Monday, October 7, 2013

AL Republican Rob Riley Resorts to Intimidation Campaign To Clean Up His Record For Run at Spencer Bachus' Seat

Rob Riley
New court documents suggest Alabama Republican Rob Riley has filed a defamation lawsuit against me in an intimidation campaign designed to clean up his record for a run at the U.S. House seat that Spencer Bachus is vacating.

My wife and I received documents in the mail on Saturday indicating Riley is seeking to have us held in contempt of court for reporting last Thursday on the lawsuit he has filed against us in Shelby County Circuit Court. Riley claims we have violated a preliminary injunction, with which we have not been served and for which we were not a party to any hearing.

Never mind that my wife and I have not been lawfully served with Riley's complaint, so the court has no jurisdiction over us. We only found out about the case when Shelby County deputy Mike DeHart violated any number of federal and state laws when he conducted a bogus traffic stop in order to "serve" us with the Riley papers. Also, never mind that the "prior restraint" doctrine, which grows out of the First Amendment right to free speech, generally forbids preliminary injunctions in defamation cases. (See video at the end of this post; the previous link is to an article by conservative legal scholar Eugene Volokh, author of the well-known blog The Volokh Conspiracy.)

What's the bottom line when someone seeks to hold a reporter in contempt of court? Rob Riley essentially is seeking to have my wife and me arrested for practicing journalism.

Yellowhammer News, a prominent conservative Web site, already has placed Riley's name among the likely candidates to seek Bachus' seat. But Riley's transparently thuggish tactics in the Legal Schnauzer lawsuit indicate he has utter disregard for the rule of law--meaning he is not fit to serve in any public office, much less the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Alabama Supreme Court assigned Claud D. Neilson, a retired judge from Demopolis, to hear Riley's claim. That indicates the case is so dirty that even the notoriously corrupt judges in Shelby County wanted no part of it. That's like having a trash can that is so filthy even a possum won't turn it over.

In Neilson, Riley seems to have found a judge who agrees with his Orwellian view of postmodern America. In the Riley/Neilson version of the United States, a journalist can be forbidden from writing on a subject--and be forced to remove all articles he's already written on a subject--even though no court of law has found the reports to be defamatory.

Based on documents we received in the mail Saturday, Neilson sees Alabama as a backwater out of Stalin's Soviet Union or Hitler's Germany, a place where the notion of a "free press" does not exist. In truth, Neilson probably knows his orders are unlawful, but he is a glorified prostitute for the Riley family, headed by former two-term Governor Bob Riley (2002-2010) and his horde of Karl Rove-connected acolytes, so he figures black-letter law can be ignored.

Like many Alabamians, the Rileys probably were caught off guard by Bachus' announcement last Monday that he would not seek re-election in Alabama's 6th Congressional District, which he has represented for more than two decades.

Our guess is that the Rileys got a five- or six-day heads up on the general public--after all, Bob Riley served in Congress from 1997 to 2003--and that coincides with the arrival of Shelby County deputies trampling on our property and pounding on our door at all hours. Mrs. Schnauzer and I thought they were trying to conduct an unlawful search warrant, based on my recent reports about photos of U.S. Judge Bill Pryor that appeared at the gay-porn Web site in the 1990s. We now know the deputies were trying to serve us with papers in the Rob Riley lawsuit, which apparently was hurriedly prepared in an effort to present the kind of "family values" face the public will expect in Spencer Bachus' successor.

Who is likely to make up the competition for Bachus' seat. In addition to Rob Riley, Yellowhammer lists Alabama GOP chairman Bill Armistead, State Sen. Scott Beason, State Sen. Slade Blackwell, Commerce Secretary Greg Canfield, Jefferson County Commissioner David Carrington, State Rep. Paul DeMarco, former State Sen. Steve French, Jefferson County Manager Tony Petelos, Orthopedic Surgeon Chad Mathis, State Sen. Cam Ward, and State Rep. Jack Williams. Yellowhammer says Petelos is unlikely to run, and Ward and Williams already have announced that they don't plan to run.

