Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Judge In Rob Riley's Lawsuit Violates 230 years of U.S. Law To Impose Prior Restraint On Reports

Judge Claud D. Neilson
An Alabama judge's preliminary injunction in a defamation case runs counter to more than 230 years of case law on free speech in the United States.

Circuit Judge Claud D. Neilson issued a ruling dated October 1, 2013, ordering me not to write about certain issues involving Alabama Republican Rob Riley and lobbyist Liberty Duke. Neilson also ordered me to remove certain posts from Legal Schnauzer and went so far as to seal the entire file--with no apparent legal justification--and forbid any reporting on the case.

If all of that sounds unlawful to you, that's because it is. In fact, Neilson's order has to be a contender for one of the most outrageous legal documents in American history. It reads like something that might have originated from a court in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. (If you don't believe me, check out the order that Rob Riley and Judge Neilson don't want you to see, at the end of this post.)

So what is going on? Based on recent press reports and Riley's bizarre actions, it seems clear that he wants my posts to go away so he can pursue the U.S. House seat that Spencer Bachus is vacating. Judge Neilson apparently feels a Rob Riley candidacy is so important that it justifies trashing the U.S. and Alabama constitutions.

Neilson's order is unlawful on probably a half dozen grounds, starting with the fact that the defendants (my wife and me) have not been lawfully served, meaning the court has no jurisdiction over us. For now, we will focus on only one flaw in the Neilson document--that it constitutes a flagrant example of impermissible "prior restraint" on freedom of the press. (For a brief discussion of the relevant legal principles, see video at the end of this post.)

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear on numerous occasions that preliminary injunctions are unlawful in cases alleging any form of defamation (libel or slander). One of the most recent cases is styled Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544 (1993). From the Alexander opinion, authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist:

The term "prior restraint" is used "to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur." M. Nimmer, Nimmer on Freedom of Speech § 4.03, p. 4-14 (1984) (emphasis added). Temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions—i. e., court orders that actually forbid speech activities—are classic examples of prior restraints. . . . This understanding of what constitutes a prior restraint is borne out by our cases. . . . In Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, supra, we invalidated a court order that perpetually enjoined the named party, who had published a newspaper containing articles found to violate a state nuisance statute, from producing any future "malicious, scandalous or defamatory" publication. . . . Near, therefore, involved a true restraint on future speech—a permanent injunction. . . . 

Rehnquist hardly could be characterized as a wild-eyed liberal. Appointed to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon, the late Rehnquist now is seen by many court watchers as a precursor to such right-wing firebrands as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. If Rob Riley can't abide by Rehnquist's findings, it raises serious questions about the Alabamian's conservative "credentials."

Even more background on the bedrock principle of prior restraint can be found in a case that Rehnquist cited in Alexander. It's styled Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), and it involved a state statute that provided for the "abatement" as a public nuisance of any newspaper that was found to produce "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory" content.

The nation's highest court quickly found that the Minnesota statute collided with fundamental constitutional protections:

This statute, for the suppression as a public nuisance of a newspaper or periodical, is unusual, if not unique, and raises questions of grave importance transcending the local interests involved in the particular action. It is no longer open to doubt that the liberty of the press, and of speech, is within the liberty safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action. I

The Supreme Court then unmasked the Minnesota statute, revealing its true intent:

The object of the statute is not punishment, in the ordinary sense, but suppression of the offending newspaper or periodical. . . . This suppression is accomplished by enjoining publication and that restraint is the object and effect of the statute. . . . The statute not only operates to suppress the offending newspaper or periodical but to put the publisher under an effective censorship.

In language that has been in place for 82 years, the Near court goes straight to the mindset of Rob Riley and Judge Neilson in 2013:

When a newspaper or periodical is found to be "malicious, scandalous and defamatory," and is suppressed as such, resumption of publication is punishable as a contempt of court by fine or imprisonment. Thus, where a newspaper or periodical has been suppressed because of the circulation of charges against public officers of official misconduct, it would seem to be clear that the renewal of the publication of such charges would constitute a contempt and that the judgment would lay a permanent restraint upon the publisher, to escape which he must satisfy the court as to the character of a new publication. Whether he would be permitted again to publish matter deemed to be derogatory to the same or other public officers would depend upon the court's ruling.

Are Rob Riley and Judge Neilson trying to engage in unlawful censorship? The language of the Near court leaves no doubt that the answer is yes.

