Quantcast
Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Showcase


Channel Catalog



Channel Description:

The memory of a beloved pet inspires one couple's fight against injustice.

older | 1 | .... | 11 | 12 | (Page 13) | 14 | 15 | .... | 84 | newer

    0 0



    Judge Claud D. Neilson
    Public documents indicate Alabama Republican Rob Riley is preparing court orders that wind up with a judge's signature and then are issued as if they originated with the court. In fact, Riley's law office apparently has prepared all of the key orders that have been rendered so far in his defamation lawsuit that seeks to shut down my reporting on Riley's extramarital affair with lobbyist Liberty Duke.

    Jay Murrill, an attorney at Riley's law firm who is representing his boss in the case, appears to have written an order to grant a preliminary injunction and seal the public file, plus an order to hold us in contempt. If granted, the contempt order could subject us to incarceration.

    How disturbing is this scenario? Rob Riley, the son of former two-term governor Bob Riley, seems to be serving as a party, legal researcher, court clerk, and de facto judge in a Shelby County Circuit Court case styled Robert R. Riley Jr. and Liberty Duke v. Roger Shuler, Carol T. Shuler and Legal Schnauzer, Civil Action No. 2013--236 and 237.

    Do Rob Riley's ties to his father and related GOP heavyweights--not to mention national figures such as Karl Rove and Jack Abramoff--give him the clout to take over a court case and run it for his own benefit? That's exactly what appears to be happening.

    No wonder Riley moved for the court file to be sealed, meaning public documents are not available to the public. In fact, this case is more than sealed; it has gone totally underground. When you check electronic files at AlaCourt.com and do a "party search" for my name, the Riley lawsuit does not show up.

    In my experience, sealed cases generally show up on a basic docket search. Documents from the case might not be available to the public, and that seems to be standard procedure in a case that has been sealed--the divorce case involving GOP politico Jessica Medeiros Garrison and Tuscaloosa School Board president Lee Garrison is an example. (The Garrison case almost certainly was sealed to ensure that details about Jessica Garrison's affair with Attorney General Luther Strange would not leak to the public.)

    Rob Riley apparently has taken sealing one step further, ensuring that a search of public records makes it appear the lawsuit doesn't exist. Mrs. Schnauzer and I only know about the documents because we are parties. And it seems likely that even we have not been provided with copies of all documents in the case.

    Why is Rob Riley determined to shroud his lawsuit in secrecy? We can think of a whole bunch of possible reasons. But for now, we will focus on only one, and here it is: Records show the Riley Jackson law firm is writing orders, conducting research--pretty much running the show to benefit partner Rob Riley--and the firm is trying to hide such flagrant corruption from the public.

    We have little doubt that retired Marengo County Circuit Judge Claud D. Neilson, appointed by the Alabama Supreme Court to hear the Riley lawsuit, is capable of acting in a corrupt fashion. (Neilson wouldn't be an Alabama judge if that weren't the case.) But for now, we aren't sure Neilson has done anything with the Riley case, one way or another.

    Washington,D.C.-based investigative journalist Wayne Madsen noted last week Neilson's leading role in the ugly 2009 case of Herman Thomas. The former Mobile County judge faced multiple counts of sexual abuse, sodomy, and assault, but when a jury could not reach an overall verdict, Neilson stepped in and acquitted his judicial colleague.

    We will take a closer look at the Herman Thomas case in an upcoming post. But at the moment, it seems Neilson has done little in the Riley case other than sign his name to documents that Rob Riley's minions prepared. And those signatures might have been stamped by someone else. Has Neilson reviewed relevant law and actually prepared orders? It doesn't look like it. Rob Riley and his lawyers appear to be doing that.

    Let's consider an order that purports to hold us in contempt for failing to appear at a hearing last Thursday (October 17) on Riley's preliminary injunction. We showed in yesterday's post that Murrill entered a proposed order, with blank spaces left for someone (supposedly Neilson) to fill in the date/time and sign his name. The order was issued exactly as Murrill wrote it, with "Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 1:15 p.m." entered by hand for the hearing and "7th day of October, 2013" entered as date of the order. (See the final order at the end of this post.)

    Here is where the plot thickens. The order is signed by "Claud D. Neilson, retired circuit judge, assigned by the Alabama Supreme Court." But is that Neilson's handwriting or did someone else fill in the blanks? We have no way of knowing. But we do know that Neilson is based in Demopolis, quite a way from Shelby County, so it might be expeditious for someone to forge the judge's signature.

    Aside from the signature, here is perhaps the most disturbing part: If Riley's lawyers prepared the contempt order, a reasonable person might figure they also wrote the preliminary injunction. Court documents in the case, which you aren't supposed to see, show that a hearing on the injunction was held on September 30, the day after we were "served" with court papers during an unlawful traffic stop by Shelby County deputy Mike DeHart.