Among the other candidates, Riley clearly has the most name recognition. That means he is likely to be a force in the race, especially if he can keep his many ethical lapses out of public view. That clearly is what the lawsuit against me is designed to accomplish.

Why is Rob Riley pushing Judge Neilson to seal the case and forbid press coverage? For the moment, that probably is designed to make sure his likely GOP opponents don't know what he's up to. Most of those candidates, sources tell us, already know about the Liberty Duke affair and do not want our reporting on the subject to be forced underground.

Spencer Bachus
How over the top are Rob Riley's actions in the Legal Schnauzer lawsuit? Consider this portion of the preliminary injunction, which has Judge Neilson's signature at the end but probably was written by Riley or a member of his firm:

In an effort to further limit the dissemination of Respondents' [the Shulers'] libelous statements, this Court has previously ordered that all filings, pleadings, and exhibits filed in these cases shall be filed under seal and that their contents shall not be published--either in writing or orally--in any medium to any third party. Accordingly, Respondents shall not publish or cause to be published in any medium--either in writing or orally--this Order, any filings, pleadings, and exhibits filed in these cases, or of the contents of said filings, pleadings, and exhibits.
In entering the Preliminary Injunction, the Court is mindful that Respondents have, as of the date of the hearing on the respective Petitions for Preliminary Injunction, not complied with the TRO (temporary restraining order). The Court is also mindful that Respondents re-published the libelous and defamatory statements about Petitioners on "Legal Schnauzer" on October 1, 2013. The Respondents are forewarned that the court will not tolerate non-compliance with its orders.

It's a matter of public record that we never were served with a copy of any TRO. And we were given insufficient notice about the so-called preliminary injunction hearing, so we did not attend.

That noise you hear is the sound of Rob Riley and Judge Neilson flushing the U.S. Constitution--plus years of U.S. Supreme Court rulings on prior restraint--down the toilet.

Is the public going to stand for this?

(To be continued)


James Greek said...

I know I won't! I would not vote for Rob Riley for mayor or dog catcher! He does not deserve a term in congress! He deserves a term in federal prison! Perhaps sharing a cell with his dad!

Wayne said...

The residents of Alabama better wake up and not elect Rob Riley. But you know how it will go, they will vote on his name only not knowing any of his background. Sad.

Anonymous said...

I have lost faith in both parties that control our gov't, no trust at all. I like to search out the news myself. This is how I have found you and this blog. I'm not sure that I believe you 100% either, but since I have nothing in my heart but contempt for the republican party, I so want everything you have said to be true. However, I am very alarmed when I hear you say that the legal process that you are now a part of is a joke. I hope to read very soon that you have a lawyer and will do everything he/she tells you to do. Just saying that you are not under control of the court or the legal process does not make it true. They will put you under the jail and will not care if you or I think it was fair or right. I still have a little hope that our court system will work in a fair way, but you have to get on their playing field in order to win your case. The game has started and I have to believe you knew it would when you starting writing about Mr Riley, so it is time for you to suit up and get in there to kick some ass. I am sure you know some of your rights under the legal process but inside the court room is where you make your case. Just saying you were not served in a legal way does not make it so, make your case to the judge. If we do don't fight for our rights then they will take them away. We need people like you today more than at any other time in history. Most of our news people have sold out to the highest bidder from the left or right. Please tell me you understand all this and that you have a game plan that has a good lawyer as your star quarterback. If what you have said is the truth and you have the proof then I have to believe you will be able to find several good lawyers that still believe in our legal system that will help in this fight. Do not try this on your own. Your talents are bring this news to the public. Now let the lawyers do their job of keeping you in business. If and I do not want to believe this, but you have no proof of what you said about Mr Riley then you do need to be put out of business. I do not want to add you to my list of all the others who do not tell the truth. I don't have money just to give away, but I will try and come up with some to give to a lawyer, but only after I see one who believes in you and your case. Good Luck, Ricco Pitts .

