Thursday, March 21, 2013

A Fellow Federal Judge Proves William Acker Jr. Butchered My Employment Lawsuit Against UAB

Judge William M. Acker Jr. (right)
New evidence shows that U.S. District Judge William M. Acker Jr. acted way outside the law in his handling of my employment lawsuit against the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The evidence this time comes from one of Acker's colleagues on the federal bench in the Northern District of Alabama.

This revelation raises disturbing questions about Acker's competence, integrity, and fitness as a federal judge. But perhaps more importantly, it shows the wild disparity in the way similar cases are handled, based simply on the supposedly random selection of a judge. We learn that "justice" in America can come down to a crap shoot that might be fitting for the "Wild, Wild West"--if you get one judge, you have a decent shot at receiving lawful treatment; if you draw another judge, you have no chance.

Acker's actions in my case against UAB--granting summary judgment to the university and individual defendants even though no discovery had been conducted--were so outrageous that we don't need additional evidence to prove that the 85-year-old Reagan appointee is a corrupt hack. In fact, we've shown that Acker almost had to have engaged in a criminal conspiracy that likely involved certain members of the Birmingham legal community and several UAB officials. (Acker's bogus ruling on summary judgment can be viewed at the end of this post.)

While anyone with a few weeks of law school (or the ability to read my posts on the subject) should clearly see that Acker acted corruptly in my case, it's nice to receive confirmation from one of the judge's judicial brethren.

The latest evidence comes in the form of a memorandum opinion by U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith Jr., in a case styled April D. Chandler v. Volunteers of America, North Alabama Inc. (Civil Action No. 10-S-2961-NW).

How similar are the two cases? Smith, like Acker, serves on the federal bench in the Northern District of Alabama. April Chandler, like yours truly, brought various discrimination claims against her former employer.

Some might question my objectivity on this, but I dare say my case against UAB was much stronger than the one April Chandler has against Volunteers. For one, my case included alleged Constitutional violations. And my First Amendment claim was supported by tape-recorded evidence showing that a UAB human-resources official admitted I was targeted because of my reporting on this blog about the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

That is not to discount the serious nature of Ms. Chandler's claims. The evidentiary record in her case points to the likelihood that she experienced racial discrimination. But here is perhaps the key difference in these two cases: Ms. Chandler, in fact, had an evidentiary record in her case; there essentially was none in mine, other than a few affidavits that individual UAB defendants filed--and I was not allowed to challenge.

Let's consider a brief scorecard of how these two similar cases were handled on critical issues:

I. Discovery 
Chandler case--Extensive discovery was conducted. Judge Smith's memorandum opinion includes 251 footnotes, many of them references to affidavits and depositions submitted by the party opposing summary judgment, which was Plaintiff Chandler. 
Shuler case--No discovery was conducted. The party opposing summary judgment, me, was not allowed to gather any evidence, even though I notified the court in multiple documents that no discovery had been conducted. In fact, the case docket shows no discovery meeting even was scheduled. Judge Acker's memorandum opinion includes no footnotes because there was no evidentiary record. 
II. Outcome on Summary Judgment 
Chandler case--Judge Smith had harsh criticism for Chandler's attorney, who apparently has brought a number of discrimination claims against Volunteer. Smith said the lawyer's briefs and evidentiary material were sketchy and disorganized. Smith granted summary judgment and dismissed Chandler's claims for hostile work environment and retaliation, but he allowed certain aspects of her disparate-treatment claim to go forward. That means Chandler has a chance to receive some measure of justice, likely in the form of a settlement before the case reaches a jury verdict. 
Shuler case--Before rendering his finding on summary judgment, Acker actually praised my work as a pro se litigant, stating that my briefs and other documents were better than those he receives from many lawyers. But Acker ignored my multiple motions requesting that discovery be scheduled and conducted, dismissing all of my claims without giving me an opportunity to gather any evidence. The end result? He allowed UAB to get away with misconduct that even one of the university's own HR officials admitted took place.

