capture any formal complaints Prine made. Importantly, limiting the investigation to written

complaints also would prevent Prine from raising new allegations to Athanas that were not made

or submitted during the time he was employed. That was a legitimate concern based on Prine’s

recent attempt to mischaracterize the substance of his verbal complaints about Chief Barber,

including in his March 18, 2024 email complaint. Defendants deny the allegation in paragraph

28 of the Complaint alleging that Athanas was limited to reviewing only written complaints for

the purpose of preventing him from investigating Prine’s November 20, 2023 verbal complaint,

25
 DOCUMENT 67

which again complained only about Prine’s unsupported suspicion that Chief Barber was trying to

remove him as Chief of Police.

29. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 29 of the Complaint. As already

discussed, Chief Barber never asked Prine to be involved in leaking the Dallas autopsy report to

the media and that also was not the reason for Prine’s verbal complaint. Defendants further deny

the allegation that Chief Barber began “hatching other plans to get rid of Prine.” While Chief

Barber and other City leaders eventually agreed Prine should no longer be Chief of Police, they

did not reach that conclusion until the concerns and events leading up to the March 27, 2024

separation meeting.

30. Defendants admit only the allegation in paragraph 30 of the Complaint alleging

that Brown was engaged to investigate MPD policies concerning the use of force and the multiple

recent incidents and deny each of the remaining allegations in paragraph 30. Defendants further

respond to paragraph 30 as follows:

The decision to engage Brown was a decision made by Mayor Stimpson following

discussions with the City attorney and a Council member on November 13, 2023, i.e., prior to

Prine’s alleged verbal or written grievances – belying the accuracy of Prine’s theory that the

Brown Investigation was in retaliation for the grievances. Brown was formally engaged pursuant

to a contract signed on November 21, 2023. The reason for selecting Brown was based on his

prior service as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama and his reputation in the

community, including the respect he had with local law enforcement. Contrary to the

misinformed and false allegations in paragraph 30, Chief Barber was not involved in selecting

Brown for the investigation and did not fly to Washington D.C. to meet with or hire Brown.

Likewise, the allegations that Brown was selected based on an alleged friendship with Chief Barber
26
 DOCUMENT 67

and/or that Brown was not truly independent are baseless and are denied.

31. Defendants deny each of the allegations in paragraph 31 of the Complaint, which

are so obviously frivolous and unsupported they cannot pass Rule 11 muster. See Ala. R. Civ. P.

11(a) (requiring pleadings be based on “knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground

to support it”) (“emphasis added). For starters, the allegation that the actual reason for engaging

Brown was to launch a “witch hunt” against Prine in retaliation for accusing Mayor Stimpson and

Chief Barber of illegal conduct is absurd and does not temporally align with the actual facts. See,

supra, at ¶ 30. Again, Prine did not accuse Mayor Stimpson or Chief Barber of illegal conduct at

any time before his public accusations. It was only after he was suspended pending termination

and after the Brown Investigation was completed that Prine made his accusations. Moreover,

even accepting Prine’s alleged timeline as true, Prine’s alleged verbal complaint on November 20,

2023 could not have been the reason for engaging Brown because the decision to engage Brown

was made a week prior (during a meeting on November 13, 2023). Defendants deny each of the

remaining allegations in paragraph 31, including that Chief Barber or anyone other than Brown

and his team determined who would be interviewed in the Brown Investigation and that any of

Brown’s findings were improperly influenced by Defendants.

32. Defendants admit only the allegations in paragraph 32 of the Complaint alleging

that Powers and Powers Consulting assisted Brown in his investigation and in preparation of

Brown’s report and are listed in the report. Defendants deny each of the remaining allegations in

paragraph 32, including that any information contained in Brown’s report is defamatory or

actionable.

33. Defendants deny each of the allegations in paragraph 33 of the Complaint.

Defendants answer further to state the purpose of the PowerPoint Director Lasky sent Levy was
27
 DOCUMENT 67

not to make Prine look bad or to falsely report information about Prine, and that allegation is

denied. Paragraph 33 of the Complaint also misstates the sworn testimony by both Levy and

Director Lasky during the Athanas investigation, which is easily demonstrated by their written

transcripts. Contrary to paragraph 33, both individuals denied that Director Lasky asked or even

suggested that Levy fabricate information about Prine in the PowerPoint or any other format. The

allegations that Chief Barber conspired with or instructed Director Lasky to encourage Levy to

fabricate information or discredit Prine likewise is false and denied.

34. Defendants admit only the allegation in paragraph 34 of the Complaint alleging

that on January 22, 2024, Prine emailed a complaint titled “grievance” reporting Director Lasky’s

comment to McCarron and other information, which is discussed fully, supra, at p. 14 ¶ 28 A(i),

adopted and incorporated as if set forth fully herein. Defendants deny the remaining allegations

in paragraph 34 of the Complaint.

35. Defendants admit only the allegation in paragraph 35 of the Complaint alleging

that on or about March 14, 2024, Director Lasky provided Prine the third-party review of Echo

Stop (the OES Review) that he received from Levy. Defendants deny each of the remaining

allegations in paragraph 35 and further respond as follows:

Paragraph 35 misstates the facts concerning the information that eventually was

discovered, after extensive investigation, concerning how the OES Review was prepared. Prine’s

first mention of anything suspicious about the 321z Insights contract was during the March 27,

2024 separation meeting, and at Mayor Stimpson’s immediate direction, a full investigation was

completed. It was not until that investigation that information surfaced revealing 321z Insights

had not conducted a “third-party peer review” of Echo Stop and was not responsible for drafting

the substance of the OES Review. As the investigation confirmed, Levy primarily authored the
28
 DOCUMENT 67

OES Review and 321z Insights had limited involvement for the content, assisting mostly with

proofreading and formatting the report. It also confirmed the reason Levy involved 321z Insights,

including putting the report on the company’s letterhead, was in an attempt to remain anonymous

so that any criticisms in the OES Review would not be attributed to Levy.

