Monday, September 9, 2013

Research On Law Clerk For Corrupt Federal Judge Provides A Chance to Vent About "The 1 Percent"

Hugo Black U.S. Courthouse
If you are a member of "The 99 Percent" you probably almost never get a chance to tell a member of "The 1 Percent" how you really feel about elites and the damage they have done to our democracy.

I recently stumbled upon such an opportunity while investigating a law clerk and the corrupt federal magistrate judge he works for in the Northern District of Alabama. At the risk of sounding self congratulatory, I didn't let the opportunity pass. I saw a high fastball coming and decided to swing for the fences, leashing a Schnauzer rant upon the ear drums of David Waters Jr.

Did I connect for a home run? Well, that is up for debate, and you can hear the exchange in a video at the end of this post. But I felt a whole lot better when my rant was over--and Waters undoubtedly was left with the distinct impression that I don't much care for legal con games in a system that is funded with public dollars.

Is David Waters Jr. really a member of the financial "1 Percent"? I would say that is highly unlikely. But as the son of a partner at the national, pro-corporate Jones Walker law firm, Waters certainly has close ties to legal elites. And his arrogance was on display when he hung up on me after being questioned about a conflict involving his boss, U.S. Magistrate T. Michael Putnam, in my wife's ongoing employment lawsuit against Birmingham-based Infinity Insurance. Actually, as we showed in a recent post, Waters hung up on me twice.

Did I land a few punches on David Waters finely manicured face? Well, you can be the judge. I went on the offensive by noting my experience before U.S. District Judge William M. Acker Jr. in my employment case against the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). I pointed out what appears to be a patronage system for hiring law clerks at the Hugo Black U.S. Courthouse, a subject that Waters probably was not thrilled to see raised:

Who are some of the other law clerks down there? Is that how it’s done? I know Ben Slaughter used to be Judge Acker’s law clerk, and he now works at Haskell Slaughter. And you’re Judge Putnam’s law clerk, and your father works at Jones Walker. Is that how it’s done, all the big, pro-corporate law firms get their children these nice clerkships down there? But regular everyday people like us who get cheated out of our jobs, we just get screwed, time and again. And you don’t care, do you, David? You’ve got your future, you’ve got a nice little nest made for you, at Jones Walker, when you get out of your clerkship. Some of the rest of us have to actually work for a living and actually have to earn jobs. But you don’t care about that.

What kind of response did this draw from Waters Jr.? Nothing but an audible sigh. Sensing that I was on a bit of a roll, I decided to forge ahead:

And you’ve got a conflict of interest, and you know it, and that’s why you hung up, and Judge Putnam knows it and he’s crooked.

Waters apparently couldn't let that haymaker pass without a response, although he didn't deny that Putnam is crooked:

There is nothing I can do to help you. Further conversation on this topic is inappropriate at this point . . . This conversation has to end.

That brought return fire from yours truly:

You can end it whenever you want. You’ve already hung up once, go ahead and do it again. But I’m a journalist, and I am going to print this. I’m not going to sit back and let you and your little colleagues at Jones Walker cheat my wife. She’s been out of a job for 3 years and I know who did it . . . and Angie Ingram has been  wrongfully dismissed and you know she put matters outside the pleadings into this case, and therefore she cannot be dismissed. You know that, everybody down there knows it. Then I find out Angie Ingram is represented by someone from your father’s law firm. That’s a conflict of interest, David. You can’t sit there with any sort of serious look on your face and deny it.

With that, Waters resorted to the same line that ended our first conversation:

This conversation is over.


If it's been awhile since you've heard a member of "The 99 Percent" vent at an elite, you might want to check out this exchange. It begins at about the 3:40 mark in the video below:


Anonymous said...

Many Americans are now finding out for the first time that those who run the USG, Congress, the Justice Dept, the Supreme Court and Judiciary, and American Intel are typically traitors, liars, perjurers, and Constitutional Oath violators, with some blatantly human compromised by honey traps and other blackmail schemes. It’s only a matter of time and the American people will rise up and drive ‘em out of government one way or another. Yes, the jig is about up.

go Schnauzer GO Schnauzer be really really good, thanks for being the voice of real 'Merica

Anonymous said...

Is it your assumption that anyone that does the same job as their parents gets there through corruption and undue influence? At any given time there are hundreds, if not thousands of law clerk. I would certainly expect that some of them have parents that are lawyers....

Just FYI "A clerkship with a federal judge is one of the most highly-sought positions in the legal field. Some federal judges receive thousands of applications for a single position, and even the least sought-after federal clerkships will be applied to by at least 150 people. Successful candidates tend to be very high in their class, with most being members of their law school's law review or other journal or moot court team. Such clerkships are generally seen as more prestigious than those with state judges." That's reason for them to be "in on it too." If he is a federal law clerk, he did not just get the position just through connections - he had to be able to go.