How off target was Acker? Well, let's consider the following words from Judge Smith in the April Chandler case. It comes under the heading "Motion for Summary Judgment: Legal Standards":

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that summary judgment "should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

So we learn from Smith that discovery is an essential part of the summary judgment process. But he doesn't stop there:

In other words, summary judgment is proper "after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)

Here we learn that summary judgment is proper only "after adequate time for discovery." And Judge Smith cites Celotex, a well-known U.S. Supreme Court case from 1986.

Judge Lynwood Smith
Last time I checked, U.S. Supreme Court rulings are supposed to apply in the Northern District of Alabama. But you would never know that from Judge Acker's handling of my case against UAB. Not only did I not have "adequate time for discovery," I had no time for discovery.

I applaud April Chandler for getting over the summary-judgment hurdle and moving toward a shot at justice; I intend to keep up with her case. But here are questions that any American with a functioning conscience should ask upon learning how these two cases were handled:

"What kind of justice system do we have if the outcome of court cases can vary wildly depending on luck of the draw regarding a judge? What do the 14th Amendment guarantees of 'due process' and 'equal protection' mean if we do not have judge who are able and willing to enforce them? How much damage do corrupt charlatans, such as William M. Acker Jr., inflict upon the very foundation of our democracy?

Here is perhaps the most important question of all;

"How long are we going to quietly allow such gross injustice in the federal courts that all taxpayers fund?"

(Note to readers: Following is Judge William M. Acker's memorandum opinion, granting summary judgment in my lawsuit against UAB. I've been operating for months under the notion that I had scanned this document and run it multiple times on Legal Schnauzer. After all, I've referenced Acker's erroneous ruling on summary judgment in more than a dozen posts. But I recently discovered that I've never run his actual opinion, and that was an oversight on my part. I've run numerous documents leading up to the summary-judgment ruling and a number of documents that came after, including appellate documents. But this is the first time Acker's actual opinion has appeared, and that's because I have it only in hard-copy form, and I just now realized that I have never scanned it for publication on the blog. My apologies for the omission of this critical document in my personal legal journey. But now, better late than never, here is your opportunity to peruse perhaps one of the most outlandish documents in the history of American jurisprudence. I will examine its many absurdities in upcoming posts, but I invite readers to take their own close-up looks at the kind of "reasoning" and "logic" that your tax dollars support.)


Anonymous said...

Tell me this 85 year old corrupt senile judge has retired. Just about the only way to rid Alabama from corrupt judges is if they die or retire.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 9:03--

Acker has a lifetime appointment. He will never retire. If he wants to go to the bench with an oxygen tank and dialysis machine, he can. If he wants to rule on cases, with a feeding tube in his mouth, he can. If no one files an official complaint--and Acker can somehow prove he's semi-coherent, even if a complaint is filed--he will remain on the bench. This is the way our courts work in the real world.

Anonymous said...

So one judge follows the law, and the other one doesn't. And they are in the same courthouse. As you say, luck of the draw. Lord, help us.

Gerry with a G said...

Nice juxtaposition here, LS. To compare Acker's work to that of a real judge, in the same district . . . makes it very easy for readers to understand a complex topic.

Anonymous said...

Isn't Acker the same clown who wasted taxpayer dollars trying to prove he was exempt from the Jeffco occupational tax?

legalschnauzer said...

Yes, that's the same Acker.

Anonymous said...

LS, I by no means want to distract from your relevant and very well presented post today of the raisin Acker, but was wondering if you saw the article on Luther going after the PCI? This is about to get real interesting. I wouldn't in the least bit be surprised if your reporting on him led to this crusade. Wouldn't federal law trump state law in regard to Indian reservations? I think it does and regardless this is getting good. Big Luther looks to be biting off more than he can chew.

MyLittleDemon said...

Don't know much about Judge Lynwood Smith, but he has my respect. Compared to Acker, Smith looks like one helluva judge.

Sharon said...

LS, thanks for posting this opinion from Acker. I haven't had time to read it all, but I did make it through first four pages. This guy is a joke. I'm not familiar with the law on this, but he doesn't even reference the law much. What mainly stands out is his juvenile, dismissive tone. Going to read the rest soon.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 10:05--

Thanks for pointing out the article on Big Luther. I think he is posing as someone who wants to attack PCI gaming; it's all for show, in my view. He simply does not have jurisdiction, and he has to know that. He's not smart, but he's not so stupid to be making these arguments in a serious way. It's all part of his effort to justify going after VictoryLand. This little shadow game involving PCI, of course, is all at taxpayer expense.

