Leaderboard 728 X 90

Monday, February 13, 2017

Judge R. David Proctor's corrupt opinion in "The House Case" suggests Jeff Sessions & Co. have engaged in obstruction of justice and perhaps other crimes


R. David Proctor
Did Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions, or someone affiliated with him, commit a federal crime in the days before Sessions was sworn in? A recent ruling from U.S. Judge R. David Proctor in our wrongful foreclosure/defamation lawsuit -- we call it "The House Case" -- suggests the answer is yes. We have filed a motion to have Proctor's unlawful handiwork overturned. If Proctor persists in cheating my wife, Carol, and me, we intend to take any action necessary against him -- and that would include filing a criminal complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice.

We use the term "criminal complaint" because Proctor's 45-page memorandum opinion of January 13 is so filled with lawless findings it suggests someone -- Proctor, Sessions, someone connected to Sessions -- is engaging in obstruction of justice and perhaps other crimes. (Dismissal Order and Memorandum Opinion are embedded at the end of this post.)

How ugly is this? We know Proctor and Sessions have engaged in unethical conduct that goes back at least 20 years, when Proctor (while in private practice) helped get black federal judge U.W. Clemon removed from USX Corp. v. Tieco Inc., a case where Sessions (as Alabama's attorney general) had been named as a defendant. We also know that at least four individuals with strong ties to Sessions -- GOP operative Jessica Medeiros Garrison, Trump communications assistant Cliff Sims, U.S. Judge Bill Pryor, and GOP lawyer/operative Rob Riley -- are defendants in our two pending federal lawsuits. Those would be "The House Case" and "The Jail Case," which focuses mainly on my unlawful five-month incarceration in Shelby County and currently is under appeal before the Eleventh Circuit.

Both cases, somehow, wound up before Proctor at the trial level. What are the chances of that happening? So small it suggests that they were not randomly assigned, meaning we were deprived of our constitutional right to have the cases heard by an impartial arbiter. Proctor is anything but impartial -- in fact, by law he must recuse himself -- and evidence suggests the cases were unlawfully assigned to him so that he could protect Sessions' associates, and maybe Sessions himself.

Jeff Sessions
We filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 (also known as a Motion to Reconsider) last Friday, and it shows that Proctor's findings are incorrect on every major point at this stage in the proceedings. Many of his findings are incorrect, regardless of the stage in the proceedings. (Motion to Alter or Amend is embedded at the end of this post.)

How corrupt is R. David Proctor? We will be undressing him in a series of upcoming posts. I am more than a little fed up with being the victim of judicial cheat jobs, and I intend to make sure Proctor is held accountable, one way or another.

The case at the center of this post involves the unlawful theft of our home of 25 years in Birmingham. "The Jail Case" involves my kidnapping and loss of freedom for five months. If Proctor thinks we take these matters lightly -- if he thinks we are too stupid to recognize his corrupt rulings -- he is in need of a serious reawakening.


(To be continued)








48 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sic 'em, Schnauzer.

Anonymous said...

I guess we are supposed to take your word over the word of a federal judge?

legalschnauzer said...

I don't care whose word you take. It's not a matter of taking someone's word. It's a matter of presenting the actual law and showing how Proctor's rulings run contrary to that. That's what I will do in upcoming posts, and it will be pretty simple for people of average intelligence to understand. Of course, that doesn't mean it will be simple for you to understand. You can believe, not believe, or shove it up your ass. I don't care.

Anonymous said...

I seem to recall a commenter predicting several weeks ago this would happen under Proctor. The commenter, I think, wanted us all to be impressed by his abilities to predict. Instead, I'm convinced that commenter was a GOP insider and thug who knew what was going to happen. In other words, he was in on the fix, and that very well could be a crime.

legalschnauzer said...