And even if the clerk had a conflict (which I am not entirely sure of), that does not mean that the judge does. I know of no cases ruling that a clerk's conflict is imputed to the judge. Do you? Regardless, the clerk is not even working on the case. Get over it. No con-job. No anything. Yo

ttowntruthseeker said...

They should all be required to wear a penis on their noses.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 6:48..if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..then it must be a duck. The legal system here in Alabama appears so corrupt and everyone knows it. Didn't take LS to do the reporting on this. And yes a clerkship with a federal judge, etc. You know and I know that offsprings get preferential treatment.

Anonymous said...

Are you familiar with confirmation bias? You seem to do enough research to find one fact that supports your preconceived conclusion that the you're getting screwed over and then stop researching before you find out things that might undermine that conclusion. Take this case, for example. You find out that David Waters' father is a lawyer with Jones Walker and then stop. You don't bother to find out any facts about David Waters' relationship with his father (what if he hates him?), his own personal ethics, his qualifications for landing the clerkship, or really anything else. You just assume that he's a shill for his father who only got his position through his connection to his father.

Similarly, in your conversation with David Waters you assume that Ben Slaughter is related to William M. Slaughter because of the common last name. But further research--which you clearly didn't do--would reveal that they're unrelated.

So here's my question: if you're wrong--demonstrably wrong--about the situation with David Waters and the accusations that you've leveled at him, will you publicly apologize to him?

Anonymous said...


This day The Associated Press is reporting on week long activities in Birmingham, Alabama result of tragedies born out of 16th Street Church bombing, killing four young girls. Shouldn't matter the color of their skin, but sadly it does, for they were black.
The Associated Press is reporting about the city's Mayor, other dignitaries attending; with such notable names as United States Attorney General Eric Holder, former United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, her being from Birmingham, Spike Lee, and Jamie Fox; and they are to be applauded for their contributions for keeping this heinous crime a matter of public awareness.

While the following does not, cannot apply to any other individual, and/or official in attendance making public comments about what happened and the subsequent years thereafter; there is one federally appointed official, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER, who can be, should be held accountable to the most highest judicial bar for his indifferences after having been repeatedly requested of to pursue an official initiative aggressive investigation into the continuing remaining unsolved double barrel 12gauge sawed off shot-gunning close range double ought shot of a black narcotics detective sergeant as he stepped from his vehicle in his front yard, died in his wife's blood soaking lap and arms as she held his head and shoulders up off the dark cold rain drizzling night.

The citizens in Alabama can't be blamed FOR NOT BEING AWARE because their media hasn't been an advocate, championed his story for resolving.

This blog now is rated within the top 50 nationally, therefore generating a lot of interest supposedly; if that be the case; couldn't a blog this well thought of be motivated to bring to bear a just cause for movement forthwith within the justice department.

After all, this individual was a fellow law enforcement officer; a Honorably Discharged Vietnam
veteran, husband, father of two small children, and after having served in Vietnam, seeing how illegal drugs took hold off, ruining many a young man's life, came back, putting his life on the line again in his beliefs that he could make a difference so that those in his communities could have the best chance thru his efforts growing up thru up their youths, and young adulthoods without constant exposures to illegal trafficking; robbing them of their futures...........

Call the Mayor, The 16th Street Church, Spike Lee, Jamie Fox; because it's no use to contact the NAACP. Please go to the Officer's Down Page, you won't find but few comments, because his assassination has never been made commonly well known.

Even when after the then governor signed a proclamation offering a state reward $10,000.00; the public never knew, because the media never went with the story.
Obviously how much was this man's life worth; but equally important, in doing his dedicated job, how many lives by keeping them away from illegal drugs WOULD HE HAVE SAVED, WOULD THEY HAVE BEEN WORTH, THAT HE DIDN'T, BECAUSE HE WASN'T THERE.

How many dropped out of school, how many died, how many never had a decent job might otherwise have had, how many live in emotional disarray, how many are, have been longtime welfare receiptants because they can't hold a job, due their addiction?

Alabamians should be morally committed to have law enforcement EXTEND UNTO THIS WIDOW the same enthusiasms in bringing about closure as would for any other Alabama law enforcement officer.

Please if you should make any effort, would you write a reply so Murph and rest of us may know if this officer gave his life in vain.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

10:34, you are off base. LS isnt wrong and has clearly shown that an "appearance" of impropriety exists! Its also clear that these judges hire accoring to who suits their cause. Thats why these budding criminals are chosen.

Unknown said...

So here's my question: if you're wrong--demonstrably wrong--about the situation with David Waters and the accusations that you've leveled at him, will you publicly apologize to him?


When do the public people in US wake the hell up!

Without Legal Schnauzer the USA would be a worse toilet than it is, PLEASE.

The JUDGES are paid from Wall Street and Wall Street pays the COURTS. Wall Street is the Federal Reserve System which is the FOREIGN OCCUPIER of the USA since 1913.

