What might Donald Trump say at today's White House cabinet meeting, where administration successes are to be discussed? Will he be in his usual caustic form?

Trump counts ballroom/bunker project as major success (ABC News)

Donald Trump announced yesterday that a cabinet meeting planned for today at Camp David would be moved to the White House because of concerns about possible stormy weather. What's on the agenda? Several news outlets report it likely will be a cross between a pep rally and a cult meeting, with Trump giving each attendee an opportunity to praise him, Dear Leader, for an unerring ability to create chaos out of stability, war out of peace, inflation out of economic growth, distrust out of longstanding alliances.

Of course, we don't expect the gathered Trumpers to actually get real with the president; that would cause heads to roll and ketchup bottles to fly. Some reports, however, indicate attendees might discuss ways to end the war in Iran while trying to salvage at least a bit of our country's reputation as an indispensable world power.

But most accounts suggest the meeting will be heavy on the pep-rally component, with a lot of chest thumping and back slapping. Here's how a report at ABC News puts it:

According to a White House official, all Cabinet members were expected to attend, and the meeting would "highlight recent successes of the administration including economy and small business wins, Task Force to Eliminate Fraud highlights, and foreign policy updates."

So members of the Trump administration are going to talk about their successes? Your reaction to that news probably was a lot like mine: "Gee, that should be a short meeting."

But then the obvious hit me: The lackeys filling the Trump White House reside in a  different world than the one you and I inhabit. When I started the Legal Schnauzer blog in June 2007 -- it soon will complete its 20th year of continuous publication -- I quickly realized there was hunger out there for information about our justice system, which many people correctly seemed to sense was deeply flawed. They wanted to know specifics, about the judges, lawyers, cops, and administrators who had befouled American justice. They also wanted to know about the folks on the right side of history -- people often in the same professions noted above, who brought a sense of honor and fairness to an embattled system. And they wanted to know about good people who had been harmed by the system -- well known people like Don Siegelman, Richard Scrushy, and Paul Minor -- and relatively unknown people like Bonnie Cahalane, Sherry Carroll Rollins, Dr. Mark Hayden, David Roberson, Burt Newsome, and many more. And they wanted to know about other journalists, activists, broadcasters and authors, such as K.B. Forbes, Donald Watkins, Andrew Kreig, Tommy Gallion, Scott Horton, and Peter B. Collins, who were (and still are) part of a widespread effort to expose corruption.

It has been rewarding to share this space with readers who have their values in the right place, who bring curiosity and intellect to a subject that is sprawling and complex -- filled with mystery and promise. I sense that Legal Schnauzer readers value our democracy and the rule of law upon which it's built -- understanding our system, with all of its flaws, is grounded in civic virtue that still is worth cherishing.

That's why I'm certain our readers would be out of place in a meeting like the one to be held at the White House today. I have written dozens of posts about the rot and self-dealing, the prejudice and selfishness, that is at the core of the Trump ethos. 

Trump has built an administration on loyalty to him, with no regard for competence or a desire to actually govern. That has produced opportunists and bootlickers like Todd Blanche and Pam Bondi, RFK Jr. and Kristi Noem, Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel, Elon Musk and Pete Hegseth. From direct feedback here at the blog and various social-media sites where my work is cross-posted, I know our followers ache for the day when Trump and his acolytes are removed from power, held accountable, and the process of healing can begin. 

That's why I suspect our readers, and millions of Americans like them, can't imagine that a meeting focused on discussion of Trump-era successes would take very long. Here is the reality: Trumpers are likely to find success in actions and events that horrify regular Americans -- and people of conscience around the world. So I began to realize that Team Trump will find plenty to discuss, even if it means inventing "successes" where only failure actually resides. I began to imagine Trump welcoming his troops with an introductory statement that goes something like this . . .

Welcome, and I look forward to our discussions about the many successes we've had over the past 16 months. The Dumocrats under "Sleepy Joe" Biden and Barack Hussein Obama can't imagine the kind of accomplishments we have made. It all starts with this commandment: "Say what you mean, and mean what you say." Here are examples of the leadership our MAGA movement has  brought to the nation and the world:

1. I said, "I will be your justice, I will be your retribution." Did we succeed at that? Ask James Comey;

2. I said we didn't have time to grant due process and trials for migrants prior to deportation. Did we succeed at that? Ask the ones who've been deported anyway;

3. I said we would use the military to assist with domestic law enforcement, to fight crime in our cities, especially those led by Dumocrats. I said we would fight "the enemy within." Did we succeed at that? Ask the thugs who have been locked up;

4. I said we would use DOGE to greatly reduce the power, influence and body count of the regulatory state. Did we succeed at that? Ask the so-called "experts" who were in the bureaucracy and now are in the bread line;

5. I said we would have the fairest elections ever, that we would use the power of the courts and redistricting to make sure we never again let the Dumocrats steal elections. Did we succeed at that? Wait until you see how the 2026 midterms turn out;

6. I said I would appoint conservative, originalist judges to federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Did I succeed at that? Just do the arithmetic;

7. I said I would strengthen ICE and empower them to effectively and firmly enforce our immigration laws. Did I succeed at that? Ask Tim Walz and the Dumocrats who have failed miserably in Minnesota;

8. I said we would reduce our involvement with the UN, NATO, and European "allies" who can't be trusted to pay their fair share of the freight. Did I succeed at that? Ask yourselves this question: Do we need France or does France need us?

9. I said the Kennedy Center needed to be renovated, revived, and reinvigorated. It's a tired, dilapidated structure, but our improvement program is in progress. Did I succeed at that? Just wait until you see the new facility, with a great lineup of artists like Kid Rock, George Strait, and Lee Greenwood; 

10. I said we badly needed a White House ballroom, and we are moving forward with that, while the project has added a world-class military and security complex. When finished in summer 2028, there will be no other facility like it in the world. Did I succeed at that? Wait and see!

With that, let's start discussions of the incredible list of successes we have under our belts. Even George Washington and Abraham Lincoln could not have dreamed of the kind of achievements we have made -- and we are just getting started. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Crooked judges in Alabama divorce courts turn the rule of law on its head, trampling the constitutional rights of women and children with shockng brazenness

Ted Rollins on Wall Street

The ongoing debate over the rule of law is centered on headline-makers like Donald Trump, Roger Stone, and William Barr -- with more than 2,000 former Department of Justice officials calling for Barr to resign. What about everyday Americans, including mothers and children, who suffer because judges fail to uphold the rule of law?

We have reported on several such cases, and this is where the rubber really meets the road when it comes to abuse of the rule of law, but you won't read about these cases in the mainstream media:

(1) The millionaires behind Orkin Pest Control ensure that Sherry Rollins and her daughters get cheated in divorce case -- When Sherry Rollins decided to divorce Ted Rollins, part of the family behind Atlanta-based Orkin Pest Control, the couple and their two daughters lived in Greenville, South Carolina. As the divorce case was pending, Ted Rollins defied a court order to keep up mortgage payments, causing Sherry and their daughters (Sarah and Emma) to be kicked out of their home. Desperate for shelter, Sherry moved with the girls to Birmingham, AL, where she had family.