Separately, the Athanas investigation thoroughly reviewed the 321z Insights contract and

OES Review. As both investigations confirmed, Director Lasky did not know and could not have

known that Levy authored the OES Review based on how Levy provided it to Director Lasky.

Upon receiving the OES Review and March 11, 2024 cover letter signed by 321z Insight’s

President, Director Lasky understood the OES Review to be exactly as it was titled, i.e., that it was

“a peer review of Operation Echo Stop.” Prine cannot reasonably fault Director Lasky for not

realizing Levy’s involvement since when Prine received the OES Review, he understood it the

same as Director Lasky. When Director Lasky forwarded the OES Review to Prine almost

immediately after he received it from Levy (prompting the Prine Rebuttal), he nor Prine had any

reason to suspect the report was prepared by Levy rather than 321z Insights. The Prine Rebuttal

does not make that allegation because it was not until the subsequent investigation that anyone

other than Levy could have known Levy authored the OES Review.

Last, while the report and findings in the OES Review speak for themselves, the allegation

in paragraph 35 characterizing the OES Review as finding that Echo Stop was a failure caused by

MPD leadership is misleading and denied. The OES Review notes both successes and areas for

improvement within Echo Stop, and the findings include aspects of the program that were

determined to be “highly effective.” While the OES Review did attribute less effective aspects of

the program to a lack of coordination or support by the MPD, the OES Review did not conclude

Echo Stop was a total failure.

29
 DOCUMENT 67

36. Defendants preface their answer to paragraph 36 of the Complaint to clarify that

the information Defendants eventually learned about 321z Insights and the preparation of the OES

Review, as related to the allegations in paragraph 36, is based on two separate investigations: one

by Burr Forman and one by Athanas. None of that information was known or available to

Defendants during any of the decisions or statements at issue in Prine’s Complaint. Otherwise,

Defendants respond to paragraph 36 to state that based on the information substantiated in the

investigations, Defendants admit that in the summer of 2023 when Levy first began discussing

engaging Mark and Jonni Baker, the principals of 321z Insights, to review the GCTC’s operations,

321z Insights had not yet been formed. On information and belief, 321z Insights was formed

thereafter and prior to the City Council’s Resolution on November 21, 2023 approving the contract

to engage 321z Insights. Additionally, while $92,000 was the total maximum cost for all services

321z Insights would provide under the contract, based on the investigations, that was for other

services to be compensated in accordance with the contract schedule and did not include the “peer

review” of Echo Stop Levy arranged on his own. As the investigations of the 321z Insights

engagement confirmed, the City incurred no additional expense for 321z Insights’ involvement

with the OES Review. Defendants deny any allegation in paragraph 36 not admitted above.

37. Defendants deny each of the allegations in paragraph 37 of the Complaint.

Defendants respond further to state that any of the alleged defamatory comments Defendants made

about Prine were in response to Prine’s public accusations and/or media or other public inquiries

about Prine’s separation and removal from his position as Chief of Police. During or shortly

following the March 27, 2024 separation meeting, Prine told Mayor Stimpson and the City attorney

he wished to accept the resignation option but needed more time to consider the proposed

separation agreement. In fact, Prine used the additional time to develop a plan for negotiating a
30
 DOCUMENT 67

more lucrative separation payment, including by threatening to sling “mud” at Defendants if the

City did not agree to his demands, including paying Prine $600,000. When the City declined

Prine’s excessive demand, Prine executed on his threats and made his baseless accusations to the

media, beginning with Prine’s April 9, 2024 interview to Fox 10 news. Again, Prine’s self-

proclaimed “whistleblower” status could not be more disingenuous or wrong.

38. Paragraph 38 of the Complaint does not allege facts against these Defendants,

and Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny everything that was discussed

in Brown’s interview of Prine. Therefore, to the extent paragraph 38 requires a response,

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 38.

39. Paragraph 39 of the Complaint does not allege facts against these Defendants, and

Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny everything that was or was not

discussed in Brown’s interview of Prine. Therefore, to the extent paragraph 39 requires a response,

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 39.

40. Defendants deny each of the allegations in paragraph 40 of the Complaint. In

further response to paragraph 40, Defendants state as follows:

Neither the Brown Investigation nor his subsequent report was a “hit piece” intended to

discredit Prine. To the contrary, when the decision was made to engage Brown on or about

November 13, 2023, the sixth use-of-force incident in an approximate eight-month period had just

occurred, resulting in the fatality of a 16-year-old. Given the seriousness and number of incidents

over a short period of time and understandable public concern, engaging an independent and

qualified professional to do an objective investigation was the only responsible next step.

The reasonableness and accuracy of Prine’s theory that the Brown Investigation was a “hit

piece” to try and find grounds for removing Prine is further rebutted by Prine’s at-will employment
31
 DOCUMENT 67

status. If Mayor Stimpson wanted to remove Prine, Mayor Stimpson could have made that

recommendation to the City Council at any time. Engaging Brown to conduct a ruse investigation

to find cause to terminate Prine was entirely unnecessary, and that was not even a consideration in

Mayor Stimpson’s decision to engage Brown. Prine’s theory about the alleged vindictive reason

for the Brown Investigation is as absurd and baseless as his other retaliation theories related to his

alleged grievances.

