Thursday, October 20, 2016

Donald Trump likely is wrong about dark motives behind 2016 election, but many everyday Americans know that some U.S. systems are, in fact, "rigged"

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton
Lost amid discussion about Donald Trump's failure at last night's presidential debate to promise he would accept 2016 election results is this: Trump, though he surely did not realize it, actually had a point.

Trump's statement that he would keep us in "suspense" on the election-results issue caused many pundits' heads to spin, but it should not have been a surprise. It grew from Trump's pre-debate claims that the race is "rigged" in Hillary Clinton's favor.

The Trump claim is nonsensical on at least two levels; (1) We've seen zero evidence that this particular election is rigged; (2) When events are rigged in the United States, they almost never harm rich, white, conservative guys like Trump; they tend to be the riggers, not the riggees.

Despite that, Trump has provided a public service, in a roundabout way, by raising the "r word." That's because parts of American officialdom are rigged, especially in our so-called justice system. My wife, Carol, and I have seen it firsthand. So have many of the people I've reported about on this blog -- women like Sherry Rollins, Linda Upton, and Bonnie Cahalane in divorce cases; a man like Dr. Mark Hayden in a business/estate case; a man like VictoryLand owner Milton McGregor in a string of gaming-related cases; even a former governor, Don Siegelman of Alabama, in perhaps the most grotesque political prosecution in American history.

(Speaking of Siegelman, do you think he believes American elections can be stolen -- in other words, rigged -- after votes for him disappeared overnight in the 2002 race against Bob Riley? What about Sonny Hornsby, the Alabama chief justice candidate in 1994 who perhaps was the first victim of an election that was manipulated by Karl Rove? What about Al Gore supporters in 2000 and John Kerry supporters in 2004, who likely saw results in single states -- Florida and Ohio, respectively -- lead to the calamitous George W. Bush presidency? Bottom line: Donald Trump almost certainly has no grounds to believe the 2016 election is rigged against him -- his own missteps have been plenty to make him a loser -- but American election results should not be seen as sacrosanct; they can be subject to tampering.)

What about those instances when a rigged system has worked against Carol and me? I could write a multi-volume book on that, but let's focus on one element, of one case, in our legal odyssey.

In a letter dated October 31, 2013, eight days after I was arrested for writing this blog and thrown in the Shelby County Jail, Birmingham attorney David Gespass revealed stunning information. GOP political operative Rob Riley and lobbyist Liberty Duke had -- contrary to law -- asked for the case file to be sealed. That meant Carol and I largely were in the dark about a case that caused Alabama deputies to barge into our home and essentially kidnap me -- I use that term because the cops showed no warrant, did not mention a warrant, and did not even state their purpose for being on our property before beating me up and dousing me with pepper spray.

Gespass -- who visited me twice in jail, although he never offered any strategies for addressing the injustice I had experienced -- apparently managed to review the file. (I assume by contacting Rob Riley or his lawyers, members of Riley's firm.) Consider just one sentence from the third paragraph of Gespass' letter: (The full letter is embedded at the end of this post.)

First of all, both the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (the latter is now in effect, but both say the same things) appear to have been issued before service was effected. . . . 

Let's briefly deal with two preliminary matters before addressing our main point:

(1) More than 200 years of First Amendment law hold that both a TRO and preliminary injunction are unlawful in a case of alleged defamation;

(2) A TRO lawfully can be issued prior to notice or service to the defendant. But that simply cannot happen with a preliminary injunction, in any kind of legal case. In fact, Alabama law holds that a preliminary injunction cannot be considered, much less issued, if the opposing party has had no opportunity to submit evidence, call witnesses -- all the elements we know as due process in the United States. (See Southern Homes v. Bermuda Lakes.)

Now, back to our main point, and the mind-blowing words from Gespass' letter. According to Gespass, a preliminary injunction had been issued against Carol and me BEFORE SERVICE WAS EFFECTED.