    On October 1, apparently less than 24 hours after the hearing, Neilson issued a four-page order, granting Riley's Petition for a preliminary injunction. The heavily footnoted document includes references to roughly 15 court cases. (See the document here.) What are the chances that a circuit judge could, or would, prepare such a document and have it issued in less than 24 hours? The answer that forms in my mind is "slim and none."

    The preliminary injunction, like the contempt order, was prepared in advance, almost certainly by Rob Riley's law office. To top it off, the preliminary injunction is filled with citations to law that are inaccurate, off point, bogus, or some combination of all three. (More on that in an upcoming post.)

    Welcome to a real-time view of how law actually is practiced in Karl Rove's Alabama.

    You know what they say about bacon: You might like to eat it, but you don't want to see it being made. The same idea applies to our justice system, in Alabama and probably many other states.

    Just how ugly can it get? We have much more coming.


    (To be continued)






    0 0



    When someone says "Republican," what is the first word that pops in your mind. For me, it's "hypocrite," and I suspect that comes high on your list of words to associate with the GOP.

    This comes to mind after recently reviewing a document in a divorce/custody case involving Republican operative Jessica Medeiros Garrison and Tuscaloosa school board president Lee Garrison.

    Jessica Garrison complains in the document that her ex husband and his current wife are cigarette smokers, causing allergy problems during visitations for the son she has via Lee Garrison. This might be a legitimate concern in a custody case, and as a non-smoker myself, I'm not a big fan of any human (child or otherwise) being forced to inhale second-hand smoke. But coming from Jessica Garrison, it induces guffaws.

    That's because it's well documented that Ms. Garrison is philosophical "best buds" with current U.S. Circuit Judge and former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor. In fact, she stated in an interview earlier this year that Pryor is her professional mentor--even though he might accurately be described as one of the most notorious tobacco-industry whores in American history.

    (We probably can safely assume that Jessica Garrison also has adopted her mentor's strident anti-gay stance. Given what we've learned in recent weeks about Bill Pryor's ties to 1990s gay porn . . . well, that makes mentor and mentee hypocrites of Bunyanesque proportions.)

    Is Jessica Garrison even aware how absurd it is for her to claim Bill Pryor as a mentor while decrying the effects of cigarette smoke? I doubt it, so we will spell it out.

    First, let's consider that statement from the divorce/custody document. (See full document at the end of this post.) It was part of a general attack on her ex husband that Jessica Garrison used in effort to maintain primary custody of their son. Here is the key part:


    The father has repeatedly exhibited a willingness to forfeit time with his son to pursue recreational and social activities that often involve excessive drinking and late nights. He also admittedly has had a gambling problem and takes controlled medications for which he has no prescription or medical need. The father also has a bad temper and a consistent tendency to rage, often in the presence of the child. Moreover, the father and his wife are cigarette smokers and have pets, both of which contribute to the child's ongoing allergies.

    Who can Jessica Garrison thank for smoking's pervasive presence in American culture, especially in Alabama? Well, in part, the thanks should go to her mentor, Bill Pryor.

    First, we must apologize to whores everywhere for comparing them to Bill Pryor and tobacco. That's a true insult to all self-respecting prostitutes, who actually fill a need in society--unlike Bill Pryor and the cigarette industry.

    This all dates to 1997, when Mike Moore, a progressive attorney general in Mississippi, launched litigation to force the tobacco industry to help pay for health-care costs associated with smoking. Billions of dollars were at stake, and the lawsuits would have major implications for the political prosecutions of Don Siegelman in Alabama and Paul Minor in Mississippi. We covered that in an October 2007 post titled "Siegelman, Minor, and Tobacco."


    Bill Pryor, Jessica Garrison
    and U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions
    To most rational human beings, the litigation probably sounded imminently reasonable--the tobacco industry largely caused the problem, so it should help pay for it. But Bill Pryor would have none of it. As Alabama's attorney general, he opposed the state's participation in the lawsuits. Here is how an article in the Mobile Press-Register put it:


    In 1997, after Mississippi and other states led the legal charge against the tobacco companies by filing lawsuits seeking compensation for treating tobacco-related illnesses, Alabama's refusal to join its neighbor to the west ignited a political firestorm.
    Then-governor Fob James sided with Attorney General Bill Pryor, who adamantly opposed suing the industry, calling it bad law motivated by greedy trial lawyers. Siegelman did battle with James and Pryor in the media, condemning them for not joining the growing number of states suing the industry and accusing Pryor of being too close to the tobacco industry.
    When it became clear that Alabama would not hop on board, Siegelman, though acting in his capacity as a private attorney, met with leaders at USA and the University of Alabama-Birmingham to urge them to sue cigarette makers. The argument was that the hospitals operated by both universities spent millions of dollars treating tobacco-related illnesses.
    USA hopped aboard. UAB did too, before bowing out at Pryor's urging.

