Leaderboard 728 X 90

Thursday, October 27, 2016

U.S. Judge R. David Proctor is trampling the law regarding indigent litigants in federal lawsuit involving my unlawful arrest and incarceration in Shelby Co.


U.S. Judge R. David Proctor
The incompetence and corruption in Alabama's federal courts never ceases to amaze -- and that's a shame because our state has produced Hugo Black and Frank Johnson, two of the most courageous and impactful federal jurists in American history. In fact, the U.S. Courthouse in downtown Birmingham is named for Hugo Black, but he likely would be embarrassed, chagrined, even outraged by what passes for "justice" in that building these days.

Our little blog, in a sense, has been a travelogue of dysfunction in Alabama's federal courtrooms. We have helped unmask: (1) Mark Fuller, who butchered the Don Siegelman/Richard Scrushy case in the Middle District, and eventually was forced off the bench for beating his wife in an Atlanta hotel room; (2) William H. "Bill" Pryor, who posed nude for gay-porn photos that wound up at badpuppy.com in the late 1990s (and likely lied about it during his U.S. Senate confirmation hearings, which would be a crime; (3) William M. Acker Jr., a Reagan appointee who is getting close to 90 and granted summary judgment for the University of Alabama Board of Trustees in my employment-discrimination/First Amendment case -- without allowing any discovery in the case. That, of course, simply cannot be done, under the law; it's like declaring a winner in a baseball game without allowing either side to bat.

That doesn't even include Abdul Kallon, the dreadful Obama appointee my wife, Carol, and I have seen screw up three cases in which we were involved -- each time with rulings that run contrary to black-letter law. Now we can add a new name -- R. David Proctor -- to Alabama's Hall of Judicial Infamy.

A 2003 nominee by (you guessed it) George W. Bush, Proctor has wound up hearing both of the federal lawsuits we've filed in recent months -- one involving my unlawful beating, arrest, and five-month incarceration in Shelby County; the other involving the glorified theft of our home, where we lived for 25 years, via a wrongful foreclosure. (The complaints are embedded at the end of this post.)

What are the chances that both of our cases would wind up with the same judge, in a system where assignments supposedly are made by "random selection." I would say it's close to zero, which suggests Proctor was assigned to our cases intentionally, not randomly, likely with the assignment of producing a certain desired outcome for legal elites. After all, Pryor (whose "duty station" is the Hugo Black Courthouse, meaning he more or less is Proctor's boss) is a defendant in one case. GOP operative Rob Riley, who is close to Pryor and such right-wing luminaries as Karl Rove, is a defendant in both cases -- as is Attorney General Luther Strange and his campaign manager/mistress Jessica Medeiros Garrison, both staunch Pryor/Riley allies.

Has Proctor been unlawfully assigned to protect all the Bushies who have abused us over the past eight years or so (it's 16 years if you go all the way to the beginning of our legal woes, which include lawyer William E. Swatek, the father of Riley acolyte Dax Swatek)? That's certainly the way it looks from here.

We've already seen signs that Proctor is, in fact, cheating us. I will go into details, with citations to law and such, in upcoming posts. But for now, here is a brief, by the numbers, look at Proctor's chicanery:

(1) It's undisputed that we qualify to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), a fancy term for indigent, in both cases. U.S. Magistrate T. Michael Putnam, who originally had what we call "the house case," granted IFP status before Proctor somehow took over that matter; Proctor himself granted IFP status in what we call "the jail case." That means, under the law, we are entitled to proceed without paying filing fees -- and the court is obligated to issue summonses and conduct service on our behalf.

(2) We fulfilled all of our obligations -- providing an affidavit with detailed financial information, sending names and addresses of defendants to the clerk's office, and even having an employee named Angela Day tell us that the court would handle service, as prescribed by law. Anyone with access to Pacer can check the court record and see Putnam granted us IFP status. Service went smoothly with "the house case," and a number of parties have filed Motions to Dismiss, which are pending. (Under the law, they cannot be granted, but we will see how that goes, with Proctor on the case.)