Defendants deny the additional allegations in paragraph 40 suggesting the “grievances”

Prine submitted on November 20, 2023 related to Chief Barber or on January 22, 2024 related to

Director Lasky reported unlawful conduct or were the impetus for taking vindictive action against

Prine.

The remaining allegations in paragraph 40 of the Complaint do not allege facts against

these Defendants, and Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny everything

Prine told Brown during the Brown Investigation beyond what is included in his report.

Therefore, to the extent further response to paragraph 40 of the Complaint is required, Defendants

deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 40.

41. The majority of the allegations in paragraph 41 of the Complaint allege

discussions between Prine and the City attorney that allegedly took place on March 22, 2024 and

do not allege facts against Defendants or require a response. The only allegation in paragraph 41

of the Complaint that alleges facts against any of the Defendants is the allegation that Mayor

Stimpson referred to Prine’s January 22, 2024 “grievance” directed at Lasky as “frivolous, a

conspiracy theory and that Prine was paranoid.” Defendants deny the allegation and further

respond to state that paragraph 41 confuses the allegations that were the subject of Mayor

Stimpson’s comments and his actual statements. To be sure, in response to Prine’s public

32
 DOCUMENT 67

accusations, prompting media inquiries to Mayor Stimpson about Prine’s alleged complaints or

“grievances,” Mayor Stimpson described Prine’s complaints as “frivolous” and “demonstrably

false,” but he was referring to the more recent allegations in Prine’s March 18, 2024 email, not

Prine’s earlier grievance against Director Lasky. Both of Mayor Stimpson’s statements were true.

Indeed, Prine’s March 18, 2024 email is replete with accusations that Mayor Stimpson knew at the

time he received the email were frivolous and demonstrably false (e.g., Chief Barber allegedly

misrepresented his security clearance). See also discussion, supra, at pp. 16-8 ¶ 28 A(ii), adopted

and incorporated as if set forth fully herein.

Defendants deny any allegation in paragraph 41 of the Complaint unless admitted above.

42. Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 42 of the Complaint.

43. Defendants deny that the allegations in paragraph 43 of the Complaint accurately

or completely describe the terms of the two options presented to Prine during the March 27, 2024

separation meeting. Defendants respond further to state that while “Letter A” is not attached to

or defined in the Complaint, as Defendants understand the allegations in paragraph 43, they are

referencing a March 27, 2024 memo prepared by the City attorney, which speaks for itself. To

summarize the two options outlined in the memo, Prine was presented the following: Option 1 –

resign under the terms of a separation agreement including a non-disparagement provision; or

Option 2 – termination, in which case Prine would be suspended immediately, placed on

administrative leave, and removed of his duties pending City Council’s approval to terminate. To

the extent paragraph 43 alleges or suggests that the non-disparagement term under Option 1 would

permit or was intended to permit any of the Defendants to change or impact the findings in Brown’s

Investigation, the allegation is expressly denied. Defendants further deny any allegations in

paragraph 43 of the Complaint not admitted above.

33
 DOCUMENT 67

44. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 44 of the Complaint and further deny

that paragraph 44 accurately describes the two options presented to Prine during the March 27,

2024 separation meeting. Contrary to the allegations in paragraph 44, neither of the separation

options “explicitly states that the City administration (Stimpson and Barber) would publicly

disparage Prine’s reputation” if he did not elect resignation under Option 1.

45. Paragraph 45 of the Complaint references but does not attach or adequately define

“Letter B.” As Defendants understand the allegations in paragraph 45, they are referencing

correspondence dated March 27, 2024 prepared on City letterhead and signed by Mayor Stimpson

informing Prine he was on administrative leave effective March 27. Defendants admit that if

Prine had been placed on administrative leave he would have been relieved of his command duties.

In further response to paragraph 46 of the Complaint, Defendants state that when Mayor

Stimpson’s March 27 correspondence was prepared in advance of the separation meeting, it was

intended to inform Prine he would be placed on administrative leave in the event Prine selected

termination under Option 2. Since Prine did not select Option 2 and instead elected to resign

under Option 1, Prine remained in active duty status, and Defendants deny that Prine was placed

on administrative leave or relieved of his command duties during or immediately following the

March 27 separation meeting. To the contrary, after the meeting, Prine was permitted and

expected to perform his normal duties pending Prine’s return of the signed separation agreement,

which Prine initially agreed to return by Friday, March 29, 2024. The allegation in paragraph 45

asserting that Mayor Stimpson or the City attorney allowed Prine twenty-one (21) days to consider

and return the signed agreement is denied because, as stated above, that was not the timeline

34
 DOCUMENT 67

discussed and agreed to with Prine during the March 27 meeting. 2 Prine did not return the

agreement on March 29, 2024 and instead advised that he had engaged or was in the process of

engaging an attorney to assist him with reviewing the agreement. Accordingly, Prine requested a

brief extension, which Mayor Stimpson and the City attorney approved.

46. Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 46 of the Complaint and respond

further to clarify that Defendants do not know why Prine’s badge access stopped working on

March 31, 2024. Since Prine was neither placed on administrative leave nor relieved of his duties,

Prine’s access to the MPD building and email server should not have been impacted or removed.