You have a good memory, @9:49. As I recall, the commenter went by the name of "Clifton Walker." Ironically, one of the defendants in the case is Trump communications con man Cliff Sims. Coincidence? Maybe. But I said at the time, and I agree with you now, that I thought the commenter knew a fix was in. For him not to report this would be a crime, misprision of a felony, so he might regret not taking my advice, whether it was Cliff Sims or someone else.

Anonymous said...

It's comforting to know that the U.S. attorney general has no respect for the rule of law. As you can tell, I absolutely believe Jeff Sessions was involved in this. He and Proctor have engaged in one unlawful conspiracy already, to have Judge U.W. Clemon removed from the USX case. I see no reason to believe they wouldn't engage in another unlawful conspiracy now.

Anonymous said...

I see the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel getting a little interested in our boy sessions now that The Luv Gov's Federal and State investigations have halted.

Clifton Walker said...

Mr. Shuler I have warned you many times that you are travelling down a dangerous road, yet you choose to ignore my warnings. Worse than at, you actually insult me and treat me without respect. We may not be friends, Mr. Shuler, but I at least have attempted to set you straight about the current realities of the world. You may find your poor manners will have consequences.

You are a small fish that has stumbled onto some big truths. I wonder if you have any sense of what is about to happen to you and others like you. The models are obvious if you know where to look. Do you? Because you're not behaving as if you do.

And yes I'm comfortable writing this in a public forum, since your credibility is near zero (I wonder why that is?) and your reach is limited. That doesn't mean we want you around though, does it, Mr. Shuler?

legalschnauzer said...

Oooooh, Clifton's got his big-boy pants on today. He's a tough guy, hiding behind his fake name, refusing to contact me directly.

We're all afraid, Cliffy. What a joke!

Anonymous said...

@9:49 here -- Yes, it was "Clifton Walker" who made his bold predictions, and I see from his comment above that he's still as big a prick as ever. I would say "Cliffy" has outgrown his big-boy pants. Maybe he will be shitting in them before long, when the Trump Train implodes and flies off the rails.

Clifton Walker said...

Post at 12:27 is not from me. Mr. Shuler, if he so chooses, can confirm that post did not come from the ISP account I have always used to post, and he can confirm, if he so chooses, that this post does come from the account that has previously been used to post.

As for the dismissal of Mr. Shuler's suit, yes I predicted it, but I expected it would have come much earlier in the process than it did. I believe his suits should have been dismissed as frivolous upon filing.

The defendants had to spend their money on this matter, and that is patently unfair on such dubious claims.

I will now predict that Mr. Shuler's efforts to revive his suit will gain no traction. His promised efforts to start a criminal investigation will meet a similar fate. Any other efforts he dreams up to press the issues he attempted to press in this suit also will fail.

I will repeat that I believe that all that has happened to the Shulers from the loss of jobs and home to Mrs. Shuler's injuries are the legal and proper result of their own actions.

The 12:27 post, though, was not made by me nor from this ISP account.

Anonymous said...

LS: I happen to have expertise in IT, and I think I can help you track down "Clifton Walker" and sic the feds on his young ass. I suspect Clifton is no real threat, probably just a racist wannabe, but it still would be fun to out him and maybe let him know how it feels to have U.S. marshals put you in handcuffs. Will be in touch.

legalschnauzer said...

I'm all in, @1:28. Look forward to hearing from you.

Anonymous said...

I notice that "Clifton" does not dispute that Proctor fixed your case. I take that to mean he knows it was fixed.

legalschnauzer said...

"Clifton":

This might come as news to you, but legal cases are not decided on what you "believe" or what anyone "believes." They are supposed to be decided on facts and law, and you never have cited anything to support your assertion that our claims are frivolous, and you've never pointed to a single Proctor ruling that was correct. That tells me you have no clue what you are talking about, and your predictions are little more than "dust in the wind." They also indicate that you support a corrupt judiciary, which suggests you have a severe character deficit.

