Leaderboard 728 X 90

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Federal judge R. David Proctor continues his trail of deceit and dishonesty as he steps down from our "House Case" and leaves it for another corrupt judge

Judge Dave Proctor and wife, Teresa, with children Jake,
 Shelly, Luke, and daughter-in-law Dana.
(From Facebook)
(Note at 11:05 CST: I've received several requests from readers for access to the documents that were supposed to be embedded at the end of this post. I'm getting used to a new document-sharing system, and I failed to make the documents "public." Because of that, they appeared to me, but did not appear for everyone else. I think I now have fixed the problem, and I apologize for the confusion and inconvenience. If you have problems seeing the two embedded documents, please let me know via email at rshuler3156@gmail.com. I hope the problem is fixed, but it's hard for me to tell in this new system.)

In a stunning turn of events, the federal judge who repeatedly made unlawful rulings in our "House Case," has stepped down in the matter. In an event that was not stunning, the judge was utterly dishonest in stating his reasons for stepping down -- and his absence, so far, has done nothing to promote the cause of justice. That's because the judge who replaced him already has proven to be as bad, if not worse.

Judge R. David Proctor stepped down in an order, dated February 23, that might be the most duplicitous piece of legal "reasoning" I've encountered -- and that is saying something. My wife, Carol, and I had moved for Proctor's recusal on February 9, based mainly on his crooked ties to former U.S. Senator and current Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions. (Our motion to recuse and Proctor's order in response to it are embedded at the end of this post.)

How sleazy a pair are Proctor and Sessions? It's a matter of public record that, while in private practice, Proctor helped get former U.S. District Judge U.W. Clemon (the first black federal judge in Alabama history) removed from a 1990s case in which Sessions was a defendant, as Alabama's attorney general. The Proctor-Sessions scheme, described in one court opinion as "unethical conduct," added to the mountain of evidence that Sessions is a racist. (The latest news about Sessions and bigotry came out yesterday.)

Proctor and his firm at the time (Lehr Middlebrooks Price and Proctor) made it a practice to use dubious tactics to get Clemon removed from cases. That strongly suggests Proctor is a racist, too, and that issue becomes particularly powerful when you read an Eleventh Circuit opinion in a case styled In re: BellSouth Corporation, 334, F. 3d 941 (11th Cir., 2003). We will take a close look at that case in upcoming posts, but suffice to say it makes Proctor and his former firm look like courtroom crooks.

His most recent order in "The House Case" makes it appear Proctor hasn't changed much. Why do Proctor's ties to Sessions matter in our case, and why did we cite them in our Motion to Recuse? Well, at least four defendants in the case -- Jessica Medeiros Garrison, Rob Riley, Cliff Sims, and Yellowhammer News -- have documented and strong affiliations with Sessions. Given that Proctor almost certainly owes his federal appointment during the George W. Bush years to Sessions, you can see where a glaring conflict of interest enters the picture.

With all of his unlawful rulings in "The House Case," is Proctor trying to protect Sessions' cronies? It's hard to imagine a rational person not asking that question. But R. David Proctor, supposedly a "devout Christian" from Briarwood Presbyterian Church (PCA), does not want to go there. In fact, he twists himself into a pretzel trying to make it appear he hasn't been cheating us all along.

Try not to laugh when you read the following: Proctor claims in his order that he is denying our Motion to Recuse, but he must recuse anyway. Then, he admits he's had a conflict since the beginning of our case, but claims it only surfaced recently. (I warned you: This guy deals in heavy-duty cow feces, the kind that emits dreadful odors in barnyards across the country.)

You can almost feel Proctor's indignation and self-righteousness jumping off the page of his order. And he starts by taking shots at us, something he's done since the earliest days of the case by referring to us as "frequent filers":

Before the court is a motion to recuse the undersigned, and every other judge in this district, from further participation in this case. . . . Similar to their pleadings in this case, Plaintiffs’ motion makes wild, implausible allegations that resemble Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon in their effort to connect the alleged plotters in a bizarre, fantastic conspiracy. (Note: Proctor fails to mention the reason all judges in the district, and in the Eleventh Circuit, should recuse. Circuit Judge Bill Pryor, with his duty station at the Hugo Black Courthouse, is essentially Proctor's boss/overlord -- and Pryor is a defendant in our "Jail Case," which is loosely related to our "House Case.") 