    The Mobile paper did not get that last part quite right. Administrators on the UAB campus in Birmingham wanted to join the lawsuit. But Pryor persuaded members of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, based in Tuscaloosa, to vote against it. On a 10-2 vote, the UA Trustees stayed out of the lawsuit. That meant the University of South Alabama received about $20 million over 10 years, while UAB got nothing.

    An Associated Press article from the time provides insight on some of the "reasoning" behind UA's no vote.

    The bottom line? Bill Pryor went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that Birmingham's largest health-care provider missed out on roughly $20 million to which it was lawfully entitled. And it was all so Pryor could protect his benefactors in the tobacco industry.

    Jessica Garrison clearly enjoys reaping the benefits of her association with Bill Pryor. She now works for the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), which Pryor started.

    So here is some Legal Schnauzer advice for you, Jessica: If you want to continue riding the Pryor gravy train, please keep your trap shut about the dangers of smoking. It makes you look like an outsized hypocrite, even among Republicans.






    0 0


    Jessica Medeiros Garrison
    Two prominent Alabama Republicans--Rob Riley and Jessica Medeiros Garrison--have filed lawsuits against me in recent weeks, claiming my reporting on their extramarital affairs is false and defamatory. I know--and I suspect Riley, Garrison, and their respective lawyers know--that the lawsuits are baseless and designed merely for purposes of harassment and intimidation.

    Aside from the lawsuits' merits (or lack thereof), we see an alarming trend involving the plaintiffs. They and their associates can't even get the complaints served without engaging in fraudulent conduct. And I don't use the "f word" casually here. The cases hardly are off the ground, and court documents show that individuals acting on the plaintiffs' behalf have engaged in fraud on the court.

    We already have reported on the improper service that has been attempted in both cases--via a thuggish private process server in the Garrison case; via a Shelby County deputy and his unconstitutional traffic stop in the Riley matter. I filed documents in both cases late last week, seeking to have service quashed.

    (See Motions to Quash at the end of this post. The version of the Riley document seen here is not official. It does not include a time stamp because the Shelby County civil clerk's office was closed on Wednesday, when we filed it. We were instructed to place it with the criminal clerk's office, with assurances it would be properly time stamped.)

    Some might view service-related matters as mere technicalities. But that is not how the law views them. It is not uncommon for a lawsuit to be dismissed in its entirety due to improper service of process. And if evidence shows that Riley and Garrison knowingly engaged in, or approved of, fraudulent conduct in the service of process, their lawsuits will deserve that fate.

    Why is service so important? The same concepts generally apply in both state and U.S. courts, and they are well stated in a 2011 federal case styled Dunagan v. ABBC Inc., in the Southern District of Alabama:


    This court lacks jurisdiction to enter judgment against a party that has not properly been served with process. See, e.g., Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. Johannesburg Consol. Investments, 553 F.3d 1351, 1360 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Service of process is a jurisdictional requirement: a court lacks jurisdiction over the person of a defendant when that defendant has not been served.”) (citation omitted); In re Worldwide Web Systems, Inc., 328 F.3d 1291, 1299 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Generally, where service of process is insufficient, the court has no power to render judgment and the judgment is void.”).

    Translation: A court has no authority over a defendant who has not been lawfully served. Can a plaintiff get around that little problem if a defendant clearly knows about the action? Nope, and that is clear from an Alabama divorce case styled Cain v. Cain, 892 So. 2d 952 (Ala. Civ. App., 2004):


    Judging by the language of the trial court's August 2002 order denying of the former husband's motion to dismiss, which was entered after the alias summons and petition had purportedly been served, the trial court apparently concluded that the former husband's acknowledgment that he had actually received the trial court's order to appear, as evidenced by the former husband's July 2002 letter, was sufficient for it to also conclude that proper service of the summons and petition had been perfected. However actual knowledge of an action “does not confer personal jurisdiction without compliance with Rule 4.” Gaudin v. Collateral Agency, Inc., 624 So.2d 631, 632 (Ala.Civ.App.1993).

    The Cain case goes on to make a key point: It's up to the plaintiff to ensure that proper service is completed; that burden does not fall on me or any other defendant:


    When the service of process on the defendant is contested as being improper or invalid, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that service of process was performed correctly and legally.

    My Motions to Quash timely challenge service in the Riley and Garrison lawsuits. Now, it is up to plaintiffs to prove "process was performed correctly and legally." They can't possibly do that because it's a matter of fact that process was not legally performed.