Condi, Eric, Colin, Et Al are all black supremacists and proud to be able to do even more powerful crimes than ole whitey, especially when the species can execute its own kind with no remorse whatsoever because there is a reason for this behavior choice, after all.

The positions of power are all carefully filled with the criminals that do what the worst most criminally insane in earth tell them to do.

The penis nose cult do the most insane behaviors and its for digital fraud and this is truly not intelligent life.

>>12gauge sawed off shot-gunning close range double ought shot of a black narcotics detective sergeant as he stepped from his vehicle in his front yard, died in his wife's blood soaking lap and arms as she held his head and shoulders up off the dark cold rain drizzling night. >>

HE WAS A VIETNAM VET and most all Vets from Nam are highly well informed about the corruption.

HE WAS A NARCOTICS OFFICER and more than likely it was 'friendly fire' meaning he was killed by his 'own' like in Iraq and Pat Tillman.

There isn't going to be an America like we thought because there never was in reality.

Since the beginning the secret government has controlled the so called government that was supposed to be a republic democratic form of majority vote.

MONEY SOVEREIGNTY WAS and is a law in our U.S. Constitution, but that was made a goddamn piece of paper by the Christian Crusader GWBJr.

Until the 'credit' is exposed for the DEBT FRAUD that is basically shackles and bracelets too, there is no liberty.

Liberty was a promise that got stolen and the dressers up in the courts are too ignorant to realize the end time has arrived for the thieves to go on, America has been kicked to the curb by China, Iran, Russia, South-Middle/Latin Americas and most every democracy has booted US into the dust bin of digital BS.

Assassinations? Clintons may hold a record in ordering killings, but then who really knows.

Family destruction absolutely intentionally on purpose. Drugs are the main destroyer to control the 'people' but in reality it begins with the vaccinations and other poisons sold as 'health', after getting brains to accept digits as money and debt forever slavery as prosperity.

America awakened because of Legal Schnauzer and he has only kept very local for the people he lives with as community and this was and is truly a highly intelligent human that believes in humanity.

Lucky star born for Alabama, LS.

America's United States were stolen and therefore, the whole place is falling apart.

Thanks LS, brilliant to continue demonstrating how the roots in the south are all rotting or rotted and the plants aren't worth saving, other than the vegetation that didn't choose to be 'secret gov' Fed's criminal lower class.

Anonymous said...

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but the thing that strikes me is how utterly unconcerned Mr. Waters seems to be about a situation that to any reasonable person would be at least "an appearance of impropriety." I don't care a whole lot about how Mr. Waters got his job. But I do care that he hung up twice on a citizen, who before being hung up on, treated him quite nicely. And I also care that Mr. Waters' tone doesn't indicate that he is the least bit concerned about whether Carol Shuler gets a fair shake in her case.

Anonymous said...

If David Waters Jr. is one of "the best and the brightest," to the point that he earned a federal clerkship strictly on merit, it sure doesn't come across in the phone conversation. He doesn't sound particularly bright to me, at all. He sounds like an 8 year old who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. And he's trying to figure a way to blame someone for the crumbs all over his lips.

Spasmoda said...

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions, @6:48. First, LS never says that all children who go into the same field as their parents benefit from corruption or undue influence. He didn't even say David Waters got his job via undue influence. Based on my memory of the conversation, LS raises a number of pointed questions along those lines--and Mr. Waters didn't seem anxious to provide any answers. That says quite a bit to me.

Second, you have no way of knowing whether the clerk is working on the case or not.

Third, you don't know the extent of the relationship between Mr. Waters' boss (the judge) and the law firm where Mr. Waters' father works. The hiring of David Waters Jr. might just be the tip of a large iceberg, one that would require recusal because of the judge's conflict. That's about the judge, not his clerk.

Anonymous said...

@3:25 When you say the following:

"[Y]ou don't know the extent of the relationship between Mr. Waters' boss (the judge) and the law firm where Mr. Waters' father works. The hiring of David Waters Jr. might just be the tip of a large iceberg, one that would require recusal because of the judge's conflict. That's about the judge, not his clerk."

That's pure speculation on your part. And speculating about possible scenarios doesn't raise the appearance of impropriety. See, that's what neither you nor LS seem to get: just because you can conceive of a scenario under which some nefarious thing is happening doesn't mean that it's likely that such a thing is happening or even that a reasonable person would think that such a thing is happening.

Gerry with a G said...

You seem to be pretty good with confirmation bias yourself, @10:34.

You start with the bias that all is hunky dory at the federal courthouse in Birmingham, and you don't want to look any further. You start with the bias that David Waters Jr. and Judge Pittman are honorable, fair men, and you don't want to look any further. You start with the bias that this case is being handled according to law, including the law on recusal, and you don't want to look any further.

Finally, you start with the bias that the plaintiff in this matter, Carol Shuler, isn't deserving of a fair shake. In fact, you don't even like it that someone asks questions on her behalf. The mere questioning of a federal law clerk, who gets so discombobulated that he hangs up on a citizen twice, makes you uncomfortable to the point that you don't want to look any further.

