Thursday, October 10, 2013

Riley Tries To Hold Legal Schnauzer In Contempt Of Court On Preliminary Injunction That Doesn't Exist Under Law

Judge Claud Neilson
Alabama Republican Rob Riley has filed documents that seek to have me held in contempt of court for violating a preliminary injunction related to certain posts at this blog.

Under Alabama law, however, no preliminary injunction exists because we were not given proper notice of a hearing on the matter. In fact, Riley's own court documents prove that no lawful injunction exists.

How do we know? It's spelled out in an Alabama Supreme Court case styled Southern Homes, AL v. Bermuda Lakes, LLC, 57 So. 3d 100 (Ala., 2010)  As you can see, the ruling was issued in 2010, so it's not ancient law. A Yale Law School graduate like Rob Riley should be able to find it. But apparently that kind of research is beyond Mr. Riley's legal skills--and those of retired Circuit Judge Claud Neilson, who issued the injunction.

The Southern Homes case involved a preliminary injunction that a circuit judge issued related to the development of 87 acres in Madison County, near Huntsville. The order enjoined Southern Homes from taking any action related to its dispute with Bermuda. But the Alabama Supreme Court found the preliminary injunction was unlawful because Southern Homes did not receive sufficient notice of a hearing, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP). From the opinion:

Southern Homes argues, among other things, that it received insufficient notice under Rule 65(a)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., of the hearing on Bermuda's motion for a preliminary injunction, in violation of Southern Homes' due-process rights. We agree.
Rule 65(a)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides that "[n]o preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the adverse party." Rule 65(a)(1) does not specify how much notice must be given to the adverse party before a preliminary injunction can be issued. However, as the United States Supreme Court has held in interpreting the federal equivalent of Rule 65(a),2 the notice required by Rule 65(a) "implies a hearing in which the defendant is given a fair opportunity to oppose the application and to prepare for such opposition." Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda County, 415 U.S. 423, 434 n. 7, 94 S.Ct. 1113, 39 L.Ed.2d 435 (1974). See also Alabama Republican Party v. McGinley, 893 So.2d 337, 344 (Ala.2004) (holding that "[t]he hallmarks of procedural due process are notice and `the opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."'

The Alabama Supreme Court, in Southern Homes, made a clear distinction between the notice required for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction:

In Granny Goose Foods, the adverse party was given notice by telephone on the same day it was served with all the documents and the hearing was held, and the adverse party's counsel was present in the courtroom and argued on behalf of the adverse party at that hearing. The United States Supreme Court recognized that Rule 65(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., like Rule 65(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., authorizes a trial court to issue a 10-day temporary restraining order ("TRO") without notice to the adverse party. The Court compared the lack of any requirement of notice in Rule 65(b) for a TRO with the explicit notice requirement for issuing a preliminary injunction under Rule 65(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. The Court held that the "informal, same-day notice" that was provided to the adverse party in Granny Goose Foods, "desirable though it may be before a restraining order is issued, is no substitute for the more thorough notice requirements which must be satisfied to obtain a preliminary injunction of potentially unlimited duration." 415 U.S. at 434 n. 7, 94 S.Ct. 1113. See also Ciena Corp. v. Jarrard, 203 F.3d 312, 319 (4th Cir.2000) (holding that "[b]ecause a preliminary injunction is unlimited in duration, its entry always requires notice to the opposing party sufficient to give that party an opportunity to prepare an opposition to entry of an injunction").

In other words, the issuance of a preliminary injunction is serious business--and it requires that an adverse party be able to prepare opposition. Lawyers for Southern Homes had roughly two hours' notice of the preliminary-injunction hearing. According to Rob Riley's own documents, we had less than 24 hours' notice. (See petition at the end of this post, plus Riley's motion to seal the record.) The Alabama Supreme Court makes it clear in Southern Homes that such notice is not sufficient:

In the present case, it is undisputed that Southern Homes had less than two hours' notice of the hearing on Bermuda's motion for a preliminary injunction and that Southern Homes' counsel participated in the hearing only by telephone. Southern Homes was not able to submit written arguments in opposition to the motion or to submit evidence to support its arguments. Also, under the circumstances, Southern Homes could not call any witnesses. . . .