David Gespass
Those aren't my claims; those are from an attorney -- one I do not like, and for whom, I have zero respect -- based on his review of the court's own hidden files. Gespass' words show that the court took action against Carol and me when we had not been served -- and without service, the court had no authority over us.

A legal case can't get much more "rigged" than that. It was decided in favor of one party before the other party even was given notice of the lawsuit, before the case had even started.

And get this: David Gespass, to my knowledge, has not done or said one thing to expose such an outrage -- even though Gespass has a duty under the ethical guidelines of his profession to report wrongdoing by his fellow members of the bar. Like most lawyers, it appears, Gespass is more interested in covering up injustice than exposing it.

As for Donald Trump, he seriously thinks he knows what it's like to face a system that is rigged against you? Carol and I really know what that's like -- and so do many of the people I've written about on this blog.


Anonymous said...

Of course, millions of Americans are victims of our rigged systems. But Donald Trump doesn't care about that, he only cares about himself.

Anonymous said...

My God, they issued a prelim injunction against you before you had even been served? My God, it just gets crazier and crazier.

Anonymous said...

The GOP should be charged with political malpractice for foisting a candidate like Trump upon U.S. voters.

Anonymous said...

This is insane! Who needs courts if they can just pass judgement without doing anything that approaches justice.

Anonymous said...

legalschnauzer said...

Thanks for the URL on the Profile Defender story, @1:49. That story is evolving in some peculiar ways.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Rob Riley is as bad a crook as he is a lawyer. Just a spoiled rich boy like Donald Trump, who can't handle his own business. Had to have daddy ask Milton McGregor for a job because his legal career was imploding. What a joke.

Anonymous said...

Republicans, in my view, can recover from Donald Trump, but I'm not sure the party leadership, or the sheeple who follow them, are smart enough to do it. As has been written elsewhere, the GOP's base is built on white nationalism, and it's going to be a slog for the party to rise above that and find a new direction.

Anonymous said...

Isn't Gespass supposed to be a liberal, who fights for civil rights?

legalschnauzer said...

I'm not sure what Gespass is supposed to be, other than a goofball and an airhead. I've encountered some unimpressive people in this legal experience, and he might top the list. From what I've seen, a lawyer can wear such-and-such a label -- especially among other lawyers -- and that doesn't mean it's true.

I would call Gespass an apologist for the legal profession, which probably is true of just about everyone in the field. But Gespass likes to talk big about events in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, as if it makes him appear like a deeper soul. In reality, he's just like the rest, only worse.

You can just read his letter and see that he offered me not a single solution to my issues. And here I was sitting in jail, for the first time in my life, and he outlines all kinds of unlawful actions that cause me to be there. But he offers nothing but excuses for the officials who committed them. I told him to his face that I thought he was working for Rob Riley, and I still believe that. If not Rob Riley, maybe it was Bill Baxley or some other piece of pond scum.

I would love to conduct a public debate with him about his handling of my situation, but I'm sure he is too big a coward to take it on. He's just a pseudo-hippie, liberal phony. I would never recommend that anyone take a civil-rights case to Gespass. He's a crappy lawyer and even worse human being.

Anonymous said...

After reading that link concerning profile defender I wonder if that profile defender outfit and the people behind it are amazing as Prenda Law once was. I have seen others mention the similarity.

Anonymous said...

There is a lot of talk lately on the tee vee about "voter fraud" which is likely rare. Election fraud, however, is embedded in the system it seems. Do you scratch your head and wonder how so and so candidate keeps getting elected?

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to "Alexa":

Thing are really getting interesting now. Looks like "Clif Walker" and "Walter Blanchard" have had a gender change. Unfortunately, becoming a woman hasn't made them any smarter. Try coming up with an original thought and maybe your comment will make it through moderation.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to "Alexa/Clif/Walter":

Looks like you've moved from Loganville, GA, to Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, in less than 24 hours. You must be worn out from being on the road so long -- plus having a sex change operation along the way. What a day!

A word to the wise, your con game is not terribly effective, but outing you provides us with some entertainment value.