Not long after the move, Ted Rollins sought to have the divorce case moved to Shelby County, AL, where Sherry had settled and where he had legal connections via the Bradly Arant law firm. Shelby County Circuit Judge Al Crowson allowed the move and went on to issue an order that was preposterously one-sided in Ted Rollins' favor, with Sherry getting a fraction of the child support and alimony to which she was entitled -- especially considering evidence of Ted Rollins' infidelity and other misconduct (including a vicious beating of Sherry's son from a previous marriage). In fact, Sherry and the daughters received so little from Crowson's judgment that they wound up on food stamps.

Was moving the divorce case from South Carolina to Alabama proper under the rule of law? Not even close. The controlling law can be found at a case styled Wesson v. Wesson, 628 So. 2d 953 (1993):

"Once jurisdiction has attached in one court, that court has the exclusive right to continue its exercise of power until the completion of the case, and is only subject to appellate authority."

That's the rule of law; it could not be more simple -- and Sherry Rollins and her daughters had a Constitutional right under the 14th Amendment to have it properly applied. But Al Crowson was a reptile with a robe, and he cheated them in shameless fashion.

(2) A judge throws Bonnie Cahalane, an Alabama mother, in jail -- How can a woman wind up in jail over an alleged debt in a divorce case? Debtors' prisons became unlawful in the United States years ago, right? It can happen in Chilton County, AL, where Circuit Judge Sibley Reynolds routinely tramples the rule of law.

Bonnie Cahalane

Reynolds sent Bonnie Cahalane, of Clanton, to jail because she failed to pay $165,000 as part of her divorce settlement. Was the jailing lawful? Nope. The Alabama Constitution states that citizens cannot be sent to jail because of debts, and case law specifically states that it is unlawful to incarcerate anyone because of failure to pay a property-related debt from dissolution of a marriage. An Alabama case styled Dolberry v. Dolberry, 920 So. 2d 573 (Ala. Civ. App., 2005) is clear:

In this case, the husband argues that he cannot be imprisoned for debt pursuant to § 20, Ala. Const.1901. He is correct. The parties' marriage settlement agreement states: "The [husband] shall pay to the [wife] the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) for her equity in the home. . . . This court [has] recognized that . . . payments . . . for sustenance and support are . . . outside the scope of § 20. . . . The $15,000 payment is clearly a property settlement, as evidenced by the language in the settlement agreement "for her equity in the home." Therefore, the nonpayment of that debt is within the ambit of § 20, Ala. Const.1901. Our resolution of this issue pretermits consideration of the husband's ability or inability to pay. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

Under the rule of law, Bonnie Cahalane could not possibly be incarcerated in her divorce case. But she spent five months behind bars, and God only knows how long she would have been held without our reporting on the case.

(3) Bill Upton, CEO of Vulcan Steel Products, is not held accountable for brazen infidelity in Alabama divorce case --  Bill Upton, the multimillionaire CEO of Pelham-based Vulcan Steel Products, admitted in court documents that he had an extramarital affair with Gincie Walker, a young woman (with serious mental-health issues, including multiple-personality disorder) he and his wife had raised as their daughter; Ms. Walker even called Bill Upton "daddy." Records indicate the affair was the driving event that ended Bill's marriage of more than 30 years to Linda Upton. (Note Bill and Gincie, the biological daughter of convicted sex offender Dr. William Flynn Walker, have since married, and she now is Gincie Walker Upton.)

Gincie Walker Upton

Such an affair represents the kind of marital misconduct for which the perpetrator usually is held accountable in divorce court. But that did not happen with Bill Upton, whose wealth is estimated in the $40- to $60-million range -- and that might be conservative. In his final order of divorce, private judge Gary Pate did not even mention Bill Upton's infidelity.

The outrage does not end there. Pate awarded sole physical custody of the couple's three minor children to Bill Upton -- even though we've seen no evidence in the record that Linda Upton was an unfit mother. Here is how we described, in an April 2016 post, the financial terms of the order:

Linda Upton receives $4,350 a month in periodic alimony, but she received zero in gross alimony. She did not even receive the marital residence. From Pate's order:

11. (a) The parties jointly own a residence at 2870 Shook Hill Road, Birmingham, Alabama. It shall be placed on the market and sold. The Wife shall have exclusive possession pending sale unless she moves. . . .

Linda Upton wound up staying at the home, but only after she had paid Bill Upton for his share of the property. And this was a husband who admitted to conducting an extramarital affair, apparently under the marital roof.

Does Pate's ruling square with the rule of law. No way. It reeks of a judge, who likely was compromised and never should have heard the case, and issued an order based on his whims and prejudices. How unlawful was it? Consider this from an April 28, 2016, post:

Code of Alabama 30-2-52 shows that Private Judge Pate butchered the Upton divorce, and a case styled Shirley v. Shirley, 600 So. 2d 284 (1992) drives that point home. From the Shirley ruling:

Section 30-2-52 permits a trial court, upon a finding of misconduct by one spouse, to make an allowance to the other spouse out of the estate of the offending spouse, as the circumstances may justify, provided "that any property acquired prior to the marriage of the parties or by inheritance or gift may not be considered in determining the amount."

Here is more related to the Shirley case:


Was misconduct present in Shirley? The trial court determined the answer was yes, and the Alabama Supreme Court agreed:

The record reveals that the parties' marriage was beset with extreme unpleasantness. In the pleadings and at trial, each party placed blame for the breakup of the marriage on the other. The husband claimed that the wife was verbally abusive, argumentative, and vindictive and that she interfered with the operation of his business both during the marriage and after the parties' separation. The wife claimed that the husband had a violent temper, had been physically abusive during the marriage, had been dishonest in his handling of the parties' finances, and had engaged in numerous extramarital affairs. At trial she specifically alleged that the husband had, without her consent, misapplied a number of her real estate commission checks for his personal use and had attempted to misappropriate certain life insurance proceeds of which she was the sole intended beneficiary. The husband denies that he has ever been dishonest in handling the wife's money or that he has engaged in adultery, although he admits to having engaged in sexual activity with a woman not his wife on three occasions.

The trial court made no specific finding of adultery, granting the divorce on . . . grounds of incompatibility of temperament and irretrievable breakdown. However, in the judgment of divorce the court recognized the husband's sexual infidelities and made specific findings of his marital misconduct and financial dishonesty toward the wife and other parties. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that there is ample evidence to support the trial court's finding of marital misconduct by the husband. . . .


What impact should such misconduct have on the outcome of a divorce case? From Shirley:

Where one spouse is guilty of misconduct toward the other spouse, the trial court's award may be as liberal as the estate of the offending spouse will permit under the circumstances of the case. Isom v. Isom, 273 Ala. 599, 143 So. 2d 455 (1962).


In other words, Bill Upton could have, and should have, taken a major financial hit for engaging in misconduct that a reasonable person might decide was way worse than that present in Shirley. But Upton's attorney did his best to cover up the issue, and the judge made no mention of it.

Sherry Rollins, Bonnie Cahalane, and Linda Upton . . . three Alabama women who probably would guffaw at the notion that abuse of the rule of law started with Donald Trump's tweet about the Roger Stone case -- and William Barr's subsequent dubious actions that appear to be based on political considerations..