Southern Homes had to be given notice of a hearing in which it was given a fair opportunity to oppose the motion for the preliminary injunction and to prepare for such opposition. Southern Homes simply was not given such notice. Therefore, under these circumstances, we conclude that Southern Homes did not have a fair opportunity to oppose the motion for a preliminary injunction, and, thus, the circuit court exceeded its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction.

Like the Southern Homes lawyers, we were given no opportunity to submit written arguments, submit evidence, or call witnesses. That means Judge Neilson exceeded his discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction. And it means we were denied due process.

All of that doesn't even take into account the fact we were unlawfully served with the complaint, and any preliminary injunction violates long-held U.S. law forbidding prior restraint of free speech.

How does a Yale-educated lawyer not know this, not to mention a retired Alabama judge? One can only imagine.


Anonymous said...

Humiliating circumstances.

The Alabama 'elite class' don't want to be but, other than what they are and the Yale card should be our clue. Bush was Yale, Kerry Yale and so many from Harvard and Yale.

Named big schools to get the people in America that are little to stand in the shadow of such tall trees.

Skull & Bones are Yale. Did the Alabama thuggery also get into tombs with the 'Bonesmen' (gotta wonder what that means-meant) and do whatever cums to mind like the rest of what the pretend United States Constitutionalists say they beLIEve in?

Family values. One must question what family?

Of course it isn't the family of Bill of Rights'.

Values? Wu Wei, and then the values are certainly not about We The People GENERAL ASSEMBLY, that would mean the law has to be obeyed, not the jungle down and dirty stuff.

Two words, KARL ROVE. Karl got all the 'men' to be what he was really cracked in the places where the physical-mental-emotional-and the spiritual, should be whole.

A book, ON EXCELLENCE, by Fritz Kraemer, well worth the read.


Tells us exactly how Henry Kissinger took the work of his mentor [Kraemer] and made us the Pentagram -I mean Pentagon- while the world grew into a more enlightened reality -- the people all -- than the World War II criminally insane that SET UP USSA, we are definitely the design of Nazi Germany. More of a low down dirty design, Orwell doesn't touch how truly heinous the plan was-is.

The Asian Pacific Economic Commission - Committee, met and our country got represented by bonesman Kerry-Kohn (his real name is Kohn), and he was in the back row at the end - basically he was a non-entity at APEC.

World Earth kicked the WWII gang to the curb, not just this time, but the other times too. The same gulag ideology has been around since humans thought about being other than an enlightenment.

The Alabama design, unfortunately, the south looked the stupid gene squarely in the groin and sneezed big and got too many of the idiots that are running the courts, EG.

IT IS SAID GLOBALLY AND IT IS TRUE, TOO, the 'lawyers' in the USA don't understand how the internet has exposed the true LAW and it isn't what is being sold as this case proves.

No wonder the portfolios are collapsed. The Chinese are coming here in droves and learning our US Constitution and oh my, teaching it on line as well, becoming lawyers and changing the world to reflect what Ho Chi Minh read to us to remind us, what we learned from him - STOP IMPERIALISM. Vietnam got sick and tired of the killing fields, too.

PREAMBLE USA. Ho Chi Minh read to Kissinger and Kissinger proceed to go worse than criminally insane. Of course that ended the rat bastard right then and there.

Well, except he got worse about doing to America what we now know to be rogue and that is AL because the compromise is so great in the so called 'elite' classless - IT can make the place even worse than Rove has with the Siegelman curse on the south.

Anonymous said...

Legal Schnauzer, You prove the point that is being told to all the top 'lawmakers' in the USA.