Anonymous said...

Rob Riley is a spoiled little rich boy who thinks he is entitled to use the courts to get his way.

Anonymous said...

Hey, @6:50, can you cite a single example where lawyers got involved with a problem and made it better. In my experience, and from reading LS from almost the beginning, lawyers almost always make problems worse.

Anonymous said...

Under what rock did they find this Judge Neilson?

Anonymous said...

If Rob Riley and Liberty Duke did not have an affair, why do they want to keep their defamation case secret? If I could prove that a reporter wrote false and defamatory stuff about me, I would want it out there for the whole world to see.

Raymond said...

What makes Rob Riley think he is qualified to serve in Congress. We will stipulate the bar is awfully low--as Spencer Bachus has proven--but Rob Riley? Good God!

Anonymous said...

@6:50, your advice seems to be, "Hire a corrupt lawyer to help you navigate a corrupt system."

That doesn't sound like very good advice to me. I know I wouldn't follow it. I think LS is too smart to follow it.

Anonymous said...

Yellowhammer came up with one heck of an "impressive" list of candidates for the Bachus seat. Lord, Rob Riley has a legit shot in the that crowd.

Anonymous said...

Great advice about getting a lawyer. A lawyer would tell Roger that he HAS been legally served and that the only "fraud" that can vitiate service is when a party has been fraudulently induced to come into the forum jurisdiction. Nothing like that here. Of course, there are two problems with Roger hiring a lawyer: He is unemployed with no prospects of getting a job; and he has a record of suing every lawyer who has ever represented him in all his many previous (failed) lawsuits. Not likely to find any lawyer that would take the case.

Anonymous said...

Agreed, @8:01. I would be passing out documents at the courthouse door if I could prove a reporter had defamed me.

Anonymous said...

Hell, out of that Yellowhammer list, Liberty Duke stands a good chance of being elected.

Unknown said...

Ricco Pitts you are naive. You think the courts can actually do a job that the courts are too corrupt to do.

The papers have to be served properly, a Temporary Restraining Order [TRO] wasn't served.

Alabama and Oregon and name a state that has not done the best it can in destroying LAW.

Federal Reserve System [Fed] is the problem. When we ignore this problem there is nothing but, an exacerbation of the problems.

Legal Schnauzer isn't big enough to beak to beak and toe to toe with the Fed.

That's who the Riley cult are tight with and every corrupt politician in the USA.

The Fed is our nemesis and how do we stand against this?

All of US 'CITIZENS' have the absolute DUTY, to become our own lawyers and demand accountability in Article I, Section IX, Clause VII. We get our force together in a unified action against the fraudulent money paying the corrupted frauds to destroy the U.S. Constitution's due process rule of law.

DUE PROCESS JUDGES IN AL. A detail in the U.S. Constitution which stipulates the COURT IS IN CONTEMPT OF THE LAW.

So all in Alabama write and now I go and do my writing to the top lawmakers in the country, was going there anyway since the WHISTLEBLOWER on furlough at the IRS told us all what to do in the FORBES magazine interview regarding the fraudulent shut-down via the corruptest government the USA has ever experienced.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers are LIEYWERS for the majority and that is the real problem in the USA. When the real lawyers get, that 'their' law school sold them on being attorneys due to the WALL STREET future retirement portfolios, then it should get interesting in America.

Already has begun. Young have sued, a woman 30ish sued her school in San Fran, BIG law school and the lawsuit is exactly about the naivete of those that were duped via Wall Street's LIES to get lots of bubble build up in whatever fraudulent inducement to transfer wealth.

Roger doesn't need a 'lawyer' because those were only before the 1970s, and up to thorough the 1975 era. BUT THEY DIDN'T GET THE MONEY FRAUD EITHER, and then the Civil Rights and other GOOD LAW was omitted.

