Tuesday, March 4, 2014

New York Times Article Falsely Claims that Legal Schnauzer Case Raises First Amendment Questions

This is Carol, Roger's wife. The headline on The New York Times article says the Legal Schnauzer case raises questions about the first amendment. One sentence in the article says that the case makes for "an exceptionally messy test of constitutional law." But the article as a whole does not say that at all. In fact, the article states that the case really is about judicial incompetence and corruption in an Alabama courthouse. 

Every legal expert cited by The Times says that Alabama Circuit Judge Claud Neilson has ruled unlawfully in the Legal Schnauzer case, resulting in the incarceration of publisher Roger Shuler. None of the experts says that the case raises new issues regarding the first amendment. A 2012 Virginia case called Dietz v. Perez states unequivocally that a preliminary injunction in an alleged defamation case is unlawful under the first amendment. The facts and procedure of the Schnauzer case are almost identical to Dietz, and that means that Shuler's incarceration is unlawful and he is due to be released immediately.

"This case really is about unlawful actions in an Alabama courtroom." Shuler said. "The first amendment has been rock-solid for roughly 230 years and the Dietz case shows that it's still very much intact and nothing in my case raises new issues regarding the first amendment. It simply is a matter of a rogue judge who has so far gotten away with making rulings that go way outside the law."

The New York Times - New York, NY


Unknown said...

Who really rules the world? This question is complex, but not impossible to understand…

In 2012, the Swiss Federal Institute in Zurich (SFI) released a comprehensive study entitled, “The Network of Global Corporate Control” which demonstrates how this relatively small consortium of corporations, and overwhelmingly dominated by mainly banks, actually run the world’s corporate daisy chain. According to their study, approximately 147 corporations form a “super entity” and have control 40% of the world’s corporate economy. The centre of the cartel includes the following giants: Barclays, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Vanguard Group, UBS, Deutsche Bank, Bank of New York Mellon Corp, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Corp, and Société Générale.

VANGUARD: Roger's journalism on Vanguard, your KEY.

Sue Vanguard and all the real parties in interest that are the NYT, too. Sue the NYT.

You can sue anyone and your a pauper so sue the correct real party/ies in interest.

Otherwise, you are not going to see Roger free because these losing criminals called our 'judicial' are RICO for the so called global elite.


Unknown said...

In such circumstances, the government need not show probable cause in order to obtain the content of the private communication of a journalist. It need only offer “specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”

These unprecedented attacks on press freedom are being carried out by the Obama administration on the basis of the pseudo-legal argument that democratic rights must be “balanced” against national security needs.


Best to sue the owners' of this agenda, those that own the agents that are in complete opposition of our 'Bill of Rights', and of course taking the U.S. Constitution and using our 'law' to do what is being done.

Tomorrow 3/5, perhaps the date to then OBJECT PROFUSELY to every filing in that hole of no return other than for those that have stolen the reality of sane America.

Unknown said...


you are a pauper so go for this in the filings!

JPMorgan Chase Engaged in Mortgage Fraud. The Securitization Fraud That Collapsed the Housing Market The Stone that Brings Down Goliath? Richmond and Eminent Domain


In a nearly $13 billion settlement with the US Justice Department in November 2013, JPMorganChase admitted that it, along with every other large US bank, had engaged in mortgage fraud as a routine business practice, sowing the seeds of the mortgage meltdown. JPMorgan and other megabanks have now been caught in over a dozen major frauds, including LIBOR-rigging and bid-rigging; yet no prominent banker has gone to jail. Meanwhile, nearly a quarter of all mortgages nationally remain underwater (meaning the balance owed exceeds the current value of the home), sapping homeowners’ budgets, the housing market and the economy. Since the banks, the courts and the federal government have failed to give adequate relief to homeowners, some cities are taking matters into their own hands.

Alabama is not going to stand in the changing of the TIMES and therefore, sue the NYT Et Al, you can and must!!

xo/Porn Pom too

e.a.f. said...

I'd suggest it is both. The case is about the violation of Mr. Shuler's First amendment rights. It is also about the corruption in Alabama courts.

people are no more free to express themselves in Alabama than they are in Russia or China or the Crimea. What is different in Alabama are there are rules to protect citizens, but judges for hire can subvert them. In other countries its the government or military who infringes upon people's freedoms in Alabama its simply the rich and connected.

The people who wanted Mr. Shuler in jail, most likely thought he'd cave and get with their agenda. Now they have a problem which is growing larger as the days go by and more people become aware of what is going on. This is an embarrassment to the U.S.A. Perhaps some of those federal politicians who are ranting about Russia and the Crimea could pay attention to what is going on in their own country first.

legalschnauzer said...


Attorney for the Office of the Sheriff

Rob Riley

1744 Oxmoor Road
Birmingham, Alabama 35209

Phone: (205) 879-5000

Email: rob@rileyjacksonlaw.com

Anonymous said...

NYT writer is probably not a lawyer and doesn't know any better. By holding Shuler in jail on an illegal order by Judge Neilson, federal habeas corpus jurisdiction has been triggered. An attorney (wherever you can find one) for Shuler should immediately file an emergency 1983 action in federal court under 42 United States Code, Section 1983, and demand immediate immediate injunctive and declaratory relief under rules 65 and 47 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and furthermore, a federal habeas corpus action which challenges Shuler's incarceration as illegal. I have read about this sordid mess enough to see that holding Shuler is a violation of acts of Congress passed to enforce, inter alia, the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, which btw is the supreme law of the land, notwithstanding despotic jerk judges in Alabama by the name Neilson and Moore.