Wednesday, October 9, 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court of 1931 Looked Into The Future And Saw Rob Riley's Thuggish Tactics In Alabama of 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court started becoming a joke in the eyes of many Americans with its 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore, awarding the presidency to George W. Bush. The trend picked up steam with the court's dubious decisions on campaign finance (Citizens United v. FEC, 2010) and the Voting Rights Act (Shelby County v. Holder, 2013).

It's easy to forget that the nation's high court once issued well-reasoned opinions, grounded in America's constitutional values. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court once acted with stunning foresight. We were reminded of that fact upon opening our mail on Saturday to find a Petition for Contempt that Homewood attorney Rob Riley--the son of former GOP governor Bob Riley (2003-2011)--has filed in a lawsuit against my wife and me. (See contempt petition at the end of this post.)

Riley contends that certain posts here involving lobbyist Liberty Duke are false and defamatory. Not content to litigate his claims on the merits, Riley persuaded specially appointed Judge Claud D. Neilson to issue a preliminary injunction that purports to force removal of posts from Legal Schnauzer and forbid future reporting on certain subjects.

Apparently convinced that sunlight does not benefit his case, Riley also persuaded Neilson to seal the case file and forbid reporting on the matter. (I'm not joking about this; you can read the judge's order here.) Sources told us a couple of days ago that the case--styled Robert R. Riley Jr. and Liberty Duke v. Roger Shuler, Carol T. Shuler and Legal Schnauzer, Civil Action 2013-236 in Shelby County Circuit Court--does not appear in the public files via

I knew immediately that Neilson's actions on Rob Riley's behalf were wildly unlawful. But I needed to conduct some research to realize they violated about 230 years worth of black-letter law on free speech. And that process gave me renewed appreciation for a U.S. Supreme Court that has a proud history--even though its present is embarrassing.

Peter B. Collins invited me on his San Francisco-based radio show yesterday to discuss the Riley case and associated activities. You can check out a preview of our interview here. Here is a key segment of our discussion:

PBC: It appears [the judge] has reached an arbitrary finding that you have, in fact, defamed these parties. I'm aghast that this could occur without your participation . . .  
LS: It can't, under the law. . . . I'm convinced the preliminary injunction was written by Rob Riley's office, and that happens a lot. . . . Even with (lawful service), we had less than 24 hours notice. The law is that you have sufficient notice to respond in writing, to call witnesses. This is not a minor deal. Preliminary injunctions aren't something judges are to toss out like baseball cards. . . . You don't know whether to get angry or laugh about it . . . this is so absurd. Most people intuitively know that this isn't right. You almost have to laugh, like it's an episode of "Hee Haw."

Published reports indicate Rob Riley intends to run for the U.S. House seat being vacated by Spencer Bachus, and that almost certainly is driving his Legal Schnauzer lawsuit.

Rob Riley wants an injunction against my reporting, even though no court of law has found it to be defamatory. The U.S. Supreme Court of 1931 could see thugs like Rob Riley in the future and found that such actions constitute unlawful prior restraint. The court went even further--in a case styled Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)--using the term "censorship" to describe prior restraint.

What exactly is Rob Riley up to? Let's consider these words from the Petition for Contempt that Riley doesn't want you to see:

Civil contempt is the "willful, continuing failure or refusal of any person to comply with a court's lawful writ, subpoena, process, order, rule or command that by its nature is still capable of being complied with. . . . " 
The Respondents' [my wife and me] above-described non-compliance with TRO and the Preliminary Injunction constitutes on-going civil, constructive contempt. Respondents' on-going contempt not only is an affront to this Court's clear orders, it causes on-going injury to Petitioners [Riley and Liberty Duke] through the continued publication of false, defamatory, and libelous statements.

The key word in the above section, of course, is "lawful." And 230 years of U.S. law shows Neilson's efforts to stifle a free press are unlawful. Riley's petition is a thinly veiled attempt to threaten my wife and me with jail for practicing journalism--the publishing of information that has not been found by any court to be defamatory.

Judge Claud Neilson
In Near, the U.S. Supreme Court saw that kind of thuggery coming and wrote the following:
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.

That passage describes exactly what Rob Riley is trying to pull--he wants to suppress a free press, with the threat of a contempt finding that is punishable by imprisonment. The U.S. Supreme Court in Near found "this is of the essence of censorship."