Effort to shine spotlight on public corruption in Alabama must include the judiciary and Riley Inc. if it truly is to help drain our state's toxic swamp

Dr. Randy Brinson
(From talkingpointsmemo.com)

A charitable organization tied to the Christian Coalition plans to shine a spotlight on public corruption in Alabama. That's a good thing. Based on initial reports, it's not clear the group's "drain the swamp" efforts will focus on perhaps the two nastiest elements in Alabama's toxic swamp. That's a bad thing.

The organization, called Redeem the Vote and led by Dr. Randy Brinson of Montgomery, seems to have its heart in the right place. And Lord knows, it has taken on a task of broad scope and monumental importance to quality of life in our state. If Redeem the Vote targets the right rocks to look under, and uses effective tactics to unmask snakes hiding under those rocks, it could do a world of good.

We applaud the group's efforts, especially since it specifically mentions Gov. Robert Bentley, U.S. Senator Luther Strange, and former House Speaker Mike Hubbard as politicians deserving of scrutiny. Those all are Republicans, the type who typically claim the "family values" mantle to attract faith-based voters -- while acting contrary to all notions of honesty and integrity that can be found in the New Testament.

If Redeem the Vote is to maximize its potential, what two sources of corruption must not be ignored? They are:

(1) The judiciary; and

(2) The Bob Riley political machine. including "First Children" Rob Riley and Minda Riley Campbell, plus long-time associates, such as Alabama Supreme Court Justice Jim Main, and organizations (Bradley Arant law firm, etc.) that have benefited from Riley's tendency, while governor, to shower taxpayer dollars onto favored organizations. (Son-in-law Rob Campbell is a partner at Bradley Arant.)

Redeem the Vote is not a new organization. Modeled roughly after MTV's Rock the Vote, the group was founded during the 2004 presidential campaign to register people of faith regardless of party affiliation, or personal political beliefs, but as a matter of Christian principle, "that people of faith must be engaged in the political debate and vote as a matter of moral imperative."

The focus on public corruption is new, and Brinson said it will cut across party lines. From a report at WSFA in Montgomery:

“We are going to target our anti-corruption message against The Governor, Senator Luther Strange, the remnants of Speaker Hubbard’s Machine and any other politician who thinks they are above the law,” Brinson said. “We have a message, it is this: we are not going to take it anymore.”

The organization says it has an over one-million-person email list in the state alone, with over 300,000 engaged members. This is the reason the organization believes it is built for this type of voter education program.

“We were founded in 2003 to help engage the evangelical community and register them to vote, and we did so in unprecedented numbers,” Brinson said. “Many of these same voters who rejected the corruption of Hillary Clinton and propelled President Donald Trump into office are unaware of the rank corruption polluting Alabama’s highest offices. We intend to make them aware.”

As a journalist/blogger who has reported on Alabama corruption for almost 10 years -- and been thrown in jail and had our home stolen out from underneath us, as a result -- I like the sound of that. I also like the sound of this:

Redeem the Vote plans to initiate modern public awareness through advertising and outreach campaigns based on targeted digital communications on TV, radio, mail, and phone calls. They will also couple this with person-to-person outreach in the faith community.

“We are going after people of faith who feel like they are being disenfranchised because of the dishonest, double-dealing and backroom decisions being made by our public officials.”

"Disenfranchised" is one term that could be used to describe what happens from public corruption. "Taxpayer-supported abuse upon taxpayers" is another term that fits. My wife, Carol, and I know because almost everything we owned has been stolen from us because of corrupt judges, lawyers, and law enforcement -- many (maybe all) connected to the Riley Machine.

I've written about many other victims -- especially women and children in divorce/family courts (see the cases of Sherry Carroll Rollins, Linda Upton, and Bonnie Cahalane). The judiciary probably cheats the public in more direct and ruinous ways than any other area of government. Judges tend to get away with it because they wear robes, are called "Your Honor," and give the general impression of being above it all. But corrupt judges -- Sibley Reynolds in Chilton County, Ron Jackson in Shelby County, Robert Vance and Don Blankenship in Jefferson County, and J. Michael Joiner (formerly of Shelby County, now on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals) -- trample constitutional rights in ways that few other public officials can muster.

Why are we concerned that Redeem the Vote might not be targeting the judiciary? An article by Josh Moon, of Alabama Political Reporter, makes no mention of plans the group might have to go after corrupt judges. Neither does a March 14 report from the Inside Alabama Politics (IAP) newsletter, which gave a sneak peek under the headline, "Plans to spotlight past state corruption being organized." From the IAP article:

March 14, 2017

Plans to spotlight past state corruption being organized

Sources close to IAP tell us that a ‘large scale citizen powered organization’ is launching an Independent Expenditure campaign in the very near future aimed at highlighting corruption at all levels of government in Alabama.

The focus will be educating voters about the numerous scandals that has rocked the pillars of government from Speaker of The House, to Governor, US Senator, Chief Justice and Attorney General.

“I think many of those associated with Alabama politics will know the names associated with this project,” the source told IAP. “This project will spotlight how corrupt state government has been the last few years. We expect to see this rolled-out in the very near future.”

They plan to identify, organize and turn out anti-corruption voters focusing on current and future elected officials and holding them accountable for their actions.

Stay tuned . . .

The term "Chief Justice" likely refers to Roy Moore, and that could include the entire judicial system, which the chief justice oversees. The term " the remnants of Speaker Hubbard’s Machine" might refer to Riley Inc. While Hubbard probably thinks he has a political machine, he actually is a subset of, and a throw-off from, the Riley corruption racket.

It's possible Redeem the Vote intends to spotlight rogue judges (hopefully, at both state and federal levels), along with Riley-backed cheaters across the spectrum. It's possible the group didn't announce its targets with the completeness and clarity I would have preferred.

But if Redeem the Vote helps force some of our most malevolent snakes out from under rocks, this could be one of the most hopeful news stories to come out of Alabama in a long while. My sense is that Dr. Randy Brinson is a smart guy, who genuinely cares about the public good. I wish him and Redeem the Vote well -- and if they want my help in tackling a cleansing job that desperately needs to be completed -- I would be glad to help.

Alabama physician Mark Hayden has regained his freedom, and documents suggest our reporting at Legal Schnauzer helped achieve justice in the case

Dr. Mark Hayden

An Alabama physician, who was arrested in late November on a dubious civil-contempt charge, has regained his freedom. Dr. Mark Hayden was released from the Jefferson County Jail last Friday after a habeas corpus hearing before U.S. Magistrate John England.

Details about Hayden's release are murky at this time. It appears that England released him, although an order dated December 21, 2016 (two days before Hayden's release) does not specifically mention release. Did Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mike Graffeo, who signed the writ of arrest, order the release? It's possible, but we do not have access to the full case files -- and they involve both state and federal jurisdiction -- so many questions remain unanswered. (England's order is embedded at the end of this post.)