(3) The record shows that Proctor granted IFP status in "the jail case," but he put a twist on it -- one that is not supported by law. Proctor required us to make a partial payment of fees ($200), which we timely paid, and is lawful. The theory is that such partial payments discourage IFP parties from filing frivolous cases. Once we made the payment, we were entitled to have the court issue summonses and complete service, with defendants receiving notice to respond within a time frame allowed by law. Statutory law says the court (clerk's office) not only has an obligation, but a duty, to conduct service on our behalf. And case law says that, once IFP status has been granted and the case has been determined not to be frivolous (a bar we apparently crossed with ease, in both cases), the judge is to stay out of things until defendants respond. After all, the judge has no authority over defendants until service has been completed.

(4) Sounds relatively straightforward, right? Well, not with Proctor. He claimed we had "partial IFP status," and the law does not require the court to conduct service for such parties. He used that rationale to order the court not to conduct service in our "jail case," even though the law says he has no authority to take any action until defendants have been served and responded.

(5) There is a slight problem with Proctor's approach: It isn't lawful. Our research indicates there is no such thing as "partial IFP status," under the law. You either are IFP and do not have to pay fees or you are IFP and are required to pay partial fees; but you cannot be "partial IFP." Whether you are required to pay a partial fee or not, the law says you are entitled to have the court issue summonses and serve defendants. That memo apparently did not reach Proctor; in truth, Proctor probably knows the law but is choosing to act corruptly anyway.

(6) We had fulfilled all of our duties to the clerk's office and even checked with Ms. Day to make sure they had our material, and everything was a go. We thought service had been completed, until we got an order indicating Proctor had intervened, claiming we were "partial IFP" litigants and were not entitled to have the court conduct service. Proctor gave us a small window to conduct service ourselves, and stated if we failed to do so, the "jail case" would be dismissed. (I forget the amount of time he allowed, and I don't have immediate access to the document, but I think it was roughly two to three weeks.) In our living quarters at what we've come to call "The Shiftless Drifters Fleabag Motel," mail did not come directly to us (and as pro se litigants, we did not have access to the electronic filing that lawyers can use). Our mail was delivered to a central office about a block from where we lived, and we generally picked it up once a week. By the time we finally got Proctor's order, about 10 days of our allotted time had elapsed.

(7) The loss of time should have been irrelevant because the bigger issue was this: Proctor's order was wildly contrary to law, which says the court had a "duty" to conduct service on our behalf. We argued that point, among others, in a response to Proctor's order. But we quickly received another order, which apparently crossed in the mail with our response, claiming we had failed to prosecute our case and it was being dismissed without prejudice (meaning the claims have not been heard on their merits and can be refiled).

(8) We have two options -- (a) Appeal Proctor's bogus order to the U.S. Eleventh Circuit; (b) Refile the "jail case." We have chosen the first option and now are filing the paperwork to have the matter heard on appeal. In addition to being a gross injustice and time waster for us, it is a waste of judicial resources -- your tax dollars at work, thanks for R. David Proctor.

Sadly, we've seen this kind of thing happen over and over in Alabama Federal Courts. Hopefully the Eleventh Circuit will follow its own clear precedent, make the correct ruling, and let us move on with a case that involves profoundly important matters -- law enforcement's deprivation of a citizen's freedom for the "crime" of blogging. That issue was important enough to attract national and international news attention in 2013-14 -- from The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, and many other outlets.

We are determined to seek justice, partly for us and partly to help ensure (we hope) that something like this never happens to another journalist (or regular citizen, for that matter, who could be thrown in jail, under Shelby County "law," simply for writing a negative review about a business on a Web forum, such as Yelp).

Judge R. David Proctor, who either is incompetent or corrupt, has thrown up unlawful hurdles. But we have some arrows in our quiver that we did not have when other cheat jobs were taking place.

Proctor would be wise to remember his oath, to uphold the law, and act accordingly.

(To be continued)






71 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's easy to forget that we once had some really big-time federal judges in Alabama.