It was unlawful in 1931, and it's unlawful in 2013--no matter how badly Rob Riley wants to replace Spencer Bachus in Congress.


Anonymous said...

Excellent reporting.

SCOTUS has been compromised and that is the real story. Bush v. Gore proves the story, too as well the cases you report.

Spying on Americans wasn't about the little people of little 'value'.

Spying was for the ones to be kept exactly as the spy owners' want.

SCOTUS does now what IT tells IT to because the digits do keep the terrorized in the 'money'.

LEGAL SCHNAUZER has proven the new order of LAW, and IT isn't other than the ONLINE full exposure of the real law.

Been said and it's true, lawyers have been left far behind in the www, and that was also an intended consequence of the Wall Street Federal Reserve Bandits, Crooks, Thieves, Mass Murdering.

Destroying the Earth is ITS' full time agenda.

Wait til 'end of year' BOOM coming from the Fed, it'll be another wake up call to the Garrison cult of penis nose wearers.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for reminding us that the U.S. Supreme Court actually used to be worth a crap.

Anonymous said...

Any way we could all chip in to pay for Peter B. Collins to move to Alabama and start a radio show?

Anonymous said...

Even conservative lawyers must be embarrassed by Rob Riley.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Judge Neilson knows squat about this case. Maybe he is just being spoon fed stuff by Riley firm, and then having his name stamped on it.

If Neilson actually is issuing these orders, he's a complete toad.

Anonymous said...

If I'm Rob Riley, I'm hoping like hell no one actually arrests Mr. and Mrs. Schnauzer. If that happens, based on Mr. Riley's unlawful court documents, he's going to have serious problems.

Anonymous said...

Rob Riley is acting like a desperate man, for some reason.

Anonymous said...

I love the fact you are publishing these documents that Rob Riley doesn't want the public to see.

Anonymous said...

LS: I take it you and the missus still believe Rob Riley cheated both of you out of your jobs.

legalschnauzer said...

I have no doubt Rob Riley is responsible, totally or in part, for the cheat job I experienced at UAB.

I strongly suspect he was involved somehow with my wife's deal at Infinity.

So the answer is yes and yes.

Anonymous said...

Is it possible the Poarch Creeks or Mississippi Choctaws helped pay for Jessica's house, in exchange for Big Luther shutting down VictoryLand?

Anonymous said...

If you were still working at UAB, would you have been able to break the Liberty Duke story or the Jessica Garrison story or . . .

legalschnauzer said...

No, @1:10, there is no way I would have broken any of those stories if I were still working at UAB. I never would have had the time.

In fact, Legal Schnauzer probably would have phased out years ago if I hadn't been "fired." With a full-time job, I worked on the blog for two hours, two nights a week, and on weekends. That's all the time I had for it--probably 6-8 hours a week, at most.

Legal Schnauzer, as we know it today, only came to exist because I was screwed out of my job.

Anonymous said...

If Rob Riley cost you your job--and I tend to agree with you on that because I know how he operates--it seems he made a pretty serious tactical blunder.

Anonymous said...

Rob Riley cheated Russ and Dee Fine out of their radio job a few years back when they criticized "Daddy Bob" about something.

Anonymous said...

I agree with @12:16. If Shelby County deputies actually arrest Mr. and Mrs. S, Rob Riley will be kissing a number of things goodbye--including his plans for a U.S. House seat.

Anonymous said...

LS, you might be right about the Spencer Bachus seat driving this crazy train. But I still think Bill Pryor might be behind it.

Those photos have upset the judicial apple cart in some major ways. Judges have known about those pics for years, but they never thought they would come to light.

Anonymous said...

ACLU is who you need to contact.

David in S. Alabama said...

If you could find five random orders written over the last ten years this judge was on the bench, I'd bet they would not look anything like the orders he has signed in this case. I don' think a retired judge would have done the legal research necessary to cite as many cases as he did. Retired judges are basically lazy and brevity is a virtue when writing orders.

Anonymous said...

An attorney who isn't aware of prior restraint law wants to be elected to Congress?

Alabamians should have their heads examined if this guy gets one vote.

Anonymous said...

Schnauzer, are you certain a preliminary injunction hearing was held?

legalschnauzer said...

No, I'm not certain about that. I would not be at all surprised to learn that one was not held.

Anonymous said...

If you are wrong about Mr. Riley, you are guilty of slander. If you are right, you or someone you know might have committed a HIPPA violation reguarding Ms. Duke. Either way you make me sick to my stomach. The way you have conducted yourself over the last several years on this blog, and the innocent people you have hurt, I don't know how you sleep at night. If this blog is any indication of the type of person you are, you deserved to be fired from UAB. Proabably should have never been hired.
Mr. Riley has a lovely wife and 4 children that should not be subjected to your garbage. The wife and children are innocent and should be off limits.
FYI I hate schnauzers.

Anonymous said...

I'm betting that neither you nor Judge Neilson had "notice" of this hearing. I'm also betting that Judge Neilson is none too pleased about the embarrassing publicity he's getting for his "actions" in this case.

Many judges don't care what the public thinks of them. But they care what other lawyers think of them. And this makes Judge Neilson look like a fool and--even worse--a tool to members of the bar.

legalschnauzer said...

Always great to hear from a "legal scholar" such as yourself, @3:11. A few thoughts, for your further education:

* A person cannot be "guilty" of slander. It's a tort, not a crime;

* You are concerned about a possible HIPPA violation, but not about the abortion itself or the payment of hush money? Interesting values system you have there;

* If Mrs. Riley and the children are subjected to reporting about Mr. Riley's affair, don't you think Mr. Riley holds a little responsibility for that?

* If you hate schnauzers, you must live a sad and pathetic life.

David in S. Alabama said...

3:11 doesn't seem to understand that the one sue defense against a charge of libel is the absolute truth. If it can be shown in court that Rob Riley did in fact engage in an adulterous relationship with Liberty Duke, then he cannot be found to have engaged in the libel of these two plaintiffs.

legalschnauzer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
legalschnauzer said...

Interesting thoughts, @3:13. If I were Neilson, I wouldn't enjoy being made to look like an idiot.

Anonymous said...

As usual you miss the point, if Mr. Riley didn't do this you have slandered him. Regardless if its is a crime or a tort. Do you have ironclad proof?
Contrary to your earlier post, I am very concered about abortion. Much more than you will ever know. However, I'm not sure one has occured. If it did, the people involved will have to answer for that some day. As for my values, as Jesus taught, I will put my arms around the young lady and let her know that though I disaprove of her actions, I still will love and support her. But, you still may have commited a HIPPA violation. Which can have severe penalties.
You are correct that if Mr. Riley did commit adultry, he bears the responsibility. However, you should not be so joyful in hurting his innocent family, especially his children. If you think he cost you your job, then confront him like a man, don't hide behind your posion pen.
I do have a wonderful life with a great family. I love dogs, but as far as schnauzers are concerned they are always barking and making life miserable for those outside of their "little kingdom". The ones I have been around have never been fun dogs, they bark for 30 minutes without stopping after you arrive at someones home. Maybe your dog did not do this.
I have prayed for this anger inside you to subside. Life is too good to feel everyone is after you.
I don't claim to be legal scholar, but I am very well educated (BSC) and have good common sense. I try to get help others anyway I can. In fact if you would like to discuss this further just ask and I will give you my phone number and we can meet for coffee.
FYI, I'm not friends of Mr. and Mrs. Riley. I did met them once at their childrens swim meet. They were very plesant. Have a good day.

Anonymous said...

3:11, your comment could not be more moronic! You certainly peaked! What about the hundreds of thousands more like multi millions of live these people have touched or destroyed? When these people go around hurting their families because they have no integrity or moral self control, why are they not put out to pasture as they should be? Because of societal moral decay that uou exemplify here for us today! You say LS is a horrible person for trying to share and inform people who have a right to know who our public figures really are, yet you discount that he is actually helping the majority! These crooks are NOT the majority and majority still rules! Your comment makes me sick and i wish i could smack the smirk from your noggin! Go put a penis nose in it!

Humanoid Figure said...

Bill Pryor is appointed to SCOTUS in 2021. By 2023, Pryor has a change of heart & rules in favor of Mîckey Mouse, compelling Disney to give him an opposable thumb so he can masturbate to gay porn.

Anonymous said...

David S. in South Alabama: I completely understand about the truth, however I have not seen any proof. I'm not saying nothing happened, you just better be able to prove it in court. The LS seems to have a lot of lawsuits filed against him. Wonder if he has put his homeowners insurance carrier on notice? If not, he better, it is a requirement. They could also not renew him because of potential litigation. For that mater they don't really need a reason. Just food for thought.
Those that throw stones should not live in glass houses.

Humanoid Figure said...

