Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Fighting back: Federal lawsuits seek justice for my unlawful arrest and incarcertion in Shelby County, plus the wrongful foreclosure on our home of 25 years

Liberty Duke
My wife, Carol, and I have filed two federal lawsuits in Alabama, seeking justice for the police beating and wrongful arrest that caused me to spend five months in jail -- and for the wrongful foreclosure on our home of 25 years in Birmingham.

The first case is styled Shuler, et al v. Liberty Duke, et al (Case No.: 2:16-cv-00501-RDP), and it was filed on March 26, 2016, in the Northern District of Alabama. Defendants in that case include lobbyist Liberty Duke, lawyers Rob Riley and Christina Crow, former Shelby County Sheriff Chris Curry and three of his deputies, and former Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins.

Another defendant is U.S. Circuit Judge William H. "Bill" Pryor, so it should be a surprise to no one that we already have seen signs of judicial corruption in the case -- and service has not even been completed. (More on the actions of U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor in upcoming posts.) The complaint alleges violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth amendments -- plus false arrest and imprisonment, excessive force, defamation, abuse of process, assault and battery, and more.

The second case is styled Shuler, et al v. Jessica Medeiros Garrison, et al (Case No. 2:;16-cv-00695-RDP), and it was filed on April 29, 2016, in the Northern District of Alabama. Defendants include attorneys Jessica Medeiros Garrison, Bill Baxley, and Robert Wermuth (and Huntsville law firm Stephens Millirons); Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange; Spartan Value Investors; JAG Investment Strategies; JPMorgan Chase Bank; Marie Claire magazine and Hearst Corporation; Yellowhammer News; al.com and Alabama Media Group; and more. The complaint alleges violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth amendments; wrongful foreclosure; tortious interference; defamation; civil conspiracy; and more.

We filed both cases in forma pauperis, which refers to indigent status for which we quality, largely because of the actions alleged in these lawsuits -- and because of actions apparently taken by members of Riley Inc. to cheat us out of our jobs, at UAB and Infinity Insurance, respectively.

Signs of corruption are connected to our in forma pauperis status in the first case and are driven by multiple unlawful rulings -- and we are talking about rulings that are not even close to being correct -- by District Judge R. David Proctor. Again, details on that are coming soon.

The two complaints can be read below. (Note: The complaints seen here are identical to those filed in court, except they do not include a time stamp or our signatures. That's because we now live in Missouri and were not able to get time-stamped copies as we normally do when we file matters in person at the Hugo Black Courthouse in Birmingham. The time-stamped and signed versions can be viewed at PACER, which charges fees for viewing documents.)


Anonymous said...

Sic 'em

Anonymous said...

Hope you kick em in the crotch until they yell, "No mas!" Then, I hope you keep kicking em in the crotch.

Anonymous said...

After your lawsuit, maybe Rob Riley will wind up homeless, dumpster diving under I-59. It makes for a pleasant thought. It's also what he deserves.

Anonymous said...

You're suing Bill Pryor? Good luck with that. The judicial lobby will rally around him, no matter how sleazy he is.

Anonymous said...

Love the thought of Luther Strange and Jessica Garrison sitting for depositions. They will try to squirm out of that with all their might.

Anonymous said...

Are you your own lawyer?

legalschnauzer said...

We are our own lawyers for now. I would prefer to have solid, ethical representation, and I've communicated with dozens of Alabama lawyers, but so far, we haven't made a connection. That might change pretty soon; we are open to having a lawyer, as we have been all along.

Anonymous said...

I thought you couldn't sue a judge.

legalschnauzer said...

You can't successfully sue a judge, as long as he's acting in is official capacity. But the evidence points to Bill Pryor engaging in a scheme to have me beaten and arrested for writing about the gay-porn ugliness in his past. That is way beyond his official capacity, so he loses judicial immunity for such actions.

Anonymous said...

There's no developed evidence that points to Bill Pryor "engaging in a scheme" - it's your inference based on events, and your suspicious of conspiracy based on you attributing bad motives and power where others exerted power.

I think your suit is doomed in other respects. Any good lawyer can tell you why, and them telling you so is already proof of them being a bad lawyer, so you won't really get much help.

It's too late to challenge some of the things that have happened.

Simply put, you need to pay for competent legal advice, and take it.

legalschnauzer said...

@12:36 -- Your comment is such a jumbled mess, it's hard to know how to respond. But I'll give it a shot on the few things I can figure out:

(1) The developed evidence will come during the discovery phase. That's what discovery is for. You should know that. You hint that "others exerted power," other than Bill Pryor. If you know that, why haven't you stepped forward to report it? The actions likely are criminal in nature.

(2) No one has told me my lawsuit is doomed in any respect. The rest of your second graph makes no sense.

(3) It's not too late to challenge any of this. I filed the complaints within the statute of limitations.

(4) Simply put, you've given no indication you have a clue what you are talking about. If you want me to consider your "advice," ID yourself and we will go from there. Would be glad to discuss if I know who I'm conversing with, what insights and agendas you might have.

Anonymous said...