Your comments have zero impact on me; I can't speak for readers but you are like a fly to be shooed away. You clearly do not have the intellectual firepower to make accurate assessments of legal matters. You need to go wade in the kiddie pool.

Anonymous said...

Clifton:

What is your IP address and your location? Where do you live and where do you work?

Clifton Walker said...

@1:40

As I said I believe that everything that has happened to the Shulers was legal and proper and fixing a case is not legal and proper, that clearly stands as a denial the case was fixed.

Anonymous said...

I think Cliffy is scared. Maybe he should be scared.

Anonymous said...

Clifton is an arrogant piece of shit. Pretending to know whether actions you took were correct or not, when he clearly has no clue . . . well, I would be infuriated if I were you.

Like to see the two of you in the same room, so you could kick his ass.

Clifton needs to take care of his own life before casting judgments on yours.

Clifton Walker said...

@ Mr. Shuler, 1:47

Clearly I do have an impact on you. You mentioned my name in this thread long before I participated.

Your case, as have all your cases, was decided on facts and law. You, of course, will not accept this, and that is your choice. You will continue to tilt at this windmill, and the results will be the same.

I will continue to enjoy reading every post you make about how you lost again and how it only proves the conspiracy is bigger than you thought it was before. I may respond, I may not respond. But I will enjoy seeing you lose again and again, at every turn.



legalschnauzer said...

Clifton:

You haven't shown that you are intelligent enough to have an impact on anyone. I raised your name in response to a commenter. Just because I remember your name doesn't mean you have any impact on me or anyone else. You remind me of the old "where's the beef?" commercials. There is no "beef" with you. Or as someone once said about Oakland, CA, there is no "there" there with you -- you are a classic empty suit, too lazy and ignorant to even attempt to support your assertions that defy reality. Give it a shot: Show us three things Proctor got right in his memo opinion. I know that's beyond your capability, but you inserted yourself into this conversation, so let's see if you are up to the challenge.

Clifton Walker said...

He got it right when he basically said that even if all the things you alleged were true, that would not rise to the standard needing to award a judgement.

He got it right when he said that no matter who many times you amended your claims and packaged them in different ways, there isn't enough in them to support a judgement.

He especially got it right when he called you notoriously litigious.

legalschnauzer said...

Clifton:

As expected, you can't cite a single law or fact to support your claims. You just aren't intelligent enough to do it, and you are boring, on top of that. You can't even come up with anything new, much less anything accurate.

Go away, little boy.

Anonymous said...

I agree that Clifton is both dumb and lazy. I knew he would not be able to come up with any citations to support Proctor's finding. (A) They don't exist; and (B) If they did, it would take a little effort and brainpower to sort them out, and Cliffie can't do that.

Anonymous said...

Cliffy and right-wingers like him do, in fact, support judicial corruption. I notice he let that issue slide because it's true -- he likes having slugs like Proctor on the bench.

Anonymous said...

A guy like Clifton has no place here. He apparently accepts, like a little lamb, anything a federal judge throws out there. He should know that is not what this blog is about. You cast a critical eye on judicial rulings, whether it involves you and Mrs. Schnauzer or someone else, and you are not afraid to show where the rulings part from the actual law. That's one reason you do have high credibility, and I'm sure Clif can't stand your ranking among the top 50 law blogs in North America.

In my view, you are providing a genuine public serve, showing that our courts are infested with con men (and women) who often have no respect for the rule of law. I'm not aware of another site that does that, certainly not with the detail and consistency found here.

If Clifton can't handle that, he needs to get his legal news from PR offices at various courthouses, or from the MSM, which almost never questions anything judges do.

Anonymous said...

Folks who are posting in support of Shuler consider this:

Basically Shuler alleged in his filing that various actors were part of a conspiracy both amongst themselves and with state actors to commit a number of wrongs against him. Judge Proctor ruled that as Shuler presented no factual evidence of said conspiracy or of collusion with state actors in his filing then there was no choice but to dismiss the case.