Carol Shuler is invisible to you, isn't she, @10:34? Is that because she's a woman? Is it because she's a mere wage earner who got screwed out of her job by management? Or is it both?

Here's a challenge for you: Why don't you go check the file on this case--it's public record--and see if Carol Shuler is being treated lawfully. See if the rulings by Mr. Waters' boss (Judge Pittman) comply with the law. If they don't, will you apologize to Carol Shuler for your utter lack of concern about her plight? And will you apologize to LS for raising bogus points about his reporting?

Anonymous said...

You speculate a lot yourself, @3:30. We all do that. But we don't have to speculate about this, based on LS's reporting. Judge Putnam hired the son of a Jones Walker partner to be his clerk. Judge Putnam dismissed a Jones Walker client in the case. That client attached matters outside the pleadings, and LS has reported the judge referenced them in his order, so he clearly did not exclude them. That means the Jones Walker client should not have been dismissed without going through discovery and reaching the summary judgment staged. Actually, I think LS is being too kind to Judge Putnam and his clerk here. I think this case is about actual bias, not just the appearance of bias.

Anonymous said...

The Schnauzer gets feisty with an uppity law clerk. I love it! Wish I could tell off some of these jacklegs like that.

Anonymous said...

LS, would you do us a favor and keep track of David Waters Jr.'s career? I'm laying heavy odds that he winds up working at Jones Walker.

legalschnauzer said...

I was going to respond to a couple of comments, but it looks like other folks already have done it for me. I will say this: I didn't report as fact that Ben Slaughter was related to anyone at Haskell Slaughter; that was a point I raised in a phone conversation. If the commenter cares to provide information showing that Ben Slaughter is not related to one of the named partners at Haskell Slaughter, I would be glad to take a look at it. I contacted Ben Slaughter several months back in an effort to interview him about several matters. I believe I left both a voice message and an e-mail with him. He never responded.

It is a fact that Ben Slaughter was Judge William Acker's law clerk at the time Judge Acker was making wildly unlawful rulings against me in a lawsuit against UAB. If the commenter @10:34 knows Ben Slaughter well enough to know who he is and is not related to, I would appreciate it if he would ask Mr. Slaughter to contact me. I have several questions I would like to ask him.

Better yet, perhaps @10:34 can ask Ben Slaughter to see if Judge Acker will sit down for an interview with me about his actions in Shuler v. University of Alabama Board of Trustees, et al.

Here is a question for you, @10:34: Will you help set up an interview for me with Ben Slaughter, Judge Acker or both? They won't respond to my queries, so will you help arrange these interview(s).

Anonymous said...

I'm the commenter @10:34.

So you want me to prove a negative (i.e., that Ben Slaughter ISN'T related to William Slaughter)? I'm sorry, but that shifts the burden to me. That said, it's not hard to find evidence that they're unrelated. For example, here's a 2004 Alabama House resolution mourning the death of then-Representative William Slaughter's mother:

Notably absent from Mary Smith Slaughter's family members is Ben Slaughter (note that Ben's middle initial is M, meaning that he's not B. Hanson Slaughter). Know how I found this? I did a Google search for "'William M. Slaughter' family." Now, that's not exactly rock-solid evidence that they're not related distantly somehow, but it should make one pause before claiming that Ben Slaughter got his job at Haskell Slaughter through nepotism. And that's what a good reporter would do: figure out what the facts are instead of letting himself be ruled by speculation.

Now, I know you've claimed that you didn't report the Ben Slaughter connection as fact, but you've certainly strongly implied that nepotism was a factor in his employment, both in your conversation with David Waters and in the comments of several of your posts. You can't claim that you're not suggesting that that was the case.

Anonymous said...

Many of us may have slight recollections in remembering CBS Radio Broadcaster Edward R. Murrow, especially in WWII during the opening of his broadcast, "This.... is London"; becoming his trade mark, ending his broadcast with "good night, and good luck" during a lot of times when Nazi bombers could be heard flying overhead.

Why couldn't Murph's "Mavericks" blogging from especially at least four corners of the state to Murph take up such a similar banner; complimenting all other Murph's Mavericks blogging as they are now; "This.... is Alabama", many a bad night, a lot of bad luck politically. Require suggestions and recommendations especially from the common man, everyday working man/woman tax payer citizen.
Ya'll come now,ya hear.

legalschnauzer said...

I do my reporting in the posts, @5:14. And I don't recall reporting there that Ben Slaughter is related to one of the partners at Haskell Slaughter--although you haven't proven that isn't the case. BTW, I didn't say I wanted you to prove anything. You raised the issue of Ben Slaughter not being related to anyone at Haskell Slaughter, so I merely stated I would be glad to take a look at any info you cared to provide. It's not a big deal to me, one way or another.