I was a person who helped set up the TECHNOLOGY in the 1980s, for the Oregon State and thus, the BARS in the USA, after working in the 1960s, DOS in setting up BANKS technology.

So you see the real problem is no real lawyers and that is the way it was meant to be.

Best be our own lawyers, it is much better to be the true LAW like LS, than the FRAUD.

BAR EXAMS IN THE 1980S, were not anything like the exams in the early years.

The Fed owns the schools, all. Roger understands this perfectly well, he is unemployed because of the Fed and all are going to be the Fed's booty before the train gets into the station SHOULD WE NOT do our part and demand this clear destroy JOURNALISM that has awakened the people that were comatose in AL, be held to the highest standards of due process.


TLR said...

Why don't you give us your name and contact information, 8:31, so we can determine whether your statements regarding the law are valid? You use a big legal term like "vitiate," but as a regular reader here, that doesn't much impress me. I want to know what kind of credentials you possess. Please share, if you wish to be taken seriously.

Anonymous said...

On this bright, crisp fall morning here in Alabama, let those who dare to look into void consider the following and decide for themselves what lies ahead for us: "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit" (Federalist No. 51, James Madison & Alexander Hamilton).

Unknown said...

Seasoned CBS News Anchor: “Whenever I’m Asked What Is The Most Manipulative And Secretive Administration I’ve Covered, I Always Say It’s The One In Office Now”

American constitutional experts say that Obama is worse than Nixon.

The government has taken to protecting criminal wrongdoing by attacking whistleblowers … and any journalists who have the nerve to report on the beans spilled by the whistleblowers. (The government has also repealed long-standing laws against using propaganda against Americans on U.S. soil, and the government is manipulating social media – more proof here and here).

>>VITIATE<< means simply to make immoral and it is a very technical term of art which JUDGES definitely perk up the ears when heard the word, so the target is right on point to the person who used the word to then insult Roger.

ttowntruthseeker said...

At least miss Liberty was never called a "glorified prostitute"!

Anonymous said...

Got to agree with Judge Neilson on one thing: Alabama is a backwater out of Stalinist Russia.

Anonymous said...

What makes Rob Riley think he is entitled to have a case that he filed in a public court be decided in private?

Did "Diddy" tell him that's the way it's done in "Allah--Buhm--ah"?

legalschnauzer said...

Riley claims in court documents that Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1(c) "allows courts of this state to order that case filings be made under seal to protect the privacy of parties."

Here is URL to that rule, and you can see that's not exactly what it says:

Anonymous said...


Roger isn't a presstitute

He is a real journalist,

"... Journalism is not only being criminalized in America, but investigative reporting is actually treated liketerrorism.

The government admits that journalists could be targeted with counter-terrorism laws (and here). For example, after Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges, journalist Naomi Wolf, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and others sued the government to enjoin the NDAA’s allowance of the indefinite detention of Americans – the judge asked the government attorneys 5 times whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then writing about bad guys. The government refused to promise that journalists like Hedges won’t be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of their lives without any right to talk to a judge

After the government’s spying on the Associated Press made it clear to everyone that the government is trying to put a chill journalism, the senior national-security correspondent for Newsweek tweeted:

Serious idea. Instead of calling it Obama’s war on whistleblowers, let’s just call it what it is: Obama’s war on journalism.

Murphy Spirit Coalition surround the Alpha Dogs Roger and Carol and get'em

Get in touch with senior national security correspondent, Chris Hedges, Et Al

Anonymous said...

Liberty Duke is not Rob Riley's only mistress. There is another one, and she lives in a state to the south of Alabama, one known for its sun and beaches.

Anonymous said...

I think you nailed it, LS. Rob's main concern is to keep this legal case away from the prying eyes of his GOP primary competitors. Dems probably won't even put up a viable candidate, so Rob knows it's going to be all about the primary.

Anonymous said...

The way I read the section of the order quoted here, this judge is threatening to arrest any journalist who reports on this case.

This is insanity, even by Alabama standards.

Anonymous said...

You need to contact the ACLU about his case. It is a blatant violation of your first amendment rights.

Anonymous said...

If Rob Riley graduated from Yale Law, and he participates in a case like this . . . what on earth are they teaching at Yale?

Anonymous said...

If Rob Riley is elected to Congress, you can bet he eventually will give up the seat to run for governor, just like "Diddy" did it.

Anonymous said...

I can't wait for all the ads touting Rob Riley's "family values." We'd all better stock up on vomit bags now, before they sell out.

Anonymous said...

USA "Judicial" is beyond desperate.

The journalism is actually just begun in the real time.

So many poor Americans were destroyed during this time for being 'conspiracy nuts'.

Nucking Futters the politicians and the entire tribe of what is considered the 'Legal'.

As this gets worse for the people in the USA that are human filth violators of the trust, it gets a lot worse for those (LS) who are so fed up with the trash, that life and liberty and pursuit of real happiness is well worth the good god blessed fight.

God Bless the Legal Schnauzer Blog and all the supporters for being in the light of our future.

Anonymous said...

Memo to Rob Riley:

If you don't want a journalist to write about your sleazy activities, don't engage in sleazy activities.

Anonymous said...

I can't figure this one out, LS. Why didn't Rob Riley file his defamation claim back in January/February, when you first started writing about it?

Anonymous said...

The most amazing thing about this to me is the judge's decision to seal the case file. That's nuts.

Anonymous said...

As an experienced prostitute, I must object to your comparison of those in my profession to a judge. That's really hitting below the belt, and I won't stand for it!

Anonymous said...

Levin's anti-alcohol crusade proved to be excellent preparation for his next cause, a campaign against Catholic political power, which he carried on in two papers, the Native American and The Daily Sun. Initially the main political issue was a 1843 public school ruling permitting Catholic children to be excused from Bible-reading class (because the Protestant King James Version was being used). Levin became the leader and chief spokesman for a start-up political movement calling itself the American Republican Party (later the Native American Party). Between May and July 1844 he gave speeches and led public demonstrations in Kensington and Southwark, leading to the looting and burning of several dozen houses, businesses and religious buildings. Levin and his colleague Samuel R. Kramer (publisher of the Native American) were arrested and fined for "exciting to riot and treason" in inciting locals to invade and burn several Catholic churches and a convent.[5]

LS, do some research on this guy, he was the one who pretended to be this 'liberal' and sure enough he was smart, he got all the religious nuts in USA to fight against one another while he carefully constructed the gulag of what was and is owned now called zionist america.

the degenerates are scared and dangerous, don't let 'em see you sweat, and get the Gov House Reform Elijah Cummings involved

Anonymous said...

According to friends of Wallace, his last words early on Friday were “I am free. I am free.”

"He completed that mission," longtime friend Parnell Herbert told the Times Picayune. "And he was able to see himself a free man. He passed away peacefully in his sleep."

Notwithstanding this, supporters of Wallace say they will press on to ensure freedom for Woodfox and reform for the American prison system.



Anonymous said...

I never comment on these blogs but felt compelled on this subject. LS you really need to heed Ricco Pitts' advice. I have practiced law in this State for over 25 years and run a very successful, primarily Plaintiff's practice. I enjoy reading your blog daily. Please trust me on this....under the laws of the State of Alabama (and most other States)...You've been served. The fact that you're reciting, verbatim, language from the filings proves that you've been served. Service equals notice and you have more than notice. You're welcome to disagree with me, but you do so at your own peril. You can't hide behind your computer screen or keep yourself locked up in your house claiming you haven't been served therefore there is no case. Hire an attorney and fight this in court. If you have all of the proof of which you right that is an ABSOLUTE DEFENSE to libel and slander...PERIOD. If not, you're liable. This is the perfect opportunity to conduct full-out discovery, including Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production of Documents, DEPOSITIONS, etc., etc. Don't run from this. Good Luck!!