Anonymous said...

LS, it's clear to me that Acker is acting as someone's puppet on your case. That UAB allows this to happen, on its behalf, tells me the institution pretty much is run by individuals who have no respect for the law.

Anonymous said...

I'm quite familiar with Judge Acker, and he is neither senile nor corrupt. He, however, can be persuaded by certain forces to rule a certain way. This is common knowledge in Birmingham legal circles. His opinion reads poorly because it isn't based in the law; it's not because Acker has insufficient mental capacity. I've seen opinions like this from him in other cases. I've also seen very sound, well reasoned opinions. Just depends on what, or who, is driving him.

Anonymous said...

This is 10:05, I totally agree! But how beautiful could the outcome of this be?! I love it! It's like he's taking the bait. It's possible that Luther is just this dumb. When you understand the history of the Native Americans and then see Luther's actions now shifting after accepting this "illegal" money as he now calls it, I'd say it's time to break out the popcorn and jujubees (sp?) If the Feds don't get involved, we may have a real live cowboys and Indians game on. My $ is on the PCI. Even though they have played politics with the worst AL has to offer, it's funny how they have by doing so managed to reveal the true colors of these criminal politicians. Native Americans aren't stupid people, they can't afford to be!

Anonymous said...

Acker supported the Dixiecrats and Strom Thurmond way back in 1948. He was quite active on that scene at the time. He's an old (almost dead, thankfully) racist who is bitter that white elites no longer totally dominate our society. Actually, white elites still rule, but Acker is one who believes minorities should stay in their place. He cheated you because he somehow thought it advanced the cause of the privileged class. I guarantee that is what went down.

Anonymous said...

Love this from page 2 of Acker's opinion:

"Shuler presents or attempts to present a wide variety of overlapping and incongruent claims."

This is probably the flippant approach he takes with all pro se litigants. I read your complaint, when you posted it here, and there is nothing incongruent about it.

If Acker wants to get a feel for real incongruency, he should try reading his own opinion.

Anonymous said...

Like Sharon, I've read a few pages of the Acker opinion. It's a joke, aside from any facts or law. His tone and style is an embarrassment to the federal bench.

Anonymous said...

@anon 10:05 - My guess is Poarch Creek are well aware of the game/ruse Luther is playing. My guess is they are playing in the sandbox with Luther. This is all a smoke screen.

jeffrey spruill said...

If Acker had allowed discovery & listened to Anita Bonasera's recorded evidence that you were fired because of your blog-he probably would have considered that evidence as too broad & issued summary judgement anyway.

Let's face it-the guy was looking to screw you LS.

legalschnauzer said...


I agree that Acker was determined to screw me. But it's important to keep in mind that the Bonasera audio, powerful as it is, would have been only a tiny piece of information gathered in legit discovery. The key thing would have been e-mails and phone records to prove the chain of individuals who were involved in this charade. That's what he--or the people who control him--didn't want to see the light of day.

Acker has no reason to personally want to harm me; he doesn't know me from Adam. My concern is that he does the bidding of corrupt forces in the legal/political community who do want to harm me. And that is a crime, obstruction of justice, among others.

JRod said...

Do you think Acker actually wrote this opinion?

David in S. Alabama said...

How could Acker state so positively that you were blogging on the job". How he know this without discovery. Did he have an ex parte conversation with one or more defendants? (Maybe at Briarwood Church)

Pages 9 and 10 are real interesting because Acker seems to morph from legal rambling to actual blogging. Which raises the question - Can an 85 year old senile judge find true happiness on blogspot?

legalschnauzer said...


As always, you have great insights. You are right that the Acker opinion really gets weird near the end. The last couple of pages are utter nonsense.