Hey, @12:36 -- If LS's lawsuit is "doomed," I'm sure you know why -- it's because of corrupt federal judges in ND of AL, trying to protect Pryor, Rileys, Strange, etc. Why don't you cut to the chase, instead of dribbling all over yourself like a 3 year old?

Anonymous said...

I think it's a pretty good indication that 1 of the 2 lawsuits is doomed as it was dismissed and LS already had to file an appeal in September. If I only had an account at Pacer I could read those details too.

Don't believe everything you read on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Pryor's lifetime appointed judgeship; had both himself and Sessions not made the cognizant choices to perjure themselves under sworn oaths before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, clearing the way for final nomination approvals by senate members, appointment by president; then it is reasonable to conclude there would not be a need to consider in a judgeship's "official capacity". Governor Bentley's "Tits and Tails" ship of fools has already sailed, and Pryor's and Sessions' paralleling contributions will be two of the many seated at the Captain's Table. Strange's furtherance in making mockery of enforcement and judiciary and insulting the intelligences of Alabamians when making fools at same time by adjourning Grand Jury, announcing, everything A-OK! will be soon destined to come back around demanding his own and other's accountabilities. "Character, you either got it, or you don't." Former Ohio Congressman John Kasich, "Stand For Something".

legalschnauzer said...

Hah, what a hoot, @1:33. I addressed the "dismissal" issue (without prejudice) in the post and said it was related to our in forma pauperis status. You must not be much of an investigator if you couldn't figure that out. Try this for a challenge: Check out Judge Proctor's ruling on that issue and see if you can find any law that supports it. I look forward to your reply.

On a bigger issue, I'm constantly amazed at readers who come here and expect to find the same kind of court coverage you get at al.com and other MSM outlets -- where they take press releases and or judicial orders and never question whether they are supported by law.

That's never been what we do here over almost 10 years of legal reporting. We actually examine what the judge has done, to see if it fits with the law or his/her own personal agenda.

You can believe what is reported on this blog. You can't believe comments from people like @1:33 who have no idea what this blog is about, is afraid to ID himself, and has an agenda to ride. There really is no reason for @1:33 to be here because he can't handle anything beyond the usual "press release" journalism that the public has been getting for years.

Anonymous said...

Proctor has both cases? If so, that is damned suspicious right there.

legalschnauzer said...

Yes, both cases wound up with Proctor, and I have moved for his recusal. What are the chances that a "random selecion" would cause both cases to wind up with the same judge? Extremely small, I would think.

Anonymous said...

@1:33 is just a brain-dead wise ass who benefits from the corrupt system the way it is. He knows a blog like yours threatens his exalted status, which he has done nothing to earn. He's a spoiled, whiny trump supporter. Pay him no mind.

Anonymous said...

Already dismissed?

Roger - get a lawyer. I know you hate lawyers but you can't do this on your own.

legalschnauzer said...

Have you tried reading the post and the comments, @3:19? (1) I said we are trying to get a lawyer, and we've been trying for months; (2) The dismissal is "without prejudice," meaning the case can be refiled, and it involves a technical issue regarding our status as in forma pauperis litigants, as I will explain in upcoming posts; (3) Judge Proctor got the ruling wildly wrong, and it has nothing to do with the merits of our case; (4) Your comment suggests that you believe trial judges automatically are right in their rulings. If so, why are you here? Go to your favorite place that dispenses "press release" legal news.

If you want to know how Proctor already has shown he is corrupt, stay tuned. Also, if you can show me where I've made a mistake that caused the case to be "dismissed," please share. IF you can show how Proctor's ruling is supported by law, please share that, too.

Let's see if you can do a little work, or if you are just a lazy, nameless bomb thrower.

Anonymous said...

Hey, @3:19, don't just tell Mr. Schnauzer that he needs a lawyer. Give him the names of 4-5 lawyers who have the balls to take on and work such a case. Show that you have some depth. A comment like yours does no one any good, especially when Mr. Schnauzer already has said he has tried to get a lawyer.

I've tried getting lawyers to take a good case, and I know how hard it will be if they fear it might rock the boat a little.

Also, your comment suggests Mr. Schnauzer made a mistake that caused the dismissal, when I doubt you have any way of knowing that. What if the judge made the mistake? How will having a lawyer help in such a case?

Anonymous said...

His proof of a bad lawyer is that the lawyer tells him what's fatally wrong with his cases. So There is no way Roger Shuler would ever take a competent lawyer's advice.

Anonymous said...

I can suggest some lawyers for Schnauzer to choose from:

a. Rob Campbell
b. Edgar Gentle
c. Stewart Springer
d. Richard Bell
e. Thomas Plouff
f. James Henry
g. Reid Carpenter.

I'm sure any of these guys would be happy to take the case.

Anonymous said...