If we cut through mere details of procedure, the operation and effect of the statute in substance is that public authorities may bring the owner or publisher of a newspaper or periodical before a judge upon a charge of conducting a business of publishing scandalous and defamatory matter — in particular that the matter consists of charges against public officers of official dereliction — and unless the owner or publisher is able and disposed to bring competent evidence to satisfy the judge that the charges are true and are published with good motives and for justifiable ends, his newspaper or periodical is suppressed and further publication is made punishable as a contempt. This is of the essence of censorship.

In finding the Minnesota statute unlawful, the Near court notes that its ruling is grounded in state-court cases dating back 150 years. Considering that Near was decided in 1931, that means the opinion has roots in the early 1780s:

The fact that for approximately one hundred and fifty years there has been almost an entire absence of attempts to impose previous restraints upon publications relating to the malfeasance of public officers is significant of the deep-seated conviction that such restraints would violate constitutional right. Public officers, whose character and . . .  conduct remain open to debate and free discussion in the press, find their remedies for false accusations in actions under libel laws providing for redress and punishment, and not in proceedings to restrain the publication of newspapers and periodicals. The general principle that the constitutional guaranty of the liberty of the press gives immunity from previous restraints has been approved in many decisions under the provisions of state constitution.

What's the bottom line? If Rob Riley and Liberty Duke think my reports are false and defamatory, they can try to prove it under existing libel laws. But they cannot seek to restrain my reporting in advance, without any finding that it is defamatory.

As an attorney with a degree from Yale School of Law, Rob Riley surely is familiar with these fundamental legal principles. That he has filed such a lawsuit anyway means he should be subject to serious sanctions, including possible suspension of his bar card. 

Judge Neilson also has to know about prior restraint and its foundations. That he issued a blatantly unlawful order on such a fundamental issue suggests he should be the target of an Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (AJIC) investigation, similar to the one recently launched against Jefferson County Circuit Judge Dorothea Batiste.

The charges against Batiste, which resulted in a three-month suspension, pale in comparison to Neilson's proven actions in the Riley case. Based on the AJIC's actions against Batiste, powerful grounds exist for removing Neilson from the bench.

Batiste, of course, is a black female, while Neilson is a white male. Will skin color protect one judge while it caused another to receive intense scrutiny? Is AJIC a fundamentally racist organization? We might soon find out the answers to the those questions.


ttowntruthseeker said...

I wonder who's footing Miss Liberty's legal bills in pursuing this frivolous legal action? Maybe she's got pro bono legal counseling? Or did I miss something?

Anonymous said...

I just don't understand why these 'retired' judges are brought out of the attic to hear BS cases like this. Aren't there enough Riley-loving ones on the active payroll that we could un-elect for capers like this? Where is the document saying the AL 'Supreme' court appointed this clown?


Anonymous said...

If this law has only been around for 230 years, that's probably not enough time for it to get through Rob Riley's thick skull.

Anonymous said...

I'm trying to do some math. If my history is correct, the country was founded in 1776. If the case law on free speech goes back 230 years or so that means . . . gee, this law only dates from the beginning of the country!

legalschnauzer said...


This is a classic SLAPP suit, with no grounding in fact or law. It's designed to intimidate me into not reporting on the Rob Riley/Liberty Duke affair. It has nothing to do with defamation or justice. It has everything to do with Rob Riley's desire to cover up his sleazy past to run for Spencer Bachus' seat. I feel certain they plan for the intimidation to work, and therefore, Ms. Lib won't have any significant legal expenses.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure the judge from Demopolis figures the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on free speech don't apply to him.

Anonymous said...

Some outstanding legal research here, LS. I keep waiting for some anonymous "lawyer" to write in and say you are wrong.

Anonymous said...

Good Lord, even William Rehnquist says Rob Riley and his bumpkin judge are wrong to the nth degree.

Go back to law school, Junior!

Anonymous said...

Got to give the Supreme Court credit for being able to see into the future, way back in 1931. They anticipated thugs like Rob Riley and Judge Neilson.

Anonymous said...

I'm confused, LS. The document embedded in this post says a temporary restraining order was issued in this case. And it says the Alabama Supreme Court specially appointed Neilson to this case. Were you made aware of any of this? The court seems to be acting as if there is only one party in this proceeding. In fact, of course, there are two.

legalschnauzer said...

You are confused, 9:03, because I'm confused. And we're both confused because the court is acting corruptly. I never received notice of a temporary restraining order, I didn't even have knowledge of the complaint at the time. And I've received zero information about Neilson and why he was appointed. You are right on target about the court acting as if only one party is involved.