May want to write to every CIRCUIT, there is a 'Judge' that is top in each and every one, and alarm the system that it is no longer working properly, er - warn that the system is actually now working in the time sequence of turnaround artistry www time and the top heavy brutality NO LAW, is no longer a commodity of worthy value. The LAW is a beautiful power when the lawmakers are also beautiful in the true law.

Alabama and the USA were thinking they could use the internet to be the worst empire builders due to the technology. Didn't bother to consider thinking about what the internet is, too. ITS' a portal, transparent portal into the secrets of every lawbreaker.

Obviously, LS, you Et Al, prove the lawmakers can exercise the reality in the time frame necessary now, call depos on the lawbreakers, you and the Murph Coalition, prove the truth.

But of course, the lawmakers of truth, justice and equal rights' in due process law, well it is time -for the trashcans- that possums won't turn over -- get buried deep in the earth's core and we HOPE the stink on humanity gets erased from our senses, all.

Rover Rover Karl send right over to the trashcan stink that can't be other than a knock-out, down in the can of eternal hell.

Sad for the Bubble that has popped, liewyers aren't going to be but a great big whimper.

Lawyers, get busy in the new world order of real law, oh you have, here at Legal Schnauzer! Thank you. God Bless you all!

AND, to the mirror reflections in our toilet bowl water, eat you know what and then jump in the possum's trash to get ready, mark to market Wall Street has a big deep hole of insatiably greedy cesspool of what IT no longer can be in the USA.

See Schnauzers run, bark, jump and have lots of fun while the human filth are no more but, bygones.

Anonymous said...

Schnauzer - be careful not to miss any appeal deadlines. Don't rely solely on your lack of service argument.

Anonymous said...

great exposing the fraud. it is all fraud, good for you showing how deeply incestuous the fraudulent fraud is.

top to bottom.

real tragedy is, the horror hasn't begun in exposing the worst sinister criminal fraud.

we in the usa are so busy with our own crashing economy, we don't realize how much the world has really changed.

that was an intentional paradigm shift, our 'economy'.

missing the global news, and when we aren't but, global and it's because we've been kept drowning in our own crises junkieisms and trauma addictions 'literally'.

the fast lane is passing us by due to the obvious and that is, the fraud as our reality in not seeing what is really going on TO america.

all other countries are used to their fraud and our fraud too.

adaptation. the chinese and others are adapting. but, the war looming over all isn't going to be a trauma drama party, no it'll be the crises gone into overdrive drug addict behavior.

we have no idea what is really going right before our eyes cause the behavior of usa isn't growing into a higher conscious 'nation'.

we all have to grow up fast.


get on the we've been globalized train of reality!

Anonymous said...

Ah, but the lawyer for Southern Homes participated in the hearing (by phone) and objected to the lack of notice so that the error was preserved for appeal. You, on the other hand, threw the "f---ing papers" out of your car window and made no effort to object to the lack of notice. In addition, Southern Homes complied with the injunction while challenging it through the proper channel of an appeal. You, on the other hand have flaunted the injunction, insulted the court and documented your contempt for all to see. Are you going to show up at the contempt hearing or do you think that if you just ignore it it will go away?

Anonymous said...

I just love the part in the "under seal" request where it states "..subjects Petitioner [Riley] to ...contempt and ridicule in the city, county, and state in which he lives."
Isn't he already had that distinction for quite a while?


Anonymous said...

Alabama Employed-Elected Officials

Having for way to long performed in their official capacities, out of the "SUNSHINE", but of course, are now becoming more than before concerned their names surfacing, publicly linking them too acts and violations against this state's government's business, daily operations and functions; commonly defined as malfeasances, malice, high crimes and misdemeanors; making the "sunshine law" appear as child's play.

What would really be a public force to be reckoned with is; if commenters from all four corners of state report to LS injustices/political cover-ups that bunched together representative all of state would command national attentions....

Murph should accept those qualified to accumulate on daily/routine basis activities their area for a maybe once a week posting, making known what's happening, is happening all across the state.