And you are sharp to pick up on the "blogging on the job" stuff. Several UAB defendants submitted affidavits for their MSJ, and I would have to double check them to make sure, but I don't think even they claimed I was blogging on the job. And they certainly didn't submit any hard evidence that I was "blogging on the job." UAB's "reasons" for firing me sort of morphed over time, but ultimately, they pretty much claimed that I was insubordinate. They offered no evidence of that, but that's what they seemed to settle on--especially once they knew I had the Bonasera audio that points to the real reason I was fired. After that, they downplayed the fact I even had a blog and tried to focus on alleged insubordination.

As you wisely notice, there was nothing in evidence that I was "blogging on the job," not even from UAB. Acker came up with that on his own, and I suspect that was from members of the legal community, not Briarwood Church. I don't believe Acker has any affiliation with Briarwood. He does, I feel certain, have strong ties to pro-UAB firms like Haskell Slaughter and Bradley Arant.

legalschnauzer said...


You ask a great question. It's well established in press reports that many federal judges do not write their own opinions, even at the appellate level.

In Acker's case, I think he either wrote this or he has a clerk who is very good at mimicking the way he sounds. In hearing Acker talk several times, this opinion sounds very much like him.

Anonymous said...

@11:21, if it's a smoke screen which it very well may be, then it's a serious one that will probably have serious implications of some sort. PCI are gearing up giving $ to many. Looks like they are buying up allies for an impending war. This was predictable and these idiot politicians in Alabama are just dumb enough to go there. They have sh-- tons of money that these grubby politicians and other thugs are dying to get their hands on! Luther feels a flame under his ass and I'm not talking about his "head aid"! W did the same thing with his buddies at Enron. All I'm saying is that it may get interesting. If he doesn't do anything now he'll look like a pus. If he does do something, the peace pipe won't be smoked regardless if this is a smoke screen or not. Either way someone will come out of this unhappy then there will be some entertaining thing happen. You watch! Luther is shing a light on his ass with his pants down saying," Look at me, Look at me". Does he think so highly of himself as to think we will like what his ass looks like?

legalschnauzer said...

An addendum to my response to JRod:

Acker's clerk at the time of this case was Ben Slaughter, who now is with the firm Haskell Slaughter. It appears that Ben is the son of William Slaughter, one of the firm's named partners. Nice to be a "legacy," I guess, and pretty much have your bed made for you.

Would not be surprised if Ben Slaughter wrote this joke of an opinion, having developed a talent for mimicking the way Acker sounds.

legalschnauzer said...

From Ben Slaughter's bio at the Haskell Slaughter Web site:

"Following law school, he completed a federal clerkship with Senior U. S. District Judge William M. Acker, Jr., Northern District of Alabama, in August 2011."

Anonymous said...


As one of your fans and regular readers, I've always taken your word that you were cheated on the UAB case, even though I never grasped the actual law. But reading this opinion by Acker is amazing. I still don't understand the law, but he is such a smart-ass--and his reasoning is so skewed and one-sided--that I now have absolutely no doubt you were the victim of a con job.

Anonymous said...

Does JIC hear complaints about federal judges?

legalschnauzer said...

No, the JIC hears complaints only about state judges. You can file a complaint with the applicable judicial circuit about a federal judge. In Alabama, that's the 11th Circuit in Atlanta.

Anonymous said...

That seems quite convenient for all the Georgian politicians trying to screw up Alabama. You know it's kind of strange that many Neo-Con politicians in AL are from Georgia and even Texas. Not exactly states I would like to see at the top of a list of states to model Alabama as! Especially in regard to judicial practice and educating youth.

jeffrey spruill said...

I can file a complaint with the applicable judicial circuit about a federal judge?

Damn-- that's the 4th Circuit where the criminal J. Harvie Wilkinson resides.

I told the criminal attorney- David W. Bouchard that at least the Constitution will be protected from Wilkinson because he will NEVER be a Supreme Court justice & when he gets a chance relay this message to Wilkinson.

Anonymous said...