Regardless, as paragraph 46 confirms, as soon as Prine’s attorney alerted the City attorney of the

issue, Prine’s access was immediately restored. Defendants do not know whether Prine’s reason

for going to his office on March 31, 2024 was to gather personal documents or meet with his

attorney, and therefore, Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 46 of the

Complaint.

47. Defendants admit only the allegation in paragraph 47 of the Complaint alleging

the media learned information about Prine’s situation that prompted multiple inquiries to City

administration asking the status of Prine’s employment. Defendants deny the allegation that City

administration, or anyone acting on its behalf, was responsible for sharing the information with

the media and further deny that Prine received “threats” on April 9, 2024 and/or or leading up to

that date. In further response to paragraph 47, Defendants state as follows:

2
With respect to the allegations concerning the twenty-one (21)-day review period, that was
included in the written separation agreement provided to Prine as required by federal law to
validate the release of certain claims. Under applicable law, the 21-day review period is waivable
and the agreement can be executed sooner. Regardless, the discussion on March 27 and the
understanding by everyone who attended the meeting was that Prine would return the signed
agreement by March 29, 2024.
35
 DOCUMENT 67

(i) Prine was not on administrative leave or relieved of his command immediately

following the March 27, 2024 separation meeting, and Prine was expected to continue performing

his necessary duties during the period the separation terms were being considered. Yet, for

multiples days leading up to April 9, 2024, Prine was noticeably “checked out” and absent from

performing his command duties, leading a Command Staff member to express concern to Director

Lasky and Chief Barber about the impact on the Command Staff. As he reported to Director

Lasky and separately, Chief Barber, Prine had not spoken to him since March 27; Prine was

cancelling and/or not attending important meetings; and Prine’s office had been cleared out and

all of his personal belongings had been removed. The Command Staff member explained that

Prine’s sudden disengagement was raising questions about Prine’s employment status among the

MPD, and more troubling, it left the Command Staff in the lurch with no leadership or ability to

make decisions that required Prine’s input or approval. See also, supra, at pp. 23-24 ¶ 28 F,

adopted and incorporated as if set forth fully herein.

(ii) The alleged “threats” referenced in paragraph 47 of the Complaint, in fact, were

discussions between the City attorney and Prine’s former attorney about the media scrutiny and

flurry of inquiries, both from the Command Staff and media, the City Administration was fielding

about Prine’s employment status. Specifically, on April 9, 2024, following several media

requests, a WKRG reporter posted a story about a shake-up in the MPD command and teased that

a more detailed report would follow at or around 5:00 P.M. That prompted reporters from other

news stations to contact City administration to ask for a statement about Prine’s status as Chief of

Police. As Mayor Stimpson’s staff worked to postpone further media coverage and secure a few

more hours to respond to the various inquiries, the City attorney contacted Prine’s former attorney

to explain the situation. As the City attorney emphasized to Prine’s attorney, time was of the

36
 DOCUMENT 67

essence, and based on concerns from the Command Staff, media questions, and pressure the City

administration was facing about Prine, it would have to respond in the next few hours by providing

a statement concerning Prine’s employment status. Neither the City attorney nor anyone else

threatened Prine or his attorney, and all that was communicated was that Mayor Stimpson needed

to know Prine’s final decision concerning resignation or termination. The City attorney provided

Prine’s attorney a deadline of 6:00 P.M. on April 9, 2024 for Prine to confirm whether he would

resign and accept the separation offer, as Prine assured during the March 27 separation meeting.

While attempts to negotiate the final terms of the separation agreement continued through the

afternoon of April 9, 2024, negotiations fell apart when Prine demanded $600,000 “or there is

enough mud to sling for everyone.”

(iii) Defendants did not know what “mud” Prine was threatening to sling, but they did

know none of his accusations to-date (being improperly targeted or the victim of a conspiracy to

remove him as Chief of Police) had any merit. Defendants also knew their concerns about Prine’s

performance and Mayor Stimpson’s decision to remove him as Chief of Police were legitimate

and justified and had nothing to do with a conspiracy or retaliation for Prine’s alleged “grievances.”

Thus, paying Prine’s excessive demand was out of the question. The allegation in paragraph 47

alleging the non-disparagement term was the reason negotiations fell apart on April 9, 2024 is

denied. While that did became an issue later, the reason negotiations fell apart on April 9, 2024

was because Prine reneged on his decision to resign. To be clear, it was Prine’s exorbitant

monetary demand coupled with his threat to sling “mud” that killed the negotiations.

Accordingly, on April 9, 2024, Mayor Stimpson approved the decision to place Prine on

administrative leave, effective immediately. Mayor Stimpson also approved notifying the media

that Prine had been placed on administrative leave. The statement City administration provided

37
 DOCUMENT 67

the media on April 9, 2024 was short and did not disclose the detailed reasons for, or events leading

up to, the decision. Within a couple hours of announcing Prine’s administrative leave, on the

evening of April 9, 2024, Prine provided the first of numerous interviews to the media broadcasting

his accusations against the City administration, including Defendants.

(iv) The remaining allegations in paragraph 47 of the Complaint alleging that

Defendants threatened to disparage Prine on April 9, 2024 and/or told Prine that the City would

not agree to be bound by a nondisparagement provision confuse the timeline of the discussions

about the nondisparagement provision and falsely state that Defendants threatened to use the

Brown report to disparage and “ruin” Prine’s reputation. Again, the non-disparagement term was

not the sticking point on April 9, 2024. Therefore, Defendants deny the remaining allegations in

paragraph 47.

48. Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 48 of the Complaint alleging that

several days after announcing Prine’s suspension and administrative leave, the parties completed

mediation, which was not successful.

49. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 49 of the Complaint and respond

further to state that following the breakdown in negotiations on April 9, 2024, forcing City

administration to accelerate making and announcing the decision to place Prine on administrative

leave, and Prine’s very public and serious accusations to the media, offering Prine a non-

disparagement provision no longer was workable. As Defendants knew, Prine’s public

accusations would require further investigation and an accurate and candid response by Mayor

Stimpson and his administration. Moreover, since Prine’s suspension, Brown had finished and

provided his written report, which was shared (in redacted form) with the public, including

Brown’s concerns about Prine’s leadership of the MPD. The news that Prine had been suspended
38
 DOCUMENT 67

coupled with Brown’s documented concerns about Prine naturally exacerbated public concern

about the volume and gravity of the use-of-force incidents occurring under Prine’s watch, which

was another reason being bound by a non-disparagement provision was unworkable for City

administration. Defendants admit the allegation in paragraph 49 that no subsequent agreement

was provided to Prine because the parties could not agree on material settlement terms, primarily

the monetary payment or Prine’s insistence that Mayor Stimpson agree to a non-disparagement

term that would have prohibited him and his administration from truthfully responding to media

inquiries or otherwise discussing the accurate reasons for Prine’s termination. The remaining

allegations in paragraph 49 of the Complaint, including that Chief Barber, Mayor Stimpson,

Director Lasky or any other member of the City administration wanted to “hide their skeletons”

and ruin Prine in the process, are expressly denied.

50. Defendants admit the allegation in paragraph 50 of the Complaint alleging that on

April 30, 2024, the City Council voted unanimously in favor of terminating Prine.

51. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 51 of the Complaint alleging

defamatory statements made by Mayor Stimpson. Paragraph 51, including subparagraphs (a) –

(m), identify more than fifteen (15) statements that are alleged to be verbatim quotes by Mayor

Stimpson defaming Prine. For starters, Defendants deny Mayor Stimpson made each of the

statements exactly as quoted in paragraphs 51 (a) – (m). More substantively, Defendants deny

any of the alleged statements are defamatory or actionable for one and/or a combination of reasons,

including: the alleged statements are the absolute truth; express opinions, not facts; are not

reasonably susceptible to stating or implying a defamatory meaning; and/or because the statements

are subject to one or more privileges that Prine cannot possibly rebut.

52. Paragraph 52 of the Complaint does not allege facts against these Defendants and
39
 DOCUMENT 67

should not require a response. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the alleged

statements by the Council Members outlined in paragraph 52 constitute actionable defamation and

also deny the alleged statements would not be subject to similar defenses as identified, supra, at ¶

51.

53. Paragraph 53 of the Complaint does not allege facts against these Defendants and

should not require a response. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the alleged

statements by Brown, Thompson Coburn, Powers, and/or Powers Consulting outlined in paragraph

53 constitute actionable defamation and also deny the alleged statements would not be subject to

similar defenses as identified, supra, at ¶ 51. Further, Defendants deny each of the allegations

contained in the subparagraphs beginning with “Truth” inserted below subparagraphs (a) – (i) and

attempting to demonstrate that Prine’s self-serving and inaccurate factual allegations are the

“truth.”

54. Paragraph 54 of the Complaint does not allege facts against these Defendants and

should not require a response. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the alleged

statements by Brown outlined in paragraph 54 were made maliciously, constitute actionable

defamation, and also deny the alleged statements would not be subject to similar defenses as

identified, supra, at ¶51.

55. Paragraph 55 of the Complaint does not allege facts against these Defendants and

should not require a response. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the alleged

statements by Thompson Coburn and/or Brown outlined in paragraph 55 were maliciously made,

constitute actionable defamation, and also deny the alleged statements would not be subject to the

similar defenses as identified, supra, at ¶51.

40
 DOCUMENT 67

COUNT ONE
Slander Per Se3

56. Paragraph 56 and the remaining paragraphs included under Count One of the

Complaint do not assert allegations or claims against these Defendants and do not require a

response.

57. Paragraph 57 and the remaining paragraphs included under Count One of the

Complaint do not assert allegations or claims against these Defendants and do not require a

response.

58. Paragraph 58 and the remaining paragraphs included under Count One of the

Complaint do not assert allegations or claims against these Defendants and do not require a

response.

59. Paragraph 59 and the remaining paragraphs included under Count One of the

Complaint do not assert allegations or claims against these Defendants and do not require a

response.

60. Paragraph 60 and the remaining paragraphs included under Count One of the

Complaint do not assert allegations or claims against these Defendants and do not require a

response.

61. Paragraph 61 and the remaining paragraphs included under Count One of the

Complaint do not assert allegations or claims against these Defendants and do not require a

response.

3
Count One of the Complaint is asserted only against Defendants Brown, Thompson Coburn,
and “Powell and Powell Consulting” (which may be referring to Powers and Powers Consulting). Thus,
no response to Count One is required from these Defendants, and Count One is included herein so that
the paragraph numbering in the Answer aligns with the paragraph numbering in the Complaint.
41
 DOCUMENT 67

62. Paragraph 62 and the Wherefore paragraph included under Count One of the

Complaint do not assert allegations, claims, or request relief against these Defendants and do not

require a response.