The fact is; that Shu and Murph cannot do everything to get the improprieties within Alabama government made public! Maybe we as commenters need to re-appreciate his physical contributions, at his age his health.

Simply put, if there were no Legal Schnauzer tomorrow because of Shu's health; would all of his efforts have been in vain? I'm continuously amazed at the varied facts and details in support of same which must go to earning him investigative journalism reporting credibility.

Our towns, cities, counties, state, and nation is on the road to going to hell in a hand basket; and while the few braving to sound the alarms met with indifferences, it appears rest content to still do nothing; satisfied going to hell; on their highway tax dollars built fast-track lanes because of corruptions; supported by public's do-nothingers, don't want to get involved, etc etc...

That is until appears the opening of the black holed tunnel with reddish burning lights up way ahead inside. Then the question is; how fast you can re-evaluate your position to being a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why you're not even bothering to try to defend yourself against this. If you weren't served properly, the way to raise that is to file a motion to dismiss for improper service and note that you're specially appearing to do so. Assuming that you lose this case and want to appeal (and I assume that improper service would be something that you would want to raise on appeal), the appellate court is going to wonder why you didn't do this. It's odd to sit back and complain about the injustice that's being done to you when you've got a remedy available to you that you're deliberately not using.

Anonymous said...

careful schnauzer, you were at one time reporting on end-game and other very important news,

palestine, when you allowed this you went too far, so to speak,

but, get the tpp and other coming events in your cache of news,

don't let the dirt kick you under the boot of full blown tyranny

legalschnauzer said...

To @8:49 and @10:25--

I don't know if you are the same person or not, but it sounds like it, so I will address these issues in one reply.

Not sure where you get the notion that I'm not going to do anything about this. I'm not going to advertise my legal strategy on the blog, but I will tend to this in the proper way.

You give the impression that you are somewhat familiar with the law, so you must know that a defendant has a certain amount of time to respond to a civil complaint, whether it's legitimate or not, whether it's been lawfully served or not.

I will operate within the time frame set forth by law, not according to Rob Riley's whims.

Anonymous said...

Why is it "insulting" to the court to point out the truth--that it issued an unlawful injunction?

Anonymous said...

LS, have you noticed that almost every day you get comments on here from people who seem desperate for you to reply in some fashion to the Garrison & Riley lawsuits. And these commenters don't seem to be people who have your best interests at heart.

So my questions for them: Why do you care? And how do you know LS hasn't responded? Are you checking the court file every day? If so, why?

As for the Riley case, it's apparently sealed, so you would have no way of knowing whether LS has responded or not.

I find these comments very odd.

legalschnauzer said...

Lots of good questions, @11:20. And like you, I find the comments odd.

I don't mind people sending them, whether they have my best interests at heart or not, but I sense an agenda underlying many of them.

The strangest thing is that these comments tend to promote a twisted and inaccurate notion of basic civil procedure. I have to wonder what's up with that.

Anonymous said...

LS, I seem to recall a comment from a couple of days ago along the lines of, "The law only requires notice, even if it's less than 24 hours."

This post proves that person was wrong, so I wonder if the commenter will write back and admit he or she was off base.

Anonymous said...

What a classic--Rob Riley is trying to hold a journalist in contempt of court, based on a preliminary injunction that has no foundation in the law.

Does Yale hand out law degrees to any goober who comes along? If I were them I would demand that Mr. Riley return his diploma.

Anonymous said...

Rob Riley is practicing what I would call "legal terrorism."

He knows he has no case, but he knows your accurate reporting on the Liberty affair is likely to torpedo any hope he might have at Spencer Bachus' old seat.

He really has nothing up his sleeve except "terror tactics"--plus ties to corrupt judges like Neilson--so that's what he's trying.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't Rob Riley go to Dawson Baptist Church? Doesn't that church the Old Testament admonitions against adultery, bearing false witness, etc.?

Does Rob Riley take his faith seriously, or does he go to Dawson just for show?

Anonymous said...