There are no longer any attorneys/judges which are incorruptible who are willing to really stand up toe to toe in defense of another's rights/freedoms against the state's obligatory enforcement/judiciary nowadays; why, even should they take a chance, such as prepared to go the distance in Murph's old man's case; they're more likely than not rightfully so overly concerned and worried about being held in "contempt"; i.e. think of governor Siegelman, he has lost his law license, unable to practice law again; therefore, any average day commonplace citizen survives the political system by, "to get along, one must go along", tending to your own business and keeping your mouth shut, Those hoping and wishing for indictments of Bentley/Mason, regardless the allegations; are destined to find themselves appearing before Grand Jury invalidating media espousals that Grand Jury concludes finding no wrongdoing[s].

legalschnauzer said...

I have no clue what you are talking about, @6:27. Can you write in English?

legalschnauzer said...

Hah, good one, @6:40.

Anonymous said...

forma pauperis---Pryor service--- U.S. Marshalls--- Sic'em

Anonymous said...

Roger, research this case, see if applicable your history:

"CULLEN vs. FLIEGNER 18 F .2d {2nd U. S. Circuit} 1994
The Federal Court will intervene, despite pending state proceedings, where the state prosecution, or proceedings has been brought in retaliation for or to deter constitutionally protected conduct or where a prosecution or proceedings is otherwise brought in bad faith or for the purpose to harass."

legalschnauzer said...

Thanks for sharing, @7:37. I will look up the Cullen case. Sounds like a principle that should apply beyond the 2nd Cir.

Clifton Walker said...

Here are my predictions on how these cases will end up.

1. Summary dismissal, likely with prejudice, at a very early date in the process. Possibly with this will be sanctions against the Shulers for filing frivolous litigation. As the Shulers are one step above destitute, financial penalties would be meaningless, so the court likely will bar them from future access to the program that allows paupers to avoid a filing fee.

2. In response to this, Mr. Shuler will rant repeatedly on his blog that the court's actions are additional evidence of the corruption of the system against him. He will refuse to accept that the court's actions are a result of defects in his pleadings.

3. There will never be discovery in these cases.

4. The Shulers will never have competent legal representation on these matters because:

A. They can't afford an attorney on a retainer-and-fee basis.
B. No attorney is going to touch this on a contingency basis.
C. Attorneys also may be penalized for bringing frivolous suits to court, and, unlike the Shulers, competent attorneys have something to lose.
D. The Shulers will only hire attorneys who agree with their peculiar worldview. Even if the attorney is completely competent to handle the matter, the Shulers only want counsel that shares their paranoias and delusions.

legalschnauzer said...

Clifton (if that's your real name), why don't you tell us a little about yourself so that we have some idea if you have any expertise to support your predictions. Your predictions are what lawyers call "bare assertions," with no references to facts or law. So a few simple questions:

* What makes you think our cases are frivolous? Please cite some specifics that support your assertion.

* Your claim that I "rant" about cases that have been determined contrary to law suggests you believe my analysis has been wrong. Please point out a single example where my analysis of a legal case has been off target.

* You say no attorney will touch this on a contingency basis. Why do you say that?

* You claim my wife and I have paranoias and delusions. Please give some examples. Are you saying I wasn't unlawfully arrested and thrown in jail? Are you saying Carol's arm wasn't broken, despite what X-rays show?

Look forward to your responses, and don't forget to tell us who you are so we can make informed decisions about your credibility.

Anonymous said...

Clifton Walker = phony name

Person who used it = con man

You can bet "Clifton" won't answer your questions. (A) He isn't smart enough to do it; (B) He's too lazy to do it; (C) He's too big a coward to do it.

I think I know who "Clifton" is, so I'm not just guessing about this. Hint: He's a lawyer, a very bad one, with ties to the Siegelman case. Let's see if "Clifton" responds.

Anonymous said...

Another hint:

"Clifton Walker," in order to write his comment above, had to remove his lips from Rob Riley's ass.

Robby Scott Hill said...

Well, Richard Nixon managed to work his well-heeled connections to get a lot of stuff fixed & covered up until one Black dude working as a security guard found a door unsecured at Watergate. In a few months, half of Nixon's staff, including his Attorney General & his Vice President were gone & he was facing certain impeachment. Because of the current legal environment, I can't comment about what I know publicly, but there's enough stuff out there that the Special Prosecutor at the Alabama Attorney General's Office should be busy until the next elected Governor takes office in January of 2019 & Kay Ivey may get the benefit of running in her first gubernatorial election as an incumbent. As much as I disagree with Luther Strange's politics & some of the people he associates himself with, Luther seems to be acting within the boundaries of the law. If I were the Special Prosecutor, I would continue to look into the Governor's Office. I think reasonable people could disagree as to whether or not the Governor's Office targeted people with investigations by law enforcement (Namely Roger Shuler & Donald Watkins) & wrongly denied them access to due process of law & arbitrarily withheld government benefits to some of their supporters & family members like myself. I'm so sorry Robert Bentley & the Alabama Supreme Court may have been offended by some of my comments over the years, but I refer them to the wisdom of James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech. Madison is probably the most underrated Founding Father, the guy who fought the British in not one, but two wars & was the last President to personally weild arms on the field of battle during his term as President before the British burned his residence, the White House. Madison was the last of his breed & a totally Bad Mother Fucker because he was an executive who backed up his words with a gun in the face of his enemies. Robert Bentley & these Alabama guys just sit at desks & pay their peons to open unmerited investigations, hurl unfounded accusations & make false arrests with less than probable cause & many times even less than the British standard of reasonable suspicion, but Madison & his protege Alexander Hamilton would have faced you like a man with a gun in his hand, which cost Hamilton his life & Madison his residence. Be of good cheer Roger Shuler, you lost your home fighting for your First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech & Freedom of the Press like James Madison did & in my book that makes you a Real Man & an Honorary Son of Liberty which is something some of our State Officials are not. Keep fighting for change. My Best - Rob

Clifton Walker said...