Acker’s shriveled raisin phallus rises
on the bench as a lifetime appointment
via an oxygen tank and

off a dialysis machine and
feeding tubes his mouth can’t rule
also inserted into his arse

retirement BBQ never
unless citizens’ WE FILE official complaints insuring
our real courts’ trusted world

Ack-Lute bite-off and
chew one another familiar injustice contempt rue
juxtapositions overlapping-incongruent obstructionists’ opinions

pro-UAB firms
Haskell and Slaughter driving “going-down-south”
art-term known in the

Bible as a poetic scene
not the active criminals supporting Dixiecrats and
Strom Thurmond back in 1948 ~

got cheated cause advancing the
privileged classes’ causes went down-south too
face it-guy Acker was

determined screw you LS

Porn Pom

legalschnauzer said...


Here is URL to complaint I filed against Acker:

Here is URL to ruling on my complaint against Acker:

legalschnauzer said...

Porn Pom:

More great verse. You made me LOL. I hope readers are enjoying your work as much as I am.


Anonymous said...

Again, Thank You, LS

And I already remembered what I didn't write:

They bite-off, chew and swallow too.

Another verse always in the rhyme with the time you write.

As it's said, the only great writing is rewriting and so Porn Pom has lots of scribble and bibble as Mozart's tongue wagged.

Love your work. You've given so much to We The People, over the years your blog has truly saved many a "lost soul."

Taking the most difficult of subjects, such as but not limited to, "Summary Judgement" and giving the literal make-sense read of how convoluted the "law" has been construed by the "benchers."


Anonymous said...


I believe you've mentioned that your blog stats show you have a lot of readers among lawyers. I would like to offer them a personal challenge. I ask that they read Judge Acker's opinion dismissing your case--it's not all that long, 10-11 pages--and write here to tell us if they can find any justification under the law for what he did. I would like to see if a lawyer who reads your blog can come up with any way of supporting Judge Acker's handiwork. If they try, I would love to see your response.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 3:52--

That is a great idea, and I second your challenge. I would welcome any attempts by attorneys, from Alabama or elsewhere, to show how Acker's opinion fits under any known version of the law.

In fact, I would be glad to do a post on this subject, if we get any replies, and not limit it to the comments section.

Anonymous said...

Acker really does get nuttier as you read deeper into the opinion. I love this on page 9:

"If Shuler had a good lawyer, the lawyer might get through to him. But, Shuler obviously does not trust lawyers any more than he trusts courts. He seems to enjoy being his own lawyer. He has given his only client some bad advice."

What, pray tell, does this have to do with anything involving your case? Sickening that citizens are actually paying this guy to be a federal judge.

David in S. Alabama said...

I can't decide which is nuttier- what he wrote or the look on his face in the photo.

Anonymous said...

Legal Schnauzer: I am fed up with the system in Alabama and the nation. I am ready to go "rogue" on the unjust system of lawyers and judges.

We need ANONYMOUS working for us and with us. Hack these criminals emails, texts, and more. We Can't Keep taking This. We must bring these criminals to the eye of the public.

Anonymous said...

Agree with 10:01

Anonymous said...

Acker doesn't look like he has toofies in this pic. He's older than dirt. What's the difference in this old goat sitting on the bench still and a judge of reasonable age coming to work plastered? There isn't any difference. They're both f--ked up!

jeffrey spruill said...

How many of us would have the opportunity to make their crimes go away?

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson & Judge William Acker are in the same criminal category:

His clerkship was followed by five years as an Associate professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, and three years working as an editor for Norfolk's The Virginian-Pilot. In 1982, he was given a position in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Robby Scott Hill said...

Lynwood Smith is Bob Riley's cousin. He's a Good Ol' Boy.

legalschnauzer said...

Thanks for that info, Rob. I figured Smith probably was not all that great a judge. But compared to Bill Acker, he looks like a paragon of legal virtue.

This is such simple law--discovery must be conducted before summary judgment is considered--that even the lowliest of judges should be able to get it right.

Smith got it right in the Chandler case because it's very easy law, and he didn't have anyone whispering in his ear, saying, "Screw this woman over. We can't have discovery in this case because e-mails exist that will show all kinds of powerful people participated in her unlawful termination."

Acker had that voice in his ear (probably multiple voices), and he did their bidding--and that's how our courts really work. As I've said before, this goes way beyond me not getting justice. Anyone who interferes with our courts in that way is committing a crime--obstruction of justice for sure, and probably more.

