Leaderboard 728 X 90

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Tweet suggests Ali Akbar and attorney Baron Coleman know who's behind my arrest and our foreclosure

A tweet from April 15 of this year suggests right-wing media maven Ali Akbar and his lawyer, G. Baron Coleman of Montgomery, Alabama, have inside information about who is responsible for my incarceration, the foreclosure (probably unlawful) on our home, and the dubious lawsuits that bookended both actions.

This could have serious implications for Coleman's legal career. Rule 8.3 of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct requires a lawyer to report misconduct to a tribunal or other authority with the power to investigate. Lawyers (Rob Riley and Jessica Medeiros Garrison) launched both lawsuits in question, and if Coleman knows they were bogus or filed for improper reasons, he has a duty to report that. Instead, he is making light of the subject on Twitter.

If Coleman was involved in a scheme to deprive my wife, Carol, and me of our freedom and our home--or if has been helping to cover up such activity--that could call for the involvement of criminal authorities. At the very least, the tweet reveals Akbar and Coleman to be juvenile (make that infantile) nitwits who apparently resort to online taunting because they have nothing creative or intelligent to say.

You can read the first part of the Twitter conversation at the beginning of this post, and the second part is at the end.

Akbar starts the festivities by tweeting about Matt Osborne, the editor of Breitbart Unmasked, and me--with a reference to a $3.5-million default judgment against me in the Garrison case. The default judgment, by law, is due to be overturned, and that process is ongoing, but it's anyone's guess what actually will happen.

Removing extraneous comments from a couple of other folks, here is the conversation between Akbar and Coleman:

Akbar: Matt Osborne sure helped Roger Shuler out. Hahaha. $3.5 M libel mishap. Idiots flock together.

Coleman: The last three year's of that guy's life is a fine example of what not to do.

Akbar: His whole existence.

Coleman: He's judgment-proof, has nothing. No reason to bother fighting it. $1 might as well be $10 million to him.

What help was Matt Osborne supposed to have provided related to the Garrison lawsuit? I have no idea. What have I done in the last three years that, in Coleman's mind, is a "fine example of what not to do"?

I've written a blog about legal and political corruption in Alabama and beyond, and none of my reporting ever has been found false and defamatory at trial. In other words, I've abided by the First Amendment right to a free press, only to be arrested inside my own home, with no sign or mention of a warrant--which means my five-month incarceration was the result of a kidnapping.

Baron Coleman doesn't support the First Amendment? He enjoys making light of kidnappings, false arrests, and police abuse? That's how it looks from here.

Then we learn that Coleman has knowledge about our finances, stating that we have "nothing." How does he know that? Has he, or someone he knows, gained unauthorized access to our banking information?

How's this for irony? Both Akbar and Coleman make frequent references to their supposed faith, claiming to be serious Christians. Coleman wears his Catholicism on his sleeve and speaks out against abortion rights, apparently on moral grounds. But what kind of morals and ethics do Akbar and Coleman really have?

Many theologians consider the Golden Rule, as stated in Matthew 7:12, the most profound passage in The Bible--going to the very heart of the Christian message. From The King James Version:

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do
to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

In other words, act toward others as you would like them to act toward you. Public records and reports show Akbar has been convicted of multiple felonies and has trolled online for gay sex via the Grindr app, so we know he's a phony and a scam artist. But one tends to expect more from Coleman, a lawyer who spouts his righteous rhetoric on radio, television, and online.

But Coleman, like Akbar, appears to be an empty vessel. On his Twitter account, Coleman reveals that he has five children and a wife. That brings this question to mind: "Mr. Coleman, how would it feel if your loved ones had been tormented, harassed, and abused, as mine have been? What if someone had stolen everything you had ever worked for, putting your wife and children at threat of starvation? Would that be amusing to you? Would you be pleased to go on Twitter and find that others are having a good chuckle because your loved ones have been victimized?

"In other words, Mr. Coleman, is your professed Christianity just a facade? Does the conversation that flows from Ali Akbar's tweet reveal who you really are?"

We've already shown that Baron Coleman isn't worth a crap as a lawyer. Now we know that he isn't worth a crap as a human being.


Anonymous said...

Of course these guys are infantile. Look at Boehner, Trump, Bush, McConnell, Cruz . . .

Anonymous said...

They wouldn't be right-wingers if they weren't infantile. The two go together.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it would take someone gaining unauthorized access to your banking information to know that you are broke. You and your wife haven't worked for years. You have said as much yourself. You were behind on your mortgage. Again you said so yourself. Your home was foreclosed on. What kind of person can go years without working and still not be broke? Why would someone with money not pay their mortgage and have their home foreclosed on? The fact you went as long as you did without getting foreclosed on is a surprise to me. The way that you addressed his comment that you have nothing, suggests that he was correct. Now everybody knows you have nothing. Maybe you should get a job, but then you might actually have something and not be judgement proof.

legalschnauzer said...

I haven't worked for years? How do you think this blog gets done, by magic? Do people make money from blogs, Web sites, and other forms of digital media? Yes, they do. You and Baron Coleman both are making lots of assumptions. That doesn't mean either one of you is right. And the key point remains--Baron Coleman and Ali Akbar act with the dignity of a couple of third graders. They are infantile, and you apparently are of the same mindset. Congrats on that.

Anonymous said...

You didn't deny that you are broke. By your standards of journalism, that means you are broke.