I'm much more interested in the fact that Ben Slaughter worked for Judge Acker when Acker made outrageously unlawful rulings in my employment matter against UA Board. Ben Slaughter was in the courtroom for a number of hearings on the matter, so it stands to reason that he's well aware the law was butchered on that matter. Again, I invite you to contact Mr. Slaughter and ask if I can interview him and/or Judge Acker.

I've tried to arrange an interview with Mr. Slaughter, and he has not responded to my requests. I think it's a pretty safe bet that Mr. Slaughter recognizes my name--he and I talked on the phone once or twice during the course of my case--he knows the UAB case was butchered, and he wants no part of taking questions on it.

If I'm right about that, it suggests he and David Waters have at least one thing in common--they neither one show much interest in whether the law is correctly applied in federal courtrooms.

Anonymous said...

I guess what really bothers me about you is that you don't accept that there's an alternative explanation for why you tend to lose at things as a pro se litigant besides judges making "outrageously unlawful rulings." Based on what I've seen from your blog, you're just wrong in your understanding of the law a lot of the time. And you generally attribute things that stem from your misunderstandings to corruption/personal bias/senility/anything other than your own misunderstandings. That also makes it really difficult to explain to you what's wrong with your reasoning, because you immediately assume that anyone who's pointing out those flaws has a bad motive.

legalschnauzer said...

Show me what is lawful about Judge Acker's rulings in my UAB case.

Show me what is lawful about Putnam's dismissal (Rule 12b6) of Angie Ingram and other financial entities in my wife's case (Carol Shuler v. Infinity, et al).

Show me what was lawful about Rollins v. Rollins in Shelby County.

Show me what was lawful about Wyatt v. Wyatt in Chilton Co.

Show me what was lawful about the jury instructions in U.S. v. Paul Minor.

Show me what was lawful about the jury instructions in U.S. v. Siegelman/Scrushy and show me any evidence that the bribery charges weren't brought almost one full year past the 5-year statute of limitations.

Show me what was lawful about Acker's dismissal of a qui tam case alleging Medicare fraud and other wrongdoing against a company owned (in part) by Rob Riley.

Show me where I'm wrong on my understanding of the law in any post that I've written.

Anonymous said...

I've actually already done that with respect to at least one of the cases that you've just mentioned. That time, you accused me of being a liar and making an argument in bad faith. Then you stopped posting my comments, including the ones where I pointed out that you were quibbling with the semantics of my posts as opposed to the substance of my arguments. That was with respect to the dismissals in your wife's case, where you were and are wrong about their legality. I could rehash my arguments, but you'd probably call me a liar again.

Another time, I commented on the VictoryLand case in Macon County and pointed out to you that you misunderstood statutory construction and the precedential value of the Cornerstone decision from Lownders County. You questioned my personal interest in the case (which is and remains none) and tried to make my arguments somehow depend on my identity--notably, without really addressing the substance of those arguments. I'd add to those arguments that there is a mechanism for the Alabama Supreme Court to decide a matter while limiting that decision's precedential value: not publish the opinion, something that they declined to do in the Cornerstone case.

I'm not as familiar with the other cases or with your reporting on them. Hell, you might be right on some of them. But I feel pretty confident that even if I did point out some flaws in your logic or legal arguments, you'd probably engage in exactly the same sort of deflection and impugning my motives.

legalschnauzer said...

Oh, so you are THAT guy. I suspected as much, but I didn't want to "impugn your motives."

To summarize, you have not shown that I was wrong about Cornerstone or anything related to my wife's case. Also, I never refused to run your comments, but I asked you to ID yourself since you were claiming to be an expert on these matters, and you have refused to do so.

As usual, you never cite any law to support your claims that I am wrong about something. And as usual, you make blatantly false statements, claiming I didn't address the substance of your arguments, when I highlighted in yellow the key sections in Cornerstone that show it is (a) about Lowndes County; and (b) about a preliminary injunction.

Despite your efforts to scour footnotes for the slightest piece of lint to support your argument, you can't get around what the body of the opinion states.

It appears your ox is being gored by my reporting on certain subjects--and I guess that's too bad. But in six-plus years, no one yet has been able to use facts and law to successfully counter my reporting. You aren't likely to be the first.

Anonymous said...

See? You don't understand the common law system! Your claim that "(a) about Lowndes County; and (b) about a preliminary injunction" is, while technically true, irrelevant for the precential value of the opinion WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFINITION OF BINGO UNDER THE LAW (something that the court specifically notes in footnote 9) There isn't some peculiar Lowndes County bingo versus another peculiar Macon County bingo. So you're just wrong, despite pointing out some features of the case that
are irrelevant when citing the case as precedent in a common law system. It honestly didn't even have to come out and say that the case properly decides legal questions and that its decisions are authoritative with respect to those questions, but it does that in footnote 9. You just ignore that language, though, and point to other things in the case that aren't even in conflict with my argument.

