Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Rob Riley Is Writing Court Orders To Benefit Himself In Lawsuit Designed To Stifle Reporting

Judge Claud D. Neilson
Public documents indicate Alabama Republican Rob Riley is preparing court orders that wind up with a judge's signature and then are issued as if they originated with the court. In fact, Riley's law office apparently has prepared all of the key orders that have been rendered so far in his defamation lawsuit that seeks to shut down my reporting on certain topics.

Jay Murrill, an attorney at Riley's law firm who is representing his boss in the case, appears to have written an order to grant a preliminary injunction and seal the public file, plus an order to hold us in contempt. If granted, the contempt order could subject us to incarceration.

How disturbing is this scenario? Rob Riley, the son of former two-term governor Bob Riley, seems to be serving as a party, legal researcher, court clerk, and de facto judge in a Shelby County Circuit Court case styled Robert R. Riley Jr. and Liberty Duke v. Roger Shuler, Carol T. Shuler and Legal Schnauzer, Civil Action No. 2013--236 and 237.

Do Rob Riley's ties to his father and related GOP heavyweights--not to mention national figures such as Karl Rove and Jack Abramoff--give him the clout to take over a court case and run it for his own benefit? That's exactly what appears to be happening.

No wonder Riley moved for the court file to be sealed, meaning public documents are not available to the public. In fact, this case is more than sealed; it has gone totally underground. When you check electronic files at AlaCourt.com and do a "party search" for my name, the Riley lawsuit does not show up.

In my experience, sealed cases generally show up on a basic docket search. Documents from the case might not be available to the public, and that seems to be standard procedure in a case that has been sealed--the divorce case involving GOP politico Jessica Medeiros Garrison and Tuscaloosa School Board president Lee Garrison is an example. (The Garrison case almost certainly was sealed to ensure that details about Jessica Garrison's affair with Attorney General Luther Strange would not leak to the public.)

Rob Riley apparently has taken sealing one step further, ensuring that a search of public records makes it appear the lawsuit doesn't exist. Mrs. Schnauzer and I only know about the documents because we are parties. And it seems likely that even we have not been provided with copies of all documents in the case.

Why is Rob Riley determined to shroud his lawsuit in secrecy? We can think of a whole bunch of possible reasons. But for now, we will focus on only one, and here it is: Records show the Riley Jackson law firm is writing orders, conducting research--pretty much running the show to benefit partner Rob Riley--and the firm is trying to hide such flagrant corruption from the public.

We have little doubt that retired Marengo County Circuit Judge Claud D. Neilson, appointed by the Alabama Supreme Court to hear the Riley lawsuit, is capable of acting in a corrupt fashion. (Neilson wouldn't be an Alabama judge if that weren't the case.) But for now, we aren't sure Neilson has done anything with the Riley case, one way or another.

Washington,D.C.-based investigative journalist Wayne Madsen noted last week Neilson's leading role in the ugly 2009 case of Herman Thomas. The former Mobile County judge faced multiple counts of sexual abuse, sodomy, and assault, but when a jury could not reach an overall verdict, Neilson stepped in and acquitted his judicial colleague.

We will take a closer look at the Herman Thomas case in an upcoming post. But at the moment, it seems Neilson has done little in the Riley case other than sign his name to documents that Rob Riley's minions prepared. And those signatures might have been stamped by someone else. Has Neilson reviewed relevant law and actually prepared orders? It doesn't look like it. Rob Riley and his lawyers appear to be doing that.

Let's consider an order that purports to hold us in contempt for failing to appear at a hearing last Thursday (October 17) on Riley's preliminary injunction. We showed in yesterday's post that Murrill entered a proposed order, with blank spaces left for someone (supposedly Neilson) to fill in the date/time and sign his name. The order was issued exactly as Murrill wrote it, with "Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 1:15 p.m." entered by hand for the hearing and "7th day of October, 2013" entered as date of the order. (See the final order at the end of this post.)

Here is where the plot thickens. The order is signed by "Claud D. Neilson, retired circuit judge, assigned by the Alabama Supreme Court." But is that Neilson's handwriting or did someone else fill in the blanks? We have no way of knowing. But we do know that Neilson is based in Demopolis, quite a way from Shelby County, so it might be expeditious for someone to forge the judge's signature.