We do know this: The arrest matter is styled Steven Mark Hayden v. Mike Hale (Jefferson County Sheriff), and court documents/proceedings suggest Legal Schnauzer played a role in gaining Hayden's release. Hayden himself told me, "Roger, you got me out of jail!"

We're not sure if that is true, but if it is true at least in part, we are happy to have helped justice prevail -- and it proves to be a pretty darned nice Christmas present here in the Schnauzer household. This much is certain: We are pleased Dr. Mark Hayden has regained his freedom, especially since he never should have been jailed in the first place.

If Mark Hayden's words to me are true, that means he's at least the second person we've helped get released from an Alabama jail. The other was Bonnie Cahalane, who was unlawfully incarcerated in the Chilton County Jail due to an alleged debt from her divorce case.

Dorothea Batiste, a black, female judge in Jefferson County, apparently was not at risk of going to jail. But Alabama's white judicial elites, including retired Jeffco judge Scott Vowell, were trying to run her off the bench. My reporting on the matter likely helped save her seat -- Batiste indicated to me she believed that to be the case. She will leave the bench in January after losing in the November 2016 election.

Hayden . . . Cahalane . . . Batiste. All were victims of unjust jailings or removal proceedings. All had relatively positive outcomes after we reported on their cases. Those, like GOP insider Jessica Medieros Garrison, who consider Legal Schnauzer to be a "ridiculous little blog" . . . well, the evidence suggests they are way off base.

In the third sentence of his order, Judge England references a blog post that he had received via e-mail, apparently from Dr. Hayden's wife, Angela. Document 3-1, attached to the order, is a link to our post on the Hayden case. Mark Hayden told us that during a state hearing last Wednesday, Judge Graffeo mentioned Legal Schnauzer and seemed quite disturbed that his order of arrest had made it into the Web press.

Here is the main point: Dr. Hayden was in the Jefferson County Jail, where I spent a week during my five-month incarceration in 2013-14. I can confirm, with firsthand knowledge, that the Jeffco Jail richly deserves its reputation as one of the nation's worst (and most dangerous) jails. People have died in that jail, and I have no doubt people will continue to die in that jail. It's dangerous, wretched, nasty conditions have been the subject of litigation.

It's possible that Dr. Hayden was on the same unit where I was housed. Dr. Hayden said he was on the sixth floor, and I was either on the sixth or fifth floor. Inmates told me that I had the pleasure of being on the "(relatively) good guy's unit," which was considered the best and safest spot in the jail. They said the higher up you went, the worse it got. As I recall, the 10th floor was at the top, and inmates said it was an "absolute zoo."

During the week I was in the Jeffco Jail, I got the distinct impression that my life meant zero to anyone on the jail staff -- and I was only there because of gross incompetence or corruption from Judge Don Blankenship, related to the Jessica Garrison case. I imagine Dr. Mark Hayden had the same thoughts. I am hardly a picky eater, but food at the Jeffco Jail reminded me of something you might see in a pig's trough on a farm. Having grown up in the Missouri Ozarks, I've seen a few pig troughs on farms.

What's next in the Hayden case? England's order indicates that Hayden might not be home free. Hale apparently will be given 30 days or so to show the court why Hayden is due to be held. That means Homewood attorney Rob "Uday" Riley could appear on stage left, because he is Sheriff Hale's attorney. Any brief Riley produces is likely to be filled with misstatements of fact and law. We know from personal experience that he and other members of the Riley Jackson Firm are dreadful attorneys, the kind who care not one iota about justice or the law.

From the England order:

Petitioner (Hayden) should be aware there will be no ruling on his petition until it is fully briefed; Respondent (Hale) is entitled to explain why he contends Petitioner is lawfully in custody and must be given adequate time to do so.

We will keep you updated on the Dr. Mark Hayden case as details become available.

Mark Hayden -- Order Re Habeas Corpus (Dec. 21) by Roger Shuler on Scribd

Donald Trump likely is wrong about dark motives behind 2016 election, but many everyday Americans know that some U.S. systems are, in fact, "rigged"

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton
(From businessinsider.com)

Lost amid discussion about Donald Trump's failure at last night's presidential debate to promise he would accept 2016 election results is this: Trump, though he surely did not realize it, actually had a point.

Trump's statement that he would keep us in "suspense" on the election-results issue caused many pundits' heads to spin, but it should not have been a surprise. It grew from Trump's pre-debate claims that the race is "rigged" in Hillary Clinton's favor.

The Trump claim is nonsensical on at least two levels; (1) We've seen zero evidence that this particular election is rigged; (2) When events are rigged in the United States, they almost never harm rich, white, conservative guys like Trump; they tend to be the riggers, not the riggees.

Despite that, Trump has provided a public service, in a roundabout way, by raising the "r word." That's because parts of American officialdom are rigged, especially in our so-called justice system. My wife, Carol, and I have seen it firsthand. So have many of the people I've reported about on this blog -- women like Sherry Rollins, Linda Upton, and Bonnie Cahalane in divorce cases; a man like Dr. Mark Hayden in a business/estate case; a man like VictoryLand owner Milton McGregor in a string of gaming-related cases; even a former governor, Don Siegelman of Alabama, in perhaps the most grotesque political prosecution in American history.

(Speaking of Siegelman, do you think he believes American elections can be stolen -- in other words, rigged -- after votes for him disappeared overnight in the 2002 race against Bob Riley? What about Sonny Hornsby, the Alabama chief justice candidate in 1994 who perhaps was the first victim of an election that was manipulated by Karl Rove? What about Al Gore supporters in 2000 and John Kerry supporters in 2004, who likely saw results in single states -- Florida and Ohio, respectively -- lead to the calamitous George W. Bush presidency? Bottom line: Donald Trump almost certainly has no grounds to believe the 2016 election is rigged against him -- his own missteps have been plenty to make him a loser -- but American election results should not be seen as sacrosanct; they can be subject to tampering.)

What about those instances when a rigged system has worked against Carol and me? I could write a multi-volume book on that, but let's focus on one element, of one case, in our legal odyssey.

In a letter dated October 31, 2013, eight days after I was arrested for writing this blog and thrown in the Shelby County Jail, Birmingham attorney David Gespass revealed stunning information. GOP political operative Rob Riley and lobbyist Liberty Duke had -- contrary to law -- asked for the case file to be sealed. That meant Carol and I largely were in the dark about a case that caused Alabama deputies to barge into our home and essentially kidnap me -- I use that term because the cops showed no warrant, did not mention a warrant, and did not even state their purpose for being on our property before beating me up and dousing me with pepper spray.

Gespass -- who visited me twice in jail, although he never offered any strategies for addressing the injustice I had experienced -- apparently managed to review the file. (I assume by contacting Rob Riley or his lawyers, members of Riley's firm.) Consider just one sentence from the third paragraph of Gespass' letter: (The full letter is embedded at the end of this post.)

First of all, both the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (the latter is now in effect, but both say the same things) appear to have been issued before service was effected. . . . 