I am a citizen, who, unlike you, has never lost a case by representing myself nor been to jail when even a newbie lawyer could get me out in half an hour.

I am operations manager for a family owned engineering and construction firm near Atlanta.

Your cases are frivolous because they lack merit on their face. It doesn't matter that I say this. It will matter when, in short order, a judge says the same thing.

Single example? Sure. I believe the younger Riley received a default judgment against you. You have repeatedly in this space listed the reasons you see it as void. Until and unless you get a judge to agree with you, the judgement has the force of law. The only reason it has not been enforced is because you have no assets to satisfy it. That fact, and nothing else, makes it a worthless judgement. AS you never will have any assets and will die insolvent, the younger Riley will never collect anything from you. Still, he holds a valid judgement against you.

Attorneys who work on contingency only take cases they think they have a reasonable chance of winning. You not only have no chance of winning, a lawyer who represents you on these cases risks sanctions from the court for being involved in a frivolous suit.

Your wife was under the delusion that she had the right to do as she pleased during an eviction process. She found out that wasn't the case. The officer used completely reasonable force in preventing her from entering the abode from which you were being evicted. Her arm was broken because she disobeyed a lawful order to cease her actions. You were jailed and remained jailed because you had delusions that you would be martyred as a soldier for the free press. You refused to take basic steps that would have resulted in a prompt release and that would have allowed to keep the stories about the younger Riley published until the civil suit was settled. An example of your paranoia, you believe that force in Alabama reached across several states to disrupt your lives in Missouri.

Now, let's talk about your record representing yourself pro se.

You have been involved in several legal actions, both as plaintiff and defendant.

Can you list any cases you won (by won I mean received a judgement or consent agreement to cease an activity or were cleared of liability by a court) by representing yourself. Please don't list cases you should have won except the court was corrupt. Have you actually represented yourself and won?

If not, why do you think that will change?

Oh, and don't take betting advice from the 12:00 poster. Sure way to lose more money that you don't have.

legalschnauzer said...


What's the name of your family-owned engineering firm near Atlanta? As operations manager, you apparently have no expertise in the law, correct? A few points:

* I asked why you consider our cases frivolous and saying they "lack merit on their face" doesn't answer the question. You can't even cite two examples, you can provide no specifics?

* It's a matter of public record that Rob Riley did not receive a default judgment against me. Not even he has ever claimed that. If you can find any document that supports your claim, please let me know.

Since you obviously have no clue what you are talking about regarding the Riley case, and can't cite any specifics to support your "frivolous" claim, I have no reason to believe you are knowledgeable about any of the other issues you raise -- so I'm not going to waste time responding to them. (How does a guy in GA claim to know what took place during an eviction in MO? And you call me delusional? What a jokester you are!)

But do send me the name and address of your firm. That will tell me more about you, and perhaps I will decide your comments are worth considering in some depth. Surely, your firm has a Web site. Please send a link.

Clifton Walker said...

I am not doing this as a representative of my firm, so the name of my firm has no placed here.

I have the same amount of legal training as you do.

Oh, and you are correct. It wasn't Riley, it was Ms. Garrison. Otherwise, the point stands as to legal claims you have made that have no basis.

Let's just say that Mr. Shuler has all the legal knowledge in the world and Mr. Walker has none. I am fine with that.

Still, I will offer you a wager. If the case for this ends as I predict, you win. If the case makes it to discovery, you win the wager. No excuses. No claims of corrupt court.

If you would care to take the wager, we can discuss the stakes.

legalschnauzer said...

(a) I don't gamble

(b) Without name of your firm and Web site link, I have no reason to believe you are who you say you are.

(c) I could not care less about the predictions from an individual who refuses to ID himself and has proven he is ignorant on the subject at hand. Show me you aren't a coward, and I might discuss further. Otherwise, give your little game a rest.

Anonymous said...

No one in the judiciary knows the law. The law does not matter, the robe makes the law. It is disgusting.

Anonymous said...

I will repeat: Clifton Walker is a con man and a phony. That's not his real name, and he has nothing to do with an engineering firm in Atlanta. He's a Birmingham lawyer who spends much time with is lips attached to Rob Riley's ass. He won't give you the firm name because there is no such firm.

Anonymous said...

As a taxpayer, you bother me. You live off my dime as your pretend to be a journalist and then you file these ridiculous suits, which waste the court's time. Have you ever thought that perhaps the person conspiring against you is the one who stares back at you in the mirror? Go get a damned job and quit wasting my money!

legalschnauzer said...