Aside from the signature, here is perhaps the most disturbing part: If Riley's lawyers prepared the contempt order, a reasonable person might figure they also wrote the preliminary injunction. Court documents in the case, which you aren't supposed to see, show that a hearing on the injunction was held on September 30, the day after we were "served" with court papers during an unlawful traffic stop by Shelby County deputy Mike DeHart.

On October 1, apparently less than 24 hours after the hearing, Neilson issued a four-page order, granting Riley's Petition for a preliminary injunction. The heavily footnoted document includes references to roughly 15 court cases. (See the document here; it also is embedded at the end of this post.) What are the chances that a circuit judge could, or would, prepare such a document and have it issued in less than 24 hours? The answer that forms in my mind is "slim and none."

The preliminary injunction, like the contempt order, was prepared in advance, almost certainly by Rob Riley's law office. To top it off, the preliminary injunction is filled with citations to law that are inaccurate, off point, bogus, or some combination of all three. (More on that in an upcoming post.)

Welcome to a real-time view of how law actually is practiced in Karl Rove's Alabama.

You know what they say about bacon: You might like to eat it, but you don't want to see it being made. The same idea applies to our justice system, in Alabama and probably many other states.

Just how ugly can it get? We have much more coming.

(To be continued)


Wayne said...

LS you know Rob Riley is a snake in the grass. From the looks of the documents, sure Riley wrote them and the judge just signed them. Still can't figure out how the Supreme Court of Alabama had the authority to assign the case to a retired judge that resides approximately 133 miles away from Shelby County. Also, now that Riley has Mrs. Schnauzer involved she should blast him with a lawsuit since she has nothing to do with this. Just my thoughts.

Anonymous said...

It is common practice for lawyers to draft proposed orders for judges. Judges often request them.

Anonymous said...

Schnauzer, have you filed an objection to the unlawful service or filed an appeal?

Anonymous said...


Political scientist [AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA] could record this event as having been The SPEARHEAD that led the charge, for the breaching of Alabama's longtime established well entrenched era of unbridled government corruption[s].


Maybe somehow "practices and patterns" can be brought to lite of day via this legal nightmare; therein reveals the arrogant misuse and abuse of official powers and authorities back thru each election cycle from Sessions forward, separately Baxley.

Beating up on the messenger by a public official[s] won't change/alter the message's facts and evidences. When finding the act to have been wrongful; to cover the act up in effort to avoid exposure is far worst.

QUESTION: Wouldn't Riley's case

present opportunity to get on the

record other key players as

examples, Baxley's, Sessions,

Pryor's, King's, Strange's and

whomever else, involving

conflicting relationships;

therefore why should the court

provide Riley special protection

from public access, after all

having had ties to Governor's

office and Republican Party?

Anonymous said...



There is one thing about this case, the door is always open to the federal court of appeals, since involving a governor son, Republican state affairs, and a lobbyist.
As far as incarceration; look at the bright side, DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY, THEY GET TO HEAR EVIDENCES

We ain't got much, but thar ara tha moistest of uss than thar ara thoses, Behold, look! What approaches in growing numbers, it's the "LITTLE PEOPLE" seeking to identify and clean out crooks and corruptors within Alabama government.

Anonymous said...

Did the Alabama Supreme Court choose Judge Nielsen for this case?

Is it not true that the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is Roy Moore?

Also is it not true that Judge Roy Moore and Federal Judge Myron Thompson were at cross purposes?

Anonymous said...

Really? You're freaking out about the fact that a party submitted a proposed order that was granted by the court? That's the way that 95% of judges operate--and, in fact, that's why there's an option on AlaFile and on every federal district court's filing site to submit a proposed order. Many judges REQUIRE parties to submit proposed orders along with their motions. If a judge doesn't like the proposed order, he or she is free to change it. This isn't something nefarious; it's basic filing practice. And you're suggesting that the judge's signature on the order may have been forged because Demopolis is a long way from Shelby County? Does spatial distance have any real impact on electronic communication, Roger?

And no, a reasonable person should NOT infer that Rob Riley's firm wrote the preliminary injunction. As noted above, parties submit proposed orders all the time and are often REQUIRED to do so in conjunction with motions that they file. You can't extrapolate from that basic fact that the Rob Riley's firm wrote the injunction, especially when your evidence that this is the case appears to be your opinion that judges are lazy or stupid.