COUNT TWO
Slander Per Quod 4

63. Defendants adopt and incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1-55 of the

Complaint above as if set forth fully herein.

64. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 64 of the Complaint because the

Complaint does not identify a single false statement about Prine allegedly made by Mayor

Stimpson, Chief Barber, or Director Lasky.

65. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 65 of the Complaint because any

alleged statement made by Mayor Stimpson, Chief Barber, or Director Lasky was true and/or made

with a reasonable and good faith belief that the statement was true.

66. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 66 of the Complaint because

Defendants did not make defamatory statements about Prine and certainly did not do so

maliciously. Moreover, any statements Defendants are alleged to have made about Prine were

made during the course of performing their official duties on matters of public interest and concern,

not for the purpose of injuring Prine’s reputation or causing him other harm.

67. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 67 of the Complaint because none

of the alleged statements allegedly made by Mayor Stimpson, Chief Barber and/or Director Lasky

were the cause of Prine’s alleged injuries.

4
Since Count Two of the Complaint does not specifically identify the defendants against
whom Count Two is asserted, Defendants assume it is asserted against all of the named defendants.
42
 DOCUMENT 67

68. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 68 of the Complaint alleging Prine

suffered emotional or monetary damages as a result of any statement or conduct by Defendants

and further deny that Prine is entitled to recover from Defendants any of the relief requested in the

Wherefore paragraph following paragraph 68 of the Complaint.

COUNT THREE
Libel Per Se 5

69. Paragraph 69 and the remaining paragraphs included under Count Three of the

Complaint do not assert allegations or claims against these Defendants and do not require a

response.

70. Paragraph 70 and the remaining paragraphs included under Count Three of the

Complaint do not assert allegations or claims against these Defendants and do not require a

response.

71. Paragraph 71 and the remaining paragraphs included under Count Three of the

Complaint do not assert allegations or claims against these Defendants and do not require a

response.

72. Paragraph 72 and the remaining paragraphs included under Count Three of the

Complaint do not assert allegations or claims against these Defendants and do not require a

response.

73. Paragraph 73 and the Wherefore paragraph included under Count Three of the

Complaint do not assert allegations, claims, or request relief against these Defendants, and do not

5
Count Three of the Complaint is asserted only against Defendants Brown and Thompson
Coburn, requiring no response from these Defendants. Count Three is included herein so that the
paragraph numbering in the Answer aligns with the paragraph numbering in the Complaint.

43
 DOCUMENT 67

require a response.

COUNT FOUR
Libel Per Quod 6

74. Mayor Stimpson adopts and incorporates the response to paragraphs 1-55 and 63-

68 of the Complaint above as if set forth fully herein. Paragraph 74 and the remaining paragraphs

in Count Four of the Complaint are not asserted against Chief Barber or Director Lasky, requiring

no response from Chief Barber or Director Lasky.

75. Mayor Stimpson denies the allegations in paragraph 75 of the Complaint because

he neither published nor caused anyone else to publish false written statements about Prine.

76. Mayor Stimpson denies the allegations in paragraph 76 of the Complaint because

any written statement identified in the Complaint and allegedly published by or published at Mayor

Stimpson’s direction or with his approval was true and/or published with a reasonable and good

faith belief that the statement was true.

77. Mayor Stimpson denies the allegations in paragraph 77 of the Complaint because

any written statement identified in the Complaint allegedly published by or published at Mayor

Stimpson’s direction or with his approval was in the course of performing Mayor Stimpson’s

official duties on matters of public interest and concern or otherwise protected by applicable

immunity and/or privilege. Mayor Stimpson denies any of the alleged statements or actions by

him related to Prine were for the purpose of injuring Prine’s reputation or causing Prine other

harm.

6
Count Four of the Complaint is asserted only against Mayor Stimpson, Brown, Thompson
Coburn, and “Powell and Powell Consulting” (which may be referring to Powers and Powers
Consulting). Count Four is not asserted against Chief Barber or Director Lasky, requiring no
response from either, and the response to Count Four below is on behalf of Mayor Stimpson only.
44
 DOCUMENT 67

78. Mayor Stimpson denies the allegations in paragraph 78 of the Complaint alleging

Prine suffered emotional or monetary damages as a result of any statement or conduct by Mayor

Stimpson, and Mayor Stimpson further denies that Prine is entitled to recover any of the relief

requested in the Wherefore paragraph following paragraph 78 of the Complaint.

COUNT FIVE
Civil Conspiracy 7

79. Mayor Stimpson and Director Lasky adopt and incorporate the responses to

paragraphs 1-55, 63-68, and 74-78 above as if set forth fully herein. Paragraph 79 and the

remaining paragraphs in Count Five of the Complaint are not asserted against Chief Barber,

requiring no response from Chief Barber.

80. Mayor Stimpson and Director Lasky deny the allegations in paragraph 80 of the

Complaint because neither conspired nor combined with one another, Brown, nor anyone else to

commit an act or accomplish a purpose that is unlawful and/or to accomplish a lawful purpose by

using unlawful means. Tellingly, the Complaint does not (and could not credibly) allege or

identify the alleged underlying wrongful act on which the conspiracy claim is based.

81. Mayor Stimpson and Director Lasky deny the allegations in paragraph 81 of the

Complaint because neither engaged in acts that would constitute a “civil conspiracy.” Further, all

of the alleged statements or actions with respect to Prine allegedly made or done by Mayor

Stimpson and/or Director Lasky were in the course of performing their official duties on matters

of public interest and concern, not for the purpose of injuring Prine’s reputation or causing him

other harm.