Anonymous said...

Those days are long gone.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Proctor enjoys a good buffet. No wonder he can't get rulings right-too busy stuffing his face.

Anonymous said...

Your secondary complaint about having an insufficient time window to comply with the order, because it took so much time until you even saw the order, is another example of you blaming others when you have, by your own choice, missed a deadline or cut off time to act. If you have filed a lawsuit and are dependent exclusively on the mails for court notices, it is your own duty to check the mail every single day until the case is resolved. A weekly mail pickup, when all you had to do was walk a block, is not diligent management of your case. It's up to you to alter your mail pickup schedule to keep abreast of important developments in your case.

You will never succeed pressing that point.

Have you ever considered, even for a moment, that there is a pattern that may mean the inverse of your belief that you have been singled out by corrupt courts to thwart your rights? It might just be that the one with trouble understanding "black letter law" and rulings having the effect of law, and that you are the common denominator in the string of legal disappointments not because you are special, but because you try to game the system you don't understand and it doesn't work out for you?

Clifton Walker said...

not even going to wait for the judge to throw out your current actions before making excuses I see.

The only doubt about my predictions from yesterday is when the dismissal will happen.

Boy the crying we will hear then.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:37 -- You aren't capable of reading? I said I wasn't pressing that point, and under the law, it is irrelevant anyway.

As for your third paragraph, you can't come up with anything more creative than that? Truly pathetic. Of course, writing something insightful requires work and a mind with some depth. You apparently have neither.

legalschnauzer said...

Our boy, "Clifton," is back, the guy who can dish it out but can't take it, can't even give the address and Web site for his "engineering company" in ATL.

A word to the wise, Cliffie. A reader with big-time IT skills has analyzed your digital footprint. He has told me who you are and where you are. But here is the deal. Your bravado suggests you know that a fix is in on our cases. If that's the case, you might want to watch your back. You might have some unexpected visitors soon.

Perhaps you think we are defenseless against a corrupt system, as we have been in the past. You might want to rethink that one. Have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

Excellent retort to "Clifton," Mr Schnauzer. Bravo! That sound you hear is "Clifton" going, "Gulp."

Glad I could help with "Clifton's" digital footprint. It grows with each ignorant comment he posts. Keep digging that hole, "Clifton," keep digging. Hah!

Anonymous said...

Clifton, you not too smart. People can track yo ass down from information you leave on the Web, bro. That's why it be a bad idea to sass people who know how digi things work.

Anonymous said...

You used the past tense here: "Our mail was delivered to a central office about a block from where we lived, and we generally picked it up once a week."

You out of the flea joint? Back in Bama?

Anonymous said...

Oh, lord Cliff. Please tell us you did not use a computer with a work IP address. I am guessing that is what you did. Bad idea.

legalschnauzer said...

The mail itself came several months ago, in the past. Hence, the past tense.

Anonymous said...

Clifton Walker was a black man murdered in a famous Civil Rights Era case in Mississippi. The guy commenting here likely is using a phony name. Guess he thinks that's clever.


http://coldcases.org/cases/clifton-walker-case

Clifton Walker said...

Please publish any and all information you and your IT department have generated about me.

As for watching my back, I am perfectly capable of taking care of myself.

Anonymous said...

Hope your IT guy did not use the IP address to find him. Quite illegal unless you get a court order and present to the ISP. Otherwise, violates all kind of privacy laws. Wouldn't be bragging on that one. Just FYI...no need to post.

legalschnauzer said...

I don't have an IT guy, @1:14. I have a reader who is very knowledgeable in IT issues, and he easily tracked the guy's real name and location. How, I don't know. BTW, what law does this violate and what are your credentials for knowing such laws? Not sure how this violates the law since even I have stats services that clearly provide IP addresses.

I suspect you are wrong, bluffing, or both. The Web is filled with IP addresses and GPS programs for using them, so I find it hard to believe such information is illegal. In fact, I suspect you are Clifton Walker, without the name, and you are scared s-------s.