Also, why are you surprised that the judge adopted Riley's proposed order when you didn't oppose the motion? You knew about the motion. You chose not to oppose it, choosing instead to rely on your theory that you were improperly served. If you're really acting out of an abundance of caution, you should have taken steps to protect yourself. You didn't, and because you didn't oppose the motion of course the court granted it by adopting the proposed order.

Anonymous said...

isn't it funny how the handwriting of men and women typically looks so different. The handwriting of an older person generally looks different from when they were young- it is less precise for most people as they age. We look for subtle clues about the writer when we see a signature; clues that are as relevant as the lines of that person's face. The image that came to my own mind when looking at the "judge's" signature was that of a young woman.

Anonymous said...

I don't see anywhere in the post where it says lawyers writing orders isn't common practice. But does that make it right? Is the public aware of this? I suspect the answer is no, and that makes it a problem, one I'm glad LS has disclosed.

Anonymous said...

Questions for 6:58 and 11:12--

If you were in a divorce case--with perhaps everything you own riding on the outcome--would you want your wife's lawyer writing the final order of divorce?

If not, why not, given that it's "common practice"?

Anonymous said...

Another question for 6:58 and 11:12--

Can you cite anywhere in the actual law where it's lawful for lawyers to write proposed orders for judges?

It might be "common practice," but is it lawful?

Anonymous said...

I have to chuckle at these two commenters who seem to find no problem with lawyers writing orders for judges. That provides tons of insight into the elitist, incestuous nature of the legal "profession."

Things that would horrify a regular citizen don't bother these clowns at all--oh, because it's "common practice."

Anonymous said...

This common practice of lawyers writing orders for judges goes to the heart of why the public doesn't trust courts. It proves that judges have abdicated their role as impartial arbiter and eats at the very core of what it means to have a fair tribunal.

Anonymous said...

Why is this common practice necessary? Are judges too lazy to do their own work? Don't they have clerks and such who are paid to look up the law and help with preparation of orders?

Anonymous said...

This is @11:12. To answer your question, @11:44 (I'm guessing that this is Roger Shuler), that's an apples and oranges comparison. For one thing, the final decree in a divorce case isn't the result of a motion made by a party. There are basically three possible outcomes to the use of a proposed order when it's on a party's motion:

1. If the judge denies the motion, the proposed order doesn't get used.
2. If the judge grants the motion, the proposed order gets used.
3. If the judge grants the motion but has a problem with the proposed order, the judge issues his or her own order that modifies the proposed order to correct for that problem.

None of those things pervert justice. If the judge grants the motion, the judge is affirming that the movant is entitled to the relief that he or she is requesting. How is it a problem if the judge signs off on what the movant has requested if the judge has determined that the movant is entitled to that relief?

For another thing, if I didn't make any effort to oppose the divorce proceedings, I would imagine that my wife would probably end up getting precisely what she asked for from the court and that my wife's lawyer probably would end up drafting the divorce decree. That said, that's not a situation where a proposed order would likely be used unless the parties are submitting it jointly.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, let's allow one party to write an order that seeks the opposing party's arrest.

Gee, that sounds fair. Can't imagine why LS would have a problem with that.

Anonymous said...


Judges are moral agents who have the ability to choose to do things. They can choose not to grant a proposed order if they don't want to grant it. When you give a judge a proposed order, you are telling the judge that if your motion is granted, that's the relief that you want. The judge still CHOOSES whether or not to grant the motion and whether, if the motion is granted, to sign the proposed order. It is still the judge signing the order, not one of the parties.

Anonymous said...

Aside from who wrote the order, the more important question is this:

Is the order, seeking the arrest of Mr. and Mrs. Schnauzer, lawful?

Given the prior restraint doctrine and the lack of proper service, I don't see how it could be.

Anonymous said...

This certainly answers one question, for me. We now know why Rob Riley wanted the file sealed. He didn't want the public to know his lawyers are writing all the orders.

Spasmoda said...

I would bet my left testicle, my right testicle, and several testicles I don't have that Rob Riley's law firm wrote the preliminary injunction, too.

Anonymous said...


I like your thoughts. Would only take issue with one point. Comparing Rob Riley to a snake in the grass is an insult to snakes. It might also be an insult to grass.

Other than that, great comment.

Anonymous said...