7
Count Five of the Complaint is asserted only against Mayor Stimpson, Director Lasky, and
Brown. Count Five is not asserted against Chief Barber, requiring no response from him, and the
answer to Count Five below is on behalf of Mayor Stimpson and Director Lasky only.
45
 DOCUMENT 67

82. Mayor Stimpson and Director Lasky deny the allegations in paragraph 82 of the

Complaint alleging Prine suffered emotional or monetary damages as a result of any statement,

act, or omission by Mayor Stimpson and/or Director Lasky.

83. Mayor Stimpson and Director Lasky deny the allegations in paragraph 83 of the

Complaint alleging Prine suffered emotional or monetary damages as a result of any statement,

act, or omission by Mayor Stimpson and/or Director Lasky, and deny that Prine is entitled to

recover any of the relief requested in paragraph 83.

GENERAL DENIAL
Defendants deny each and every allegation in the Complaint except as expressly admitted

in their above Answer.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ON BEHALF OF

DEFENDANTS BARBER, LASKY, AND STIMPSON 8

Defendants plead and assert the following defenses:

First Defense

Plaintiff’s Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state claims upon which relief can be

granted.

Second Defense

Plaintiff’s Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to support necessary elements of the claims

Plaintiff attempts to assert.

8
The following defenses are asserted on behalf of all three Defendants unless expressly
limited to a specifically named defendant.
46
 DOCUMENT 67

Third Defense

All of Plaintiff’s claims may be barred, in whole or in part, due to Plaintiff’s failure to

mitigate his alleged injuries or damages.

Fourth Defense

Plaintiff’s claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of unclean hands,

laches, waiver, and/or estoppel.

Fifth Defense

With respect to Plaintiff’s defamation claims, each and every oral or written statement

made by or attributable to Defendants concerning Plaintiff is true, and Plaintiff cannot establish

that any such statement was false as required to state prima facie claims for slander per quod and

libel per quod. As such, the truth of the alleged defamatory statements is an absolute bar to

Plaintiff’s defamation claims.

Sixth Defense

Even assuming Plaintiff can identify a false or defamatory statement by any Defendant,

though he cannot, his defamation claims fail because Plaintiff cannot show that his reputation was

damaged in any way, and certainly not to the degree required to show Plaintiff was subjected to

disgrace, ridicule, odium, and/or contempt.

Seventh Defense

Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s role as Chief of Police for the City of Mobile

unquestionably renders Plaintiff either a public official or a general-purpose public figure with

general fame and notoriety in the Mobile community and pervasive involvement in the City of

Mobile’s affairs. Therefore, to succeed on his defamation claims, Plaintiff must prove by clear

and convincing evidence that Defendants made a defamatory statement with actual malice, with

47
 DOCUMENT 67

knowledge of its falsity, or with a reckless disregard as to whether the statement was true or false.

Plaintiff has not and cannot satisfy his burden because Defendants’ statements were true, and at a

minimum, Defendants acted in good faith and with due care at all times material to the Complaint.

Eighth Defense

Alternatively, Plaintiff’s employment as Chief of Police and his involvement and

participation in the public attention surrounding his termination satisfy the standard for a limited-

purpose public figure in a matter of general public concern. Thus, Plaintiff bears the burden of

establishing his claims by supplying clear and convincing evidence of actual malice, and he cannot

identify any facts or evidence to carry this heavy burden.

Ninth Defense

In addition to the public official and public figure privileges, Defendants assert that some

or all of the alleged defamatory statements are subject to various other qualified privileges

necessitating application of the actual malice standard. These privileges include, but are not

limited to, political or opinion speech regarding matters of public concern protected by the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution, the common interest or “duty” privilege, the

litigation privilege, and/or the fair report or comment privilege. Defendants expressly reserve the

right to assert additional privileges as discovery progresses and as the contexts surrounding the

alleged defamatory statements by Defendants are either identified and/or further clarified.

Tenth Defense

Similarly, to avoid waiver and pending further discovery, Plaintiff’s defamation claims

may be absolutely barred, in whole or in part, by Alabama’s legislative privilege.

48
 DOCUMENT 67

Eleventh Defense

Though Defendants maintain that it would be improper given the above-identified

privileges, should the Court analyze Defendants’ alleged conduct under the “at least negligence”

standard applicable to defamation claims by private individuals regarding non-privileged

statements, Plaintiff’s slander per quod and libel per quod claims still fail because Defendants

statements are true, or, alternatively, they were not negligent in making such statements, and

Plaintiff cannot prove causation or legally cognizable damages.

Twelfth Defense

Plaintiff has not plead, and cannot credibly allege, special damages as required to state

claims for slander per quod and libel per quod.

Thirteenth Defense

To avoid waiver and pending further discovery, Defendants assert their right to state agent

and/or discretionary function immunity and further state that Plaintiff cannot establish that any of

the Defendants acted in bad faith, fraudulently, maliciously, and/or beyond their respective

authorities to defeat qualified immunity if applicable.