Crimes, of course, are wrongs against society, against all of us. That's why I hope people will read Acker's opinion and understand, "This is a crime against everyone."

jeffrey spruill said...

discovery must be conducted before summary judgment is considered.

LS: Is that established law?

Anonymous said...

Hey - shouldn't all your readers send presents to Luther Strange's office for his preschooler out-of-wedlock son's birthday this week?

jeffrey spruill said...

I now answer my own question:

Judge Smith cites Celotex.

legalschnauzer said...


Yes, Celotex is controlling U.S. Supreme Court law, but all circuits have many cases on this subject. In 11th Circuit, it's a case called Snook v. Trust Company of Georgia Bank. The same applies in all state courts. It's part of the federal rules of civil procedure, too, and state rules. You don't have to look hard for case law; it's right in front of anyone who checks simple procedure. It's the equivalent of 2 + 2 = 4 in math. Doesn't get any easier, but William Acker can't get it right. And that, of course, is because he's been told what discovery would reveal in my case.

Anonymous said...


Moochers, Acker gets his brain
programmed old, bloodsuckers, dead walking, he swallows
demanding vulture-culture top-bottom

get a JOB, Roger Shuler
change bedpans, wax office floors, serve pancake
stacks, Maggie’s Farm owns equipment

yours’ too, dress-show-up
and shut your F-ing flapping yapper Dog
man, Kissinger wants useless eaters

die-dead your-bad-lawyer
gave no good advice, the oracle’s no
toofies, dirt old gives skull

GOP’ secret handshakes
paying no income taxes, sinister 21 Century
financial products innovators’ criminal fraud

entitlement robed gavel tyrant vampires~
go rogue, use handcuffs, bedposts, hotel radiators
public, now! Petition to sign?

xo/Porn Pom

legalschnauzer said...

Love it, PP. Maybe you can publish a book of verse on legal corruption someday. Great stuff!

Anonymous said...

Roger, your journalism has been one of the most important arts in America during this time.

You, yes you are going to publish a book - time changed places just recently, full "Monty" exposure of class separations.

As you know the brand/s upper, middle, lower, get sold via our "Fourth Estate" AND this crime was intentional, since JFK, the "Press" has failed US.

The winners have been a criminal class that appears hand-picked to pick us all to pieces like we're in the times of Medieval.

Acker pays no taxes, gets financial benefits to the secret sums of untold wealth, has his racist-inhuman power to punish the "public," and especially the rogue pro se.

Must go rogue!

tx as always, Porn Pom

the good genius is an ok choice, all, just the right amount of 'mad'

Anonymous said...

Moochers, Acker gets his brain
cells programmed, bloodsuckers, dead walking, he swallows
demanding vulture-culture top-bottom

had to change the first part a little, brain cells works because old was "down below"


legalschnauzer said...

Thanks, PP.

It's great to have your artistic touches on the blog.

Speaking of Acker as a vulture, this is from a post I wrote about him on 1/17/13:

"After serving less than 14 years as a District Court judge, Acker assumed senior status. Senior status allowed Acker to work a mere 10 hours a week while collecting a full salary of $174,000 as of 2012. Is that a sweet deal or not?"

Anonymous said...

Prisoners' work allows the benchers to pocket lots of change, and the Snake Oil sales pitch continues to sell US the sickest as pillars of our society.

You got kicked out of higher ed, because you were-are too SMART for the new world order and therefore, "sold down the river."

An attorney said: "What's LS going to do about this?"

The obvious now is too bold.

I sign petitions, and have seen them work incredible power.

How to get petitions about this corrupt system in Alabama, the difficulty in all products is getting the stuff to the market place, as you know.


jeffrey spruill said...

Conrad M. Shumadine- of the law firm WilcoxSavage- which provided legal advice on the sale of the Weather Channel told me in 2004 that he personally knew J. Harvie Wilkinson.

With the sale of the Weather Channel-abracadabra make the crimes go away:


See how easy that was?

Anonymous said...

I heard where the word "Cracker" is to define the white slave owners - drivers, cracking the whip on the backs of the slaves.