"Is the order, seeking the arrest of Mr. and Mrs. Schnauzer, lawful?

Given the prior restraint doctrine and the lack of proper service, I don't see how it could be."

Roger had an opportunity to argue this at the hearing on the contempt motion. He elected not to do so. The result is that the motion was granted.

If you look at the comments from Roger's post from yesterday, you'll see that the prior restraint argument is not as cut-and-dried as Roger makes it out to be. Some forms of prior restraint are constitutional, and it's not at all clear that a preliminary injunction in a defamation case is unconstitutional. As far as service, it's equally unclear that (even accepting Roger's argument that the traffic stop was unconstitutionally prolonged by the service) the Fourth Amendment violation somehow taints the service when the officer had a lawful right to serve Roger. So the legality of the order turns on both of those matters. If Roger felt that those were winning arguments, he should have presented them to the court instead of relying on his own conclusions. He chose not to protect himself by doing so, and he gets to live with the consequences.

Anonymous said...

So, anyone who challenges you, @11:12, must be Roger Shuler?

(Chuckle, chuckle)

I'm not Roger Shuler, but I am a reader with three brain cells, and that's about all it takes to challenge your drivel.

The gist of your response: A proposed order from the other lawyer is fine as long as it involves someone else, but it's a big problem if it involves me.

Anonymous said...

Great comment, 12:08. And I notice it has drawn no response from those who claim to think these lawyer-written proposed orders are fine. It's early yet, but I'm guessing you will draw no response--at least not one that makes any sense.

Anonymous said...

A thought has entered my brain . . .

This order says it was written by Jay Murrill, of Riley Jackson law firm, but how do we know Rob Riley himself didn't write it? He's Murrill's boss.

This might not just be a case of a lawyer writing a judge's orders. It could be one party writing the judge's orders.

That would be fine, of course, to certain commenters. But to the rest of us . . . what a travesty!

Anonymous said...


First of all, I guessed that it was Roger because it appeared almost as soon as my own post was approved. Also, the tone was Shuler-esque. If you're not Roger, you're not Roger. I genuinely don't care, and your arguments are what your arguments are either way.

"A proposed order from the other lawyer is fine as long as it involves someone else, but it's a big problem if it involves me."

Did you read my comment? If we're involved in motion practice and the court wants to grant the other side's motion, I would EXPECT that the court would use the other side's proposed order. I genuinely would not care at all. Or, hey. Let's say that we did have a divorce proceeding where the judge completely agreed with my wife's arguments and determined that she should get whatever award or division she's seeking. And let's say that she submitted a proposed order that encompassed that relief. Why would I care if the court used her proposed order or wrote out its own version that grants her everything she's requesting? Either way, the COURT is making the determination of what relief it will grant, not my wife. So no, I would not care that the court used the proposed order. I WOULD care that the court didn't buy my arguments, but that's completely separate.

Anonymous said...

"Can you cite anywhere in the actual law where it's lawful for lawyers to write proposed orders for judges?"

That's not how the law works, sir. That's like asking someone to "cite anywhere in the actual law where it's lawful" for a person to chew gum. Someone challenging the use of proposed orders would either have to show (1) that the practice is explicitly forbidden; or (2) that the practice is implicitly forbidden because it would be inconsistent with another provision of law.

Anonymous said...

Caught you in a lie, @11:12/12:17--

I followed that back and forth yesterday in the comments section about prior restraint. And LS proved that federal and state courts have forbidden all kinds of "previous restraints," dating back to the earliest days of the Republic. LS quoted directly from the "Near" case that has governed this from the 1930s.

You are a liar, sir, and you've been caught. I could rip your other bogus contentions to shreds, but I have no desire to engage in conversation with a liar.

(I will add this: Traffic-stop law is clear--an officer cannot further detain a motorist once the purposes of the traffic law are concluded. So the officer did not have a lawful right to conduct any other business with Mr. and Mrs. Schnauzer at that moment. I'm sure you will contest this, but that's what the law says, and it can't seriously be contested. You've proven you are a liar anyway, so no one here cares what you think.)

Anonymous said...

I don't think you know how the law works, 12:39. I'm certainly not taking your word for it. If such lawyer-written orders were proper, that would be spelled out in the rules of civil procedure. You seem to be admitting that it isn't there, so that means it's unlawful--it's outside the rules.