Clifton Walker said...

Proving whether I and the poster at 1:14 are the same should be fairly simple then. You will see that my post at 12:47 was made the from the same IP address that I used yesterday.

Is the computer used at 1:14 at the same IP address? If not, is it close enough that one could reasonably make it from first IP address to second and make a post in 27 minutes (that's the elapsed time between the two posts)?

If so, then you can have reasonable suspicion we are the same person. If not, then your argument that we are one in the same falls apart.

Please note that I have given you permission, and even encouraged you, to post all personally identifying information you have on me.

legalschnauzer said...

Well, "Clifton" refused to answer any of my questions, but now he wants information from me. Good luck on that one, fella. And it's good you know how to take care of yourself because, if you know of a scheme to fix our cases and have not reported it, you will need protection.

Some advice: You strongly are suggesting that you know of a scheme to fix our cases. In fact, you have not denied it. You should be aware that to have such knowledge and not report it is a crime. If you read this blog, you know I take court corruption very seriously. If you don't know of such a scheme, and you are just a braggart who doesn't know better fine. But if you don't know such a scheme, you will be getting an unexpected visit soon, and I promise you can't protect yourself from these folks.

Bragging that you know how my court case is going to turn out comes with a lot of risk on your part. Again, I know who you are and where your from, and you had best watch your step.

Judge Proctor also would be wise to start ruling lawfully. But he's a big boy who should be smart enough to make his own decisions. You would be extremely foolish to follow in his footsteps. Keep trying your bragging game and see where you wind up.

Anonymous said...

Nope. I'm not Clifton. Just googled "can someone find me by my IP address?" and came across all kind of articles are on how the IP address will only identify the internet service provider. Beyond that point, the ISP has to tell exactly who it is...and they will only do that with a court order. I got no dog in this hunt. Look it up for yourself!

Clifton Walker said...

If you know any personally identifying information on me (address, phone number, anything like that) please post it.

I don't need to know of a scheme. Your cases will fail by themselves and you will blame it on a scheme.

And I know how to defend myself in any situation you can create, so do what you think you can.

legalschnauzer said...

Well, I asked you to cite to law, and you didn't, so that's no surprise. Also noticed you are changing your tune this time, and that's no surprise either. As for a court order, we might well be getting just that for our guy Clifton. Not smart to suggest you know about a scheme to fix a court case.

legalschnauzer said...

Sounds like you are worried, Cliffie, and you should be. You aren't getting any information I've gleaned on you. You sound like Dubya, saying, "Bring it on." That didn't work well for him, and it won't work well for you.

Keep bragging, sassing, and commenting. Your hole is getting deeper and deeper.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Clifton Walker (fake name) jumped into the deep end of the pool without realizing schnauzers can swim. Hah! Get some salve for those wounds, Clifton. You might need to go to an ER.

Anonymous said...

Did "Clifton Walker" type his comments at recess? He has the mental capacity of a fourth grader, maybe lower. You give him an opportunity to cite facts and law to support his claims that your complaints are deficient, and he can't do it; he doesn't even try to do it. Then he admits his whole purpose for commenting here is to "mock" you -- and I guess he's also mocking other victims of injustice. What a sad, dismal, small individual he must be. Truly disgusting that our country turns out "citizens" such as him.

Anonymous said...

This is one of the most poorly-written court filings I've ever read (and by a 2012 "Law Blog" award recipient----chortle). I kept waiting for you to digress into the "unlawful" taunting of your schnauzer by the child neighbor who, evidently, initiated your downward spiral into near-schizophrenia and culminated with your own family trying to have you declared a ward of the state.

Anonymous said...

I noticed that two of the people in your law suit lived across the street from you when you lived on Logan Drive. Their house was sold in august of this year. You have em on the run.

legalschnauzer said...

Is that you, "Clifton," at @5:32? Whoever you are, you've exhibited zero knowledge of the law or facts, so I will take it as a compliment that you disapprove of my filings -- seeing as how you've probably never read one in your life. Still can come up with single, specific criticis can you? Typical of the slash and burn mindset. It's a matter of public record that U.S. Judge William Acker, before cheating me in my UAB case, admitted that my documents were better researched and written than those of many lawyers who had come before him.