Fourteenth Defense

Turning to Plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim, Defendants Mayor Stimpson and Director

Lasky state that they neither conspired with any person, much less each other, to allegedly defame

Plaintiff or otherwise harm his reputation nor did they collude with each other or anyone else to

unlawfully or improperly terminate Plaintiff’s employment or threaten his ability to seek future

employment as alleged in the Complaint. To the contrary, Mayor Stimpson and Director Lasky

had official duties requiring them to manage Plaintiff’s job performance and conduct as Chief of

Police, and Plaintiff was terminated for legitimate reasons and business interests that cannot

49
 DOCUMENT 67

possibly support Plaintiff’s attempted conspiracy claim. The Complaint does not identify, and

Plaintiff cannot adduce, any facts to support the conclusory allegations in his Complaint, and his

civil conspiracy claim fails as a matter of law.

Fifteenth Defense

Even assuming Plaintiff can establish a civil conspiracy by or between Defendants Mayor

Stimpson or Director Lasky and any other individual, which they deny, Plaintiff’s claim

necessarily fails for lack of a viable underlying cause of action inasmuch as Plaintiff cannot

establish slander per quod or libel per quod by either Mayor Stimpson or Director Lasky under

any evidentiary standard, and particularly not under the applicable actual malice standard.

Sixteenth Defense

To avoid waiver and pending discovery, some or all of Plaintiff’s claims and/or recovery

may be barred by the doctrine of contributory negligence and/or others failures in Plaintiff’s proof

of causation.

Seventeenth Defense

Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff suffered any reputational or other injury, which

Defendants deny, it was actually and proximately caused by one or more independent, intervening

causes attributable to Plaintiff, not to Defendants. Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s termination,

any related statements and/or discussions, and any alleged injuries arising therefrom were direct

results of Plaintiff’s actions, misconduct, and Alabama’s at-will employment doctrine, not based

on any so-called slander, libel, and/or civil conspiracy as Plaintiff baselessly contends.

Eighteenth Defense

To the extent Plaintiff invited or consented, expressly or impliedly, to the alleged

defamatory statements allegedly made by Defendants, his claims and attempted recovery fails.

50
 DOCUMENT 67

Indeed, it was Plaintiff who invited and/or exacerbated public attention to the issues surrounding

his separation by initiating his public attack against Defendants in various interviews and

statements to the media, and Plaintiff cannot complain about any consequences he suffered as a

result of truthful statements necessarily made in response to his public accusations

Nineteenth Defense

Plaintiff seeks damages and other forms of relief not recoverable under applicable law.

Twentieth Defense

Moreover, any claim for punitive damages fails based on Defendants’ good faith efforts to

comply with applicable law, and Defendants plead all defenses and/or limitations to punitive

damages available under applicable statutes and/or controlling case law

Twenty-First Defense

Plaintiff cannot make the required showing to recover punitive damages with respect to

any of his attempted claims. Plaintiff cannot identify evidence supporting Defendants engaged in

unlawful behavior, much less intentional, willful, reckless, wanton, and/or any other conduct rising

to the level required to recover punitive damages.

Twenty-Second Defense

To the extent that any of Plaintiff’s claims are covered by statutes containing caps on

damages or relief, including, but not limited to, caps on damages recoverable from municipal or

City officials, Defendants plead and assert all applicable statutory caps.

Twenty-Third Defense

Defendants further plead all challenges and defenses to punitive damages available under

federal or Alabama law, including but not limited to, the Constitutions of the United States and/or

the State of Alabama.

51
 DOCUMENT 67

Twenty-Fourth Defense

Defendants expressly preserve and do not waive their right to assert additional affirmative

defenses as information is obtained during discovery or otherwise in this case.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Based on the foregoing, Defendants Chief Barber, Director Lasky, and Mayor Stimpson

respectfully request that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, enter a final judgment

in favor of Defendants, and award any other relief deemed just and appropriate, including, but not

limited to, Defendants’ reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses.

Respectfully submitted this the 18th day of February 2025,

/s/ Anne Laurie McClurkin

MARSHALL GARDNER
mgardner@maynardnexsen.com
ANNE LAURIE McCLURKIN
amcclurkin@maynardnexsen.com
MARY ANNA BRAND
mbrand@maynardnexsen.com

Attorneys for Defendants James Barber, Robert Lasky,

and William S. Stimpson

OF COUNSEL:

MAYNARD NEXSEN PC
RSA Battle House Tower
11 North Water Street, Suite 24290
Mobile, Alabama 36602
251.432.0001

52
 DOCUMENT 67

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 18, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing document
with the Clerk of Court using the Alafile system, which automatically will send notice to counsel
of record for Plaintiff Paul Prine and the City Council member defendants. Additionally, a copy
of the foregoing document has been served via electronic mail and United States mail, first class
postage prepaid, addressed to the following parties and/or their attorneys:

Thomas H. Benton, Jr.

Benton Law Firm, LLC
169 Dauphin Street, Suite 300
Mobile, AL 36602
tom@benton-law.com

James J. Dailey
James Dailey, PC
1111 Dauphin Street
Mobile, AL 36604
jim@jimdailey.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Paul Prine

K. Paul Carbo, Jr.

The Atchison Firm P.C.
411 Azalea Road
Mobile, AL 36609
251.665.7200
paul.carbo@atchisonlaw.com

Attorney for Council Member Defendants Carroll, Daves, Reynolds, and Small

Kenyen Brown
1909 K St NW #600
Washington, DC 20006

Thompson Coburn LLP

1909 K St NW #600
Washington, DC 20006

Powers Consulting Group LLC

1644 Walterswood Rd
Baltimore, Maryland, 21239

53
 DOCUMENT 67

Tyrone Powers
1644 Walterswood Rd
Baltimore, Maryland, 21239

Defendants

/s/ Anne Laurie McClurkin

54