You've answered the question: These lawyer-written orders are not lawful.

Anonymous said...

You seem to be forgetting something, @12:17.

Why should Roger submit arguments to a court that has no jurisdiction over him?

Answer: He shouldn't, and he can't.

Anonymous said...

Whoops, got to add one more thing. Caught you being disingenuous at 12:24.

You admit that you WOULD care if the judge didn't buy your arguments (lawful ones, I presume) and ruled contrary to law.

Well, that's exactly what happened to LS, but you don't give a toot about that.

So we are back to my original statement: You are fine with corruption when it happens to someone else, but you care deeply if it happens to you.

Let's see . . . you are a liar, you are disingenuous, and you are shallow. (No wonder you went into legal work.)

I would say that's a pretty good summation. I'm through with you, and I hope LS deletes the rest of your comments. You aren't worth the time or the space.

Anonymous said...

A couple of these naysayers claim to know what LS did or did not have an opportunity to argue.

But how would they know if Rob Riley's had the file sealed? All I know is what LS has written here, but I have no idea if he's written about everything that has gone on in the case.

Hell, it appears he doesn't even know for sure--and he and Mrs. S are parties.

Great way to do "justice," isn't it?

Kind of makes me think one or more of these commenters is either Rob Riley are someone associated with him.

Anonymous said...


I am sure there are high profile prominent Legal Attorneys out there (outside of Alabama and Mississippi) that might take your case for free. They would love no draw attention to the corruption in this state which is exactly what the Rileys and the Judge does not want. I hope a major publication will grab this story and run with it.

Anonymous said...

"In Stollenwerck v. Talladega County Board of Education, 420 So.2d 21 (Ala.1982), this Court held that the circuit court's adoption of an order containing what the appellant called “extensive findings of fact,” prepared by the defendant's attorney, did not violate Rule 52(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., which pertains to findings of fact by the trial court:

“We find no prohibition in [Rule 52(a) ] which would forbid the delegation by a trial court to the prevailing attorney of the task of preparing a proposed order which includes findings of fact based upon the evidence in the case. Although this Court has never ruled on the propriety of the practice of trial judges' allowing or requesting counsel for the prevailing party to prepare findings, the basic view by many jurisdictions which have considered the matter is that such practice is not improper. 54 A.L.R.3d 868 (1974). In fact, no reported case has been found in which the objection has met with actual success at the appellate level. Id., at 870. The practice of having the prevailing attorney draw up an order is not uncommon in federal courts. See, e.g., Miller v. Tilley, 178 F.2d 526 (8th Cir.1949). Therefore, the decree prepared by the attorney, but adopted by the trial judge as the court's decree, is due to be affirmed.”

Ex parte Masonite Corp., 681 So.2d 1068, 1073-1074 (Ala. 1996)

Anonymous said...

Number One Civil Rights' Lawyer, State of Oregon, PLAINTIFF attorney but, was a Prosecutor for the State at one time to learn 'the ropes', so to speak:


The thugs in Alabama are caught and the Legal Schnauzer outed them, the corrupt are sick.

Why wouldn't We Americans want to know the nature of the disease?

And, we work together ALL that choose to behave sane in a manner that proves to 'children' the trust of boundaries to self control prove higher intelligent are here!

Then we can we cure this attack on our system?!

OR what do the majority of USA citizens do against a small group that get federal credit to break the laws --- and then the criminally insane act like the Roman Circus is every day an orgy for them and theirs', but obviously not for the real world that Americans choose.

It is our duty to do exactly what the Legal Schnauzer family has and that is, expose the crimes, stop the fraud and only GOD knows what to do with the guilty.

legalschnauzer said...

I've pretty much stayed out of this discussion, but I will pipe up here. My post makes no claim that lawyer-written orders aren't commonly done. It also makes no claim that they are unlawful, although I believe they should be, particularly on matters that involve taking away someone's freedom.

It's clear that they are not specifically allowed by the rules of civil procedure.

My larger concern remains, however, that the CONTENT of the order is unlawful, regardless of the procedure used. The "Near" case is clear--any previous restraint is unlawful in context of First Amendment.

legalschnauzer said...