Acker is a corrupt old prune, but I'm quite certain he's smarter than you are and has seen a few more court filings than you have.

You might ask my family how their ward of the state deal worked out for them. Not so well.

legalschnauzer said...

Yes, @5:50, that's the fine folks from JAG Investment Strategies -- James and Lara Williams. It's interesting that, according to Facebook, they don't go by their given names. He is "Jay Williams," and she goes by "Genny."

If I was in the business of stealing people's houses and making money off of it, I wouldn't use my real name either.

Here is Genny Williams Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/gennywilliams


Here is Jay Williams Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008128272356&pnref=friends.search

Clifton Walker said...

Here is what you have been able to learn about me from my IP address.

It is 45.17.164.69. It is AT$T and traces to Loganville, Georgia

Please either you or any of your readers do what you can with that information. I would say I will be waiting, but we both know you are powerless to do anything but suggest you know all of my personally identifying information.

Anonymous said...


Do the Williams have any connection to Drummond?

legalschnauzer said...

If we are powerless, why are you researching things and still sending smart-ass comments. You are worried, and you should be.

Clifton Walker said...

I researched nothing. I know my IP addy. Just like I know my SSN, DL number and phone number.

As for the comment, that is to illustrate how powerless you are.

Anonymous said...

@6:46 From the information my answer is Rollins

S C said...

Heavens to Betsy- This post was about Judge Proctor - a man who oversaw at least two hearings involving the Shulers'. I just read all the comments and wonder who is "Clifton"? I understand comments about Judge Proctor, but why all the hot-and-not-so-heavy posts about a Judge seemingly unrelated to "Clifton", the engineer? - Give-and-take comments filled with talk of IT folks, IP addresses, an engineering company, a name taken from the Civil-Rights era, digital footprints, and predictions that LS's case will be dismissed.

Crazy train...somebody enlighten me, please.

legalschnauzer said...

Good questions, SC. Clifton seems to have parked his crazy train over at Tuesday's post. Maybe you can quiz him there.

Over there, he's saying his hatred for me stems from my reporting on the Ralph Stacy "suicide" back in 2010 or so. Talk about crazy train. Whew!

Anonymous said...

Mr. Shuler, I don't always agree with your stories and insights (life would be boring if we always agreed about everything), but I wish you nothing but success in this endeavor.

Anonymous said...

1362 White Oak Dr. Blue Springs, MO

Now you, Shuler.

legalschnauzer said...

What's your name?

Anonymous said...

Clinton McKinney, 1362 White Oak Dr. Blue Springs, MO

Go on, Schuler.

legalschnauzer said...

Thanks for the info, Mr. McKinney. Have a good one.

Anonymous said...

It seems clear, LS, that the reporting on your two lawsuits has seriously agitated an individual or group of individuals, with "Clifton Walker" being the microphone for their concerns and anger. This kind of over-the-top response tells me you have struck a major nerve, and I suspect that could be a good sign for you and justice.

Still not sure what has them so bothered, but the anger in "Clifton Walker's" comments is palpable, to the point of being a little bit scary. There is a reason for that.

Anonymous said...

Clifton Walker, whoever he is, clearly is scared shitless. All the "mocking" and false bravado in his comments are a subconscious effort to hide a frightened mind. Here is what I don't understand: Why is he frightened? As you've reported, Judge Proctor has shown signs of cheating you, and I have no doubt you are correct about that. (Proctor is an arrogant turd, as you would expect from a Bush appointee.) You've been cheated umpteen times before, and I know you are correct about that, too. I've read your analysis, and it is legally sound. So what does Walker have to be afraid of?

Anonymous said...

How does a guy who claims to be from Loganville, GA, get so riled up about legal matters that are based mostly in Alabama, with ties to Missouri? Why is he so insulting and belligerent with you, someone he doesn't know, in a case that apparently doesn't involve him? Like you, I don't believe the Ralph Stacy gambit either.