    Rob Riley
    Even worse, documents in both cases indicate that the individuals who purported to complete process have made false or incomplete statements under oath to the court. Could that constitute perjury that would merit stiff sanctions against those who made the statements--and those who put them up to it?

    If the rule of law still means anything in Alabama, the answer should be yes. In the "reality bites" world of Alabama courtrooms, who knows what will happen?

    The fundamental question is this: Do Alabama judges have the cojones to hold GOP power brokers Rob Riley and Jessica Garrison accountable for their bogus attempts to serve process on me (and my wife, in the Riley case)?

    We will be on hand to make sure you learn the answers.

    (A footnote: We are making progress in identifying the process server who claims he "personally served" me by throwing documents down our driveway, toward the garage, while making no contact with anyone living at our house. The service return includes an illegible signature, but the address is 2012 Magnolia Ave., Birmingham, AL, with a phone of (205) 930-9333. That apparently is home to a company called Investigations Inc., which has a Web site at investigationpro.com.  The site's "About Us" page tells us the company is owned by one Charles Hopkins (hopkins@investigationpro.com). Hopkins, or someone who works for him, is anything but a pro; "fraud" would be a more fitting term. More importantly, whoever filed a document stating he personally served me committed a fraud on the court.)


    (To be continued)







    0 0



    Liberty Duke
    Alabama lobbyist Liberty Duke lost her interest in the marital home, waived all right to alimony, and agreed to pay all credit-card debts in her 2006 divorce, court documents show.

    Sources tell Legal Schnauzer that the divorce came in the same general time frame as Liberty Duke's extramarital affair with Homewood attorney Rob Riley, the son of former two-term Republican Governor Bob Riley.

    Duke and Rob Riley are suing my wife, this blog, and me, claiming that my reporting on their affair is false and defamatory. But court filings suggest that Liberty Duke's misconduct, of some sort, precipitated her divorce and put her in a weak bargaining position.

    William Joseph Duke initiated the divorce on February 27, 2006, and the case was over in roughly five weeks--even though the couple was married 14 years, had two children, and owned a home. The husband filed the case in Talladega County, even though the couple lived in Chilton County. Talladega is known as an Alabama jurisdiction where divorces can be obtained quickly, and court filings are likely to be kept away from prying eyes in the home county.

    A divorce agreement the couple reached illustrates the weak position in which Liberty Duke found herself. (See the full document at the end of this post.) Consider what happened with the Dukes' house, from the agreement:


    2. Property
    2.1 Real Estate
    2.1.1--The parties jointly own real estate located at 1155 County Road 368, Verbena, AL 36091 (the House.) The Wife will convey to the Husband all of her right, title, and interest in the House by quitclaim deed. The Husband will have all rights to escrow account. Until August 31, 2006, the Wife will reside in the House and pay all expenses related to the House, including without limitation the mortgage. On or before such date, the Wife will vacate the House. After the Wife vacates, the Wife's obligation to pay the expenses of the House will stop.

    We don't know how much the Dukes had invested in the house, but Liberty Duke gave up her share.

    Did she make it up on alimony? Not exactly:


    4. Alimony
    Both the Husband and the Wife waive any and all right to receive periodic alimony, past, present, and future.

    On top of that, Liberty Duke got stuck with a major chunk of the household debt:


    3. Marital Obligations
    3.1.1--The Wife will be responsible for all credit card debts of the marriage and will hold the Husband harmless from any liability arising from indebtedness related to the said accounts.

    As for the children, the couple agreed to share joint legal and physical custody, with the kids' primary residence being with Liberty Duke. William Duke agreed to pay $703 a month in child support, but the overall  document gives the impression he could have gotten away without paying anything. One assumes, and hopes, that he cares enough for his kids to not go that route--no matter what their mother has done.

    Liberty Duke claims now, under oath, that she did not have an affair with Rob Riley. But 2006 court papers from Talladega County indicate she sure did something that ticked off her ex husband--and she paid for it dearly.



    0 0

    This is Carol, Roger's wife. Roger was severely beaten by four Shelby County sheriff's deputies inside our garage on Oct 23rd at 6 pm. He was hauled off to jail where he remains there without bond on contempt of court. They are also alleging he resisted arrest,but that is a lie. They never said they were there to arrest him, did not read him his rights, did not show a search warrant or arrest warrant. Bond for resisting charge is set at $1,000. It is being reported on nationally and we will continue to work to take it viral to shine a spotlight on this travesty. I was asleep in the house at the time of the assault,but they wanted to arrest me too. I awoke at 11:30 pm and found Roger missing and garage looking like a crime scene. I was horrified and thought he surely had been abducted by criminals, taken off somewhere and murdered. I was partly right. They were criminals...with badges and uniforms. And whose salaries are paid for by taxpayer dollars. 