As a followup, I should cite the following from the Ex Parte Masonite case noted by a commenter:

"Consequently, as every practicing lawyer in Alabama knows, many trial judges frequently ask the lawyers for the prevailing side on an issue to `prepare an order' consistent with the views taken by the judge after hearing the facts and the evidence."

How does this compare to Rob Riley's actions:

* I'm aware of no finding that Mr. Riley was found to be the "prevailing side" on this issue.

* I'm not aware of any facts or evidence that were established on the issue. In fact, there is no question that my reporting has NOT been determined to be defamatory--under the law, no injunction of any kind can be granted.

* Riley's order, it appears, was prepared in advance of any hearing on the contempt issue. In other words, he apparently prepared an order based on . . . well, pretty much nothing, other than his own desires.

Even based on the loose findings in "Stollenwerck" and "Masonite," it appears Riley is way outside the boundaries of what is customary and lawful in Alabama courts.

Anonymous said...

"My larger concern remains, however, that the CONTENT of the order is unlawful, regardless of the procedure used. The 'Near' case is clear--any previous restraint is unlawful in context of First Amendment."

This is a separate argument than you're making in your post. You're implying that there's something sinister and untoward about the plaintiff drafting proposed orders. You're still misreading Near, though. The case specifically notes that "...the protection even as to previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited. But the limitation has been recognized only in exceptional cases [...] No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops. On similar grounds, the primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications. The security of the community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government."

That's not even remotely consistent with your statement that "any previous restraint is unlawful in context of First Amendment." Prior restraints are disfavored and presumptively suspect, but they're not forbidden under all circumstances.

You say that you're "aware of no finding that Mr. Riley was found to be the 'prevailing side' on this issue." He was on the prevailing side of the motion. He prevailed on the motion because you didn't oppose it.

Also, this excerpt from Ex Parte Masonite is instructive:

"The Supreme Court of the United States has disapproved "the Fourth Circuit's suggestion that `close scrutiny of the record in this case [was] justified by the manner in which the opinion was prepared,' ... that is, by the District Court's adoption of petitioner's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.... [O]ur previous discussions of the subject suggest that even when the trial judge adopts proposed findings verbatim, the findings are those of the court and may be reversed only if clearly erroneous." Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 571-72, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1510-11, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (citation omitted)."

The fact that the plaintiff drafted the proposed order doesn't matter, because the court is placing its imprimatur on that order by adopting it. It's still the court making the decision to issue the order. I don't see why you'd have a problem with that, especially because it benefits neither party more than the other. You're absolutely free to submit proposed orders along with your motions; I bet if the judge grants your motion, he or she will happily sign off on your proposed order.

Anonymous said...

Some folks here would have you believe that Judge Neilson is too lazy to write his own two-page order, but he's energetic enough to churn out a four-page preliminary injunction, citing at least 15 cases, in less than 24 hours.

Just how stupid do some of these commenters think we are?

Rob Riley, or his law firm, wrote that preliminary injunction. You'd have to be one of Fob James' old dumb bells not to believe that.

legalschnauzer said...

Good grief, those extraordinary exceptions involving national security and obscenity are not even remotely present in the Riley matter.

Why are you so desperate to convince me and my audience of law that isn't so? Why this disinformation campaign of such intensity? As someone else noted earlier, you are a liar and you are disingenuous, and I have to wonder why.

By your own words, the Riley-written order was improper. He, or someone from his staff, wrote it before a hearing, before he had "prevailed" on anything, before any facts or evidence had been established or even presented.

Heck, all of this was done before the defendants were even lawfully served.

Why someone would spend the amount of time you've spent arguing BS that you know isn't true . . . well, it's beyond me. Something clearly is in it for you if you manage to discombulate me and/or my audience.

You've had zero impact on me because I can read the law for myself, and I don't need you to tell me what "Near" plainly says. I doubt that you've managed to con any of my readers either.

I've tolerated your garbage more than I should have, but I'm putting a stop to it now. Take your games elsewhere because your stuff no longer is seeing the light of day here.

BTW, I have a friend who is quite adept at tracing digital pathways, and he has some preliminary data on where your "anonymous" comments are coming from. I'm starting to develop a real good idea for who you are, and what agenda is driving you. You aren't as anonymous as you think you are.

That's another reason you are outta here.

Anonymous said...

Isn't this really a civil matter? How can it become criminal? Doesn't seem possible.

legalschnauzer said...