Pulling the old Kevin Bacon bit out of his white, doughy ass? Boy, that takes some creativity on Proctor's part. Then, get this: After denying our Motion to Recuse, Proctor admits our allegations of his conflict are not so "wild" and "implausible" after all. In fact, they are true:

Nevertheless, for reasons wholly unrelated to the “arguments” made in the motion, the undersigned hereby RECUSES himself from further participation in this case. On February 10, 2017, approximately four weeks after the court’s dismissal order was entered, Luther Strange, a party-defendant in this action before its dismissal, was sworn in as Alabama’s newest United States Senator. One of Senator Strange’s initial hires is a young staffer who worked on Senator Jeff Sessions’ staff (until then Senator Sessions’ appointment as the 84th Attorney General of the United States) and who is related to the undersigned. Based upon these events, which occurred after the court’s dismissal of this action, it is appropriate for the undersigned to RECUSE.

Talk about "wild," "implausible," and "fantastic"! Let's break down what Proctor is saying here:

(1) He denies our Motion to Recuse, but twice states (in BIG LETTERS) that he "recuses" himself. It, however, has nothing to do with our motion. Ummm . . . Hmmm. (You get a lifetime appointment with this kind of "thinking," folks.)

(2) He claims the conflict arose a couple of weeks ago when Luther Strange became U.S. senator and started hiring staffers. But he admits the young staffer in question, now a Strange employee, had worked for Sessions for quite some time. This tells us: (a) That the Sessions-related conflicts outlined in our Motion to Recuse are, in fact, on target; and (b) The conflicts date to the beginning of our case, showing that (in  Proctor's own words) every one of his rulings is tainted and should, by law, be vacated.

(3) Notice that Proctor refuses to note the multiple defendants in our case who are closely tied to Sessions -- and there is zero doubt Proctor knows this, given his own documented ties to Sessions. But he tries to make the issue about Luther Strange and one of the senator's new employees. Does anyone else find it nauseating to be exposed to such blatant con artistry? R. David Proctor is nothing more than "a worm with a robe."

(4) Isn't it curious that the young Strange employee, who used to work for Sessions, doesn't have a name -- and his relation to Proctor is not spelled out? Why is that?

(5) Proctor wants us to believe his conflict had nothing to do with dismissal of our case. But he admits his relative's ties to Sessions go back awhile. That means Proctor has been conflicted out the wazoo from the beginning of our case, but he is too big a worm to admit it.

A reasonable person might think, "Well, with Proctor off the case, Mr. and Mrs. Schnauzer now should get a fair shake." Such a person would be hopelessly unfamiliar with the reality of our broken court system. After Proctor stepped down, the case landed with U.S. District Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins, another George W. Bush appointee.

It took Hopkins exactly four days to prove she is just as corrupt as Proctor. Four days! She must have taken review of the case seriously, right?

Your tax dollars are supporting this kind of skulduggery -- and Hopkins, like Proctor, does not even try to hide what she's doing.

(To be continued)


Anonymous said...

You aren't helping yourself. A sober appraisal of conflicts of interest is one thing, openly vulgar and contemptuous language does your position no credit.

What I read above is that the relative gained a staff position only after rulings had taken place on your case. The recusal is to avoid all appearance of impropriety, although the Sessions conspiracy is kind of dopey on its face, you are alleging one, and he's dotting every i in that regard.

You really ought to stop ripping family pictures off of facebook. The family looks nice; you look like a major creeper when you go after family.

Anonymous said...

This judge is a frickin' loon. Did Dubya Bush ever appoint a competent federal judge in eight years?

legalschnauzer said...

@6:37 --

You aren't helping yourself by continuing to make dopey comments without having the courage to attach your name to them. Gives you zero credibility.

Anonymous said...

6:37 also looks dopey when he refers to a "Sessions conspiracy" that neither the post nor the recusal motion claim. LS cites conflicts related to Sessions, and it's a matter of fact that both the judge and at least four defendants have strong connections to Sessions -- in some cases, including the judge, they owe their careers to Sessions. That's not a conspiracy, that's fact, and it required Proctor's recusal from the outset.

Anonymous said...

If your motion to recuse had nothing to do with Proctor stepping down, why did he wait until after you had filed the motion to step down?

Anonymous said...