I will admit that I do have an ox being gored by your reporting on a particular subject. I will tell you that one of the subjects of your reporting is a close personal friend of mine and that I know for an absolute fact that your reporting with respect to that individual is completely off base. You've accused this person of acts that they haven't committed, motives that they lack, and generally being a terrible and unethical person. And that makes me angry; it's what led me to read your blog in the first case, and I've seen the same shoddy reporting and analysis that led to your incorrect conclusions about my friend repeated with respect to other matters. So while I'm not disinterested, I certainly am not arguing in bad faith.

Anonymous said...

Gentlemen love to argue.

Ladies do too, President Harding's nickname for his wife 'The DutchAss' was because she was the daughter of Harding's news rival and so got her jaw music honestly.

A Budget Department was created by President Harding. Take a refresher on him and The DutchAss, she was definitely not other than a daughter who learned the power of the 'news'.

Mr. Waters has to be PUBLIC EMPLOYEE in the full disclosure of transparency.

His income and of course then to see how did he come to work in the capacity of government - it is all in the USA Budget Dept,


the obvious is -- how many members of Mr. Waters' family, extended and 'shirt-tale' relatives have received the Budget Dept. income as more often represented in government and for how many years do these families find preferential treatment in the 'Budget Dept Federal'?

That's how Mr. Waters must come into a forum to argue as is the best place to get our civilization into higher resolutions of problems and the problem is Mr. Waters and his family are and have been overrepresented - this is not how our Constitutional Democratic Government was or is to function as a matter of law.

Who-Whom is representing Mr. Waters' here - and for that matter why don't all the noticed for the law to be Constitutional, come and argue in the forum of a true scholar of the rule-letter and spirit of the law!

Come now where is Mr. Waters' since he is, after all, in the position of law representative and this is the Twenty-first Century.

Or is Mr. Waters and/ or the family of government anons too?

While working on Mr. Waters and his Budget Dept transparent 'clean hands' it would be very important to know the 'US Petro Dollar' failure isn't going to be other than a big crash so demanding creditworthiness in this time from the so called credit bureaus is another important step in protecting from the Mr. Waters once he is on the street looking for real work.

Unknown said...

So while I'm not disinterested, I certainly am not arguing in bad faith.


The saturation is an emotional attachment, and then the other ox being gored personal friend is also in the common law bad faith.

What is wrong with 'UNETHICAL PERSON' to not have the courage to confront whatever has been posted or written in any way, photos and other ways to bring newsworthy attention to MY FRIEND that you are defending with zealot zeal indeed anon.

legalschnauzer said...

Ah, so now we know that your views on everything you read here are, in fact, skewed--and it's because you claim I have reported inaccurately about a personal friend of yours. Well, I appreciate your honesty on that.

Meanwhile, we don't know who you are, we don't know who your friend is, and we don't know how you know, for a fact, that my reporting on that subject (whatever it is) is inaccurate.

You continue to have a problem understanding that I am a journalist. I'm not in the business of "accusing" people of things. I report what my research tells me are the facts on a particular matter. Chances are, your friend was given an opportunity to respond to questions on the subject at hand. Either your friend chose not to respond, or perhaps, he/she did respond-and I probably ran the response word for word, along with information I had gathered from other sources. That's how journalism works, and that's what I am, a journalist.

I can't think of an instance where I've reported a negative story about anyone without giving them an opportunity to respond. The only exception that comes to mind would be judges, on cases that still are in the court system somehow--and judges pretty much always decline comment on such matters. Even in those instances, my reporting tends to focus on improper applications of law, as opposed to personal attacks that amount to claims that someone is "a terrible and unethical person."

If you and/or your friend feel compelled to correct the record, let me know.

Finally, I can't help but note your arrogant tone. It's as if yours is the final word on any matter of law. On the Cornerstone issue, I can quickly reel off the names of half a dozen lawyers who disagree with your analysis--and that is apparent in public records. So no matter how many times you try to claim I am wrong on this particular subject, I can point to any number of highly regarded and highly paid lawyers who say you are wrong.

Anonymous said...

Coming soon, "Murph's Mavericks".

e.a.f. said...

Perhaps some of you could use initials, so people would know who you are, while still remaining somewhat Annoy.

Right now the blog looks like a pissing contest between various individuals and L.S.

Try to remember, it is L.S.'s blog. if you don't like what he has to write, go somewhere else. No one is forcing you to read this. You may claim it is your right to clarify, however, most bloggers are expressing their opinion, to which they are entitled just as you are. The big differance is some people do it on a blog they own. If you don't agree with L.S. feel free to establish your own blog.

It might not be unreasonable to conclude some of these comments are simply a method of tying up L.S.'s time and energy as you make your comments.

Try to remember this blog did make it into the top 50 American independant legal blogs. Much of what has been written by L.S. exposes what has gone on in Alabama legal cirles. Certainly the treatment of women in divorces is not good.

So if you don't like what L.S. has to say, don't read him. Those of us who do enjoy this blog aren't that interested in your pissing contest with L.S.

legalschnauzer said...