Can you tell if someone from Loganville, GA actually visited your blog and made a bunch of comments?

legalschnauzer said...

All good questions, @9:13, and it doesn't make sense to me either, especially the personal nature of the attacks.

My stat service did show an IP address from Loganville, GA making more than 100 visits to my blog and checking comments dozens and dozens of times.

From that, it looks like someone (real name Clifton Walker? I doubt it) from Loganville, GA, was in touch with LS a lot in past few days. Is it possible to create a fake IP address that shows a location that isn't accurate . . . I don't know about that. Maybe someone with IT background can provide insight.

S C said...

I Googled it, and there are YouTube Videos about changing your IP address, even to a specific city and state.

legalschnauzer said...

Thanks for sharing, SC. I'm starting to think "Clifon Walker" was not Clifton Walker and he was not at Loganville, GA, either. It appears the whole thing could easily have been faked, except for the animosity someone wanted to express toward me for having the audacity to write about issues from a public court facility.

Not sure what this means, but when I went back through my stats today, I didn't see the Loganville, GA, entry that was there yesterday and included more than 100 entries to my blog. It's possible it had rolled off my stats because traffic has been heavy lately. But it's also possible it was intentionally removed, as if it was designed to be there 1-2 days and that's it.

S C said...


Wow - if "clif" intentionally removed the IP address. I googled that too, and it seems there are ways to 'pull IP addresses from pings, etc' but that's a whole other ballgame than a random yahoo messing with you. Like you said, seems more personal.

legalschnauzer said...

Clif's tone, and much of what he said, sounds a lot like someone I know. The person doesn't live in Loganville, GA, but it now seems likely "Clif" doesn't live there either. In fact, I've heard some of Clif's lines come straight out of someone's mouth. I don't want to disclose the name of the person I suspect -- unless I get more evidence -- but I definitely have a Suspect No. 1, now that we know it's not that hard to create a fake IP address and location. My suspect is not that tech savvy, so I'm guessing he had some IT help to pull it off -- if, in fact, that's what happened.

William Blanchard said...

Mr. Shuler, I don't understand why with all your obvious intelligence and knowledge of the law, basic legal procedures and norms appear to confound you.

I have read your the first complaint posted and I can tell you it will not be at all successful. It is fundamentally flawed in so many ways that I think trying to provide you with any guidance is a waste of my time. It is dead on arrival.

Cruz said...

Why do you post pics of your wife like this legalschnauzer.blogspot.ca/2015/06/why-did-rob-rileys-lawyer-send-letter.html

Anonymous said...

Roger I can tell you that "Clifton Walker" is not in Georgia, he's right here in Alabama and not that far from me, ironically. I don't know why people like "Clifton" think that they can make anonymous comments on a blog in 2016 and NOT be tracked down by someone with basic IT knowledge.

"Clifton" here's a word of advice for you: don't post from a work computer. I have a PDF file ready to go to your "boss" the next time you target Roger with an abusive post. She will not be happy.

Anonymous said...

Clif is full of shit, if that's even your real name. How pathetic.

legalschnauzer said...

@7:11 -- Are you saying you know who Clif is? If you would care to share that info, you are welcome to contact me at rshuler3156@gmail.com. BTW, Clif has targeted me with more abusive posts, but I have deleted them at moderation, so you should have grounds to send material to his boss.

BTW, I think I know who "Clif" is, too, and he definitely is not in GA.

legalschnauzer said...

Mr. Blanchard:

If you can't explain yourself in writing, you are welcome to contact me at rshuler3156@gmail.com and we can arrange a time to talk via phone. I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.

William Blanchard said...

There is a very old legal proposition that "every man who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a client". I am sure you have heard this. Are you so "smart" that common sense eludes you? A very old legal idea that applies to everyone.

Self-representation in court is likely to end badly, and has in fact always ended badly for you. Have you stopped to consider for just a moment that it is much more likely that instead of a complex, unlikely conspiracy against you that you are in fact the author of your misfortune?

legalschnauzer said...