I've probably paid taxes longer than you've been alive, and so has my wife, so shove it up your ass. Quit being such a pussy with your cowardly, anon comments and quit wasting my space.


Clifton Walker said...

Ledt's see. Anon supporters are great, but anon critics are pussies that you want to sodomize. That points to someone with a huge ego and thin skin.

legalschnauzer said...

You are not a critic, Clifton, you are an ignorant coward, with a predeliction for referring to sodomy. Might try looking in the mirror, bub. You are one disturbed individual.

Clifton Walker said...

Let's see. Which one of us suggested at 11:33 that an anonymous critic should shove it up his ass and then signed off with FUYTA?

My only reference to sodomy was calling you on what you said you wanted to do to the anon poster above.

Which one of us really has a habit of referring to sodomy? Maybe it is the one of us with a blog with dozens of posts on the subject or related subject. Or is it the one who simply called out the blogger for his big ego and thin skin.

legalschnauzer said...

That wasn't a critic, he was a smart ass, a lot like you, and I gave him some of his own medicine.

You seem to have no idea what a critic is. It's someone who actually has a clue about the subject, who can use facts and analysis to counter what has been presented. I deal with critics all the time and have no problem with them. You and the other guy above are just verbal spitballers. You don't have three brain cells between you.

One of you, and both if you are the same guy, has put himself at serious risk by hinting that he knows of a scheme to fix court cases. If that's so, and said individual does not report it, he could be facing serious criminal charges. If that's so, I'm going to make sure YOU face serious criminal charges.

Being cheated in court is not a game to me. It might be a game to you, with your need to gloat and brag, but you could soon find out you've stepped into a dangerous game. You must be a short guy because your bragging seems to be an effort to make up for some deficiency. You picked a bad way to try to make yourself feel better. Stupid, stupid.

Have a nice day, sport. Please know you aren't fooling anyone.

Clifton Walker said...

Good luck with doing what you say.

There is one way you can stop me from mocking you on here. You can refuse to publish my comments. It is your blog, so it is your choice.

Of course, that won't stop me from mocking you really. It will just keep your readers safe from the truth.

But, if you think I am mocking you now, just wait until what I have predicted comes true. It should happen in the first quarter of next year.

Oh, BTW, it is not a crime to not report a scheme to fix a court case unless one is an officer of the court.

legalschnauzer said...

So you get your jollies out of mocking people. What a big guy you are. I'd be embarrassed to admit something like that, but you apparently don't mind admitting you are a lowlife.

You've shown you have zero knowledge of the law re: our cases. I've asked you to cite law to support your claims and you can't do it. That means you have no legal "truth" to impart. You can't even write an intelligent sentence about the facts and law being discussed. Again, the only truth you might know would be a scheme to fix court cases. And if you are involved with that, you are in deep doo-doo, pal, and I will see to it that the stench doesn't wear off for you.

Your last paragraph again reveals your ignorance of the law. The crime is called misprison of a felony, and if you know of a criminal scheme to fix court cases (mine or someone else's) and fail to report it, you have committed a crime. It doesn't just apply to court officers. That might be your hope, but you are wrong. BTW, it is a crime to fix court cases, and Judge Proctor should know that; his actions going forward should say a lot about how smart (or not so smart) he is.

You are playing a dangerous game. Don't think you grasp that yet.

Keep on bragging or mocking or whatever you want to call it. (That might be harassing communications under the law, also a crime and also not a good idea. Will check on that.)

Meanwhile, keep having a good time with your shovel. The hole . . . gets . . . deeper . . .

Clifton Walker said...

Please look up Marbury vs. Brooks. Almost 200 years ago the SCOTUS blocked misprision laws against average citizens.

From the judgement

"It may be the duty of a citizen to … proclaim every offense which comes to his knowledge; but the law which would punish him in every case, for not performing this duty, is too harsh"

It is a crime to fix court cases. It is the duty of court officials (including lawyers) to report the same. It is NOT a prosecutable crime for an average citizen who possesses such knowledge to keep it to himself unless that citizen stands to benefit from such fixed court case.

You do check on whether I am illegally harassing you. I am sure you will be as successful in that as you have been in all your previous court cases.

So successful in fact that you are one step above being destitute with only a few years until you are way past retirement age.

legalschnauzer said...

Once again, your legal knowledge is sub-zero. Marbury has nothing to do with modern misprision law, and the statute clearly states it applies beyond court officials:

"Misprision of a felony is the offense of failure to inform government authorities of a felony that a person knows about."

You still haven't denied that you are in the midst of committing this crime. If I were you, I'd be hoping like hell that Proctor starts following the law. (BTW, you also might be part of a conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice, which is closely related to misprision.)

Mocking, insulting, sassing, conspiring. Keep it up, dude, and you soon will find the world crushing in on you. Are Jessica Garrison, Rob Riley, or whoever really worth it? Should I put myself at major risk for those people or someone like them? You would be well advised to ask yourself those questions.

Your shaky bravado is a sure sign that you know you have stepped in it. That might be the only thing about which you are right.