Message to @12:01--

Try reading the comment you sent. You didn't ask any questions; that's why you received no answers. Your comment didn't get published because it was unintelligible, made no sense, made no point, and was written on about a second-grade level. If you can't write in plain, simple English that makes some coherent point, your comments won't be published here.

Anonymous said...

LS, the anon who appears to have been stalking and harassing you for the last week smells of estrogen. I must say im getting a little tired of the attempts to shut up your commenters through intimidation. JMG doesnt matter to these good ol boys in the long run. They matter more to her. I cant imagine that any are willing to let her run a blood bath for the lot. She knows what im saying is true and thats why shes making an ass out of herself by stalking you.

Anonymous said...

LS, any future posts regarding Jennifer Clark? Its been a while since you posted on her.

legalschnauzer said...

Interesting thoughts, @12:31. Are you saying you think the commenter is JMG herself?

legalschnauzer said...

It has been too long since I've posted about the Jennifer Paige Clark case, @12:36. Thanks for asking about it. I think it's one of the most important stories I've covered, and it still is very much on my radar.

Anonymous said...

Discussion is uncomfortable in seriously passionate disagreements.

However, this is the time to get the real out on the table and the dildos can stay on the porn racks.

Mark Twain said don't argue with the stupid it is a very exhausting exercise and the stupid always win out of experience.

VITAL though to stay focused and LS you get the steamy fogged right into the icy frozen.


m.p. said...

@7:12 is exactly right. In stating that the ruling was about the Lowndes County amendment and concerned a TRO, LS is citing things that are true, but legally irrelevant in terms of Cornerstone's precedential value. Laws get construed all the time in cases with odd procedural postures - that does not mean that those constructions are not binding in other cases...My intuition is that LS knows this, but has decided to report things in a certain way so he constructs reasons for him to continue believing he is right (including even more conspiracies)...If he actually believes that his way is the way the law works, then he truly is proving the old adage that "A person who represents himself has a fool for a client."

Anonymous said...

Commenting on a public blog is stalking and harassing?

Anonymous said...

Speaking of the Jennifer Clark story, could it be that your teporting on her case played a role in Judge Reid retiring? Timing seems to match.

Anonymous said...

Ask Bill Baxley, @7:12. He's Jessica Garrison's attorney, and he claims that requesting an interview of her is stalking and harassing.

legalschnauzer said...

Your comment made me laugh out loud, m.p. You accuse me of engaging in improper mental gymnastics but claim your own "intuition" has convinced you that I knowingly am posting inaccurate reports regarding Cornerstone--even though I've run key segments of the ruling itself, highlighting what it actually says. Talk about mental gymnastics!

On top of that, you admit that what I report is true, but you apparently have mystical powers that allow you to determine Cornerstone has precedential value on matters it does not even address. Wow, you are like Karnac the Magnificent! Did you pull your comment out of a mayonnaise jar on Funk & Wagnalls' front porch?

Great stuff. Keep the comedy coming. I love it!

legalschnauzer said...

You raise an interesting point about Reid's retirement, @9:14. Also, Robert Lusk bolted from the Alabama State Bar.

legalschnauzer said...

Looks like your undies are in a serious bunch, @10:27. Good luck getting them unbunched. And keep working on your English. Maybe you will get beyond the third-grade level someday.

legalschnauzer said...

Somebody has his or her undies still in a bunch. Here is a clue as to why some comments make it here, and yours don't:

Are some comments here written in a roundabout way that isn't easy to decipher? Yes.

If you put in the work, can you generally figure out what these commenters are trying to say? Yes.

Why is that? Because they have a point, and they are making a serious effort to get it across.

Do I necessarily agree with their points? No, not always.

But do I respect their serious efforts to make a point about matters of public interest? Yes.

Where do you come up short? You make no point, and you don't even try to make a point. You certainly don't make a point about a matter of public interest.

You claim you ask questions when you didn't. You simply are pitching a temper tantrum because you have a personal beef with me. I think I know what that beef is, but you aren't a big enough person to actually confront that problem and recognize your role in causing it.

You would rather stomp your feet like a fitful third grader. Classy. You would rather take anonymous potshots, and then pitch a fit when they don't appear. Classier, still.

Try acting like an adult, and maybe someone will take you seriously. Try appreciating the kindness of others, and maybe your life won't suck so badly.

Meanwhile, you won't get a platform here, no matter how loudly you stomp your feet.

Some advice: Try growing up and looking in the mirror for a change. Try to figure out why that is a really ugly image staring back at you.

legalschnauzer said...

If I have you confused with someone else, try sending a comment under your real name or contact me via e-mail at

And thanks for letting me know that you don't care whether your comments are published or not. I guess that's why you keep sending comments and bitching about the comments that do appear, while yours do not. Got it!

BTW, I never said I had overly high standards for comments here. But I did say commenters must have a point about matters of public interest and make a serious effort
to express it.