If no evidence was presented then how would you expect the judge to rule?

legalschnauzer said...

@4:14 --

Folks who are reading your comment should consider this:

You don't know what you are talking about. The case is at Motion to Dismiss stage, which does not involve evidence because there has been no discovery. In fact, the general rule is that if either party submits evidence, the Motions to Dismiss must be converted to Motions for Summary Judgment, and that would require discovery, which the defendants are desperate to avoid. (There are a few exceptions to that rule, but not many.)

You might also consider that Proctor is using a "heightened pleading standard" that has been held not to apply in in the Eleventh Circuit and SCOTUS reached the same conclusion in a recent case.

This case, and pretty much all cases, is governed by Rule 8 FRCP, which requires plaintiffs to present a "short and plain" statement showing they are "entitled to relief." Detailed factual information is not required, and we easily have met the Rule 8 standard.

Just another case of a stupid person showing his stupidity (which generally is what stupid people do.) Here is a ding dong who doesn't even know what stage the litigation is in.

I'm sure people will take your analysis real seriously. Hah, clown!

Anonymous said...

You continue to shovel out the hole that is your life, chasing crazy conspiracies that don't exist. You are the author of all your misfortunes. You have been assessed costs and what prospect do you have of paying them when you lose, again? You are going to be declared vexatious, a querulous litigant. That's where this is headed, and you may end up with a new contempt to purge if you fail to make good faith efforts to pay the costs of the parties you attempted to hail into court.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a lawyer, but I am a paralegal, and I can tell you Mr. Schnauzer is correct in his analysis. If this involved evidence, it would be at summary-judgment stage. The commenter is not well versed in the law, probably not versed at all.

Anonymous said...

Jumps out at me that Clifton Walker doesn't deny he is Cliff Sims. Hmmm . . .

Anonymous said...

Interesting article on the topic:

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2012/04/30/iqbal-and-twombly-transform-federal-litigation

It does seem though its not a conspiracy against the Shulers, but a general issue in the courts.

Anonymous said...


Despite Shulers abusive response to @4:14 the poster is basically correct, if poorly articulated. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly requires plaintiffs include enough facts in their complaint to make it plausible. Given that what is alleged here is a somewhat implausible sounding wide ranging conspiracy including collusion between private individuals and state actors whilst offering little in the way of factual argument no judge would order discovery in such a filing, its just not credible. Rightly so as well, you couldn't have any old crackpot filing taking up the time and money of the government and individuals by granting discovery in each and every case.

Anonymous said...

I'm the paralegal again. I forgot to mention at 6:43 that I've read more than half the Proctor opinion, and it's clear he simply is using (misusing, actually) the Twombly/Iqbal rulings to disfavor Mr. and Mrs. Shuler and keep the defendants away from discovery. As a practitioner at a plaintiffs' law firm, we see this all the time in federal court, especially from conservative judges who come from the world of the defense bar. There are ways around this, but the main problem here is that Proctor either automatically favors the defense or he lacks integrity. Either way, he's a poor judge.

Anonymous said...

Legal opinions differ. The point of Twombly/Iqbal is to prevent frivolous lawsuits with no facts behind them and in my opinion this filing falls in that category. You just can't order discovery in every case no matter how far fetched.

I'm afraid to say in your House case the courts have already given a very clear judgement against you. Allegations of conspiracy on this scale will never fly in any court and quite rightly you will never be granted discovery on such a charge.

My advice is to hold off on filings until you actually have some factual arguments to back them up with or be branded a vexatious litigant.

Also there is no unusual corruption here by the judge, as the paralegal said these ruling are routine.

Anonymous said...


Sadly the invocation of Twombly/Iqbal is pretty routine and there is little that can be currently be done to get around it. Difficult to see where the Shulers go from here.