Anonymous said...

The more Riley fights the truth the guiltier he looks.

Anonymous said...

I certainly can understand why Riley and Neilson want the record to be sealed. If I were issuing embarrassing documents like this, I would want them sealed, too.

Anonymous said...

My response to all of this . . .

"Neilson Schmeilson!"

Wasn't there a classic album by the name, back in the day?

legalschnauzer said...

You know your 70s music, 9:11.

The album "Nilsson Schmilsson" was released by the late Harry Nilsson in 1971. It produced a number of hits, including the classic "Without You."


Anonymous said...

This is a momentous day: Roger actually is correct about a legal issue for what is surely the first time. The Judge's order is an impermissible prior restraint. Of course, Roger is absolutely and unequivocally wrong on the issue of whether he has been served. You were personally served with the court papers by a deputy sheriff as provided for in rule 4(c)(1) and (i)(1)(C). There is no law that says the deputy can't serve you while also giving you a traffic warning, even if you dispute the basis for the warning (good luck with that). You are on record as having received the papers and thrown them out the window of your car. Instead of appearing in court and arguing against the legality of the Judge's order, you get on your blog and call him a whore. Brilliant!

Anonymous said...

LS...for some reason you didn't post my comments yesterday. I'm a fan of your blog. I'm also a practicing attorney in this State and have been for over 25 years. And I'm a Democrat. Trust me...you've been served. The fact that you threw the papers out of the window after you received them doesn't matter nor how you received them. Service was perfected like it or not. Your continued posts which include copies of the filings prove you've been served. Service is notice and you have more than notice. Now is your chance to "out" Riley through discovery. IF your posts are truthful and you can prove it that is an absolute defense to a libel/slander suit, i.e. Truth and you'll be a hero. If, on the other hand, you can't prove it you're liable and you'll lose all credibility. Stop hiding behind your computer screen and your locked doors and fight this case in Court and start the discovery process, i.e. DEPOSITIONS, etc.

legalschnauzer said...

Talk about brilliant, 9:24 No. 1. Given your analysis, I fully understand why you publish as anonymous.

legalschnauzer said...

Your comment is there now, 9:24 No. 2. I was tied up yesterday evening and was not able to moderate some comments until this morning. It's unfortunate, but real life interferes with blogging sometimes.

Anonymous said...

Glad you ran the photo of Neilson, LS. He looks like a real brain surgeon.

Anonymous said...

I figured I'd get a typical response like that out of you....You, obviously, are afraid of something...maybe the truth? Think I'll just delete LS from my favorites tag and stop reading...Good Luck...think you're going to need it. Oh, and I'm pretty sure you won't post this comment.

legalschnauzer said...

Oh, so you can be a smart ass toward someone, but you can't handle it when the same kind of reply is directed at you?

Sorry to hurt your whittle feelings by stating the truth about your stupid comment.

Anonymous said...

If there was a balloon to show what Judge Neilson was thinking when that photo was shot, here it is:

"I wonder when turkey season starts this year."

Anonymous said...

I never heard of that judge before around "these parts".

Anonymous said...

If your feelings are too sensitive for discussion here, @9:31, go somewhere else.

Your comment is ignorant, so you shouldn't be surprised when someone points that out. LS did it, and I will, too.

Can you cite any law that says it's OK for a deputy to serve papers during a traffic stop, unlawful or otherwise? Of course you can't.

Let's put the burden on you and see how you handle it.

I would be infuriated if a deputy pulled that stunt on me, and I suspect you would be, too--except you aren't honest enough to admit it.

And it's not just a matter of being mad. It's a civil rights violation. Traffic stops are for traffic violations. You don't detain someone with no legal grounds to do so.

If you don't understand that, you are clinically ignorant.

legalschnauzer said...

They imported him from Demopolis. I guess even the regular judicial thugs in Shelby County are embarrassed to be involved with Rob Riley's charade.

Anonymous said...

If there was any doubt about the accuracy of your reports on Rob and Liberty, there are no doubts anymore.

Rob and Neilson wouldn't be pulling these stunts if the story wasn't true.

Anonymous said...

If there was any doubt about the accuracy of your reports on Rob and Liberty, there are no doubts anymore.

Rob and Neilson wouldn't be pulling these stunts if the story wasn't true.

Tony said...