Someone more powerful than the Rileys or even Roy Moore's god is at work. The United States will exist in the future. The Confederacy will not rise again. The future of the Human Race depends on the defeat of neo-Nazism & Alabama's Kleen Kut Ku Klux Klan.

Anonymous said...

Legal Schnauzer, thank you for posting 3:11, IT looks just like what IT is, a completely tragic life and no doubt - how awful to imagine - the family in that place @ 3:11's ...... nastier than the rest of what you write about?!


way it is, types that post such obvious "thinks the lady doth protest too much".

seething with contempt for the whole dirty low down truth. loves the fake and therefore, in lust with the dark cause IT wants to or IT already does and doesn't LIKE IT seeing IT in the light.

darkness can be our friend, the unseen is, but the dark that the people who pretend to be Christians and birth children to then subject the innocent to the broken lost empty wounded no souls.

wound of the soul 3:11, you can't ever be filled with enough contempt for the truth, loveless soulless heartless cruel and have all that 'feeling' inside exploding psycho 'Liberty?'

you are an empty vacuum and we can either pray for you or shit on your image of hating Schnauzers, of course the photos all do help the toilet bowl image of faces to be there waiting.

Can do both, pray while shittin on your images of self loathing.

Anonymous said...

Pick up the telephone and call the judge, he has to speak with you.

Speaking only with an attorney means that, and you have to represent yourself in a bogus or not, case.

Pick up the phone, make it a conference call for the Legal Schnauzer site and invite 3:11.


Anonymous said...

right 3:40 PM

and depos immediately to get to the heart of the matter,

judge would probably seal the depos and deposing, but

could get right down to the real nitty gritty, always works

INTERROGATORIES - call the judge about this, doesn't have to be in the file, can't in most cases, can get sneaked in via an email exhibit draft to client or ?

call the judge about the discovery for the TRO, you can comply upon speaking to the judge about how to proceed in a case you deem fraud

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately Jefferson and Shelby counties in Alabama are not isolated unto themselves when involving selective targeting of private citizens; when, if, required of, their being silenced via various means, all the while believing they, whomever, are above the law[s].

These corruptors, crooks, and liars all march in a chain-like-concert to same drummer's rhythm.

May be time for a cataloging of unlawful illegal litigations, involving private citizens, cost burdened by private citizens, whose sole purpose designed for protections of incident's participants and complicities.

e.a.f. said...

Judge Neilson could not have been paying much attention, when he signed that piece of paper. Simply does not make sense.

Love the national interest you are getting on this. However, it may not cause Riley and crew to get with the agenda. They simply may be too dumb or think they are above the law.

there is the small matter of freedom of the press and speech. No one has demonstrated you have done anything which constitutes Libel or/and slander.

To: Annoy 3:11. Please note the above regarding the constitution. This isn't about Mrs. Riley or the 4 children, its about Mr. Riley and his activities. Perhaps Mr. Riley ought to have given some thought to Mrs. Riley and children prior to removing his picker from his pants. We can not avoid reporting on people because their families might have hurt feelings.

Unknown said...

schnauzer, when you post the post where you're hated and the dog is too, but then you remove other comments, you do not stand in the first amendment and that i would say has been one of the greatest disappointments in your own rather elitist attitude.

your wife and you are both deeply hurt and this is as it should be. we're human.

the pain has to be a reality that has to be healed.

the south is not exactly where anyone would move, that is in the liberal idea of life.

so when you moved to the south, you had to accept the place for what it is. sadly it isn't going to change because your blog is one of the best about law in the country.

the change is going to be because you are not like the elitists.

that is the real act of courage and all comments posted, let the people rip, even those who hate you and schnauzers and would kill you dead, all your family cats, wife, every living breathing life.

then the people of AL are going to see real change, because censorship is what and why we are where we are, not just because of the truly made sick Americans.

legalschnauzer said...

I would be glad to talk with you at any time, @4:20. My personal e-mail is on the front page of the blog (, and my phone number is listed in the book. My cell number is available upon request.

Not sure where you developed the notion that I take joy in any pain the Riley children (or anyone else, for that matter) might feel.

Also, I have confronted Rob Riley "like a man" about what happened with my job at UAB. I asked him about it in an interview, and audio of that has been published here.

Anonymous said...

3:11 and the subsequent,

Why do you think people have dogs? Many do so because they bark and thus protect! Not all have them for their cutesiness!