Let's briefly deal with two preliminary matters before addressing our main point:

(1) More than 200 years of First Amendment law hold that both a TRO and preliminary injunction are unlawful in a case of alleged defamation;

(2) A TRO lawfully can be issued prior to notice or service to the defendant. But that simply cannot happen with a preliminary injunction, in any kind of legal case. In fact, Alabama law holds that a preliminary injunction cannot be considered, much less issued, if the opposing party has had no opportunity to submit evidence, call witnesses -- all the elements we know as due process in the United States. (See Southern Homes v. Bermuda Lakes.)

Now, back to our main point, and the mind-blowing words from Gespass' letter. According to Gespass, a preliminary injunction had been issued against Carol and me BEFORE SERVICE WAS EFFECTED.

David Gespass

Those aren't my claims; those are from an attorney -- one I do not like, and for whom, I have zero respect -- based on his review of the court's own hidden files. Gespass' words show that the court took action against Carol and me when we had not been served -- and without service, the court had no authority over us.

A legal case can't get much more "rigged" than that. It was decided in favor of one party before the other party even was given notice of the lawsuit, before the case had even started.

And get this: David Gespass, to my knowledge, has not done or said one thing to expose such an outrage -- even though Gespass has a duty under the ethical guidelines of his profession to report wrongdoing by his fellow members of the bar. Like most lawyers, it appears, Gespass is more interested in covering up injustice than exposing it.

As for Donald Trump, he seriously thinks he knows what it's like to face a system that is rigged against you? Carol and I really know what that's like -- and so do many of the people I've written about on this blog.

David Gespass Letter by Roger Shuler on Scribd

Chilton County Judge Sibley Reynolds ordered Jemison man sent to jail for posting critical remarks on social media about the handling of his divorce case

Chilton County Judge Sibley Reynolds
(From Montgomery Advertiser)

A central Alabama man recently was thrown in jail for using social media to post critical comments about the judge in his divorce case.

Carlos B. Ortigoza, of Jemison, served a day in the Chilton County Jail after Circuit Judge Sibley Reynolds found him in contempt of court for violating an order not to post on social media about a divorce case styled Renee Hicks Ortigoza v. Carlos B. Ortigoza. Reynolds originally ordered Carlos Ortigoza incarcerated for five days, but decided to free him after one day.

Reynolds has a history of unlawfully throwing people in jail. If his name sounds familiar, that's because you might have read about his abusive actions here against a female litigant. (More on that in a moment.)

In an order dated July 18, Reynolds stated that Ortigoza was "prohibited from posting on social media anything concerning issues that fall within the control of the Court Order of Final Decree." (See order at the end of this post.) On August 3, Ortigoza posted about the case at GoFundMe, with the post also appearing at Facebook, and described Reynolds as a "corrupt judge." At a court hearing the next day, the post was brought to Reynolds' attention, and he ordered Ortigoza to jail for five days. (See order at the end of this post.)

Does Reynolds have the authority to tell someone in advance that they cannot write on social media? I haven't been able to find such authority, and it's hard to imagine that any exists. Considering that I was thrown in jail for five months in Shelby County (just north of Chilton) because I write Legal Schnauzer, one must wonder if Alabama is about to become a First Amendment-free zone.

Screenshot from Carlos
Ortigoza's GoFundMe page

In my case, lawyer Rob Riley and lobbyist Liberty Duke sued me for defamation and sought a preliminary injunction, which has been forbidden under First Amendment law for more than 200 years. In other words, Riley and Duke wanted a judge to order me to quit writing about their extramarital affair prior to any finding that my reporting was false or defamatory. That, under the law, is called a "prior restraint" and it is unlawful. Ultimately, Riley and Duke failed to prove their case at trial -- because there was no trial, before a jury or anyone else -- and that means, by law, my reporting was neither false nor defamatory.

Reynolds' order forbidding Ortigoza to write about a certain subject on social media almost certainly is an unlawful prior restraint. And his order to have Ortigoza incarcerated for practicing free speech probably amounts to false arrest/false imprisonment.

It's almost impossible to successfully sue a judge for such violations of civil rights. But Ortigoza probably would have a civil case against anyone who participated with Reynolds in a false-imprisonment scheme. Also, Ortigoza could file a complaint with the Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC), which currently is busy trying to get Roy Moore off the Alabama Supreme Court, although that august body is notorious for failing to discipline rogue judges.

Immunity, for the most part, protects judges from civil complaints, but they are not above criminal law. It's way past time for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate Reynolds and the relationships he has with certain favored lawyers. Our guess is that a federal indictment against Reynolds could be quite lengthy.

Unlawfully tossing someone in jail is a familiar tactic for Reynolds; it's as if he takes a perverse delight in violating the rules he is sworn to uphold. In 2012, Reynolds kept Clanton resident Bonnie Calahane in the "Chilton Hilton" for almost five months over issues connected to her divorce from Harold Wyatt. Reynolds found Cahalane in contempt for failing to pay a debt of about $165,000 related to the divorce -- even though Alabama case law states that a party cannot be subject to contempt, and incarceration, for failure to pay a property-related debt from the dissolution of a marriage.

How does Reynolds get away with this stuff? Well, in our "justice system," no one oversees judges, especially if the DOJ has been sound asleep, as it has during most of President Barack Obama's tenure. Judges almost never can be sued; outfits like the the JIC tend to be worthless and spineless. Appellate courts are more likely to cover for a corrupt judge than to do anything about his crooked acts.

The only solution is for everyday citizens to become informed and outraged, demanding reform in a broken system. Pehaps the Carlos Ortigoza case will draw national attention and help unmask Sibley Reynolds, and others like him, before a wide audience.

Carlos Ortigoza -- order re: social media by Roger Shuler on Scribd

Carlos Ortigoza -- Order re: incarceration for five days by Roger Shuler on Scribd

Corporate ass-kisser Jessica Medeiros Garrison as a champion for women? Please, don't make us laugh

Jessica Garrison, with U.S. Judge
Bill Pryor and U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions,
two of her right-wing mentors.

Republican political operative Jessica Medeiros Garrison tries to portray herself as a champion of women in a recent online rant against Legal Schnauzer. That notion is laughable to anyone who knows the first thing about Garrison's background. And in the course of her rant, as told to Liz Welch of marieclaire.com, Garrison winds up affirming some of the worst stereotypes women have had to fight for years.

Garrison claims that my reporting about her extramarital affair with Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange is a form of bullying--and the point of her Marie Claire piece is to stand up for other helpless women who might become the subjects of evil journalists. This is how Garrison so nobly puts it:

This is about more than just me. It's about the women who are bullied, trolled, and victimized online because someone has an agenda, or a chip on their shoulder, or a self-righteous feeling that they simply ​can​.

Wow, that Jessica is quite a gal, standing up for imperiled women everywhere. But is her concern real? Not even close.

The first clue comes when Garrison tells us about her professional life:

By then, I was a Executive Director at RAGA, the Republican Attorney General's Association, in Washington, D.C. My job was to meet with corporations to promote working with Attorney Generals. One day, I went to a meeting with the Government Affairs director at Apple at a restaurant in Cupertino, California. When I arrived, he said, "I looked you up online so I could recognize you." My heart stopped beating. All I could think throughout the meeting was, 'This man thinks I slept with the Attorney General of Alabama.'

Let's examine that first highlighted sentence for a moment. Garrison says her role is to encourage corporations to work with attorneys general. (Jessica has a little problem with grammar here; the plural is attorneys general, not attorney generals. You'd think a woman with a law degree, who had been appointed to a job in the Alabama AG's office and as executive director of an association of AGs, would know that.) But Jessica says she represents only Republican AGs, so her line about promoting work with all AGs? Well, that's a lie.

Even more troubling is this: The attorney general, in most jurisdictions, is defined as the chief law-enforcement officer and chief legal adviser to the state government. In other words, a big part of the job is to prosecute individuals, including corporate titans, who violate state laws. A state attorney general should be one of the last people corporate heads would want to work with.

Apple Inc. headquarters in
Cupertino, California

Unless, of course, Jessica's real job is to more or less conduct a "shakedown cruise" of corporate executives, assuring them that a contribution to RAGA will make it more likely that Republican AGs look the other way when said executives step in legal doo-doo. Was that the whole point of Garrison's visit to Apple in Cupertino, California?

Now, Jessica wouldn't do that would she? A 2014 New York Times article suggests that's exactly what someone at RAGA does:

The Republican Attorneys General Association, created nearly 15 years ago, has grown in prominence as the number of Republicans holding the job has surged, reaching 25 as of this year. RAGA takes in millions of dollars a year from major corporations — companies that are seeking help to move their agendas or have been targets of investigations.

Why would major corporations need help from attorneys general to "move their agendas"? I can see how they might need experts in advertising or public relations or lobbying. But an attorney general? I can't fathom a legitimate reason for a corporation to want the help of AGs to "move its agenda"--unless, of course, the corporation is up to no good and needs AGs to look the other way. Is Jessica Garrison a glorified "bag man" (or "bag gal") for conservative law-enforcement types?

Here's a better question: Does anyone seriously think Jessica Garrison is a champion, of any sort, for women? She has publicly stated that her professional mentor is U.S. Circuit Judge Bill Pryor, a former Alabama Attorney General. Pryor might be one of the most virulent anti-woman political figures in modern American history. When President George W. Bush nominated Pryor to the federal bench in 2003, civil-rights and women's groups were so outraged that Bush was forced to make a recess appointment.

(By the way, who started RAGA, the outfit that now employs Jessica Garrison? It was Bill Pryor. Does Jessica Garrison pretty much owe her career to the anti-woman Bill Pryor? A strong argument could be made that the answer is yes.)

Did Garrison help the cause of women with the shrill, high-anxiety tone of her Marie Claire piece? Given that women have had to fight the stereotype that they are prone to be nervous, hysterical, overwrought, and high strung . . . well, I would submit that the answer is no, she did not help the cause of women. In fact, she probably caused them to take several small steps backward.

Garrison's piece is filled with so much overtly emotional language that it can set one's nerves on edge just to read it. As a public service, I counted the number of times Garrison used certain emotionally charged terms. Here is my count:


* Shocked -- 1

* Tears or "in tears" -- 2

* Heart stopped beating -- 1

* Paranoid -- 1

* Mortifying or mortified -- 2

* Shouting or elated -- 2

* Anxiety, stress, or sadness-- 1 each


That's 12 high-intensity words or phrases in a relatively brief, 18-paragraph story. I think I need to take a Xanax after finishing it.

Consider Garrison's tone, compared to the calm, professional demeanor of Hillary Rodham Clinton when she recently faced intense grilling about Benghazi before a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. Who is the better role model for women?

Heck, consider Garrison's self-centered tripe to the reporting I've done on real women--Sherry Carroll Rollins, Linda Upton, Angela Drees, Bonnie Cahalane--who have been abused by the Alabama justice system, Has Jessica Garrison ever taken a stand for such women? Has she ever taken a stand for any woman, other than herself--or maybe a sorority sister who is as self-absorbed as she is?

In short, who is more the champion for women--Jessica Garrison or Legal Schnauzer? Under any reasonably objective examination, my record would trump hers eight days a week.

Oh, and we mustn't forget this: Garrison's marieclaire.com article reveals her to be a hypocrite of Bunyanesque proportions. We've already noted this quality in Garrison on the subject of Big Tobacco. But now, her gross hypocrisy is on display regarding another major issue of the day.

More on that coming soon.

We celebrate our 26th wedding anniversary as my wife recovers from the police brutality that can be inflicted on those who stand up to a broken justice system

X-rays of Carol Shuler's broken arm, courtesy of a
Missouri deputy. The area within the five-sided geometric shape formed by plates and screws
 reveals multiplefractures, probably four or five.
(X-ray from Cox South Medical Center, Springfield, MO,
from the staff of trauma surgeon Dr. Brian Buck.)

Today marks the 26th wedding anniversary for Mrs. Schnauzer and me. As we prepare to "celebrate," Carol is recovering from a badly broken arm, courtesy of a Missouri deputy who, with a half dozen or so cohorts, was executing an unlawful eviction on September 9. (See X-ray No. 2 above.) Any "celebration" will come in or near a flea-bag motel in Springfield, Missouri, where we live on a week-to-week basis, now that lawyers and judges in two states (Alabama and Missouri) have helped steal just about everything we've ever worked for--including our home of 25 years in Birmingham. For good measure, my two brothers (Paul and David Shuler) have instigated a petition, which has zero basis in fact or law, that seeks to have Carol and me declared incompetent.

Got to love that family support!

As for the X-ray above, we showed you No. 1 yesterday, and this one is a slightly different view of the area that includes multiple fractures. Just above Carol's elbow, you will notice that screws and titanium plates form a five-sided geometric figure. Inside that figure, you can see lines that represent fractures. The damage is so severe that Carol's caregivers have said a 95-percent recovery might be the best we can hope for.

Again, happy anniversary!

Do we actually have anything to celebrate today. I think we do; for one, we're still together--in mind, body, and spirit--so, in an age of starter marriages and rampant dysfunction in many homes, I consider that an accomplishment. If I'm going to have to experience a bunch of crap in life, I would rather experience it with Carol than anyone else. And when things are going well--although we might never get to such a state again--Carol is a fine companion then, too.

I thought about staying away from the blogging gig on our anniversary, but the 26 years Carol and I have spent together inspired me to share a few thoughts on various marriage- and justice-related subjects. I hope you will find them worthwhile, so here it goes . . .

* Take those marriage vows seriously; they can be a bee-atch--If you are married in a traditional Christian ceremony, you likely will say vows that go something like this: "I, (Roger), take thee, (Carol), to be my wedded wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health," When the vows raise the specter of bad things that can happen in a marriage--"for worse," "for poorer," "in sickness"--they aren't joking. Carol and I have had a lot of good things--even wonderful things--happen during our 26 years of marital bliss. But we've had up-close-and-personal experiences with that "for worse" and "for poorer" stuff. In terms of sickness, we both have been diagnosed with PTSD, and that has very real repercussions. Otherwise, our general  health seems remarkably good for all we've been through. When most of us think about those scary parts of the wedding vows--if we think of them at all--we tend to consider things like accidents, unavoidable health woes, mistakes, job loss for legitimate reasons, etc. In other words, it all comes under the heading of "s--t happens." But that's not necessarily the way it works in real life. Almost all of our negative experiences have intentionally been heaped upon us by bad people. We didn't lose our jobs (at UAB and Infinity Insurance) for legit reasons--political forces stole them from us. A word to the wise: If you are married, you likely will have a few things that you value, that generally are seen to have worth. If you have any such items, whether they be living beings or inanimate objects, there is always someone out there who would not mind stealing them. All of our legal problems started from a neighbor, with a significant criminal record and signs in his past that he has sociopathic tendencies, who wanted to (in essence) steal our yard. He wanted to use it without permission, and without paying for it and helping to care for it, and that's what I call stealing. Even if we are talking about real property, which can't be moved, bad people still can try to steal it from you--as this guy did, in part, by fencing in about 400 square feet that clearly belonged to us.