It boggles the mind that anyone would seriously argue the Shelby County deputy acted lawfully in serving these papers.

The issue here is detainment. When an officer stops someone for an alleged traffic stop, he detains that person, limits their movement, deprives them of freedom (at least temporarily). That is not to be done lightly, without probable cause that a traffic violation has been committed.

There is nothing in the law that says it's proper to detain someone in order to serve court papers.

Hell, at election time, you could have deputies stopping people and saying, "Oh, by the way, here's a pamphlet for you to vote for Sheriff Jones. He's our boss, and we want you to vote for him. And please watch your speed."

Unknown said...

25 year attorney practicing in AL and a button to your favorite LS site, well one of the blogs you are fond of,

You are just full of your own words of utter and complete contempt for the idea of intelligent.

Glad you're not coming back here.

Come to my blog, I'll have some words for you to swallow and then you can pretend you got head.

Unknown said...


These words are the real issue. There was not PROBABLE CAUSE to stop Mr. and Mrs. Schnauzer and so, the Schnauzers indeed have a CIVIL RIGHTS Section 1983, and any dumb 25 year practicing attorney not knowing this TRESPASS VIOLATION is a moron that was sent to LS to do what the moronic imbeciles do that destroys the idea of civilized.

Due Process Law is you must be properly served.

Using the Sheriff because the poor jerk won't work if not, is a violation of the TRUST in our system of the office of 'Sheriff'.

The desperate are desperately doing whatever the desperate do when they're caught in desperate acts of pure desperation.

Anonymous said...

HOW CAN A RETIRED JUDGE order you to do something. Who pays him THE RILEY'S????? The courts going to let him report to work one day and sit behind the bench and he is retired?

AND is he going after the hundred's that have shared your blog to others... you know he could piss off your readers and they could make it go viral.. SO DOES THAT MEAN everyone of them will be sued?

Anonymous said...

Witnessed nationally the obvious concerned Alabamians for incorruptible government publicly which has risen, especially, ever since the Canary/Rove, Riley/Pryor orchestrated late night manipulating the outcome for the 2002 governor's race, denying Siegelman his outright win, or win by recount.

Now a little over ten years past, what does appear? Is it KARL ROVE? Yes! On or about the night of October 6th, speaking before the seventh annual dinner meeting of the Tuscaloosa Lincoln-Regan group.

Whose dime is KARL ROVE flying on?
Has Bill called ROVE back in again for the Riley's? Has Strange already been issued his preliminary instructions and denials ROVE, as apparently Pryor did.
One can only wonder the scope of ROVE conversations with "Republican" leaders [the riley machine]; about Spencer's replacement, Rob and what is it about some small dog who has been found out to have a large dog's growl and bite when seeking out facts and truths involving equal rights, protections, due processes.

To underestimate this canine's friends may very well come around to bite someone believed free from exposures; whereby exposing them publicly and providing a venue to do so via any all litigations which may be styled in matters ID as Murph.

When Riley left office, the Mobile Press Register printed Riley as saying, paraphrasing, the era of corruption is over. Whomever the reporter; if Eddie Curran, believed that, would believe,
is gullible enough to believe anything.

Anonymous said...

LS, its time you and Mrs Schnauzer adopted a few pitbulls and im not joking! These thugs will be breaking into your home, automobiles and do whatever tgey can to make sure any evidence you have wont make it to court! I speak from experience! And make sure you have copies of everything on your person when you leave home for safe keeping! Im serious! Good Luck Mr & Mrs S! Prayers to you both! Screw you Riley and the rest of the scum! We know who you really are!

Anonymous said...

Roger, you have an excellent lawsuit against the judge who issued the restraining order. Generally, judges are immune from civil suit for acts taken as judges. This is because a judge should not have to wonder every time he makes a ruling whether a disgruntled litigant will file a bogus suit against him.

However, in your case this does not apply. When a judge issues a ruling for which he has no jurisdiction, such as the prior restraint order in your case, he very well may be subject to suit.

Prior restraint of the press is now a well settled area of the law. The court had no jurisdiction to issue the order against you.

Sue the judge! You have a good case. Sue the lawyer for obtaining an illegal court order!

Anonymous said...

I trust you've filed all the proper complaints in this?

Attorney General Holder, US Marshal, AL BAR, ABA, et al.

You must 'exhaust all your remedies' and the Complaint Process is critical because the law stipulates that the law is supreme and these people have violated the US Constitution and the AL Constitution so they must be reported to the proper authorities for the sake of all US Citizens' rights' to be protected.

