Thursday, August 15, 2013

Federal Law Clerk Hangs Up On Me A Second Time When Confronted With Evidence Of Glaring Conflict

A federal law clerk who reacted rudely when confronted with a conflict of interest in my wife's ongoing employment lawsuit against Infinity Insurance did not just lose his cool once. He did it twice.

David Waters Jr., who clerks for U.S. Magistrate T. Michael Putnam in the Northern District of Alabama, ended our first conversation by saying, "This conversation is over" and hanging up on me. I called back, mainly to ask Waters why he acted with such rudeness toward a citizen whose tax dollars help fund his job, his court, and the plush building in which he works.

So what happened the second time? Waters hung up on me again. You have to give him points for consistency. (See video at the end of this post.)

Why did  my query get under Waters' skin? Because I was confronting him with evidence that he and Putnam have a clear conflict of interest in a case styled Carol Shuler v. Infinity Property & Casualty et al (2:11-cv-03443-TMP). That's the case where my wife--we know her here as Mrs. Schnauzer--is suing her former employer for discrimination, wrongful termination, and other torts.

It turns out that people who work in federal courthouses--even the clerks--don't much like being challenged. That came through loud and clear in both of my conversations with David Waters.

What is the basis for the conflict of interest? Waters, a 2010 graduate of the University of Alabama law school, happens to be the son of Michael David Waters Sr., a partner in the Birmingham office of the national Jones Walker law firm. Kary Bryant Wolfe, one of Waters Sr.'s associates at Jones Walker, is representing Birmingham debt-collection attorney Angie Ingram, one of the primary defendants in my wife's case.

Translation: The son of a Jones Walker lawyer serves as clerk for the judge in a case that features a defendant that Jones Walker represents. Conflicts of interest in the law don't get much more glaring than that.

When I called David Waters back, he said he hung up on me because I was making "unfounded accusations that have no basis in reality." But the accusations weren't unfounded. In fact, they weren't accusations at all . . . they were statements of fact. David Waters' father does work at Jones Walker, one of his father's colleagues (Kary Bryant Wolfe) represents a defendant (debt-collection lawyer Angie Ingram) in my wife's lawsuit, and Waters Jr.'s boss (Judge Putnam) is presiding over the case.

Waters Jr. confirmed some of that and could not deny any of it. After all, it's a matter of public record. So what did he do? He tried to claim there was no actual conflict, that--in spite of how it might appear--my wife's case was being handled with the utmost fairness and transparency.

That, of course, is rubbish. Whether my wife actually is being cheated is beside the point--and as someone with a law degree, Waters Jr. should know that. Under 28 U.S. Code 455, a federal judge or magistrate must disqualify himself "in any proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." A person with three functioning brain cells not only "might reasonably question" Putnam's impartiality, he definitely would question it. That means it was Putnam's duty to disclose the conflict and step down from the case at the outset. It should not have been an issue that my wife or I had to point out.

Aside from the legal technicalities, the case presents plenty of evidence that my wife actually is being cheated in the case. A number of key defendants--especially Infinity, American Express, debt-collection firm NCO, and its lawyer, Laura Nettles--remain in the case, and discovery is moving forward on them.

But Angie Ingram was dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, even though she attached voluminous "matters outside the pleadings" with her document--and that means it must be treated as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, and she is subject to discovery. In other words, Ingram unlawfully was dismissed from the case at this juncture. Perhaps it will be proper to dismiss her at summary judgment, after discovery has been conducted, but her exit now is premature, under the law. 

A reasonable observer might ask: Was Angie Ingram improperly dismissed only because she is represented by Jones Walker--and the son of a Jones Walker partner works for the judge on the case? This obviously is a compelling question for Mrs. Schnauzer, but it also should be of interest to defendants who were not unlawfully dismissed. If I'm in their shoes, I am asking, "Hey, why is Angie Ingram getting special treatment?"

Near the beginning of our second conversation, Waters Jr. claims my concerns are "not material." Toward the end of the conversation, when I have made it clear to him that my concerns are material and that Judge Putnam is acting outside the law, I hear those familiar words . . . 

"This conversation is over."

And then . . . click.


Anonymous said...

Maybe he's still in basic training for the Federalist Society!

Anonymous said...

I hope your readers will listen to the audio at the end of this post. I did, and it presented a classic example of the kind of smug, arrogant pricks (SAP)our law schools are turning out these days. Actually, our law schools have been turning out SAPs for a long time, but it's sickening to hear the 2013 version.

Anonymous said...

I bet Mr. Waters is wishing he had called in sick the day you called.

legalschnauzer said...


I would say young Mr. Waters is a strong candidate for the Federalist Society. He surely will slip into a nice, cozy position at Jones Walker, defending corrupt bankers and insurers, and such. He's a Man Without a Conscience, and that's what big corporate defense firms look for.

Anonymous said...

Federal Reserve System, International Monetary Fund, Bank of International Settlements, World Bank, Fed-IMF-Biz/BIS-WB-Et-Al-Et-Cetera

dead, headless spiritless zionists
heaven isn’t digital hell earth Rothschilds
Lazards Kuhns Loebs Warburgs Lehmans

all, Goldmans Rockefellers slobs blobs
zealot together eating faceless human families whole
counting body numbers watering holes

IT, sucking blood gnaws raw
own species’ gnashing teeth liewyers in jungle
modus operandi codes rules regulations

barring, geniuses coloring Hammurabi past
tense teaches ISLAM’s workers use phalanges too
no interest charged abacus masters

know, communist global gov systems
societies believing global media untruths unrealities lies
zombie zoos zionism’s zero sum balance

Porn Pom

I thought the Fed's Charter was this coming December, 23.

No, last summer, June 2012, the Fed got another 100 years to do even worse harm to US than what has been experienced.

Until we change the money we are to be screwed by the system that hires the worst of our species as though these zeros have brains.

What our BINGO game is, every American has to sue the 8 families to get our right returned to make our own digital 'money' and the families of the vile evil can eat the debt.

Yep, Alabamy is one of the chosen to be zombie zoo zealots, Legal Schnauzer has shown US what truth feels like in zionist America.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

If Waters Jr. graduated from law school, he should know that the "material" nature of your concerns is not an issue. As you correctly state, the standard is based on the possibility that a judge's "impartiality could reasonably be questioned." I will reserve judgment on what should be done in Mrs. Schnauzer's case, but the citizen seems to know more about the law than the lawyer in this back and forth.

Anonymous said...

You can tell that David Waters Jr. lives in the federal court bubble, where "commoners" are not supposed to ask questions. He's probably never had questions like that put to him before.

Anonymous said...

I'm bothered by his young age. To be this young and this disconnected is disturbing. That shouldn't come until later. Makes one wonder what his upbringing was like. He sounds like he's capable of some criminal activity .

Anonymous said...

I know you're convinced that you know the law better than lawyers, but there are some glaring flaws in your own attempts at legal analysis.

1. 28 USC § 455 requires that a judge disqualify him or herself where the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. So far, even if we assume that David is a shill for his father's firm, you've proven that David's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. You haven't demonstrated anything about Judge Putnam that would require him to disqualify himself. And while federal clerks are influential, there's is no support in the law for the proposition that you can impute a clerk's alleged partiality to the judge for whom he works. Do you have any legal support for the idea that such a conflict can be imputed?

2. The fact that Angie Ingram attached a bunch of stuff outside the pleadings to her motion to dismiss only matters if the judge does not exclude those outside materials. Take a look at FRCP 12(d): "If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56." Do you think that that clause is meaningless? If not, then you have to accept that the mere fact of attaching outside materials to a motion to dismiss does not require its conversion to an MSJ. And, fortunately, the first Google result for your wife's case number is Doc. 48 in your case: Judge Kallon's ruling on Judge Putnam's report and recommendations. In Part A he outlines that, in fact, Judge Putnam did not consider those outside materials and relied solely on the face of your complaint, which failed under Twombly/Iqbal. So with all your talk of the illegality of the ruling, there's a perfectly legitimate legal basis for it. And when you appeal to the 11th Circuit, as you no doubt will, they'll say precisely the same thing. What are your thoughts on why the motion to dismiss should have been converted into an MSJ, despite the fact that the judge did not consider the outside matters?

So now that we've identified the flawed legal reasoning that you've used, let's look at a couple of other things:

1. I think that David sounded pretty calm in the face of someone accusing him of having gotten his position solely through his father's influence and using that position to perform illegal acts. I probably wouldn't have been so calm, especially when the person making those inflammatory accusations is basically just screaming. And I know that your standard argument is something like "I was just asking questions," but they're loaded questions that carry the accusations on their backs.

2. This leads to another point: you know nothing about David other than that his father is a partner at Jones Walker and that David's a clerk for Judge Putnam. You don't know how he got that position. You don't know anything about his relationship with his father. You don't know anything about his future plans. You certainly don't know anything about his conscience or his thoughts about the Federalist Society. So, as is apparently your custom, you construct your own hypotheses about these things (which conveniently conform to your conspiracy-minded thinking) and then treat those hypotheses as carved-in-stone fact. And that's not only an inappropriate means of criticizing someone, it's an inappropriate way to conduct yourself as a human being. No wonder you have so many conflicts with others.

So there you have it. I doubt I'll convince you or any of your readers, but most of them appear to be raving lunatics anyway (see Anonymous @8:45, for example).

legalschnauzer said...

Nice try, @9:52, but you have a few flaws with your own reasoning. You admit that law clerks are influential, and in fact, they often write many of the orders and opinions that are issued under a judge's name. That's been reported in NY Times, and it's why David Waters claimed Judge Putnam was handling my wife's case personally, that it didn't involve him. But a reasonable person could find that Waters is involved with all of Putnam's cases and does much of his legal work for him--and thus, you have a conflict, for both of them.

Here's a scenario: Your firm is suing HealthSouth (on behalf of Fred's Bank) before Judge Jones, and you discover that Judge Jones' clerk (who you know is influential and probably writes his orders) is the son of a partner at the firm defending HealthSouth in Fred's case. Your firm wouldn't raise that as a conflict requiring recusal? Your firm would not inform Fred about this situation? If you answer is no, you can't expect to be taken seriously. If you answer no, Fred probably would have grounds for a future legal-malpractice claim.

As for Angie Ingram, Putnam referenced her attachments in his order, so he clearly did not exclude them. And he made no statement that he excluded them. You can look up his order since you probably have PACER.

Your defense of David Waters is weak. I asked him simple, direct questions that he refused to answer in any substantive way--and that's because he couldn't; he knows there's a conflict there, and he knows Angie Ingram was unlawfully dismissed because he probably wrote the order. If you think twice hanging up on a citizen is calm, clear-eyed actions for a lawyer, you have set the bar very low.

Anonymous said...

Nice try, LS, but you didn't answer my questions.

1. Where's your support in the law for the idea that you can impute a conflict from a clerk to a judge? I'm not asking for speculation that David Waters is involved with your wife's case and could have helped with the orders, which is what you've offered. And your scenario does nothing to support your argument. I'm asking for actual legal support for the proposition that a clerk's alleged conflict can be imputed to a judge.

2. Merely referencing an attachment does not mean that the judge is relying on the attachment. And, as Judge Kallon stated: "it is clear that the magistrate judge’s analysis under Twombly/Iqbal was grounded entirely on the sufficiency of the factual allegations in plaintiff’s pleadings, not on matters outside the pleadings. The magistrate judge effectively excluded the outside matters in assessing whether plaintiff sufficiently pleaded in her complaint facts from which an inference could be drawn of a plausible conspiracy claim against American Express and NCO Financial." Please, show me where the court relied on those attachments in its analysis of the factual sufficiency of the complaint. The burden's on you, not me.

Also, it's not like David heard your name and then immediately hung up. He sat through about five minutes of haranguing from you, including wild accusations that he had obtained his position through his father's assistance (with the implication that his own merits were irrelevant) and that he's so unethical that he's subordinating his duties as a law clerk to his desires to illegally help his father out. And again, you're supposing that you know that his motive for hanging up on was his knowledge that he'd been caught in the act or something as opposed to his assumption that the conversation was going nowhere and degenerating into you yelling at him and impugning his character (which, make no mistake, you were and are doing). This is another example of exactly what I cited in my previous post: making unwarranted assumptions about a person's motives and allowing those assumptions to become, in your mind, concrete facts.

legalschnauzer said...

Again, @10:32, you are way off base. I'm not in a court of law, I'm a journalist, and there is no legal burden on me to prove something to your satisfaction. We both know the legal standard, and it is highly subjective. You think one way, and I think another. You also have a habit of putting words in my mouth. I never claimed David Waters' conflict is imputed to Judge Putnam. Those are your words. I believe Judge Putnam has a conflict because he hired a law clerk with ties to Jones Walker, and he knows Jones Walker is involved in this case, and he knows HIS (Judge Putnam's) impartiality could reasonably be questioned. I'm not going to look up law on a proposition I haven't even made. And I'm not going to look up law when you haven't presented any law that shows my reporting is in error.

On item No. 2, you are changing your own law in midstream. You previously admitted the standard is, "Did the judge exclude the submissions?" Now you say it's, "Did the judge rely on the submissions." You were right the first time, and the record shows that the submissions were not excluded, "effectively or otherwise." You can look it up, I don't have to show you. (And please spare me any references to Abdul Kallon. If you don't know that he's a disgrace to the bench and a toady for Bradley Arant . . . well, you are beyond any help I can provide.)

Your statements as outlined in the above paragraph show you are fundamentally dishonest, and I'm not interested in carrying on a dialogue with such an individual. If you want to provide legal analysis that should be of interest for people who are dishonest at their core, why don't you start such a blog of your own. Good luck with that endeavor.

As for me, I'm not interested in engaging someone who makes one statement of law (a correct one) and then changes it to something else when it's shown his first effort won't fly. No wonder you are a lawyer who defends lawyers. The "profession" is filled with people like you.

Anonymous said...

I love it when a lawyer crawls out from under his rock to defend another lawyer who has been unmasked here at LS. You're not fooling anyone, @9:52. You have no loyalty to the law and probably not to your clients. It's all about protecting the legal fraternity.

And I noticed you didn't answer the LS question about how your firm would react in a similar situation. That speaks volumes. It tells me you would screw Fred's Bank, your own client, in order to not ruffle feathers in the federal courthouse.

Pathetic . . . sad . . . need I say more?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Schnauzer:

Has your wife consented to Judge Putnam's jurisdiction over the case? If all parties do not consent to his jurisdiction as a magistrate, he cannot continue to preside over the case.

legalschnauzer said...

No, she has not consented, @11:27. In fact, she specifically filed a notice stating that she does not consent. And I know Putnam has made at least one ruling since her notice was filed.

Molli said...

Crooks should be neutered and never allowed to reproduce. This column is a perfect example of how this statement applies. The Riley's are another.

Great work here LS.

legalschnauzer said...

Message to @9:52, etc.--

I told you I was not engaging with someone who has proven he is a liar. Your lies and double talk are right there in black and white, in the comments I did publish, so I'm not giving further space on my blog to such an individual.

I tried to engage you in a good-faith back and forth, but you proved yourself to be a liar, so I'm done with you.

Yes, I'm not publishing your comments, and I'm not reading them either. I made that clear, so I'm not sure why you continue to send them.

Start your own blog if you want, but when someone proves to me he is dishonest, I cut them off here. That's the breaks.

Anonymous said...

So there you have it. I doubt I'll convince you or any of your readers, but most of them appear to be raving lunatics anyway (see Anonymous @8:45, for example).

August 15, 2013 at 9:52 AM


Yes, we have Aug 15/13@9:52AM, scared to death that the TRUTH gets free and Americans can make their-OUR own 'debt free money' and take the likes of DAVID JONES WALKER ZOMBIE ZIONIST and HIS ZEALOT 8/15/13@9:52AM, and put the flesh trading suckers out of our lives.

SUCKER NO MUCKRAKER 9:52am, you're one you hook, line, sinker TROUT swallowing the bait and have made an utter and complete transparent obvious FOOLS ALL THE TIME, Federal Reserve System and all ITS' SLOBS AND BLOBS are the shills collecting digits to destroy our country and soon, the deed is going to happen.

Not the way the TROLL TROUT SHILL would prey, though. AND not how the zombies in the 'courts' think they are going to 'be'.

Come on non bow wow do your best dawg and dig more in the real dirt world, boo boo spook NSA No-yes-maybe cannot bark or bite?

Murphy Schnauzer has top dawg position so don't get in the wrong junk yard again: PIMP.

The link, listed that I have looked at, here again below, must have given 9:52am a genuine moment of abject terror alright, imagine getting rid of the DAVIDS, ALL LAW FIRMS, COURTS, AND ONLY CITIZENS' LAWYERS ON LINE TO WATCH THE EVILDOERS in Twenty first Century REALITY ~ AND BE DOING DOO DOO IN PANTIES 9:52am BECAUSE,

with such as Legal Schnauzer NO problems, DIGITS to all the best of our PEOPLE and that means all WORKING CLASS for 'real' all the time AND NO MORE CRITICALLY INSANE CORRUPTION, such as 9:52AM Et Al, stealing time, verve, money 24/7/365.

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that Anon at 9:52 comes to the defense of poor David Waters, but you never hear from this commenter when you write about real people--Sherry Rollins, Bonnie Cahalane, Don Siegelman, Angela Drees, Paul Minor, and many others--who have been cheated by corrupt judges in our courts. (Not to mention you and your wife, who have been abused multiple times.) What does that say about Mr. 9:52? Why is this person so concerned about David Waters, and totally silent when you write about victims of real injustice?

Anonymous said...

LS, looks like you've angered members of the legal fraternity by outing David Waters Jr. That tells me you are doing good work. Please keep it up.

Anonymous said...

Get rid of the Fed's corruption and all the insane corrupt Davids, Bradley Arant, Jones, Bones, Waters, Putnams, go too.

The Fed hires the worst of the human species to do the job we can attest is not law. That's the point of PURE POWER, IT doesn't need law and in fact the turnaround artistry of this time in covering up another 100 years while pretending the charter was through 12/13, like the Fed's MOFO US til we die-die-die in the zombie David Waters and all that have been named here at Legal Schnauzer, unfortunate breeding of zombies' retirement portfolios.

Molli we needed to get the babies before the Metzitzah b'peh cult of the Fed did the blood ritual. An apartheid is proven in an MRI those that own the Fed and the top .99% are the lunatics, go to google images and search engine Metzitzah b'peh then we can truly demand accountability from the cult that pays David to do what he does for the 'cause'.

Anonymous said...

can we bow our heads and pray that karl rove was here as the trumpet of butt buddies [9:52AM] to those that do what is done to USA, ram rod the truth in justice right out the A$$ of all THE bent at birth or worse, a 'turd blossom' providing exactly what, for a sniffing Bush family ['W'] to get off, how exactly does this work!?

Bench Roached Robes hiding the fact, that, the money isn't other than digital and these 'law' professionals actually believe the big LIE that Americans are too dumb to know the COURTS are a racket for the Fed and ITS' criminals that are more than insane, they are truly vile evil.

Sell us digital dust while their pornographic lifestyles get to hide behind a military that kills whatever moves.

Brave and Smart? In a word, DUMB.

Anonymous said...


and for the men as well,

it's going to take the women to get really angry at how our future is, and then we can make our changes felt because the girl who in Africa watched her brother get shot in the apartheid - she leaped higher in the air than a gazelle and screamed louder than GOD and so the universe heard HER and South Africa has said to US, when rejecting OBAMA there:

get back the right of 'money' sovereignty, that is going to stop the Pedophile Cult, and in listening to this, get the best grown up attitude with the spirit of the Africans,

been reading this to understand all that, too,

Anonymous said...

FIXED POINT PROJECT'S advocate BILL PRYOR should tell all FEDERALIST trainees to meet him there planning attend MONTGOMERY'S CHAPTER OF THE FEDERLIST SOCIETY'S 08/23/13 presentation, "THE DEATH OF THE LIVING CONSTITUTION" given by COLONEL JOHN EIDSMORE, from the FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW. Alabama's legal profession's acts reveals sharp contrast with these organization's mission statements!

It maybe that Alabamians should begin forthwith filing their legal complaints with these three groups.
Or if need be, via Federalist Society's Headquarters in Washington;, and let them know how they are being unlawfully and illegally represented.

Anonymous said...

Good job LS. The Federal Government has really gone down hill over the past 10 years or so. They don't like to be outed. Sounds like Waters and Rob Riley are from the same class of idiots.

choggs said...

Anonymous said...

@ 8:48 dandelionsalad. Read your referral, thank you, very good suggestion; I just never knew in such detail, here again how uninformed uneducated this nation's students/tax payers are. The quote from President Lincoln while somewhat humorous while defined. Should be required reading for all blogging schnauzers.

legalschnauzer said...


I hope readers will visit the URL you provided. What a profound story. A federal court clerk gets forced into retirmenet/fired because she provided a document that helped a man prove his innocence. Unreal.

Anonymous said...

@ 5:16 PM. She was a Jackson County Circuit Clerk. In checking records reveal there does exist a Jackson County, Kansas City, Missouri Chapter for The Federalist Society's gatherings. In all fairness it maybe they have
never been mentored to by Alabama's Bill Pryor, too setting examples similar exercised by AG Luther Strange; maybe should have put this lady in jail and kicked her out of her home for one of their hussies.

e.a.f. said...

if it weren't so real, this would actually be funny. It is like some sort of 6 degrees of seperation comedy. Unfortunately, they don't appear to get what the law is supposed to be about.

Jr. ought to try and remember he is a government worker. As such his salary is paid for by the taxpayers. it is best to be polite to your employer. Jr.'s comments are what they would use as stand up comedy at a law schools comedy night.

It is such as sad thing when a country's legal system is no longer functional. It is even worse if they don't understand that the legal system isn't functional.

My best wishes to you and Mrs. S. in the ongoing legal war.

Anonymous said...

The tragedy at Legal Schnauzer is that the Schnauzers had to lose their American Dream to bring to Americans the nightmare of reality in the system we thought was the true power of our USA.

When the court is nothing but a recycling center for the American People, and the system gets to literally run slaves through as though nothing but, cattle, then we are done as a system of what was once the due process rule of law and this means what it says.

The PURE RAW POWER of 'credit scores' or digital dust paid to the Rollins' cultist to do what the raw power dictates, is a dictator secret VILE 'government'.

The Federal Reserve System has been at the raping, pillaging and plundering of America and we know exactly who the agents for the Fed are, ROACHES IN ROBES.

Any human to stand against the 'courts' ~unless a paying member of the LEGAL TRIBE ~ as the Schnauzer Family knows, the system is nothing more than the past pre 1215, FOREST CHARTER, the so called courts are nothing but a dark ages reality.

America died when the so called 'lawyers' didn't learn that money was taken as our sovereign right and given to the Fed. Lawyers as long as they get their pound of flesh in the splitting of the baby, are simply doing what they paid a fortune to be able to do, pay their BAR dues and get to say Esquire as though 'real'.

Legal Schnauzers, you have been the best news in Alabama. Teaching the uninformed how to be excited in saving our country is truly a dedication you have fulfilled and as though a mystery novel you took boring 'court documents and fraud', and presented better here than any Lovecraft past novel.

God Bless Us All, Everyone, Tiny Tim was a good story, too.

Thank you LS Murphy Spirit Family.

Anonymous said...

@ 8:48 dandelionsalad. Read your referral, thank you, very good suggestion; I just never knew in such detail, here again how uninformed uneducated this nation's students/tax payers are. The quote from President Lincoln while somewhat humorous while defined. Should be required reading for all blogging schnauzers.

THANK YOU for noting all blogging schnauzers to listen to the link at dandelionsalad, it is OR at least this should be required knowing for all Americans, then we can unlock the imagination as to how the mind got us here and it is the mind that shall get us 'free' again.

when the human population listens to the link provided at mediafire, then the world is going to do a paradigm shift and the "100 Monkey Theory" becomes no longer just a 'theory'.

More than 50% of the Americans must awaken to get back what we believe we 'lost'.

We've lost nothing, we have the future to gain.

But we must change our mind in how the past got to be a forever present and future.

Imagination makes the daily chore of rebooting our imaginations, but without knowledge we do nothing but, recycle the same ole bad garbage, trash and spoiled rotten imaginations of the FED'S SLOBS AND BLOBS (the terms of art used by their own 'blue bloods').

LS, should we not get blown into the five pieces seen by the Russian Vanga, then your history is to be better than Lincoln's.

The spirit of Murphy Schnauzer isn't invisible, the LS blog is a power far greater than 'raw' because the 'subtle' is truly the all powerful universal spirit.

Thank you so much.

Anonymous said...


listen to the mediafire and study the dandelionsalad knowledge of fruits which control us.

then post - i'm anxious to have a canadian get the messages to the canadians, too, the north american union is about the tar sands and the split of the us for the chinese to traffic from mexico to canada, once the NAU is set to go with disappearing enough people.

like all the indigenous of canada that were slaughtered - all the children that you must have read about there? time to know what drives the brains insane that mass kill our own species.

from america to canada and gee ITS' a killing machine everywhere we look-see-go.

courts in canada and globally suck just as bad as alabamy usa.

Anonymous said...

Roger, nobody ever said common sense and the law were one and the same. That's how many lawyers are able to maneuver with impunity. Always the gray areas...

Anonymous said...

How about we experiment with ART?

Life is ART, true and then we must as the ARTIST do what the master would do, make the greatest work that can be created and in reality there is only co-creation.

800 trillion fold imploded vile evil rothschilds lazards kuhns loebs warburgs lehmans goldmans rockefellers slobs blobs all

writing, saying, thinking, singing, hopscotching, all the while for 70 times and 7 days the alchemy can be the turnaround artist in how VIBRATIONS are what our 'reality' is.

the named 8 families that own us all and are doing the best evil that they can to own russia and china and of course this makes our world what he have a twilight of the gods where blood flows and there are no winners only the flesh eaters keep programming our billions of imaginations that we are the 'victims'

TIME TO RAISE THE VIBRATIONS, reprogram our 'energy' subtle alchemy is a prayer that isn't but other than rebooting the imagination that is heaven and not hell

take the 8 families and let us bring them smack into the earth vibrations of reality,

it's time and NOT other than using our imaginations to do the job of making our reality real

70 x 7 days write, say, think AND whatever the 'monkey mind' can do to keep the attention focused in the intention of our goal.


Porn Pom

Anonymous said...

In addition to just individually commenting on Schnauzer, why not join together as one voice being addressed to specific influences, i.e. ABA, media example Ms. Snyder, RNLC, Federalist Society, etc.. getting others seriously talking about this state's legal cesspools beyond boundaries of Alabama. Already many out-of-state lawyers have stated they wouldn't come to Alabama for any amount of money to represent a client; Alabama is a corrupt litigating clique. This activist group via tip of its Schnauzer's spearhead could be known maybe as MURF'S LAW.

Anonymous said...

GET MURF'S LAW (LOVE THIS) TO BE THE COALITION. In Oregon State a group of ordinary citizens' got together and called themselves the "LAWYERS" and that was in "Hood River, OR" so many years ago now, the LAWYERS are all in their late 80s and sadly, one has passed already.

Be that as it may, this LAWYERS group aren't exactly "victims" in fact they say 'WE'RE NOT VICTIMS'.

There isn't law passed via the GORGE COMMITTEE, that the LAWYERS' have not challenged and private owners have won against the BIG UGLY BAD FOREIGN OCCUPIERS.

Legal Schnauzer, you have done what that incredible 'Coalition' has also accomplished.

YOUR BLOG can be the forum where all voices can be heard and the PAPER WORK filed per the 'rules, regulations' and other 'colors' of those that are obviously not ready for the 21 Century MURPH'S LAW.

Alabama cleans up and watch America turnaround in the spinning of paws' Murph's Law.

xo PP

Unknown said...

Federal Reserve is the anti-Christ?

e.a.f. said...

Not all Canadian courts are operating as well as they could/should, however, they are not in the league of the Alabama courts. Canadians are more polite.

The the NAFTA agreement, which ties Canada and the U.S.A. to each other, along with Mexico hasn't done much for Canada at all. It has left Canadian lumber producers spending tens of millions of dollars each time the American lumber producers feel they want to take Canadians to court. Manufacturing declined in eastern Canada and the American government has wanted Canadian laws to "come into line" with theirs. The American government has yet to understand Canada is a sovereign nation, but then the American government has that problem with most countries.

The tar sands are not so much an American caused problem but rather a Chinese government caused problem, along with the Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. Even the Keystone pipeline is something China wants. They simply want the tar sands so they can use it. It finally became clear to governments and some multi national corporations, the citizens of British Columbia were not going to permit a pipeline through the northern part of our province. Not only was the general population opposed, which included right wing politicians, but there was still the not so small matter of unresolved First Nations land claims. Some First Nations in Canada have never signed "treaties".

The next best thing for the corporations/China was to take the pipeline through the U.S.A., into Texas, have it refined there and then shipped to China. This would also leave the pollution asociated with the refining process in the U.S.A. The pipeline will not provide for a more secure source of oil for either Canada or the U.S.A. It will not allow for lower consumer prices either.

Americans don't have to worry about getting a message to the Canadians. We had the message long before the Americans knew there was a problem.

Canada's major problem at this time is the Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. Some attribute his positions on his religious beliefs, some to his need to control, some to his need to feel important, some to his being an "idiot". Stevie Slime, as some of us refer to him, is out and about signing free trade agreements with any two bit dictatorship around.

The Canada/China trade agreement would be a horror show the Americans will even feel. Part of the agreement has a small clause about Canada not being able to do anything about anything which inhibts China's ability to make a profit. That would impact our sovereignity beyond belief. Not to mention the American's ability to do business in Canada. It would be see you in the Hague courts.

There is not much Canadians can do while Stevie Slime has a majority in the House of Commons. We have to wait until the next general election in 2015. Of course Stevie Slime does have a couple, well 3 problems currently in the Canadian Senate. Senators he annointed, are up to their ying yangs in investigations about their spending. Allegations include, but not limited to, claiming expenses they were not entitled to. In Canada, that calls for the R.C.M.P. to investigate and there maybe criminal charges.

No, the Americans can't tell Canadians much. We actually have a more informed population than the U.S.A. When you are as small a country as Canada, 35 million people, word gets around. WE also have a news organization called the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is something akin to the American PBS, but watched and listened to much more.

legalschnauzer said...

Thanks for a Canadian perspective, e.a.f. Interesting to read your thoughts on what is behind the tar-sands issue. I assume that portion of Canada, producing the tar sands, must be pretty remote. Like the name "Stevie Slime." I can think of a lot of public officials in U.S. who deserve such a nickname.

Unknown said...


Canadians aren't polite and certainly not more than the Anglo Saxons that were responsible and are responsible for the genocide of the natives in America, North and South and Middle. And, Canada.

The native children were killed for years and years in the churches in Canada, more than one 'tribe' of indigenous were invited by the "Christian Canadians" that took the children into the churches and schools, and their families too, and committed years and years of genocide and called it converting the savages.

Nice try e.a.f., friends moved to Canada and did a children's center there, because the bad was so bad in children's 'safety'.

Their move was when the VIETNAM WAR was considered what it was and those that dissented moved to Canada, but this time with GEORGE W. BUSH, NOPE, the Canadian government is about as corrupt as any new government is, the money runs Canada and not the people.

Get real EAF

Unknown said...


you must have missed the news about Canada sending back a mother, she and her three children and their father, she left the military and thought Canada would be there for US, like in the Vietnam era.

NO, EAF, Canada sent her home to stand trial for desertion.

PLEASE STOP your slurs in such sophisticated sophistry.

you're not SMART any more than any of US, doing the best we can to win back our rights' too.

Murphy Schnauzer needs to bite your pants till you learn truth telling as a fine art!

e.a.f. said...

Actually the tar sands are and aren't "pretty remote". No, it You can drive from Vancouver to Fort McMurray in about 15 hrs. It is much less if you are in Calgary or Edmonton. The oil industry has provided a lot of jobs. Many in B.C. actually work in Fort McMurray. They work 3 weeks in, 1 week out. Many companies make all the travel arrangements and pay for it as well.

The enviornmental damage the tar sands are doing is monumental. The chemicals used to extract the "tar/oil" are poison. the use of clean water is huge. In a world where clean drinking water is becoming a scarce commody, why would any nation want to waste it on extracting tar from the ground and then exporting it to China.

In some areas of Alberta, where ranchers have wells on their property, they can turn on their water taps, inside the house and set the water on fire. This is not what Canadians want. However, the Alberta government and the Canadian federal government continue to deny this, even though we see it on documentaries on the news frequently.

when the train wreck in Quebec destroyed the downtown area of a small town and killed 47 people, the government waited several weeks to revoke the Montreal, Maine, Atlantic's operating license. The tankers weren't structurally good enough to withstand a crash. Yes, they can make better ones. The train had had a fire earlier in the evening. However, it was not the company's policy to leave workers at the site of the train during the night, even though it wasn't in a secure train yards. The train company was an American corporation.


The tar sands will not provide many jobs in the U.S.A. The pipeline can and will repture and ruin the land and water. It can not be sufficiently cleaned. Tar/oil can be moved in tanker cars BUT those tanker cars need to be built to special specifications, the rails themselves must be in first class condition, the trains must be adequately staffed, and the whole system needs federal inspectors--constantly.

American enviornment just something for China to piss on and leave their poisons? If the tar/oil sands were just for Canadian/American use, in limited amounts, so we would have enough left for the next couple of hundred years, it might be another thing, but as it now stands only those who already are making Alabama a mess can make the rest of the U.S.A. a mess also. Canada is about 15 yrs behind.

Having read a number of Alabama blogs and seeing what coal has done to the people and landscape gives me a better understanding of what will happen when the B.C. government opens all the coal mines they want to. On Vancouver island, in one small valley, there are 18 applications. We don't even get the jobs. The companies are from China and Stevie slime has made it easy for them to bring in their own workers. Speaking of bringing in their own workers. The people in Texas will want to keep an eye out for China bringing in their own workers for the refineries. They don't have to pay them as much, they won't unionize, the won't complain about health and safety issues and the government never has to worry about paying them Old Age Security. When they have finished working, they get sent back to China.

I enjoy reading Legal S. and the comments. On the one hand the problems are different yet essentially very similar. The one thing women and some men in Canada are thankful for is our divorce laws are federal. No shopping around. There is a formula as to how much must be paid in child support based on the parents' incomes.

e.a.f. said...

Hello Coyote Lane,

Yes I am well aware of an American mother's claim for political refugee status being denied by the Immigration and Refugee board. The cabinet minister repsonsible for the board did not see fit to intervene. This of course upset many Canadians. There is not much citizens could do about it. The current Conservative government, led by Stephen Harper, is in lock step with Repbulican thinking. He is the one who took Canada into the Iraq and Afghan wars when Bush Jr. asked him to.

As to Canadians being smarter than Americans; we aren't smarter. We are better educated. Our text books are not decided by a committee in Texas every 10 yrs or so. Each provincial government funds the schools for all the schools in their province. What that means is regardless of how economically deprived an area is, they still get the same amount of money to operate the schools and pay teacher salaries. Teachers are well paid in Canada. In British Columbia the majority of teachers have a min. of 5 yrs university education, many have Master's degrees also. The pay is about $75K once you have been teaching a few years. What this gives us is a good pool of candidates to teach our children.

e.a.f. said...

Hello Coyote Lane,

Now lets address the First Nations' issues you raised. It was not just Anglo Saxons who started the exploitation of the First Nations. The French got to Canada first. The French and English then used First Nations armies to supplement their own.

In the 1800s schools were established and children were taken away from their parents. This did result in a cultural genoicide. The effects of this are still being dealt with in Canada.

What did not happen in Canada, to the extent it did in the U.S.A. was the First Nations in Canada were left more land. This has enabled some First Nations to improve their economic positions. However, far more work needs to be done.

The churchs ran the schools. The children were sent there and many were horribly treated. The Canadian government has made its official apology and is commensating people who went to the schools as children. Of course the damage can not be undone and the money will never be enough. However, many First Nations still maintain their culture, live on their traditional lands. The fastest growing segment of our youth is First Nations children. They will rise again.

e.a.f. said...

Hi there Coyote Lane,

Now lets discuss the safety of children. Children are much safer in Canada. We have gun control. We do not have people walking into schools and murdering a multude of children or into theatres. This makes the country safer all round. There are rules against the AK something or other type weapons. They are enforced.

I recall reading that the murder rate in cities such as Chicago and Detroit are higher than all of Canada, that is on a pro rated basis. Thousands of American children are injured each year by guns/rifles. Not in Canada. We don't have many in homes. if they are in a home the law requires them to be safely stored. As we saw with the recent floods in High River Alberta, when the R.C.M.P. went into the homes to check for people in distress, they found rifles, which they took into custody. Weren't safely stored.

The other thing which makes Canada safer for children is the health care system. In Canada, if your child becomes ill, the trip to the hospital is paid for by the provincial medical system. yes we do have waits. But your kid will be seen and treated. So if your kid has cancer, they will get all the treatment they need, with no cost, beyond your $70 per month premium. Only two provinces actually have medical premiums, the rest are free. Break a leg in Canada, you get the best surgeon available. You go to a pediatrician in B.C. you will find parents and children from all economic segments of our society sitting in the same waiting room, getting the same service, from the same doctor.

Just the availability of "free" medical care and lack of guns makes canada safer for children, not to mention adults.

Yes, Canada has corruption issues. They started in ernest when Stephen Harper became prime minister and then gained a majority governmet in the house of commons. However, the R.C.M.P. is investigating a number of these.

Stevie Slime, as some of us prefer to call him, took the American political culture and brought it to Canada. It hasn't done much for Canadians. We do however, have a very vocal opposition in the house of commons, in the N.D.P. and Liberal parties, not to mention the Bloq from Quebec, and our one Green Party M.P.

Actually the money can't run Canada in the same manner which it runs the U.S.A. Canada does not allow PACs. Canada has a very strict set of rules on how elections are financed and has financial limits. Breaking those rules can get you tossed out of office.

Money does influence things in that the MSM does not report the news as it should. Bloggers however are making up for that. Just as Alabama has Legal S.; Canada has Montreal Simeon, Keeping it Real with Harvey O, Warren Kinsella, etc.

The woman who has returned to the U.S.A. for desertion, did have an option. In Canada, if the person up for deportation goes to a church and remains there, the police nor immigration officials will enter to remove them. We currently have one man in Vancouver who has been living in a church for several years now because all his appeals were denied. He is afraid to be returned to Russia. His wife and son were permitted to stay in Canada, but not the father because he had worked for the Russian secret service.

Canada is not perfect, but in my personal opinion, it is a better place to live for the average person than the U.S.A. There are European countries which definitely offer a better way of life, education system, health care, day care, etc. But as far as North America goes, Canada is sitting on top, in more ways than one.

Now Coyote Lane, can we get on to something else, like Alabama corruption?

legalschnauzer said...


I think divorce cases should be handled at federal level in U.S. Probably are a number of reasons this is a good idea, but here is a big one for me: Federal judges and court personnel are underworked in comparison to their state-court brethren in our country. Go to a state court in Alabama, and they likely are crowded, crawling with people. Go to a federal courthouse, and it is rather sedate, not that much going on. My understanding is that about 90 percent of U.S. lawsuits are filed in state courts. Moving domestic-relations and family cases to federal court would help even that up. Would it make our divorce courts less corrupt? Not sure, but they can't get any worse, in my view.

e.a.f. said...

Quite agree with you Legal S. Much of American law is the pervue of the state. With each state having its own laws, concerning any number of things, people can go "divorce shopping for a state". Everybody knows California always had the best place to get a divorce or rather the worst place depending upon which side of the fence you were on.

In Canada provincial courts have a lot of business also. However, all court cases start in provincial courts. Then as appeals go through the various systems, you could wind up in the Federal Court of Appeal, Federal Court, and then the Supreme Court of Canada. You move from the provincial court system into the federal court system. It doesn't matter which province you are in, the laws apply to every province and territory in Canada.

Provinces can set their own marriage laws, but divorce is federal. Child support is covered by federal law, because all children must be treated equally.

Crime is pretty much under federal law. However, if you break it, you start in provincial court. Drug laws are all covered by federal statute. However, drinking and driving laws are provincial. Rob a bank, its a federal law which is broken. Provinces do have control over education but the standards for health care are federally regulated and each province is paid by the federal government to administer health care.

There is much to be said for both systems. However, things concerning children and how they are educated, have health care provided to them, etc. should be regulated federally. That way each child in a country is treated in a more equitable manner.

In Canada, lawsuits start in the province you live in. Once you have worked your way through "provincial court" and your province's Supreme Court, and you still don't like the decsion, you go on to the federal system.

Going into provincial court for a lawuit costs money. It varies from province to province. In B.C. it is about $40K, yes you read right. Many feel this prevents people from getting the justice they deserve. next door in Alberta it is about $800 to get into court on a civil lawsuit.

Canadians don't sue as much as Americans, historicially. With our "small claims court" system, it takes a real load off of the regular court system.

In Canada we do not have elected judges. All are appointed. One of the game rules for federal judges in Canada is, they can't be politically involved. At one time the Supreme Court of Canada judges actually were not permitted to vote, so as to remain neutral. The advancement process for judges in Canada is, you start in provincial court. Don't blot your copy book and you could make it to Supreme court in your province. From there you could/would be considered for the federal system. Now to get to be a judge at any level, you do not get to blot your copy book. You stay out of politics. You stay out of trouble. If judges are caught doing anything wrong, they get the book thrown at them. One judge in a small northern town in B.C. was exchanging sexual favours for light sentences with young women. He was arrested by the R.C.M.P.; tried and convicted; and died in jail. The sentence was not light. Part of the game rules here are, people in positions of authority are held to a higher standard. Public Failure does not go over well.

Unknown said...


Get on with the reality that global corruption is the cause of the global pedophile cult that runs earth.

You must think Alabama CORRUPTION is so important that the readers can't look at other than comparing Alabama and how wonderful Canada is.

Canada was once upon a time a maybe, but it's no better than USA and in fact, why go to Canada and freeze to death in the corruption when the south is at least warm and not costly like Canada in just about every imaginable commodity.

Begin with growing food EAF, how does Canada compare with USA in the south and growing food?

In one word, not.

EAF you are with full of BS or you just do what you do to post at LS and say all kinds of distractions about Canada.

LS, in my reading at EAF, there is no real information about how the truth - such as at - HENRY MAKOW, who is a Canadian and mighty bright, PhD as well as THE GAME on line multi-millionaire in the start up days of the www.

READ HENRY MAKOW's work as a true Canadian that does his homework.