So far, you seem incapable of doing that. You resort to childish bomb throwing, and I've seen no sign that you can rise above that level. Start your own blog if you need a soapbox so badly.

All in all, I have to give you credit for one thing: You provide a fascinating study in self delusion. Very entertaining. If you think you are fooling anybody, you are sadly mistaken.

Anonymous said...

LS, just checked in here and noticed your most recent comments. Don't know who these are directed at, but someone must be walking around with a new a-hole. Man, you did serious scorching on somebody. If I see someone walking around today with smoke coming out of their underwear, I will know they have tangled with the Schnauzer. Love it!

Anonymous said...

Come on LS, please dont keep the comments from the "mavericks". Im interested in seeing the estrogen flow.

m.p. said...

No mystical powers - just an understanding of how the law works. As I said, the things you attempt to use to distinguish the case with are indeed true...they are just irrelevant as to the case's precedential value. This is basic, basic legal stuff. Why is it that you think "bingo" would be construed differently in other amendments? What principle of statutory construction led you to that conclusion? What exactly do you think FN 9 is trying to say? Whenever you are confronted with your utterly deficient legal reasoning and/or knowledge, you seem to lash out at people and begin talking about their supposed motives etc etc.

And I don't know if this blog really qualifies as "journalism"...Inaccurate opinions about things you don't know about (legal issues), tabloid style gossip about decade-old halloween costumes, unsubstantiated rumors of affairs that you are being sued over...I am sure the lack of a Pultizer last year was merely an oversight haha.

legalschnauzer said...

Sorry, m.p., I can't respond to this comment. I'm still laughing from the last one you sent. You are a serious, big-time thinker. But you "understand how the law works." Another knee-slapper. Keep it coming!

Anonymous said...

You realize you just proved m.p. absolutely right, don't you, LS? You didn't address the aspects of m.p.'s comment that demonstrate that you're just wrong about the Cornerstone case, preferring to mock m.p. instead. If you can't accept that you're capable of being wrong about things, it's really no surprise that you were fired from your job. But, hey, at least some marketing blog thinks that your're special!

legalschnauzer said...

First, I've addressed the "issues" m.p. raised umpteen times, in posts and in comments. I see no reason to address them again. Second, it's hard to take m.p. seriously given the content of his/her previous comment. Third, I've never even hinted that I'm incapable of being wrong, and making such a statement is taking you into the Land of the Absurd.

I'm just not wrong about the Cornerstone case. I know you must find this distressing, but a lot of us on this blog can read for ourselves, and we don't need some anonymous individual (who may or may not have legal training) to tell us what a document says.

If you and some of your anon cohorts here are lawyers . . . your antics certainly fit with what I know of the profession. My experience has shown that lawyers tend to hate people who are capable of thinking for themselves.

Seems like a sad way to go through life to me, but if you enjoy it . . . go forth!

m.p. said...

@9:39 - Always more of the same. When LS is confronted, it is always just deflection. The funny thing is that I do not even need to be right (though I am) for LS's reporting to be wrong. You see, LS peddles his breathless posts talking claiming that the Alabama Supreme Court and other courts are willingly and knowingly misapplying the law. The implicit premise of such allegations is that the law is indeed cut-and-dry. Although the posters calling out LS are correct, even if one did not accept that, at a bare minimum they show that the law is anything but that which LS claims it is.

legalschnauzer said...

I've given you more leash than you deserve, m.p. But the leash hereby is being tightened. (Do you like my use of "hereby," a big legal term?)

I already can hear you whining now: "Oh, he's cutting me off because I 'disagree' with him." Actually, I'm cutting you off because you are boring. And if you are boring to me, I feel certain you are boring to my readers. In fact, a number of them have told me that you are, in fact, boring to them.

If you want a platform to make the same bogus assertions over and over, you will have to find it somewhere else--or create one of your own.

I started this blog, in part, to help educate the public. I'm not going to allow your misinformation campaign to continue at a place where I have worked six-plus years to build credibility.

One of your ilk has admitted that he/she started attacking my reporting on Cornerstone because I allegedly had made a report about a close, personal friend that he/she "knew for a fact" was false.

First, this commenter likely would have no way of knowing for a fact that my reports on the so-called friend are false. I have friends that date back 30-40 years, and if someone wrote something negative about them, there is only a slight chance that I could say with certainty that I know it's false. And I could say that only if it involved me directly or was an event that I witnessed firsthand.

More importantly, this commenter pretty much admits that all of his/her assertions regarding Cornerstone are skewed by her claims of my false reporting on an unrelated matter.

This commenter is admitting bias, and I suspect that also is present with whoever else is addressing Cornerstone here under the anonymous cloak.

If you or anyone else cares to state your name, affiliation, and contact information--and I am able to speak with you to verify your ID--I will consider allowing future comments.

But until that happens, consider yourself and others like you cut off. You are boring and not very smart, and I am not going to allow my blog to be taken over by such individuals.