On his motion to seal, Rob Riley cites rule 5.1. I did a little Googling on that rule and found the Alabama Supreme Court just approved it in 2012. Seems like a pretty dubious rule to me, and I'm betting there was almost no public input on a rule that hides documents from regular citizens:

Anonymous said...

LS, you should call Dawson pastor Gary Fenton and request an interview about Rob Riley's affair with Liberty Duke and his abusive actions in court.

I hear the affair has been the subject of significant concern among church leaders at Dawson.

Anonymous said...

the salivating here for you to do the obvious, accept the fraud -

there is no acceptance of the fraud or you accept the fraud,

and the hiding of public concern is not at all the law.

you have exposed the racket and the jackals are going to get you,

don't think for a nano the cult isn't looking at how to get you,

call the church it is the best advice to-date!

Anonymous said...

Awesome to see coverage of this from Alan Colmes and Fox News.

Makes Riley look like an idiot.

Anonymous said...

Rob Riley is going to come out of this looking like anything but Congressional material.

Anonymous said...

america unchained

the us constitution isn't

don't do any unconstitutional act, LS and what has been done to you is the unconstitutional agenda

get an interview with RT

get the whole community to contact RT, AL is a disgrace and the whole world needs to see Rove AL and how the country can't be other than doomed in this no due process no rule of law and the spirit is definitely vile evil

Anonymous said...

"I sense an agenda underlying many of them."

I'm very surprised to hear this.

Anonymous said...

You don't sense an agenda, @12:44?

What do you sense, genuine concern for LS's well being, the rule of law?

Anonymous said...

I know why these commenters are pushing LS to act, pronto. As members of the legal community, they want this proceeding to have the "sword and buckler" of a judicial proceeding (to borrow a phrase from the 11th Circuit in the Siegelman case).

The commenters know Rob Riley's lawsuit is a fraud, as was attempted service in both his case and the Garrison case. But it's always in a lawyer's best interests to have a dispute resolved under the auspices of a court. That's the lawyer's turf, and he always will fare better than a regular citizen.

Bill Baxley and Rob Riley aren't as stupid as they might seem at times. They know they need resolution of certain issues, quickly, and their best bet is to file bogus lawsuits that will force LS onto their turf.

The commenters might think they are being clever, but it's real easy to see through them if you know how the system works to benefit the legal profession and screw the public.

Anonymous said...

Uh, Roger is already on their turf; he has been sued twice for defamation. But I have a theory about why Roger is so very reluctant to go to court and why he has been avoiding service: Roger has no real evidence to support his claim that Riley had an affair, paid for an abortion, etc., except the malicious gossip of a few people who want to hurt Riley. Roger knows that when he finally does show up in court he will be exposed for what he really is: a cheap gossip monger who will write and say anything if it fits into his very narrow view of the world. How about it a Roger, care to share with your readers what evidence you have that the affair actually happened?

legalschnauzer said...

Are you this ignorant all the time, 3:31, or just when you comment on here?

A few thoughts:

* No one is on a court's turf until he has been lawfully served. That's what gives a court jurisdiction over the parties. Without it, no go.

* Avoiding service? Are you really this stupid? My life is an open book on this blog. I'm listed in phone book, I post under my real name, my e-mail and address are posted right here. I spend a major chunk of my life outdoors, in public places or open view. I should be easy to serve for any semi competent and honest process server. The only thing that makes it slightly difficult for them is that someone (Rob Riley?) cheated me out of my job, so I can't be served at work. Other than that, it's hard to imagine an easier person to serve.

* Here's some law school 101 for you: The burden of proof in a defamation case, in any lawsuit, is on the plaintiff. That's Rob Riley.

Care to ask any more questions on subjects about which you are clueless? No wonder you comment as "Anonymous."

Anonymous said...

Congressmen don't act like this.

Anonymous said...

Why are they coming after the Mrs???? she never blogs about anything does she? I do not understand why they would sue her.

Anonymous said...