Thus, comes to mind,

Whip Snap Acker Cracker

Acker is a southern Cracker

whipping frenzied great white mean old shark

a rotten toadstool hillside relic

(had to share the minimalist mind's comic word smith)

thanks LS,

Porn Pom

Anonymous said...

slept on it

Whip Snap Acker Cracker

Acker is a southern Cracker

whipping frenzied great white mutha f*kr shark

a hillside melted toadstool relic

Porn Pom

legalschnauzer said...

"Acker is a southern Cracker"

Great stuff, PP. And so on target it's scary.

Many thanks.


Anonymous said...

just taking the visual in Porn Pom and seeing your words, as well as the readers' words, plus of course the dotting i crossing t syndrome, look at a few trees and sniff round, then doing the best that can be with paws, to get the picture of your world into the scene.

Time to gather a big bad pack of rogue Schnauzers, Poms, and whatever the greatest of trustworthy dogs, to sick 'em and then some.

Takes the spark, you lit the powder keg in the south and dogs~ (backwards a little god, to remind what we're not ~a big universe bang creator) ~saw your sign.

Best, PP

Anonymous said...

@March 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM:

Do you not define being 'driven' by a party the very definition of corruption? If Acker can be influenced, how can he be allowed to remain on the bench? Unbiased? Maybe its just SOP.

In my opinion Roger's case was decided long before Acker, or whomever, penned the opinion. The hearing was just window dressing, like so many other hearings. I imagine it allows attorneys to bill the hours with little or no actual work expected for their courtroom "performance".

The problem with being a Pro Se litigant is that the deck is stacked against you before you even darken the courthouse hallways. I don't necessarily mean a lack of legal knowledge, although I'm sure that occurs quite regularly. But I mean you have attorneys, and Judges (former attorneys), that have worked together for many years (decades even). Pro Se litigants are quite often dealt with harshly no matter the legal merit of their case. I believe Judges and attorneys talk ex parte quite often, how else do you get these outrageous judgments???Coincidence???
Kudos to Roger for continuing to shine light on the good ole boy networks and hopefully these blogs will make these criminals think twice before screwing Joe Q. Public over in their courtrooms. One can only hope...

Anonymous said...


Is there anyway to get this onto the National spotlight? Are you able to contact any national media that might want to pick up on this story and do investigative journalism? Or are the national media to afraid to touch a story like this?

legalschnauzer said...

It should be in the national spotlight, and I would be glad for readers to contact members of the MSM (NY Times, WaPo, AJC, etc.) or their favorite progressive journalists (Rachel Maddow, HuffPo, etc.). Since it involves me personally, I don't think I should be the one to try to spread the story--it would seem self serving. But I would encourage the efforts of anyone else who wants to do it. Judicial corruption doesn't get much more blatant than this.

Anonymous said...

The problem with our "spotlight" and in particular the "national one," is:

Our dictators are the owners of our spotlights - that have stolen our right to make digits from computers - these maniacs pay the likes of Acker.

Yes, the BLOGS, professional responsibility forums, Roger Shuler's and others,' are working.

Pro Se, were to be destroyed, a specific memo of the "Global War On Terror," and many of the "BAR Executive Directors," wrote "memos" back about how this was not going to be an acceptable surrender to Americans.

Pro Se, were not to be allowed in the courts, only the licensed BAR attorneys. Why? The obvious, it is a tribe and the Bencher which is written from the courts for the courts, calls the legal "profession" including ALL the "worker bees too," the TRIBE.


We can see how the model worked.

Long before the GWOT, however, the truth of the matter was-is "eminent domain" ~truly aimed at every American, to be rendered powerless in the Century 21, "Agenda," which has now been discovered by the global community to be yet another gulag, not exactly what our country was-is, in reality.

The higher ups must get it, especially, too,

Justice for the/a complaints, is,

Her Honorable Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice, Judiciary Committee, 455 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102, Fax 415-865-4586.

It may be coincidence, but when the higher ups were faxed about Alabama Bonnie, I watched a turn around in real time.

jeffrey spruill said...

I tweeted your interview with-- I think it's Jeff Faris LS.

The Obama administration is to interested & involved with protecting war criminals & monied interests.

jeffrey spruill said...

Obama administration prtotecting war criminals with promotions: