Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Response to Inaccuracies in The New York Times Story On Legal Schnauzer First Amendment Case

This is Carol, Roger's wife. An article covering the Legal Schnauzer first amendment case was written by reporter Campbell Robertson and published in the Sunday, Jan. 12 issue of The New York Times. The article in the nation's most prestigious newspaper came after an almost three hour interview with Carol Shuler and an hour's worth of four separate interviews with Roger Shuler via telephone from the Shelby County Jail, where he has been unlawfully incarcerated since Oct. 23 due to a lawsuit filed by Republican political figure Rob Riley.

As Shuler noted previously, he is pleased with the attention The New York Times has shined on the issue of terroristic threats against journalists and bloggers and those who support free speech, however, the article contains a number of glaring inaccuracies

In response to Campbell Robertson's report in The New York Times which stated that Shuler and his wife had refused to hire a lawyer, Roger Shuler goes on to reply as follows:
"I had specifically told Campbell Robertson that we are open to being represented by the right lawyer with the right strategy under the right circumstances. I felt I made that very clear, but there must have been some misunderstanding because The New York Times incorrectly reported that I was refusing to hire a lawyer. That's not true and I just want to make sure that's clear."
Shuler addressed the second issue which has to do with statements in The New York Times article to the effect that he has a history of defamation claims. Roger Shuler responded as follows:
"The New York Times' reporter Campbell Robertson incorrectly hinted that I have a long history of problems with defamation cases. Here is the truth. In Mr. Robertson's paragraph on that subject, he refers to a lawsuit involving my neighbor, a man named Mike McGarity who has an extensive criminal record. To make it clear that lawsuit had nothing to do with defamation or nothing to do with my role as a journalist. It was strictly about a property matter that Mr. McGarity sued me over and to make it clear he has an extensive criminal record that has been documented on my blog. 
To summarize, I became a professional journalist in May 1978 and had never been sued in my capacity as a journalist for defamation or anything else until Fall 2013. That's more than 35 years without a defamation lawsuit and The New York Times article did not make that clear. The only defamation lawsuits I've ever had are the ones involving Rob Riley and one filed roughly the same time by the same political forces in Alabama from Luther Strange's former campaign manager Jessica Mederios Garrison. That's it. For the record, Mr. Robertson told me that he has one defamation claim that he has had to fight and he's not worked for The New York Times anywhere near 35 years so essentially he has more of a history with defamation cases than I do. 
And while I very much appreciate Mr. Robertson's efforts to report the story and the spotlight his newspaper shined on the issues, I do want to make sure that certain inaccuracies are corrected."

The New York Times - New York, NY


Anonymous said...

Unfortunately unknown to most Alabamians that for a very long time a New York Times reporter has resided in Alabama; you'll be hard pressed to find Alabama papers picking up any NYT stories off AP wires down there. This reporter/paper knows way lot more about what's going on down there, but like others sit on Alabama media's deaf-mute fences; whereby losing further more public confidences, rivaling the congress and president for the worst of the three.

Support The Roger/Carol Shuler Case; Help them To Mainstay Weathering The Corrupt Legal System In Alabama Enforcements and Courts.

Unknown said...


Andrew Kreig said...

Roger, Carol:

I'm glad you were able to clarify the NY Times report. I'm sure it's difficult logistics for you both with the continued jailing.

I published this column on the matter nearly two weeks ago, headlined

Andrew Kreig
Justice Integrity Project
Washington, DC

"Alabama Court Again Hammers Blogger As NY Times Flubs Libel Story," Jan. 17, 2014.

A New York Times reporter tried so hard to be balanced that he underplayed the damage to the public from the court system's outrageous confiscation of Shuler's rights.

Read more: http://www.justice-integrity.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=615:alabama-orders-90-day-term-for-blogger-as-ny-times-flubs-libel-story&catid=21&Itemid=114

Unknown said...

This just in: New York Times reporters embarrassed by the paper's editorial pages
By Charles Hoskinson | FEBRUARY 4, 2014 AT 5:52 PM
Topics: Beltway Confidential Media Maureen Dowd Thomas L. Friedman
Photo - The New York Times' editorial page is not exactly beloved by staffers, according to a New York Observer report. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan) The New York Times' editorial page is not exactly beloved by staffers, according to a New York...

Reporters in The New York Times newsroom deeply resent the paper's editorial page, and the dissent has “reached the boiling point,” the New York Observer reports Tuesday.

It's not an ideological dispute, the Observer says, but rather the sense that the paper's editorials and columns are boring, ineffectual, poorly written and poorly read. The story was based on interviews with more than two dozen current and former Times staffers, mostly on condition of anonymity out of fear of editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal.

Rosenthal was described as a petty tyrant, and lazy in his supervision of an opinion staff that is widely seen outside the newsroom as the voice of the Left-wing establishment.

But many saved their most pointed criticism for foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman, noting that his writing in recent years has been widely parodied and ridiculed.
Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!

"As for the columnists, Friedman is the worst. He hasn’t had an original thought in 20 years; he’s an embarrassment. He’s perceived as an idiot who has been wrong about every major issue for 20 years, from favoring the invasion of Iraq to the notion that green energy is the most important topic in the world even as the financial markets were imploding," said a former Times writer described as having "gone on to great success elsewhere."


legalschnauzer said...

Andrew.. Thanks for your terrific article! I definitely plan to do a blog post of your coverage highlighting the flubs made by the NY Times in their story on Roger's case.

Unknown said...

anon 3:04 PM the trouble appears the Alabama people want Roger in jail and the corruption that is Alabama or they would do something about this - the community as a whole should be more than outraged.

Keep looking for a petition here, but none appears.

All the 'writers' such as Kreig Et Al get paid to stay in the matrix and should get paid to file law suits against IT.

Lots of paper from every writer in the country like the guy who sued Obama for the NDAA, Chris Hedges got what needs to get done.

Anonymous said...

Coyote Lane 02/06 @ 2:04 am

You are exactly right in believing that's about the way these matters ongoing with the Shuler case should be; but sadly here, within these boundaries the norms are the exceptions, therefore your suggestions of what should have long ago been a normal enforcement judicial process was intentionally bypassed to orchestrate a nightmarish judicial experience.

But the Alabama silencing political machine in this case more than any before didn't take into consideration the stalwartness of Shuler, his supporters. In the final analysis Shuler is destined to win, but equally important what will come to surface out of all this mockery of justice will probably cause those involved, whether in Shuler's case or others, in grade abuse and misuse of powers and authorities to contemplate soon their own being confronted with, "guilty or not guilty".

Alabama's shadow government, silencing political machine, has not been representative of the people; the people are live in fear, they are afraid to criticize their local officials according to local businessperson's out-of-state interview.

This is bigger than Shuler, whoever opened the gate for the horses to run out has by now caused some serious handwringing as what to do. Why? Because Shuler via the criminal court or afterward the civil court is going to have to just bump the lid's edge of PANDORA'S BOX for his case to stand on its own merits, also revealing the answer to your concern, petition, when seen when been done to individuals and families under the guises being legal and lawful.

Yes, it does cause any average minded thinking person to wonder why hasn't there been organized gatherings, petitions, etc....
simply put, Alabama is a poor state and it come down to a pot full of powerful influential individuals that dictates what comes into out of this state, and too what the tax payers can read, or the newspaper may find his advertisers pulled...... poorer persons well they are just fired or moved to a worst job, like one individual, until they just quit after having served for over twenty years.

Help that's needed, required, here has got to come from outside the state of Alabama!

Anonymous said...

Luther strange has competition. Hubbard reads this page, no?

Unknown said...

"[emphasis added]If you think that the office of state attorney general in your state is an unlikely source of mischief, think again. My warnings this morning are not based on speculation or conjecture."

"Although Pryor's job as Attorney General is to protect the rights of Alabama citizens he has shown a disturbing tendency to favor the interest of big business."

"...issues raise serious concerns about how, if confirmed he would rule with respect to the rights and interests of ordinary

Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor on January 26, 2002 speaking before the United States Chamber of Commerce Committee Washington, D.C.; providing for good examples being applied within the Siegelman and Shuler cases that should have been/should be now followed as referred to below:

18 F.2d.[2nd U.S. CIRCUIT]
" The federal government will intervene, despite pending state proceedings, where the state prosecution, or proceedings has been brought to retaliate for or to deter constitutionally protected conduct or where a prosecution or proceeding is otherwise brought in bad faith or for the purpose to harass.

Abstention would serve no purpose because a state cannot have a legitimate interest in discouraging the exercise of Constitutional Rights.

There was presented sufficient evidence to justify Federal Intervention where shown that he had a "Past History Of Personal Conflict" with opposing litigants
that he had engaged in protected conduct, and that the desire "To Do Something About Him" rose to the "Level Of Animus."