There's that famous Shuler thin skin. I'd better go report this to my Dark Master, Lee Garrison. I'm sure that he and the Illuminati will be glad to know that their plan is working so well. Penis noses for all! Muwhahahaha!

legalschnauzer said...

That's a good question, @4:04. The complaint, if I remember correctly, claims she is part owner and administrator of Legal Schnauzer. That's news to her.

legalschnauzer said...

If describing you as what you plainly are--stupid--is having thin skin, then put me down for plenty of thin skin.

I guess everyone who comes in contact with you, has thin skin?

Putting blame on others for your own shortcomings is such an attractive quality.

Anonymous said...

The truth is Rob Riley fornicates all the time - he fornicated at Yale - sometimes with his wife - a lot of the time with he fornicates with Liberty Duke - he is even said to be fornicating with a woman in Florida. Now he fornicating in the Shelby County Courthouse.

Anonymous said...

LS, you berate a commenter @ 3.56 for daring to state that you avoided service. Yet you posted videos on this site of deputies at your house, claim they pounded on your door, and speculated that they were there to serve papers. You refused to answer the door when service attempts were made, but here claim that you "should be easy to serve." I really don't understand...are you claiming that you did not avoid their legitimate service attempts? Hell, you even just said that your address is posted and easy to find, yet when a court appointed process server shows up at your house to serve you, and you admittedly know they are there to serve you, you avoid their service. Also, I am sure you know this as a seasoned reporter, but your arguments bear more weight if you can avoid resorting to ad hominem attacks, such as calling readers stupid. Whether or not you think they are stupid, beat them with the logic, law, and facts. Calling names makes you seem petulant.

Anonymous said...

Roger, you know exactly what the game is, Don Siegelman is reported by your integrity in the law.

Of course those who comment and have the desire as psychos do, to take and destroy your wife and you because you're 'normal'.

It is very obvious the idea of normal does not apply to the Alabama that consider themselves not held to the same standards as the Carol and Roger Shuler or the Siegelman Family.

The Political Ponerology experienced in Nazi Germany is worse here in Alabama.

Roger and Carol are in danger, seriously is an understatement.

The illumaniti is a cute word which clues you into the dangerous comments. Excellent to post all the dangerous psychos. Sad to say, the scary are more than just a Hollow Weenie, penis noses worn and worse, the children are exposed to true degeneration.

Carol was sued as part of the case and that is the proof of how imminent the danger.

TRO filed via Carol Shuler for the obvious attack unwarranted.

Terrorists who do not follow the law -- at the very least from Carol Shuler, a letter to the judge. Sadly, who looks like his blood pressure medication may be due to him knowing what position he has to be in, to get paid.

Anonymous said...

Your website LS, it's almost like watching killers stalk their prey.

The 'remote viewing' of Carol and Roger Shuler - obedient to the laws which are real, and then the manufactured ?

What are these virtual ghouls interested in achieving!

Lurking as though ok to be in the whole world watchers' remote viewing too, of the criminals climbing to the top of the pile of the worst 'government' in the history of the USA.

History is not blind to the injustice here at Legal Schnauzer and the momentum has only just begun spinning the web that catches all the bad insects.

Walk the web like spiders LS, really wonderful giant spiders that eat the poisonous bugs.

legalschnauzer said...

You are a bit off track, @4:56. I said over and over, in video and in print, that I was concerned the deputies were trying to execute a bogus search warrant or arrest warrant. I said over and over that, based on the presence of 2-3 deputies and multiple vehicles, it did NOT appear to be an effort to serve process.

I also stated that on one evening, officers shined lights into our windows. Why would a deputy serving process do that? Why would they go around to the back of our house?

I further said multiple times, that my wife and I have had up close and personal experience with the corrupt ways of the Shelby County Sheriff's office over an unlawful auction of our house. And we saw more evidence of unethical behavior when an officer conducted an unlawful traffic stop to "serve" us.