    Please read the following post written by Andrew Kreig of the Justice Integrity Project in Washington D.C:
































    Warnning: Do NOT Get Caught While Searching!!
    Your IP : - Country : - City:
    Your ISP TRACKS Your Online Activity! Hide your IP ADDRESS with a VPN!
    Before you searching always remember to change your IP adress to not be followed!
    PROTECT YOURSELF & SUPPORT US! Purchase a VPN Today!
    0 0


    This is Carol, Roger's wife. We have been heartened by the loud outcry of concerned citizens all over the world regarding Roger Shuler's brutal beating and unlawful arrest on Oct. 23. People everywhere, including scores of media outlets, have stepped forward to help shine a spotlight on this outrageous display of police brutality, as well as, suppression of free speech and freedom of the press. Our civil liberties are under assault and people are saying, "Enough!" Thanks to this outpouring of effort by so many, the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama has graciously agreed to step in and lend their assistance by filing motions in Roger's case. These motions were filed on Nov. 1. Below is an except from the ACLU email.

    The American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama intends to file a motion for leave to appear as amicus curiae in the above cases. Our memorandum will assert that the Court’s TRO and Preliminary Injunction run afoul of both the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 4, of the Alabama Constitution. In addition, we will assert that the sealing of the record in these cases unconstitutionally impinges upon the public’s right of access to judicial records and judicial proceedings. Our only interest is in the constitutional issues that are apparent in this litigation.
    ACLU logo Aug 2011l










    0 0

    This is Carol, Roger's wife. Since Roger's brutal beating and unlawful arrest on Oct 23, we have been gratified by the chorus of folks we've heard from who wanted to help us and offered to lend their support in a variety of ways in our fight for justice. Many of those people have chosen to support this fight by way of the Legal Schnauzer PayPal donation button, which can be found in the upper right-hand corner of the blog. 

    Fighting against the forces of evil and tyranny does not come cheaply, but the donations that have come to us via the blog's Paypal donation button have made that fight much more feasible. Hopefully, this will mean the release of Roger from Shelby County, Alabama's own little version of Gitmo sooner rather than later. 

    To those of you who decide to click on the button and support us with your hard-earned funds, we say a hearty "thank you." And we say that on behalf of Murphy Abigail Shuler (1993-2004), the beloved schnauzer to whom our work is dedicated.

    Please know that our mission statement remains the same: "The memory of a beloved pet inspires one couple's fight against injustice."



    Murphy Abigail Shuler:
    the schnauzer who
    inspired a blog






    0 0

    This is Carol, Roger's wife. So many organizations have stepped forward to lend their support to Legal Schnauzer's ongoing fight for justice against this travesty against our constitutional rights and civil liberties. One of those groups is the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) based in Washington, D.C. The RCFP describe themselves on their website as: A nonprofit association dedicated to providing free legal assistance to journalists since 1970.

    This outstanding organization, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) in Washington D.C., sent a letter to the court on Nov. 6 in Shelby County, Alabama, outlining the unconstitutionality of the underlying Riley/Duke alleged defamation case and in support of Roger Shuler & Legal Schnauzer's First Amendment case. Here is the RCFP letter:








    0 0

    This is Carol, Roger's wife. Today as we celebrate the sacrifices of our brave men and women in uniform this Veteran's Day, we are shocked and saddened to discover that the many freedoms for which these selfless soldiers fought and died over the course of our nation's history are being eroded away. 

    There is a war being waged on the U.S. Constitution & our Bill of Rights by the rich, powerful, well-connected and corrupt. And the travesty involved in the Legal Schnauzer first amendment case is on the front lines of that war. Police brutality, prior restraint, unlawful search and seizure, police harassment, denial of due process, false arrest and malicious prosecution, as well as, suppression of free speech and freedom of the press--our civil liberties are currently under assault. 

    Last Tuesday, however, I was most gratified to report here that the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama had received a huge outcry from concerned citizens regarding my husband's beating and arrest. So much of an alarmed public outcry in fact, that they agreed to step in and lend their assistance by filing motions in Roger's first amendment case. Below is an except from the ACLU email.

    The American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama intends to file a motion for leave to appear as amicus curiae in the above cases. Our memorandum will assert that the Court’s TRO and Preliminary Injunction run afoul of both the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 4, of the Alabama Constitution. In addition, we will assert that the sealing of the record in these cases unconstitutionally impinges upon the public’s right of access to judicial records and judicial proceedings. Our only interest is in the constitutional issues that are apparent in this litigation.

    The following ACLU motions were filed on Nov. 1: 










    0 0

    This is Carol, Roger's wife. The media coverage of Roger Shuler's beating and unlawful arrest on Oct. 23 gained some major traction recently with an insightful video interview with Alyona Minkovski of HuffPost Live! The host of the daily Freedom Watch Zone broadcast of The Huffington Post interviewed me and Andrew Kreig of the Justice Integrity Project of Washington, D.C.

    In the Nov. 1 TV segment entitled"Journalist Beaten & Arrested", Minkovski asked why the media had not provided more coverage to such a remarkable attack on the free press. Kreig emphasized that the state of Alabama's "kangaroo" court proceedings and bizarre actions grossly violate well-established national constitutional law both on free speech and freedom of the press, as well as, the rights to due process that any litigant deserves in court.

    Kreig further noted that many mainstream media organizations face daunting financial pressures and have reduced staff as a result. The remaining employees are fearful of controversy and the risk of possible job loss and thus are typically very reluctant to report in any aggressive or adverse way on public officials and their wrongdoings. Also in the interview with Minkovski, I had the opportunity to describe exactly what happened to Roger on the evening of Oct. 23 when he was assaulted by four Shelby County sheriff's deputies in our garage and badly beaten and unlawfully arrested. At no time, was he ever told by any of these deputies that he was under arrest, being charged with anything, shown or even told about a warrant of any kind nor ever read his rights! He was merely attacked inside the four walls of our home, beaten up and abducted into the night.

    The interview on HuffPost Live! is shown below:










    Warnning: Do NOT Get Caught While Searching!!
    Your IP : - Country : - City:
    Your ISP TRACKS Your Online Activity! Hide your IP ADDRESS with a VPN!
    Before you searching always remember to change your IP adress to not be followed!
    PROTECT YOURSELF & SUPPORT US! Purchase a VPN Today!
    0 0

    This is Carol, Roger's wife. The severe beating and unlawful arrest of investigative journalist, Roger Shuler, by four Shelby County sheriff deputies on Oct. 23 has received growing media attention in the past three weeks. Coverage has included print, web, radio and television media venues at the local, national and international levels. We will be highlighting some of the exposure on these media outlets in the coming days as this unprecedented Legal Schnauzer first amendment case continues to grow in importance and recognition.

    One impressive major media venue, Al Jazeera America, picked up coverage of this story not long after the saga began and wrote of this travesty against our rights to free speech, freedom of the press and to due process on Oct 28.

    Here is the link to the Al Jazeera America article:

    Al Jazeera America: Alabama Journalist Beaten and Jailed



    0 0

    This is Carol, Roger's wife. A bogus court hearing has been scheduled for Nov. 14 at 10 a.m. on the grossly unconstitutional & unlawful "permanent injunctions" in the Legal Schnauzer first amendment case. The location and nature of this so-called hearing is unknown at this time. Nothing that has been done in this entire alleged "civil case" has been remotely lawful, normal, constitutional, typical, correct, ethical or proper in any way, shape or form.

    It has been a kangaroo court from the outset. In fact, I must apologize for offending kangaroos. Please accept my deepest apologies, dear kangaroos of the world. I am sorry to insult you in such an awful and demeaning way. I really like kangaroos. Please understand this is merely an phrase and has nothing to do with kangaroos. Now hop along....

    As I was saying, this mystery hearing is supposedly set for Nov. 14 at 10 a.m. But where it is taking place we do not know. The nature of it we do not know. We do not know anything in fact because that is simply how the bizarre "conservative" cabal in Alabama operates.











    0 0

    This is Carol, Roger's wife. CBS Channel 42 News, a local television news station serving the Birmingham Metro area, highlighted the Legal Schnauzer first amendment case in a special report featured during their 6 p.m. broadcast Nov. 12. The video segment was more than 4 minutes in length and is currently posted on the news station's website entitled "Jailed Blogger in Court" by Mike McClanahan.


    The link to the Channel 42 News special report is shown below:




    0 0

    This is Carol, Roger's wife. Here is a brief update regarding the Nov. 14 hearing on "permanent injunctions" in the Legal Schnauzer first amendment case. As expected, it was indeed a kangaroo court.

    The officials at the Shelby County Courthouse in Columbiana, Alabama, turned away large numbers of concerned citizens claiming the mysterious and nefarious proceedings were closed to the public. This was done in an effort to hold the court's actions away from the glaring and disapproving spotlight of public opinion. However, several people did manage to gain access to the courtroom. We have talked to them at length regarding the bizarre proceedings and will report more in coming days as further information comes to light. Although I was not present at this hearing, conversations with Roger Shuler and others reveal a number of very alarming and mystifying key points.

    The key points are as follows:

    1. The court and the other side threatened me with arrest. (i.e. legal extortion)
    2. The court told Roger Shuler he could be in jail indefinitely. (i.e. legal extortion)
    3. The other side threatened us with monetary sanctions. (once again, legal extortion... Is it just me, or are you beginning to sense a pattern here?)
    4. The other side never requested a struck jury at the outset of the underlying alleged "defamation" case. (This means it is a bench trial. Bench means the outcome will be decided by the judge only.)
    5. The other side filed a motion to remove the seal on the underlying alleged "defamation" case.