* Stand for something, especially something that causes you to step outside your comfort zone--A friend of long standing recently scoffed at the notion that Carol and I should seek to be restored for all of the civil (and criminal) wrongs that have been committed against us. This fellow doesn't deny that we've been cheated in horrific ways, but his counsel is to just accept it and more or less "push the reset button." As for seeking restoration and justice via the court system, this fellow opines, "The system doesn't work that way."

(Never mind that this guy and his wife have both, when they saw signs of being victimized, sought the counsel of attorneys. It seems the system is designed to restore them; it's just not designed to restore us.)

Some of you might be thinking, "I would tell that 'friend' to hit the highway and never come back." I'm starting to think along the same lines, but he did cause me to be extra grateful for the kind of woman I married.

Critics are free to aim their arrows at Legal Schnauzer, and quite a few of them do, but no one can dispute that Carol and I have stood for something. I'm the author of the blog--and except for the five months when I was in jail, and Carol kept it alive--I am solely responsible for its content. But Carol signed off on this effort to expose corruption, when many spouses would have shied away. We've paid a heavy price for the journalism here, and we've attracted quite a few enemies.

But have we made a difference? Ask some of the victims of injustice we've reported on--Don Siegelman, Sherry Carroll Rollins, Linda Upton, Richard Scrushy, Paul Minor, Bonnie Cahalane, Wes Teel, Dr. Mark Hayden, and many more. Their answers, I feel certain, would be yes.

* Try to stand with someone who represents the goodness in mankind--Carol and I have our cynical moments, and there is no doubt that we now are very slow to trust anyone. And we certainly can get on each other's nerves from time to time. But I don't think we've allowed our unpleasant experiences to turn us into cynics. We still believe goodness exists out there.

I've seen goodness in my wife for 26 years (28, if you count two years of dating). Consider our recent "eviction," the one that led to Carol's broken arm: When deputies allowed her into our apartment to retrieve some of our belongings, the first thing she made sure to get were the wooden urns that contain the ashes of our two late, beloved pets--Murphy, the miniature schnauzer for whom this blog is named, and Chloe, the beautiful Tonkinese kitty kat who died of cancer in July of this year.

Carol has a number of inanimate objects that she values--her furniture, her jewelry, her clothes. But the first things on her mind, in a moment of crisis and terror, were Murphy and Chloe. In fact, Carol's arm was shattered because she was trying to return to the apartment to retrieve the litter box for our one surviving pet--Chloe's brother, Baxter.

At a moment of extraordinary stress, when she had just been handcuffed and had multiple weapons pointed at her, Carol thought outside herself. Murphy, Chloe, and Baxter, technically, are not "of" Carol--they are not the "fruit of her loins." But she loved Murphy and Chloe dearly (and she loves Baxter dearly now), and they were the first beings who popped into her mind as she and I were facing homelessness--and, given all the weaponry, on the premises, possible execution.

I had always hoped to marry a good-hearted person. And that's just the most recent proof that I did marry a good-hearted person. Even though we now live on the brink of ruin, I will always be grateful that I've been able to share the good and the bad with Carol.

I might have a few more profound thoughts to share, but that's it for now.

Back on the subject of X-rays, here is No. 3 below, which shows that Carol's arm needed support well above the elbow. We are guessing this is because her arm was dislocated, in addition to being broken.

What was Rob Riley's sinister purpose for including my wife in defamation lawsuit that didn't involve her?

Carol Shuler, from her Facebook page

Why did Alabama Republican operative Rob Riley and lobbyist Liberty Duke include my wife, Carol, as a defendant in their defamation lawsuit against me and the Legal Schnauzer blog? I don't have a definitive answer to that question, but the evidence points in some disturbing directions.

News coverage has focused on my five-month incarceration and Judge Claud Neilson's repeated violations of First Amendment precedent that led to it. But I'm not aware of any reporter, mainstream or otherwise, asking this question: Why was Carol Shuler included in the lawsuit, and is there any evidence to suggest she should have been a named defendant?

The answer to the second part of that question is a resounding no. At the time of the Riley/Duke lawsuit, there was nothing on Legal Schnauzer to suggest Carol played any role in it. She didn't write it, she didn't edit it, she didn't administer it. She knew how to get into my e-mail account, to which the blog is based. But she had never gone beyond that; she had no idea how to reach the composing/editing page, which is the nerve center for any blog--at least those, like mine, that use the Google-based Blogger format.

It's not that Carol couldn't write a blog; she's plenty smart enough to write a gem-dandy blog--and she proved it by keeping Legal Schnauzer alive while I was in jail. I tried over the jailhouse phone to explain to her how to maneuver around in the composing/editing function--but a lot of that, she figured out on her own.

Aside from that, Legal Schnauzer has been my baby, in toto, from the outset. There is nothing in the blog to suggest that anyone else is responsible for its existence or its content. Carol has supported my efforts to expose the judicial corruption we've witnessed in various court cases--and to also examine dubious court action in cases involving other people, such as Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, Sherry Rollins, Bonnie Cahalane, and many others, I occasionally bounce ideas off her, and she is very helpful at pointing out typos and other glitches that need to be corrected. But her contribution and responsibility begin and end mainly with the fact she is my wife--that's it.

The plaintiffs tried to pull some laughable linguistic tricks in order to justify including Carol in their complaint. That can be seen in an Order on Petitions for Contempt, dated October 21, 2013. The order, which can be viewed at the end of this post, is signed by Judge Neilson. But evidence in the case indicates almost every order was written by attorneys from Riley's own law firm. The likely author of this order is Jay Murrill, from the Riley Jackson firm.

Assuming we are correct about that, let's consider some of Mr. Murrill's handiwork. It can be found in the last paragraph on page 3 of the order:

The testimony and evidence presented at the Oct. 17, 2013, hearing also showed that Respondent Carol Shuler is involved, to some degree, with "Legal Schnauzer," a forum website on which the aforesaid contempt took place. "Legal Schnauzer" purports to be a joint enterprise between Respondent Roger Shuler and Respondent Carol Shuler; it describes itself as "one couple's fight against injustice" and entries thereon reference "our reporting." Thus, there is evidence to conclude that Respondent Carol Shuler has also demonstrated a willful, continuing failure or refusal to comply with the TRO and Preliminary Injunction, though perhaps to a lesser degree than Respondent Roger Shuler. 