Yes, it's a civil matter. But Riley has put forth a preliminary injunction (probably written by him) and a contempt order (definitely written by him), and that changes the tone a bit because contempt is punishable by incarceration, even in a civil case.

The injunction is not remotely lawful, and I've not seen anything done in the case yet in a lawful manner. That probably explains why Rob Riley wanted the file sealed.

Anonymous said...

LS, I'm glad you told that one guy to get lost. His act was getting tiresome.

Anonymous said...

I am NOT saying this as a joke so I hope you do not take it as a joke. If you and Carol are arrested which I hope it does not come to that.. it sure would be terrible.. How will your readers know so we can all bail you out? seriously. Do you have anyone here in AL that can help you get out or do we just assume when we see zero posts for a while what has happened. Like I said.. THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE A JOKE I am asking in all sincerity. I have been seeing your posts forwarded on others sites so there has to be a ton of people reading your site and watching very carefully.

Anonymous said...

the moron kept talking about the motion which wasn't.

there was a bunch of fraud against the Legal Schnauzer Blog and included Mrs. Schnauzer even though she isn't.

the pretender lenders do the same drill in court, submit case upon case and all the mumbo jumbo the criminals want the twenty first century of transparency to be, alas to no avail there either.

standard operating procedure became the sop over the years, slowly but surely and Rove the Turd Stink got hold of Alabama the cesspool and moved right in.

just in case the moron and other imbeciles didn't take notice, the Legal Schnauzer is a hero to allow the toxic mouth noise here, voicing opinions like A$$holes always do, without a clue and no point but ignorance of the law.

legalschnauzer said...

We don't really expect readers to bail us out of jail. I believe the Shelby County Sheriff's Office has a list of inmates online, so if anyone feels they need to locate us there, they are welcome to give it a shot.

As for the blog, does anybody know if Shelby County jail has Wi-Fi? If so, we'll just "keep on rocking in the free world."

Anonymous said...

Should Murph's Mavericks conclude already, that Judge Nielsen qualifies, under the existing Alabama constitutional article's provisions defining Judge Nielsen's Supernumerary judicial availability?

Are there not any other state supernumeraries located within a reasonable distance within Jefferson County?

How does the Alabama Supreme Court square with the public the long distance trip expenses dependent on length of case history. Nielsen is not paying long distance expenses out-of-pocket is he? If not, but why should the citizens of the state; this is Riley's doings, not the publics.

If Nielsen is on the tax payer's dime, under these circumstances, doesn't the public have a right to know why him, @ that distance; wouldn't the open records "let the sunshine in" law be enforceable?

Moore was either an imposter, or if the real thing, must have really become damaged goods by Riley's and Pryor's machine {Rove};
but wait a minute, This same Riley was too linked to the Governor's office during that administration.

Now enter a second federal judge and another attorney general, that will too as result of Riley's eight years become entangled in his administration's previous and era of corruptions; the only thing, when Riley said it; it wasn't true then, and it's not true today! It's the gift that just keeps on giving, thanks Murph.

Anonymous said...

Yes, you can both be arrested and killed too, just like that.

This is the USSA and therefore, we're going down to the standards found in the China and Russian gulags, when didn't people notice the empires are in this time of depopulating earth, all together.

The Empire America has fallen and can't get up. Militant preparations are happening, but the top military and all the way trickle down, let go.

Money problems? Who really knows.

November 11 through 15, or on into next year and for the next five years Evelyn Rothschild said on the Weather dot Com channel in China, patient Red Dragon for the one world currency is coming.

The corrupt Alabama that have put Don Siegelman in prison, do not hesitate to do whatever can be done to keep the police state as all powerful over US.

Anonymous said...

If anything happens to LS al.com will not report. They exist for the machine.

Anonymous said...

I was a paralegal for many years and yes it is common practice but I have also seen lawyers add and/or take away tiny little things and many times the judge does not catch it. It is a common practice but a bad one. I would have lawyers from NY, LA and Chicago in my backpocket because this bunch of theives have plenty of power, plenty of out of state money and plenty of hatred of anyone that challenges them. Anyone that does not pay attention only needs to look at Seigleman and a few others that dared tried to stand up to the Rove/Riley/Canary machine. CYA

Anonymous said...


The cheese has left the cracker! A few beers shy of six pack!