    0 0

    This is Carol, Roger's wife. On Friday, we provided a brief update on the Nov. 14 hearing on "permanent injunctions" in the Legal Schnauzer first amendment case. And not surprisingly, it was indeed a kangaroo court, though possibly even worse than we had anticipated.

    We reported that Shelby County Courthouse officials turned away the majority of the people who attempted to appear at the mysterious and strange proceedings by claiming it was closed to the public. However, some supporters were able to gain access to the previously undisclosed location.

    I was not present at this hearing, but I did interview Roger Shuler by phone who revealed some alarming details. Some key highlights are as follows:

    1. Roger Shuler--shackled at the ankles, waist and wrist--was led by four sheriff deputies from the jail to the courthouse. Once in the courtroom, he remained shackled throughout the duration of the hearing even when speaking and attempting to question the opposing counsel who was under oath.
    2. The court and the other side were livid about the widespread media coverage of their unconstitutional courtroom circus and shenanigans. Apparently, they believe they have total control of the press all over the entire world and not just here at Legal Schnauzer. They should be free to break the law with reckless abandon and trample the U.S. Constitution without shame and all global media outlets should simply turn a blind eye to their misdeeds.
    3. The court and the other side blamed me, Mrs. Schnauzer, for the media coverage and threatened me with arrest.
    4. Roger Shuler told the court he had no way to remove anything from the blog while still in jail in order to comply with their unconstitutional injunction. The court simply said that was his problem and in essence that he would be in jail indefinitely.
    5. The court and the other side threatened us with monetary sanctions.
    6. The other side never requested a struck jury upon the filing of the underlying alleged "defamation" case. This means it is a bench trial and the final outcome will be decided by the judge only.
    7. The other side filed a motion to remove the seal on the underlying alleged "defamation" case.
    The interview with Roger Shuler from jail is now a video on YouTube. It is shown below:






    Warnning: Do NOT Get Caught While Searching!!
    Your IP : - Country : - City:
    Your ISP TRACKS Your Online Activity! Hide your IP ADDRESS with a VPN!
    Before you searching always remember to change your IP adress to not be followed!
    PROTECT YOURSELF & SUPPORT US! Purchase a VPN Today!
    0 0

    This is Carol, Roger's wife. The Nov. 14 "Permanent Injunction" hearing in the Legal Schnauzer first amendment case was carried out under murky circumstances and held at a secretive location which served to keep it from the disapproving eyes of a concerned public. However the telephone interview with Roger Shuler filled in many details of what transpired during this kangaroo court proceeding.

    This bizarre hearing subsequently resulted in a "Final Order" that we received in the U.S. mail sometime over the weekend. Ironically, this "Final Order" proves that we could not have possibly been expected to be in attendance at the Petitions for Preliminary Injunctions as the hearing itself was also held on September 29, 2013. This was the exact same day as the bogus traffic stop where Officer DeHart testified under oath that our unlawful so-called service of the civil suit took place. This traffic stop was in the parking lot of the Shelby County Library on September 29, 2013, and yet the hearing for the Preliminary Injunction was also held on September 29, 2013 per this court's "final order" which states as follows:

    "Just as it did at the September 29, 2013 hearing on the Petitions for Preliminary Injunction, the Court finds that Petitioners have demonstrated that the Respondents have published false, defamatory and libelous statements concerning Petitioners on Respondents' website, Legal Schnauzer."
    The "final order" also grants the Petitioners exorbitant attorney's fees in the amounts of $24,425 for Riley and $9,450 for Duke. Pretty steep attorney's fees for a case that only lasted a grand total of six weeks!

    The "final order" is shown below:




    0 0

    This is Carol, Roger's wife. Since Roger's brutal beating and unlawful arrest on Oct 23, we have been humbled by the large number of people who wanted to help us and who've offered to lend their support in a variety of ways in our ongoing fight for justice. Many of those kind individuals have chosen to support this fight by way of the Legal Schnauzer PayPal donation button, which can be found in the upper right-hand corner of the blog. 

    Fighting against the forces of evil and tyranny does not come cheaply, but the donations that have come to us via the blog's PayPal donation button have made that fight much more feasible. Hopefully, this will help enable the release of Roger Shuler from Alabama's own little "Gitmo" soon.  As well as, fighting the ruthless, powerful and obscenely corrupt thugs who orchestrated this entire travesty and finally holding them accountable for what they have done.

    To those of you who decide to click on the button and support us with your hard-earned funds, we say a hearty "thank you." And we say that on behalf of Murphy Abigail Shuler (1993-2004), the beloved schnauzer to whom our work is dedicated.