Clifton Walker said...

Marbury remains the controlling ruling on misprision.

Tell you what, when you are able to have the world come crushing down on me, enjoy it to the fullest.

I will enjoy watching the world continue to crush you when your latest filings are dismissed and the court sanctions you for filing frivolous litigation.

All we have to do is look at your record in the courts to have a really good guess as to how this is going to go.

Just take a minute to think about what your life was like before you decided to take to the courts to prove your knowledge. Compare that to what your life is like today. Is that how things would be if you truly knew what you think you know about the court system?

legalschnauzer said...

If you think a case from 1822 that is totally off subject overrides the modern statute on misprision . . . you are even more stupid than I thought. And I think you are plenty stupid; you've proven it.

Keep it up "Cliffy." Come to papa.

Clifton Walker said...

Legal interpretations from a man who is winless as his own attorney.

As a result of your inability to represent yourself, you have lost a comfortable middle class lifestyle, spent time in jail, seen your wife injured and have a multi-million dollar judgement against you. You were on probation for resisting arrest.

Despite all of these things, nobody has been or will be held accountable.

Now, if you had retained a competent attorney and followed his or her advice, most of that would not have happened.

You have, through this blog, made yourself unemployable. Any prospective employer who does a basic internet search on your name will find this blog and will realize you are paranoid and delusional.

Think about it. Your retirement will be spent in poverty because you relied on your self-proclaimed legal knowledge.

legalschnauzer said...

Keep digging, Cliffy. Before long, you will have your own grave, and you won't be able to get out. Will be fun to watch it happen -- and it will happen.

Clifton Walker said...

Sure it will.

What is beyond a doubt is that is happened to you. And you took your wife down with you.

Look around at your current abode. Then close your eyes and remember where you used to live. Then know it was because of your own hubris.

I guess the good part for you is that when the judge throws out your current actions, he really can't impose meaningful sanctions for your frivolous filings because you have nothing else for the court to take.

legalschnauzer said...

Just can't help yourself can you, "Cliffie"? It's funny to hear you give me advice when you clearly are the most disturbed individual I've ever come across in 10 years of blogging. You are stupid, immature, emotionally stunted, and you rage at enemies that are all of your own creation.

Why does a guy supposedly from Atlanta have such visceral hatred for someone he does not know, in an Alabama legal case in which he's not involved? That seems to be the big question here, no matter how much you try to make it about me. You are off-the-charts agitated for some reason, something very personal is eating at you.

Why does someone who claims to work at an engineering firm have nothing better to do than to "mock" someone with diatribes that would have to improve to be sophomoric?

Why does someone have no self-editing mechanism, to realize how stupid and immature he sounds. You've got bigger problems than I ever will have, bud. My circumstances will improve someday. You are going to have to live with your demons forever. Nice day.

Clifton Walker said...

If your circumstances improve, it will be because you have reached the age where you can collect Social Security.

Otherwise you, and your bride, will retire to squalor. If you ever do acquire any assets again, they will be seized to satisfy that default judgement against you.

Why am I targeting you. That's easy. About six years ago, a close friend of mine killed himself. He did not manage his diabetes well. This led to depression from time to time. You tried to politicize his death.

Before that, I had never heard of you or your blog. Maybe you remember. His name was Ralph Stacy.

Since then, I have watched with no small measure of satisfaction as your life has fallen apart because of your own actions.

As for now, I have a little time off I need to take before the end of the year. And I have close friends among those you are suing in this latest round.

My friends are not in the least bit worried about losing the suits. However, they know that defending them until they are dismissed will have costs. Under normal circumstances, the court would find the suits frivolous and order the plaintiff to pay legal fees.

However, as you are broke, such an order would be as meaningless as the default judgement against you. You simply can't pay either. Even if you had some assets, the default judgement would take priority over any claims for legal fees.

This makes what you have filed known as a nuisance suit. It doesn't matter to you whether or not you can win. You can bring inconvenience to those you imagine have harmed you with no risk of meaningful sanctions against yourself.

So, in memory of my good friend Ralph, I will spend some spare time on my days off reminding you that your current circumstances are so richly deserved.

legalschnauzer said...

Who are your friends in the lawsuits? I figured that was a possible reason for the burr under your saddle.

You are blaming me for Ralph Stacy's death? Gee, you really are disturbed. I had multiple friends of Ralph, plus Stacy family members, contact me and say they did not believe the official story of Ralph's death, and they hoped I would look into it. I know a number of Ralph Stacy's friends, and you don't sound like one of them.

You are saying a guy shoots himself at work because he didn't manage his diabetes? Again, you are from another planet. You need to do something about your anger issues, and you are completely out of touch with reality. You obviously aren't in the habit of listening to sound advice, so wing it, bud, and good luck. You will need it.

BTW, if your friends aren't worried about the lawsuit, why are you? Once again, you suggest you know about a scheme to fix a court case, and you aren't reporting it. Big mistake, big mistake. I've given you fair warning, and that applies to your so-called friends who might be in on the fix. Ignore at your peril.