My wife and I know these people, and how they operate. That we were reluctant to open our doors to a sheriff's office that we know to be corrupt--and one that based on the number of officers and vehicles, did NOT appear to be serving process--is not remotely evidence that we were avoiding service.

If you are familiar with the law, you should know that it's not uncommon for a judge to allot 120 days or more for service of process. If often takes quite a while.

What I described on our property happened over 6-8 days. That's not even close to a legal definition of avoidance of service.

As for your other point, a commenter who calls me a "cheap gossip monger" should not be surprised when I return fire in an aggressive fashion, especially when his statements show he is, in fact, stupid about the issues being discussed.

That commenter meets the classic definition of someone who can dish it out but can't take it.

Anonymous said...

See, here's the thing. You say that "it's not uncommon for a judge to allot 120 days or more for service of process. If often takes quite a while." And that's true. But here the court has evidence that you're trying to avoid service. It doesn't have to wait to let you try to avoid service more; you're videotaping deputies trying to serve you, deliberately avoiding any interaction with them that might result in service of process, and then posting those videos on your blog.

Anonymous said...

No 6:51PM, the court has proof Roger and Carol Shuler don't disobey the law and the fraud that has been coupled with criminal intent to do harm - certainly via all those that do what you do too -- and you can be subpoenaed just like that these days, to get into the courts. The money is a game and you, 6:51PM ET AL, are easily bought and when the time gets to selling you into the cauldron of digital disposables, you're a big fish for the psychos more powerful than you or you would not be here.

legalschnauzer said...

See, here's the thing: You apparently have trouble reading simple declarative English sentences.

Go back and read my previous response and actually read the blogs (view the videos) you are referencing. Perhaps, then you will grasp reality. If not, I can't help you.

BTW, the court has no such evidence of me avoiding service, that I'm aware of. This was published on my blog, not entered in court. If it's entered in court, there is no evidence that shows deputies were trying to serve process. There is nothing stated or written that shows that's what they were trying to do, as opposed to executing an unlawful search or arrest warrant, which is what it looks like they were doing.

Aside from that, your argument is "neither here nor there." The court has made no finding that I was avoiding service, and neither has anyone else in a position of authority. That's what matters, not what you think.

Best I can tell, the court claims the bogus traffic stop constituted lawful service, even though it doesn't.

You seem to be saying that our failure to answer the door a few times justifies a gross violation of civil rights with an unlawful traffic stop.

If that's your view, it pretty much proves you aren't a constitutional scholar.

Anonymous said...

Enough about court papers being served or not, legally or otherwise; those so outwardly concerned for avoidance of service should just get over it......

And if what you've kept being concerned for holds true, whenever the halls of justice opens for business involving this Riley's case; it's reasonable to assume that the judge will find in contempt, fine in $$, admonish for the record Shu's and Murph's lack of value for service.

Having said this, why not stay the course, on topic, with Qs & As exposing political Cover-ups, Complicities, and Cloaking involving the corrupting of Alabamian's government.

Can anyone answer this question?
Karl Rove was hired by Bill Canary for the Alabama Economics Council[?]. Around about 1994/5 Don Siegelman would testify in a case against Pryor; Pryor being "Rove's Client" at the time.

If you know; what was the name of this case, or the case number?

Anonymous said...

Do you even read the court documents you include with your posts? The Court HAS heard evidence that you were avoiding service, including that you posted videos of the officers trying to serve you, and that you cursed the officer and threw the papers out if the window when you finally were served. The judge held in his injunction order that your own statements and actions indicated that you were likely avoiding service. Oh, and you insulted the judge not by criticizing his orders but by calling him a whore.

Anonymous said...