What a crock of unadulterated horse feces. Let's take each of Murrill's points as they come:

* Legal Schnauzer "purports to be a joint enterprise" between my wife and me? -- There is not a single word on the blog, or anywhere else. to support that. Down the right-hand column on the front page, is a small "About Me" box, which provides author information--about my background, plus a link to my full profile. Below that, is my e-mail address for anyone who wishes to contact me, the author. Nowhere does it suggest that anyone other than me writes, edits and produces Legal Schnauzer. Nowhere does that section mention Carol Shuler, and nowhere does it suggest that anyone other than me is responsible for the blog's content.

* The blog describes itself as "one couple's fight against injustice." -- Murrill is really grasping here. That phrase is part of the blog's tagline because--surprise, surprise--Carol has been intimately involved in various court cases that largely evolved from a neighbor's continued trespass onto our property, which we jointly owned. The tagline says that Carol has been a major part of the story; it does not say, or suggest, that she plays any role in producing the blog. Consider this, which apparently is beyond Jay Murrill's comprehension: Tennis great Andre Agassi wrote an autobiography called Open in 2009, and it frequently mentions his wife, fellow tennis great Steffi Graf. (In fact, her career was even more outstanding than his.) The story, to an extent, is about Andre Agassi and Steffi Graf. But Andre Agassi wrote the book, and if someone had a problem with its content, they would need to address it to him or his publisher. The notion of suing Steffi Graf for something Andre Agassi wrote in Open is absurd and probably would result in sanctions for any lawyer who tried it. But Jay Murrill, at Rob Riley's apparent insistence, used that very trick with Carol.

* Entries at Legal Schnauzer reference "our reporting" -- Is Murrill just ignorant? Well the phrase "our reporting," which I do use here at times, is a form of what grammarians call the "royal we." It's a technique where a singular person uses a plural pronoun to refer to himself because . . . well, heck, I guess it just sounds better. In my mind, rightly or wrongly, I use the "royal we" at times because I am writing both in my voice and as the voice of an entity--a blog called Legal Schnauzer. It's not unusual to see an editorial writer refer to "our reporting," meaning his reporting (or that of a colleague), along with that of the newspaper he represents. Is use of the "royal we" an effective grammatical technique? I'm sure that could be debated. Am I using it correctly? That could be debated, too. Does anyone seriously think it means this blog is a joint reporting effort, that anyone other than me is involved? I doubt that anyone, other than Jay Murrill, thinks that. And as a lawyer, he should have enough education to know better.

So what is the real reason that Rob Riley sued my wife for an alleged tort with which she was not remotely involved? It's hard to see where there was any legal advantage to it. If Riley hoped to use Carol to get at "inside information" about me or the blog, the husband-wife privilege probably would have blocked that. In other words, communications between Carol and me are largely confidential under the law, and that likely would have been a dry hole for Riley--at least with a legitimate judge on the case, which Neilson was not.

That's not to say there wasn't a sinister and improper reason for including Carol as a defendant. But it certainly did not have anything to do with the law. Evidence suggests it was part of a terrorism effort to which Carol and I have been subjected now for roughly 15 years. It points, in my view, to motivations behind the Riley/Duke lawsuit that are even nastier and darker than most of the public can even imagine.


(To be continued)

Riley Lawsuit Contempt Order, 10 21 by Roger Shuler

John Archibald and al.com finally seem to understand that we have a problem with corrupt courts and cops

John Archibald

Alabama's largest news organization has become aware that we have a problem with our corrupt justice system. A columnist for al.com has acknowledged that cops and courts abuse everyday citizens on a fairly routine basis. It's taken a while, but perhaps scales are starting to fall from some eyeballs.

I'm pleased to learn that John Archibald is having an awakening on the subject, via a column titled "This country is about to have a throwdown over abusive cops and courts." The piece apparently was inspired by the case of Sureshbhai Patel, the grandfather from India who was body slammed by an Alabama police officer and suffered a spinal injury requiring surgery.

A video of the Patel incident apparently went viral and made international news, causing Archibald and others at the former Birmingham News to sit up and take notice. But they are slightly late to the party, and I know from personal experience they have a history of ignoring court-related corruption--no matter how blatant it might be.

My wife and I have been dealing with corrupt judges and lawyers in Shelby County for 15 years--and I've been reporting on court corruption since starting this blog almost eight years ago. Our experience reached absurd and frightening levels when I was arrested on October 23, 2013, based on a dubious defamation lawsuit filed by Republican political honcho Rob Riley. For good measure, Riley also sought the arrest of my wife, even though she had nothing to do with Legal Schnauzer at the time.

Along the way, we have not been alone. I've written about numerous Alabamians--Sherry Rollins, Mark Hayden, Linda Upton, Angela Drees, Joe Blackburn, Bonnie Cahalane, and others--who have been victimized in Alabama courtrooms.

Where was al.com during all of this? Somewhere around 2004 I visited former editor Tom Scarritt at his office and offered documents and other details about court corruption in Shelby County. Scarritt showed zero interest in the subject and almost laughed me out of his office.

A year or two later, I met with Archibald at a coffee shop in downtown Birmingham. Archibald did listen to what I had to say, he asked some questions, and took some notes--but he never wrote anything about it.

What does Archibald say now, in the wake of the Patel case? This is from his most recent column:

I've been asked a lot lately, in the wake of the gay marriage debate, what the next great civil or human rights battleground will be. And I think this is it.

Justice. And all that means.

It is the use of force by police. It is the fairness of justice for the rich and the poor alike. The battle is simmering now, in places like Ferguson and Madison, and more quietly in courts like those in Childersburg and Clanton, where the smallest of traffic offenses can lead to jail time for those who cannot pay immediately.

What does this mean for all of us? Archibald provides perspective:

It is shaping up to be our next big fight. Which is sad, because we shouldn't have to fight at all.

For this is--as it must be--a nation of laws. For rich and for poor, for black and white and brown, for those who set out to do society harm, and for those with badges and guns--and gavels--who harm it in the name of protection. And revenue.

And law and order.

Are Archibald and Co. serious about taking on injustice? Here is one way we can tell: We've shown that, beyond doubt, the charge against Officer Eric Parker in the Patel case is incorrect--it's a misdemeanor, but the law calls for it to be a felony. Will al.com look into that? We'll see.

That is just the beginning. I would be glad to get with Archibald or another reporter and provide details about Judge Al Crowson's corrupt actions in the Sherry Rollins case (Shelby County), Judge Robert Vance Jr.'s actions in the Mark Hayden case (Jefferson County), Judge Sibley Reynolds'  actions in the Bonnie Cahalane case (Chilton County), and Judge Gary Pate's actions in the Linda Upton case (Jefferson County). And that doesn't even count my own experience of being the only journalist to be arrested in the western hemisphere in 2013, contrary to more than 200 years of First Amendment law.

Are you serious about injustice, Mr. Archibald? If you are, dive right in with the rest of us. You might be amazed at the kind of historic difference you can make.

The water is murky, and the undertow is nasty, but we've been swimming against the tide for a long time--and we're still here. You are more than welcome to join us.