Best of luck in getting a huge petition because that would certainly teach the lawbreakers the law lesson of respect.

Anonymous said...

I guess this is not news? This case has major implications. Please, someone in the "mainstream" news, cover this. I am scared about the future.

legalschnauzer said...

You should be concerned about the future, @11:48. If this holds, the future will include baseless traffic stops to file papers in bogus lawsuits, with groundless preliminary injunctions to thwart free speech and force journalists to jail.

Anonymous said...

I think George Orwell saw this coming.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it ironic that Judge Neilson issued this order in the name of someone named "Liberty"?

Anonymous said...

According to 9:31, it would be fair to assume a rape victim deserved it and shouldnt speak out, a muder victim's family should not seek justice and the cilvilian pop as a whole are just "in the way of progress". Right 9:31???? So i have to wonder 9:31, have you molested any children lately, raped anyone male or female or aided in those acts by protecting the pedofile cult of Alabama???? Im itching to know 9:31?

Anonymous said...

10/8 @ 11:01, I concur.

My understanding is Judges can indeed be sued. Granted, the immunity is used, however, not in the U.S. Constitution's protection of the 'individual right' and that is, NO MONEY to be demanded, simply the RIGHT -that wasn't honored.

The Judge took jurisdiction, where he does not, not only not have jurisdiction, but he's obviously a corrupt person with a history of ? just like the corrupt are in BIG ALABAMA, where Rove was to cement the puss pond scum of what it is.

Chaos has now become the whirlwind in Alabama and the grim reaper is cleaning up the dead.

Those that chose to kill our US Constitution are deserving of reaping the fruits of their corruption.

"... The nation’s founders understood the threat of corruption in politics and were preoccupied with combating it. The government should be dependent on “the great body of the people,” James Madison wrote, and not “an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it.” If the court is going to help protect American politics from becoming little more than “a disagreement among rich people,” as one observer put it, it should follow its own precedent and uphold the overall contribution limit...."

RE: Citizen's United


Anonymous said...

That is the agenda.

New World Order is to keep the little nicking away at our rights'.

One cut at a time and then the thousands of tiny nicks bleed the body dry.

Think letting this get an OK is OK!?

Think the British have just broken into -- Roger and Carol -- a clear trespass in their property that was and is protected by the law, but the British don't care because they want what Carol and Roger have, clearly. And the Brits don't want to be other than the most powerful 'cliche' in the waters and lands of earth.

It's relative. Quantum Physics. Done to the Legal Schnauzers and done to all.

The LS happen to be the Patrick Henry and Betsy Ross, so get with the program those that aren't insane from the criminal fear of thinking the money is real.

Get in assembly with LS, or get in line to be the next victims of the corruption. The corrupt don't feel any remorse, no guilt and absolutely not one spark of a conscience. The brain is broken and the mind is lost.

Time for the revolution.

Anonymous said...

LS, its time to start digging into this judge's finances! Something tells me IOLTAs are at work too!

Anonymous said...

What are IOLTA's?

Anonymous said...

LS, you've written a lot of powerful posts, but this might be the most important one you've written yet.

Readers should make copies and send to every school principal in the state and ask that this subject be taught to children.

This is basic democracy being attacked, and young people need to wake up to what is going on.

Anonymous said...

genius 12:42PM

absolutely the way to the tap root of the problem,

also, fax every law school across the usa, get the fax # for the school of law at the univ and send a bulletin to the law students looking for the case to make an important going forward in their future power in due process rule of law.

Anonymous said...

I think it's safe to say Riley and Neilson figured you wouldn't be familiar with the law on prior restraint.

Anonymous said...

IOLTA's are how the crooks exchange cash. Client trust accounts.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of your opinion, if you do not go to court and defend yourself, and if you continue to flaunt court orders, no matter how bad they are, you are going to get yourself thrown in jail.

If you do not like the order, go to court and get it set aside.

You have been served whether you like it or not. If you contest service, file a motion to quash.

The court does not care what your personal feelings are, the court cares what is in the file, and that is apparently that you have been served. You are digging yourself a hole you may not be able to get out of by refusing to defend yourself in court.

Finally, if you look at Rule 65, a Preliminary injunction hearing only requires notice. it does not require that notice be given a set amount of time before the hearing.

The fact that you were served with notice, even if you think it was void, and knew about the hearing but chose not to go because you thought the notice was too close in time to the hearing will not get you much slack.