Roger????? Your video shows deputies at your door...PERIOD! They never made any attempt to enter your house. If they had a search warrant they wouldn't have to wait to enter. They would just come on in. Now that you know what they were there for, just drive on down to the local Sheriff's Dept. and pick up another copy of your papers...oh, that's right...there's a conspiracy against you by the Sheriff! Stop this damn charade! Just admit that you're a fraud and a gossip, who just posts rumor after rumor. The case is proceeding without you and pretty soon you're going to be held in criminal contempt and hauled off to jail. Probably where you belong. It's sad, but I used to believe in you. Now, I'm convinced you're nothing more than a fraud. Now, I'm sure you're just going to call me names and say I'm ignorant (although I have several post grad degrees), misinformed, etc. Typical defense of a guilty person....SO SAD!!!

Anonymous said...

The fact that all of this is happening without media coverage is chilling.

legalschnauzer said...

You're a piece of work, @7:53. But you have no "horse in this race," I'm sure.

By court document, I assume you mean the one that Rob Riley's office prepared for the court, with the judge's name stamped on it? I have evidence that Riley's office is preparing orders for the judge to stamp, so that's not an assumption on my part.

As for evidence, I suppose that was at the hearing for which we were not present because we weren't provided lawful notice, as outlined in this post.

And I will repeat, the avoidance of service issue is irrelevant at this point because the court supposedly took evidence from a sheriff who claims he "lawfully" served me during a traffic stop. The deputy either gave a false or incomplete account of what happened, which could amount to a crime called perjury, but I'm sure that doesn't interest you.

I will be providing actual law that shows the "service via traffic stop was unlawful," and perhaps even criminal.

Again, another minor detail that shouldn't interest you.

legalschnauzer said...

I don't care how many postgrad degrees you have, @8:11, you are ignorant on this subject. And you prove it with each comment.

I will try to write this slowly, so you will understand. Check any law book you want, especially one involving civil procedure, and you will find this: The burden to serve defendants IS ON THE PLAINTIFF.

The defendant is not required to help out in any way. The defendant is not required to answer the door each and every time someone wearing a uniform bangs on his door.

Again, it is THE DUTY OF THE PLAINTIFF to complete service. If they pass off the duty to individuals who are too incompetent or corrupt to complete it lawfully, that is their problem, not mine.

Perhaps you've been sued at some point. If not, you probably will be someday. And that same law will apply to you, as it does to me.

You are whining to the wrong person about unlawful service in this matter. PLAINTIFF is the one you should be talking to. It's his or her responsibility.

Anonymous said...

By the way, what are post grad degrees?

Fancy words? Don't see any proof to accept truth as fact.

LEFT abandoned you LS, you should think about that, too, meaning where is Bill Moyers?

How about Democracy NOW?

I'm also very upset that you are LEFT all alone when the powers that are mouthpieces can be on this and should.

Send some Emails to them, the so called keepers of the gated flames of life, liberty, FREE SPEECH.

And post grad sheepskins lots, prove your words, simple in the due process clause of truth are facts and lies are not.

Anonymous said...

It is not your job to teach the criminals about how to be honest.

Furthermore, the judicial and courts are the real reason you're being targeted - you have been the boldest in uncovering the cover-ups.

Journalists are a different breed of human, genes of altruism which the majority don't begin to understand.

How does the journalist be so bold and yet so amazingly detached.

Not many have this power.

You can't lose.

But for, journalism kill one function button is on with a giant toady in charge.

Watch Mrs. Schnauzer, been 'served' and that was your clue which this anon has said to you many times - THE key.

Anonymous said...

"someone (Rob Riley?) cheated me out of my job"

That's really what this blog is about...vengeance.

Anonymous said...

What's wrong with vengeance, bud?

Didn't someone once write, "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord"?

Isn't that in the Good Book?

Are you not a Bible-believing Christian?

Anonymous said...

Does this post say anything about the blog author being cheated out of his job? Maybe I missed it.

Anonymous said...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my memory is that Legal Schnauzer started quite some time before Roger was cheated out of his job at UAB. If that's the case, how could this blog be about "vengeance" over the job deal.

legalschnauzer said...

You are correct, 1:22. In fact, I was cheated out of my job BECAUSE of the blog, which had been up and running about a year at the time.

The comment by 11:25 makes no sense, but I doubt the author will recognize that.