Matt Osborne said...

Ali Akbar isn't very good at that whole "adult behavior" thing.

Anonymous said...

Hah! Looks like you have a peculiar take on the standards of journalism, @12:21. What a surprise.

Anonymous said...

LS, why do you feel the need to put down anyone who makes a comment contrary to your opinion?

Here are a few recent examples of your responses to someone who disagrees with your posts:

LS: "They are infantile, and you apparently are of the same mindset. Congrats on that."

LS: "You must be a professional grasper of straws. You don't know the facts or the law, and you write so poorly that I can't even tell what you're talking about."

LS: "I'm not sure which is worse, @9:14, your reading-comprehension skills or your understanding of the law"

LS: "You have revealed yourself to be ignorant, shallow, stupid, and lazy. That's one hell of a combination for going through life, so don't be surprised if your opinions don't carry much weight around here. I would sooner go ask the stump in my backyard what he thinks of the blog."

I mean we are readers of your blog and the comment section is a forum to discuss the opinions you post. Why do you have to be so condescending and rude to those who simply have a different opinion than your own?

legalschnauzer said...

The posts you refer to, and the issues therein, are not matters of opinion. They are matters of fact and law. If someone submits a comment that I know is contrary to the facts and law--particularly if they don't identify themselves or their source material--I'm going to correct them. This is, after all, my blog--and its purpose is to inform the public, not to mislead.

I would submit that the tone of my responses often correlate to the tone of the comment that has been left. On today's post, a comment said the following:

"Now everybody knows you have nothing. Maybe you should get a job, but then you might actually have something and not be judgement proof."

A person who leaves a comment like that should expect a sharp response. If you are going to dish out stuff like that, you'd best be prepared to take it in return.

I haven't researched this, but I'm guessing most of the responses that you consider put downs came only after I tried 2-3 times to explain the facts and law to someone, and they still refused to get it.

Some folks have the mistaken impression that this is a blog of opinion. It's not. My opinion is present in some posts. But many of them are based largely, or totally, on facts and legal research (both usually supported with appropriate links and/or embedded documents.)

In this post, for example, I characterize the words of Mr. Akbar and Mr. Coleman as "infantile." That's my opinion, and if someone thinks some other characterization is better--"juvenile," "childish," whatever--it's fine with me. But much of what you claim is opinion is not opinion.

Anyone is free to challenge my facts or research, but if they are wrong, I'm going to correct them. If they still don't get it, I might correct them in a way that you might consider harsh. But these issues are important and personal to me--they also are important to the many people in cases I've reported that do not involve me at all.

I'm not going to let this blog be hijacked by people who don't know what they are talking about and haven't done the hard work required to understand these issues. Anyone who doesn't like my tone can either refrain from commenting, make more informed comments, grow a thicker skin, or read another blog.

Anonymous said...

I recognize several of the comments listed as being replies to me and they don't bother me at all. Just because I don't give my name or cite case law doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. Roger usually goes out of his way in an attempt to prove me wrong. I will admit over the last year I have been mistaken a couple of times, but I am willing to learn. I have also agreed with Roger on some points. Most of my comments haven't been proven wrong. Roger just has a unique way of interpreting things in his favor and has a conspiracy theory to back it up. If you believe Roger's interpretation without critically thinking about it, then you are no better off than not reading at all. I merely give my understanding of things, the same as Roger. Take it or leave it. I will side with Roger on this issue. It is his blog and he can reply how he wants to. I would like to point out, there have been some great comments that I posted that were never approved, but again that's his right. I actually enjoy reading some of the replies Roger has given me, but thanks anyway @2:19

legalschnauzer said...

I would be interested to see if you can provide an example or two where I have interpreted things in my favor and backed it up with a conspiracy theory. I'd like to know specifically what you are talking about.

Just to be clear, I welcome critical interpretation of what I write. Like many bloggers, I receive statistics that tell me a lot about the kind of people who read this blog. Many of them come from law firms, law-enforcement agencies, court systems, legislative bodies (including the U.S. House and Senate), academic institutions, regulatory agencies, financial institutions, utility companies, investment firms . . . and the list goes on.

We've had about a dozen visits from the "Executive Office of the President" in Washington, D.C. Yes, that's the White House.

This blog has a very intelligent readership, and I have the data that shows that. I'm talking about people who naturally are critical thinkers. And that doesn't include many everyday folks--stay-at-home moms, retirees, small-business owners, etc.--who are very bright people and regular readers. I know many of these people personally, and some of them have made major contributions to the content presented here.

Plus, I have a number of very informed and intelligent sources who are a major reason LS has been ranked as one of the top 50 law blogs in North America--the only one on that list that truly is independent, not supported by any institution or company of any kind.

Anyone who thinks the material here isn't read by critical thinkers . . . well, you don't know what I know about my audience. In fact, the quality of the audience is one thing that challenges me every day, every time I sit down to prepare a post. I know who I'm writing for, and I know they expect high-level, thought-provoking, well-researched content.

We don't attract "sheeple" here at Legal Schnauzer. We attract people who are concerned citizens, who want to learn about a critically important subject--and in many cases, those readers educate me and give me direction that leads to important stories.

I take this seriously, and I know many of my readers do, too. That might be why I have a low tolerance for commenters who make it clear that they don't take these matters seriously. Such folks probably would be better served by going somewhere else, reading something that doesn't take much effort.