IMHO there is no special prejudice by the judge here, the ruling is a pretty routine form of dismissal of small time litigants representing themselves.

legalschnauzer said...

@7:41 --

You are wrong. Check Randall v. Scott re: heightened pleading standard in 11th Circuit, and stay tuned for post on SCOTUS ruling that moves away from heightened pleading standard. Aside from that, our filing is filled with facts that point to wrongful foreclosure, defamation, and more. Sounds like you haven't read it.

You are wrong again. We've received no clear judgment against us. We've received a ruling from a compromised judge, tied to multiple defendants, who must recuse.

Why should I listen to your advice. Tell me who you are, contact me directly, and I would be glad to consider your advice. Otherwise, I have no reason to care what you say.

I agree there is no "unusual corruption" here. This kind of corruption happens all the time in ND of AL, so it's not unusual.

legalschnauzer said...

@7:19 --

Heightened pleading standard of Twombly/Iqbal does not apply in 11th Circuit, per Randall v. Scott, as I've reported previously. Rule 8 governs, and our complaint, without question, meets that standard.

legalschnauzer said...

@6:24 --

Don't think you have a clue about taxation of costs. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I do know it largely is governed by 28 USC 1920. To my knowledge, none of the costs listed there are even present in this case.

That suggests, until I discover otherwise, an additional ground to show that Proctor is corrupt. Also suggests you are a fraud. Proctor cites no matter of fact or law that would entitle defendants to cost, and they aren't entitle to dismissal either.

Anonymous said...

Oh and one more thing "Paralegal"...it's not smart to threaten a federal judge. There's law regarding such matters, so I wouldn't be surprised if law enforcement came knocking.

Clifton Walker said...

I am not Cliff Sims.

He's a nasty drunk!

Anonymous said...

I don't think Schnauzer's response to 4:14 was "abusive." A ruling on a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss does not involve evaluation of evidence. If it did, it would be a Rule 56 summary judgment motion. The guy was making a misinformed comment, and Schnauzer pointed that out. That's not being abusive, it's being honest.

Anonymous said...

Paralegal here. Where did I threaten a federal judge? Good Lord, some people simply cannot read.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to @8:33 --

You are welcome to send whatever screen shot you have. My e-mail address is rshuler3156@gmail.com. Look forward to hearing from you.

legalschnauzer said...

The following is part of a comment from "Anonymous" at 7:52 --

"IMHO there is no special prejudice by the judge here, the ruling is a pretty routine form of dismissal of small time litigants representing themselves."

My response: This commenter (TC) is agreeing with me that Proctor is cheating us. TC admits that the dismissal is not based on the facts or law, but on our status as "small time litigants" who are "representing ourselves.

Here is what's really troubling. TC surely is aware that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law. TC admits that Proctor is violating our constitutional rights, and TC suggests his kind of violation happens routinely in federal court.

TC and I actually agree on this. In fact, he pretty much agrees with everything I've written on this blog for almost 10 years. But here is the difference between us: Such violations don't bother him in the least; he doesn't care, as long as it doesn't happen to him. That's the kind of selfish, un-American thinking that put Donald Trump in the White House and has us living under V. Putin's puppet.

Key point: TC admits our complaint has merit, but was dismissed due to prejudice and corruption.

legalschnauzer said...

The following is part of a comment from "Anonymous" at @7:57 --

"Also Roger, a word of advice. Maybe don't include all the stuff abusing Judge Proctor in your filing? It will be one of his colleagues who looks at it."


I know exactly who will look at it -- the same person who wrote the garbage in the first place. Her name is Sally Broatch Waudby, and she is Proctor's law clerk. She is about to get herself into a whole heap of trouble. Here is URL to her Facebook page:


https://www.facebook.com/sally.b.waudby

Anonymous said...

Michael Flynn resigned a few hours ago. Looks like your Trumpista commenters are going to have some serious worries soon -- like tonight!

Anonymous said...

Lock him up!