"A sober appraisal of conflicts of interest is one thing . . . "

So you admit, 6:37, that a "sober appraisal of conflicts of interest" is warranted? Your issue with LS is merely in tone, not content?

Why so bitchy then? Proctor admits he had an unnamed relative working for Sessions long before the Shulers' case started -- and he does not deny that at least four defendants have strong ties to Sessions. That's the real conflict. Proctor is just pulling the Strange stuff out of his fanny.

March 1, 2017 at 9:46 AM

Anonymous said...

"A sober appraisal of conflicts of interest is one thing, openly vulgar and contemptuous language does your position no credit. . . . "

I don't find anything "openly vulgar" about this post. It might be contemptuous, but I would say Proctor has earned contempt. I say LS is being restrained. If I were in his shoes, I would be outraged at this kind of cheating and lying from a judge who took an oath to uphold the law.

Anonymous said...

This judge is a frickin' liar.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:37 --

You make a great point, one that had not occurred to me. I knew Proctor was lying, but you have clarified how he was lying. No way he steps down without our motion to recuse.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it a judge's responsibility to recuse when he has even the appearance of a conflict? It's not your responsibility to make him recuse, is it?

legalschnauzer said...

You are right on target, @10:37. Yes, the burden is on the judge. It's not up to me, or any other party, to figure out all of his conflicts. And yes, even the appearance of a conflict requires recusal. In this instance, we have actual conflicts, not just the appearance of conflicts. Proctor's failure to recuse is inexcusable and proves he is corrupt.

Anonymous said...

Sounds to me like most of the language in the judge's order is for "cover your ass" purposes.

legalschnauzer said...

That's exactly what it is, @11:10. It's also for purposes of deceit. He doesn't want Carol and me (and the public at large) to know he had a duty to recuse from the beginning of the case. His line that he doesn't have to accept the allegations in our motion is pure bullshit. He's supposed to recuse without allegations in any motion. He admits he had a relative working for Sessions, and that is an actual conflict, not just an appearance of one. He violated his oath when he failed to step down when it was required -- at the beginning of his case.

Anonymous said...

You can take this to the bank: If you had offered only a "sober analysis" of Proctor's conflicts, 6:37 would have had a problem with that, too. He's a propagandist, with no interest in the truth. He should join Donald Trump's "alternative facts" news team. You can win with phonies like this guy.

Anonymous said...

What if Sessions has been telling Proctor to screw you, basically acting as conductor of your case, like the "Wizard of Oz" behind the curtain?

legalschnauzer said...

That's the $100,000 question, @11:23. The answer is: It would be a crime, called "obstruction of justice." Keep in mind we are talking about the attorney general of the United States possibly committing a federal crime. We're also talking about a federal judge (Proctor) committing a federal crime, which could call for his impeachment and a place in the U.S. prison system.

This is big-time serious stuff, folks. This isn't just Roger and Carol's problem. This is everyone's problem.

Here's another question or two? How long has Proctor been Sesions' stooge on the bench? How many other parties have been cheated because Session wanted that outcome, and Proctor was his "boy on the bench"?

Anonymous said...

Proctor wants you to be stuck with his rulings, even though he admits he never should have been on the case. What recourse do you have?

legalschnauzer said...

Exactly, @11:31. As far as recourse, I'm still researching that. The law is not as clear as it should be. The main recourse, it appears, is to file a motion to vacate, which we intend to do, pronto.

Anonymous said...

What really bothers me is that Proctor referred to you and Carol as "notoriously litigious" and "frequent filers." That is clearly inappropriate and prejudicial. No way he should have stayed on the case after putting those statements in writing.

Anonymous said...

Proctor is hiding something by not naming the relative. I bet it is someone in his immediate family, not some distant cousin or something.

Anonymous said...

Didn't you file an earlier motion to recuse on Proctor? If so, he should have stepped down then.

legalschnauzer said...

Yes, we filed a motion to recuse early in the case, and Proctor denied it.

Anonymous said...

Proctor is tone deaf. He has no idea how bad he sounds when he says it is "appropriate for him to recuse," after denying your motion to recuse. It's just stupid. His whole order makes him sound like a spoiled brat

Anonymous said...

I seem to recall a commenter -- Cliff Jones, or something -- claiming you would lose these cases. I believe you're response was something along the lines of, "That won't happen under the law; it can happen if we get cheated by a corrupt judge." I think we now know which prediction came true.