Let's see what we have here, Mr. Blanchard. Your initial comment said my filings were poorly prepared and would result in a negative outcome. You even said they were so bad you couldn't explain it in writing. I invited you to contact me so you could explain it verbally, and you didn't do that.

Now, you've changed your tune. It appears my filings are fine, but I create my own problems by representing myself in court, even though I've stated that I've contacted dozens of lawyers about representation. You even break out a "legal maxim" that you admit is extremely old. In fact, it's so old, moss must be growing on it, and it proves not one thing.

If my own representation is the cause of negative rulings, why don't you do me a favor: See if you can find, in any of my cases, three examples where I got either the facts or law wrong in a way that turned the case against me.

Here's another favor you can do: I've had lawyers represent me (or my wife and me) several times. Please cite three examples where those lawyers made correct moves that turned the case in our favor.

I assume you've researched these issues before coming to your conclusion, so this task should not be all that hard for you. Again, feel welcome to contact me so we can discuss in person if that will be easier for you.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to Mr. Blanchard:

You've had multiple opportunities to put some beef behind your assertions, and you've failed to do it. That suggests to me, as I figured, that you can't do it. And that's probably because you are "Clifton Walker" under a different name. Looks to me like you are a con man, so your stuff isn't being published here any longer. Feel free to take your game elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

The lawyer's job is to insure that everyone is held to the same standard of the law in the US. Even if you think your client is guilty (or you know he is guilty), you are there to be sure that all the evidence and testimony used against him is the same nature as that used against other persons.

O.J. Simpson walked away because of the deplorable job the police did when they investigated the incident and the sloppy way they collected and controlled the evidence.

If we said, "Who cares, the guy is guilty" then we open up the possible that the police can just manufacture evidence in any way they want to put people in jail or send them to the electric chair.

It is the attorney's job to see that corrupted evidence is exposed and cannot be considered in the case.

If we consistently allow first time petty theft criminals to work a plea deal to avoid prosecution, then an attorney makes sure that his/her first time petty theft client receives the same advantage that all the others have.

It's not always about insuring that everyone is punished for every law that is broken, it is about insuring that all people are being treated equally in the judicial system.

There are folks who say that the attorneys who defend "obviously guilty" people are just doing it to get high fees and get rich off the system. Just as there are racial bigots and sexists, there will always be people with those opinions of attorneys. That doesn't make them right.

And if you want to send criminals to jail, then once you are an attorney you have to join the District Attorney's office, because that's who handles criminal cases. Beware that if you are a really good attorney, you will make far less money working as a prosecutor than you would if you were with a private law firm.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to Mr. Blanchard:

You are being blocked because you've made all kinds of wild assertions, and you can't support any of them, even though I've given you multiple opportunities. Also, my wife has no idea who you are and has never heard of you. If you want to start your own blog, have at it, but I don't see any sign that you are smart enough to attract any kind of audience. Good luck.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to "Mitch Anders":

You are welcome to contact me at rshuler3156@gmail.com if you think you can support any of your assertions. Otherwise, you will be blocked. I'm making you the same offer I made to Mr. Blanchard, Mr. Walker, and they couldn't pull it off. I doubt you can either, but here is your shot.

e.a.f. said...

WE usually have adults posting here but given the narrative here, I'd suggest some of these posts came from grade 3 types. Must say L.S. has handled it all very well. You really have to wonder about the agendas of some of the people who post here who are extremely critical of L.S. Its quite simple, if you don't like what he writes, don't read the blog.

Anonymous said...

@e.a.f. Why don't you just admit you're Shuler's wife? or at least Shuler's bitch! One way or the other, you are pathetic.

And Shuler is just as pathetic as you are. "Handled it well"? He's driving off a cliff and taking his brain damaged wife with him.

My only agenda is telling the truth. Something you and Shuler don't seem to know anything about. I have to defend myself and I'm not surprised others are doing the exact same thing. I wouldn't have to read Shuler's pathetic blog if he didn't lie about me. You can shove your miserable blog right up your asses.