Anonymous said...

When the saying 'we are what we eat' gets to be deeply discussed by the human population, the so called food is a grim reaper's reward at best.

But the so called 'Justice' and other words said: 'Truth', 'Honesty', Integrity', and 'Trust', these are what supposedly the practitioners of our 'US Constitution Law' and the BILL OF RIGHTS, not this small backwards underhanded low down dirty filthy no good self righteousness.

The sanctimonious seamy sleazy really think they're not seen.

Russia's style is definitely here in the Alabama corrupt. What is the lineage trace, think that should be carefully researched.

Anonymous said...

My two thoughts:

1) Although I think that LS is generally way off base in his assertions about legal matters, and that he can be somewhat disingenuous in his posts, he is correct regarding the TRO/preliminary injunction. Prior restraints are only permitted in a few very narrow circumstances, and I do not believe this is one of them. That being said, however, does not mean that the judge or legal system is corrupt because...

2) It is no one's job except for LS's to argue his case in court. There is an old saying that "bad facts make bad law." The situation here is somewhat analogous. America operates on an adversarial system. That means it is the job of the parties, not the court, to spar with each other. People can, and do, lose cases all the time that they "should" have won. They do it because they make the wrong legal arguments or fail to make the correct ones.

LS is probably correct in guessing that someone at Riley's firm drafted the order. So what? It is the job of the defendant to show up and present his case. If LS had shown up and actually argued that prior restraints violate the First Amendment, he probably would have gotten the motion denied. As it was, however, LS was a no show. When parties don't show up, 99% of the time the judge will grant the motion sought without giving the merits of the motion a second thought. It does not mean that they are a legal "prostitute" (btw - if one is looking for a good way to get on the bad side of a judge, do what LS is doing). It means that in an adversarial system, the court is not going to take it upon themselves to make the argument that the absent party should have made...that is not their job (note that it is only in very rare circumstances where an injunction would be "wrong" per se - they are typically discretionary). That is not to say that the ruling here was correct, or that it would not be struck down on appeal. It is more in the way of: "What did LS expect when he decided not to show up?"

LS has been properly served in this case (he seems to be asserting that his service is somehow invalidated or some sort of thing, but he has not, and cannot, offer authority to support that assertion). LS was noticed about this hearing (I would be interested to hear how the notice was "inadequate"). LS did not show up. Therefore LS lost. It is that simple. No more, no less. If LS wants to have the injunction lifted, he probably can...But to do so, he will have to make his own argument. No one is going to do it for him.

Anonymous said...

Renfroe Bob Riley's middle name.

Renfroe Cherokee, too.

legalschnauzer said...

You don't have a clue what you are talking about, 7:35. Why should any citizen expect a court to rule lawfully in a case where it can't even get it correct on simple service of process? If you think it's lawful for a deputy to serve court papers during a traffic stop, lawful or unlawful, you need to return to law school, or wherever you came from. I didn't appear for the "hearing" because I wasn't lawfully served--and anyone who reads Rule 4 ARCP knows that. Furthermore, even with proper service, I was not given lawful notice, which I will be showing in an upcoming post.

legalschnauzer said...

If you do in fact read this blog regularly, 3:18, you should know that I look up relevant law for myself--and I encourage my readers to do the same. I don't have to "trust" anyone to know what the law is. If you think lawful service is only about "notice," I would suggest you read the very lengthy Rule 4 ARCP to see that it is about much more than that. If I read something on the Web or find a document in my driveway or in the trash, I might have notice. I can even write about it here. It doesn't mean I've been served. If you believe otherwise, you aren't much of a lawyer.

BTW, no one has said I'm running from this. But I expect the law to be followed, starting with service of process.