Anonymous said...

"Proctor admits he had an unnamed relative working for Sessions long before the Shulers' case started"

No he doesn't.

legalschnauzer said...

I assume you are referring to Anonymous @9:48. It's possible Anon has done some additional research on this, as have I since writing this post. Technically, you are correct that Proctor does not admit to his relative working for Sessions before "The House Case" started. But that doesn't mean it isn't true. My additional research, which I will be reporting shortly, indicates Proctor's relative did, in fact, work for Sessions long before our case.

So, yes, Proctor didn't admit it. But yes, it is true. Again, goes to Proctor's dishonesty and the fact he had a duty to recuse up front.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the most clear instance of bias is pointed out in your motion to recuse -- and it made me laugh out loud. Proctor calls you and Carol "frequent filers" and "notoriously litigious," but Jessica Medeiros Garrison, it seems, has filed as many (or more) lawsuits than you. Does Proctor put all sorts of unflattering labels on her. Of course not. But then, she worked for Jeff Sessions.

legalschnauzer said...

Yes, without even double checking the record, I know Garrison has been involved in a divorce case, child custody case, real-property case, and defamation case. And those are as a party, not an attorney. Haven't seen Proctor throw any insults at her.

Anonymous said...

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996)

legalschnauzer said...

@5:05 -- You really should learn a little about this blog before writing meaningless comments like this one. I've written probably a half dozen or so posts about Whren. I know all about it. This is one segment of such a post:

"Whether you agree or disagree with the finding in Whren, it's clear Officer DeHart's actions in our case creates problems. By definition, a legitimate pretext stop involves suspicion about a crime, one more significant than a traffic offense. But DeHart's own actions and words prove that he never suspected a crime, significant or otherwise, was connected to our car. That means DeHart did not conduct a lawful pretext stop under Whren, and he violated our Fourth Amendment rights."

You might also check out Rodriguez, a more recent traffic-stop case then Whren. From Rodriguez:

"Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been completed. The Fourth Amendment may tolerate certain unrelated investigations that do not lengthen the roadside detention . . . but a traffic stop “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a warning ticket. . . .

"The Government’s argument that an officer who completes all traffic-related tasks expeditiously should earn extra time to pursue an unrelated criminal investigation is unpersuasive, for a traffic stop “prolonged beyond” the time in fact needed for the officer to complete his traffic-based inquiries is “unlawful. . . . ” The critical question is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, but whether conducting the sniff adds time to the stop."

You can read more about Rodriguez, which backs up the standard I noted earliers:


Anonymous said...

I cannot wait for your first real encounter with Virginia Hopkins, She will chew you up and spit you out, and you will be squealing like a stuck hog. I am not endorsing her conduct. But you have jumped from a relatively cool pan (Proctor) into a bonfire. Good luck.

legalschnauzer said...

Is Hopkins temperamentally suited to sit on the bench? Sounds like you have questions about that.

Anonymous said...

Jeebus, 5:15, try reading Whren. It says a pretext stop is permissible when cops have grounds to believe the minor offense of a traffic violation can lead to information about a more serious crime. It's about crime, but it in no way permits an officer to stop a vehicle to serve court papers.

LS has run docs where the officer admitted it was a pretext stop, but he never indicates there was any suspicion of a crime related to the Shulers' vehicle. Tells us two things: (1) The Shelby Co. officer has no clue about the definition of a pretext stop; (2) And Mr. Shuler did not run a stop sign.

Anonymous said...

7:31 -- You're comment really bothers me. Here's why:

A. You seem to think it's funny that a judge would act abusively toward a party who already has been abused by the court system over and over. You think that kind of thing is funny?

B. You sound like a "legal insider," and you give no indication that you care whether Hopkins applies the law and facts correctly in the Shulers' case. Is that how a legal insider thinks? It's all about the theater?

C. You give no indication that Hopkins has a superior legal mind, that she would "chew up and spit out" Mr. Shuler intellectually? You just seem convinced that she dispenses "justice by anger. Again, you think that's funny?

D. A final question: Do you think the Shulers have been treated correctly under the law, in this case or in any case? If so, why? If not, why doesn't that bother you? Do cynicism and arrogance tend to suck away the souls of legal insiders?