    Please know that our mission statement remains the same: "The memory of a beloved pet inspires one couple's fight against injustice."



    Murphy Abigail Shuler:
    the schnauzer who
    inspired a blog 

    0 0

    This is Carol, Roger's wife. We are pleased to report that media coverage of the Legal Schnauzer first amendment case continues to expand. One of the more interesting articles of late was featured on Nov. 11 in the WhoWhatWhy website and was written by David J. Krajicek. 

    Here is the link to the article: Gulag Justice? Alabama Blogger Jailed in Secretive Scandal

    First off, I want to say that the article was very well done and I very much appreciate all the hard work and effort that went into writing it. However, there was one important statement that was so grossly incorrect that I simply must clear it up. 

     "Carol Shuler said their inability to afford a lawyer was one factor in her husband’s avoidance of court paper service."
    After the article came out and I read the above erroneous statement, I immediately emailed Mr. Krajicek with the following clarification: 
    "For the record, I never said or certainly never meant to imply that our inability to afford a lawyer was any factor in anything, much less avoidance of service. In fact we were not AVOIDING SERVICE at all. The fact of the matter is we had absolutely no clue why 2-3 sheriff's deputies were coming to our home twice a day for a week acting like we were on America's Most Wanted list. We had no way of knowing and in fact, did not know that it had anything to do with the serving of court papers in a civil case. As I said they were acting like they were trying to bust a meth lab or nab a serial killer. Scared us to death! We knew it was likely some trumped up bogus crap possibly to arrest one of us for some made-up charge or to ransack our home with a search warrant and maybe seize our computer for no legitimate reason purely for harassment and intimidation. 
    So to be clear.... I never said we were avoiding anything. We simply did not answer the door to jackbooted thugs gone wild. If they had not acted so threatening and bizarre and there had only been one deputy and one vehicle...instead of 2 or 3... we quite likely would have answered the door. Also when it is civil service, they will typically leave a card on your door saying they have court papers for you. But they did not do that at any time. So again, it felt very threatening and intimidating and harassing and that was their intent to be sure."   


    0 0

    This is Carol, Roger's wife. As discussed yesterday, we are glad to report that media coverage of the Legal Schnauzer first amendment case continues to expand. Once again, one of the more interesting articles published recently appeared in the WhoWhatWhy website on Nov. 25. It was written by David J. Krajicek who paid Roger a visit in jail and did his first jailhouse interview. 

    Here is the link to the article:  In Jailhouse Interview, Alabama Blogger Says He Won't Budge

    This article was very well done also. And again, I very much appreciate all the hard work and effort that went into it. 

    However, there was one statement that was highly inaccurate and it misrepresents a very important point: 

    "Shuler insisted he was not legally served because the documents were not placed in his hand."
    I have no clue how or why the above statement was even in the article because it has absolutely NO basis in fact and Roger NEVER said any such thing. It is utterly and completely false. To understand the truth about what happened during the bogus and unlawful "service" during the phony traffic stop and the pertinent law involved, please read the blog posts written by Roger Shuler himself on Legal Schnauzer. 

    The LS blog posts concerning this unlawful traffic stop appear  herehere and here.



    0 0

    This is Carol, Roger's wife. Over the past couple days, we have written about some of the more interesting articles to appear in the media on  the Legal Schnauzer first amendment case. Another excellent article was written by Sara Rafsky of the outstanding international organization, Committee to Protect Journalists. It appeared on their website's CPJ Blog on Nov. 13. 


    According to their website, the "CPJ promotes press freedom worldwide and defends the rights of journalists to report the news without fear of reprisal. We take action wherever journalists are attacked, imprisoned, killed, kidnapped, threatened, censored, or harassed."

    Here is the link to the CPJ story by Sara Rafsky: Censorship in Alabama's Shelby County.

    Per the bio on the CPJ website, "Sara Rafsky is research associate in CPJ's Americas program. A freelance journalist in South America and Southeast Asia, she was awarded a 2008 Fulbright Grant to research photojournalism and the Colombian armed conflict."

    This article was very well done and I appreciate the hard work and effort that went into it. It is also important to note that it was featured in The Huffington Post on Nov. 14. 

    Here is the link to Ms. Rafsky's story which appeared on the HuffPost Blog: Censorship at Issue in Alabama Blogger's Case.



    Warnning: Do NOT Get Caught While Searching!!
    Your IP : - Country : - City:
    Your ISP TRACKS Your Online Activity! Hide your IP ADDRESS with a VPN!
    Before you searching always remember to change your IP adress to not be followed!
    PROTECT YOURSELF & SUPPORT US! Purchase a VPN Today!

older | 1 | .... | 11 | 12 | (Page 13) | 14 | 15 | .... | 84 | newer