In a way I feel sorry for someone as screwed up as you are. But then again, you sound like a thoroughly despicable person, so I have no problems with what is ahead for you.

Clifton Walker said...

You are not responsible for Ralph's death. You are responsible for the hurt you inflicted on his child and widow by politicizing his death.

Ralph's unmanaged diabetes manifested itself with periodic depressive episodes. One of those resulted in tragedy.

My friends are not worried about losing the lawsuit. They do know they will have to spend some money to defend themselves, and that even though the suit will be found frivolous, you will be immune to meaningful sanctions because of your poverty.

I have not said at any point I know of a scheme. I have said that when your case is dismissed, as it will be, you will blame it on a scheme that doesn't exist. However, if one did exist and I knew of it, I would stand silent on it.

Your most recent blog post pretty much confirms what I predicted. You suffered a legal setback, but, in your mind, that is only because of court corruption.

I will, of course, ignore your warnings because ignoring them puts me in no peril at all.

legalschnauzer said...

You are full of feces. One of my assistants talked with Ralph's daughter -- she called us -- and she did not buy the official story. She thought her father was the victim of foul play, but was afraid to say so publicly. You are talking with someone who spent a lot of time talking to people who knew Ralph Stacy, so you can't con me on that subject -- or any subject for that matter.

Interesting to hear you would commit a crime and probably will commit a crime. And your friends aren't worried, so that's why you keep writing about it. Riiiiiiight

You are one sick dude. So predictable. I said you would ignore warnings, and then you say that exact thing. Sorry you are so screwed up, but I can't help you. Good luck.

Clifton Walker said...

Oh, my friends are unhappy they will have cost and inconvenience defending your suit. It will be found frivolous, but you will be immune to meaningful sanctions because you have no assets.

Of course that gets under their skin.

But as far as losing the case, that hasn't crossed their mind.

Anonymous said...

Question for Clifton:

Are you saying it's frivolous for a citizen to be beaten in his own home, sprayed with mace, and dragged to jail for five months -- all for writing something on a blog that never has been proven to be false or defamatory?

If that's how you really think, you've got serious problems -- a moral compass that is so badly out of whack that I'm not sure it can ever be fixed.

If that's how you think, your comments might as well float into the ether. They have no meaning, no foundation. In fact, it sounds like you have no foundation.

legalschnauzer said...

Right, you know what your "friends" think the way you know what Ralph Stacy's family thinks. You are a liar, a congenital one at that. You need to give up con artistry and go into some other line of work. I bet not one of these defendants would know you if you sat in their laps and kissed them on the lips.

Clifton Walker said...

I am saying his claims in the suits he posted will be found to be frivolous by the court and will be dismissed.

Mr. Shuler decided on his own that service of a suit was improper. He was free to make that claim in court. If he refuses to do so, and the court holds service to be proper, he loses the suit by default.

That happened, and the judge issued an order than clearly could have been challenged by a competent attorney. Shuler did not challenge the order, he simply ignored it.

Ignoring an order, even one that could easily be challenged successfully by an competent attorney, is known as contempt. It does not matter that the underlying order was not proper, ignoring it still amounts to contempt.

Of course, contempt orders result in arrest warrants. The arresting officer is not to determine which arrest warrants he will serve and which he will not.

If Mr. Shuler does not comply with the arrest, the arresting officer will apply force to make the arrest. That force can involve physical violence and other non-lethal methods.

Remember, he was convicted by a court of resisting arrest. He had his day in court on that and lost.

Now, if he used competent counsel, I don't know if he would have a successful claim on his suit. I do know that his record of representing himself, both as plaintiff and defendant, shows he doesn't know what he is doing.

The fact he determined for himself that service was not proper was where he went off the rails. Had he hired competent counsel at that point, nothing that followed would have happened.

By not showing up for court, he waved many rights.

Those are the reasons his filing will be found frivolous.

S C said...

I tell you what's interesting...more than 60 comments about a federal lawsuit and a woman close to an ex-Governor...some comments seem ominous...sort of makes you wonder if this post hit a nerve with somebody.

Clifton Walker said...

Mr. Shuler,

I accept your bet offered in your 10:45 post. What stakes do you suggest?

Robby Scott Hill said...

A judgment is never the end of litigation. People will continue to lose money & their valuable time to lawyers whenever they don't support each other. I'm afraid that Roger Shuler's death will not be the end of troubles for the people who sued him & arrested him. On 22 May 1455, the Yorkists were so sure they had emerged victorious in a one day civil war. Thirty-two years later, the Wars of the Roses ended in favor of a 3rd party, the Tudor Family who my ancestors served. From my perspective, the GOPers & Business Council of Alabama have started something they will be unable to stop. The issues surrounding Roger's situation affect all Alabamians & in time will re-emerge, probably to the detriment of the people who went after him. I recommend they meet with Roger & reach some sort of settlement with him. Alabama is not a great state because we are so quick to take each other to court. If the current power structure of Alabama wants to go down in flames, then by all means they should keep trying to crush Roger beneath their feet. A new generation of Bakers, Boleyns & Tudors are watching & ready to pick up the pieces after all of you destroy each other.

legalschnauzer said...