I strongly advise you to find a competent attorney. Apparently you have kicked over a hornet's nest, and these guys are coming after you hard. Defend yourself in court, or you could lose everything you have. The longer you wait, the worse it will get.

Anonymous said...

Tragic the law has come to the point about Iraq and Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine.

The criminals get paid to destroy the rule of law and the craziest get the government pay to do exactly what the monsters tell the brain dead to do.

No getting the real deep hole being dug fully exposed, the compromised due to some deep lurking something are terrified.

Doesn't stop the corrupt in the smug proud job to be corrupt.

"... The Tomb ~ It is an unfortunate fact that the bulk of humanity is too limited in its mental vision to weigh with patience and intelligence those isolated phenomena, seen and felt only by a psychologically sensitive few, which lie outside its common experience. Men of broader intellect know that there is no sharp distinction betwixt the real and the unreal; that all things appear as they do only by virtue of the delicate individual physical and mental media through which we are made conscious of them; but the prosaic materialism of the majority condemns as madness the flasher of supersight which penetrate the common veil of obvious empricism ...."

HP Lovecraft

Roger and Carol, keep your supersights prosaic beyond the corrupted materialists that are condemned to madness not in the power of the flasher as is the spirit of MURPHY, and y'all.


David in S. Alabama said...

Interesting the first case cite in this opinion is Barber v. Cornerstone which concerns a preliminary injunction against Bingo Bob's Illegal Gambling Task Force headed by David Barber that had raided a Bingo Parlor at Whitehall, AL. The word was that Barber, a former DA, couldn't write the legal briefs to appeal to the St. Supreme Ct. so they called in Rob Riley's brother-in-law who is in one the big Birmingham law firms that LS writes about. Another rumor is that one of the justices on the St. Supreme Ct. allowed this same Bingo Bob so.-in-law to write3 the opinion of the court. Shelby Co. judge cites this case inferring that the preliminary injunction had to do with defamatory language. Read and see if you can where says this. I couldn't.

During the time Bingo Bob was chasing bingo operators, Rob Riley and his law partner formed a corp. with the Crimsonica gang in Tuscaloosa and Milton McGregor to promote gambling in Russia.

Anonymous said...

:To Anonymous @10:41 a.m....Karl Rove was here today in Tuscaloosa where he was the guest speaker...saw it in the newspaper

Anonymous said...

L.S. Call Joe Blackburn at Samford. Ask him to invite the law students there to debate the merits of this case....like NOW....you might get some interesting ideas for your case from these students and their conversations with their professors.

Humanoid Figure said...

You are right to be concerned about the future. Special judges are unelected and unaccountable, possibly violating the voting rights act, but not necessarily your enemy Either. In the 28th Century, the Bill of Rights is now repealed because good people in the 21st failed to speak up. It is your job to restore the Bill of Rights to the timeline.

Humanoid Figure said...

The Bill Pryor photos have weakened the position of the neo-nazis on the 22nd Century Front of the Temporal Cold War. Now, Bring me everything you know about all Dixiecrat judges, especially Roy Moore & Tom Parker. What did they know about the 20th Century death of Rex Minor & when did they know it?

Anonymous said...

IOLTAS, btw are the monies that the BAR had heard twice in front of SCOTUS. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of PROTECTING THEIR IOLTAS.

It is the money taken into the coffers of the attorneys and deposited in the accounts called "CLIENT TRUST" [CTA].

The Client Trust receives interest on the 'money'. Who gets the interest? The argument was to SCOTUS that the 'client' should be entitled to the interest gained on the CTA.

Well as imagined SCOTUS was not in favor of other than the 'legal tribe' controlling all the so called 'money' in the CTAs.

So we get the big fat lie. Madison said the courts needed protecting from being a forum where the 'rich' in the USA fought with the 'rich' and the little people get screwed.

The system is an APARTHEID. When you take the money and make the money digital but, some have to pay debt on this and others that make this system do not. Then add the language to get into a system of supposed laws and 'argue' to PAY for our 'rights'. This is an apartheid because we know which faction is held in contempt and which faction is the South African model and worse than SA, America's systems are all very evil and in control of destroying the law.

The systems in America should have protected Legal Schnauzer and certainly Don Siegelman.

Rather, the apartheid did what it did in SA, destroyed the rights' of Don and yours' and call it legal.

legalschnauzer said...

Please contact me, @3:19. My personal e-mail is on front page of blog--rshuler3156@gmail.com