Word of advice to you both: get jobs and get your lives together. We're tired of feeding you.

legalschnauzer said...

Couple of questions, @10:45 --

(1) How have you told the truth? Can you provide some examples?

(2) How have I lied about you?

(3) How are you "feeding" me, and what makes you think you are?

Anonymous said...

1 - Oh yes, post personal information about myself and watch as you harass and stalk me. Women know how you behave. Everyone knows how you behave, Mr. Shuler. You interest in the sex lives of others is obvious from reading you blog. Only a real pervert would bother to poke around as you do, then post sick Youtube videos of your harassing phone calls.

2 - Your logical leaps are amazing. You should be in the circus. For an intelligent man, you sure is dumb.

3 - My husband and I pay our taxes, Mr. Shuler, allowing people like you to live off social services. Oh, don't think we don't know all about your current circumstances. Confidential my ass. You sick fuck.

legalschnauzer said...

Can you cite an example of Mr. Schnauzer ever harassing or stalking anyone? When has Mr. Schnauzer ever posted a YouTube video of a harassing phone call?

Your reference to your ass, use of the "f word," and your excellent grammar ("you sure is dumb") suggest you are a highly intelligent individual.

Anonymous said...

I invite anyone to Google "roger shuler youtube". There's quite a collection of videos of Mr. Shuler ambush calling innocent people and having them hang up on him. Shuler sounds like a psychopathic robot in these recordings. Chilling. So of course I won't provide him with my name, lest I join his sick collection.

Thanks Shuler, I'll run my comments through a grammar checker next time. I might need it, but Shuler needs an ethics checker. I never claimed to be intelligent, but I'm not an old pervy prick like you, Shuler.

I don't usually swear, but when someone is a sick fuck -- like Roger Shuler -- I call them a sick fuck.

Seriously, I've never been so sympathetic toward redneck police before reading about what has happened to Shuler.

legalschnauzer said...

I invite you to provide a link to any such "ambush" phone call. I'm guessing you can't do it because they don't exist.

Oh, and I'm glad to know you don't curse except when you call someone a "sick fuck." Love it!

Anonymous said...

Roger Dodger, you DO have a Youtube channel, don't you? Sorry, I won't help your Google ranking by linking to any of the abusive junk there. You can do that yourself IF you can figure out how.

I'm very confident anyone Googling "roger shuler youtube" and clicking on ANY of your videos will have a creepy Halloween experience they won't soon forget. Yucky!

Please don't be a hypocrite, Roger Codger. You know you happily insult anyone and use fowl language when you get rubbed the wrong way. So unprofessional. So here's a thought: maybe you need someone to rub you the RIGHT way for a change. That's what your wife is for, in case you have forgotten. It isn't okay to just "take care of business" early in the morning before she wakes up.

Roger Shuler is a perv. Bank that.

legalschnauzer said...

I have a YouTube channel, but I'm not aware of any "ambush" phone calls there. Apparently, you aren't either. I wasn't aware either that I use "fowl" language. I guess that's when I cluck like a chicken?

Word to the wise: Be careful about calling someone a perv on an open forum. That can get you in doo-doo. It also can fowl up your day, several months, as a matter of fact.

Anonymous said...

@7:42

Here is why the poster will have no legal difficulty from calling you a perv.

You moderate this forum, which makes it NOT an open forum. You had to approve the publishing of his post before it was available to the public.

The court will see it as akin to him sending you a letter calling you a perv, then you making copies of the letter and distributing it.

He made the statement, you made it public.

legalschnauzer said...

I didn't say the commenter would have legal difficulty. I said he/she should be careful about calling anyone a "perv" on a Web forum. Depending on the circumstances, it can get you in trouble -- and that's true. Once again, I'm right, and you are wrong, but no surprises there.

Plus, you don't know whether I moderated that comment or not. I generally moderate comments, but not always. You are making assumptions you can't prove.