I didn't offer you a bet, I used a figure of speech. As I said before, I don't gamble, so no bet was offered. I might consider a bet if you gave your real name, address, phone number, e-mail address, employer, spouse's name, any kids' name, and spoke with you on the phone, etc. -- general identifiers. But you aren't going to do that, and I'm not into gambling, so no dice (another figure of speech).

Aside from that, I really don't care who you know, and I'm not interested in being attached in any way to someone who has the mental and emotional deficits you display. You sound to me like a wicked, maybe dangerous, person -- and you need help I can't, or won't provide.

Clifton Walker said...

For Mr. Hill at 11:12

Settling with plaintiffs filing frivolous suits only encourages others to file such suits.

Suits like this must be vigorously defended.

Clifton Walker said...

For Mr. Shuler at 11:45:

Let's be clear. I have never sought help from you. You have stated several times that you are unable to offer help.

I have not sought, nor do I desire, your help in any matter.

Robby Scott Hill said...

Two heads of branches of Alabama State Government down, one to go. I wonder how many of their minions will eventually go down with them? This is unprecedented by the way. No American State has lost the heads of all three of its branches of government during the same term. We're finally going to be number one in something besides football, by God. Look out New Jersey! You won't be the most corrupt state for too much longer.

legalschnauzer said...

Allow me to interject a little reality into Clifton's fantasyland comment at @10:57 --

(a) I did not ignore an order. I challenged service as unlawful, an issue that had to be addressed before the court ever had any authority over me. Riley/Duke did not meet their burden to prove service was lawful, so the court never did have authority over me. Check the file; it's a matter of public record that I did make that claim. Public records can be your friend.

(b) A veteran attorney stated in writing that he reviewed the file and no summons was issued until well after the bogus service. We didn't appear in court because we never were summoned to court. The same attorney said the preliminary injunction in question had been issued before service was effected. That means the case was fixed before it ever started. (Gee, can't imagine why I might be concerned about cases being fixed.) I've run the attorney's letter multiple times, so it's on the blog for all the world to see. Clifton can't see it, of course, but regular people can. Make research your friend.

(c) I know Clifton can't grasp the law, but I will share this anyway: By law, you can't be held in contempt of a preliminary injunction issued by a court that has no authority over you. As it turns out, service and summons were not just unlawfully issued, they were nonexistent for the most part. Make thought your friend.

(d) Some of your stuff is just laughable. You claim I determined for myself that service was unlawful. If that's the case why does the file include my motion to have the judge quash service as unlawful. You really should try researching stuff before making yourself look like a fool. Make the file your friend.

I could write more, but suffice to say, the entire comment is gibberish that appears to be void of a single accurate sentence. None of this is debatable. It's in the public record for anyone who cares to check.

Cliffie would rather wing it on a subject about which he is clueless. That's because Cliffie is both lazy and stupid, sort of like Kent Dorfman on "Animal House."

Nice work, Cliffie. Make reality your friend.

legalschnauzer said...

To be clear, I never said you sought help from me. I said you show signs of needing help, but it's not the kind I can provide.

Clifton Walker said...

Response to 12:08.

A. Making a claim and having a court accept your claim are two different things.

B. Letters from veteran attorneys, especially attorneys who you have not retained and who have not filed an appearance on your behalf half no force of law.

C. Again, you don't get to decide which courts do and don't have authority over you.

D. Filing to have service declared unlawful is different that having it declared unlawful. However, such a filing does indicate that you were aware of the case against you and, at best, did not think it best to learn of the date of the hearing. More likely, you just decided for yourself you were not required to attend, inviting the contempt ruling.

Anonymous said...

This is @10:41. As expected, Clifton didn't answer my question, which says a lot about Clifton -- and it isn't pretty.

legalschnauzer said...

@1:00 Your stupidity continues to amaze. I guess it's easier to be stupid than to inform yourself.

(1) You said I didn't make the claim; now you admit I did. (So much for your credibility) I was beaten and arrested before court ever ruled on my claim. But I'm sure you think that should be a part of everyday life in USA. Kind of hard to get a ruling on that from jail.

(2) I didn't say the attorney letters had force of law. I said they contain evidence that, in fact, service was unlawful and we never were summoned to court, and the case was fixed before it even started.

(3) You have no idea how courts work. In essence, I do get to decide whether a court has authority over me, and I do that by timely challenging service, which I did. The burden then is on plaintiff to prove, which Riley/Duke never did. Again, make the record your friend.

(4) Not sure how many times I have to say this, given the thickness of your skull, but we were not summoned to court, so we did not go to court. Whether I was aware of the case, due to unlawful service, is irrelevant. Plaintiffs had the burden of effecting lawful service, and they failed to do so.

I'm finished trying to explain matters to a dolt who won't grasp things. I urge you to get help for your emotional issues. With that, your time here is finished. Ta-ta.

Anonymous said...

Roger, have you done any research into Holbrook?

legalschnauzer said...

Not sure I know who you mean, @1:00. Is that the guy from BCA? Think a guy from Sterne Agee has similar last name.