Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Birmingham debt-collector and "Dog Wars" participant Angie Ingram attacks me and others on Facebook, almost as if she is begging to be sued


Angie Ingram
(From styleblueprint.com)
An Alabama lawyer recently claimed during a Facebook dust-up that I had threatened to kill her. No joke. The absurd claim arose from what I call "The Great Unexplainable Birmingham Dog Wars" (TGUBDW). As the title of this blog suggests, I happen to be pretty fond of dogs myself. And I've never committed, or threatened to commit, an act of violence against anyone. So, how did I get dragged into the dog wars? Have some of its participants become a bit unhinged?

We're talking about Angie Ingram, the Birmingham debt-collection lawyer whose firm violated federal law in a multitude of ways in their interactions with Carol and me a few years back. (See video at the end of this post.) Ingram got away with it because our own lawyers, Darrell Cartwright and Allan Armstrong, stabbed us in the back -- and federal judge Abdul Kallon, a horrific Obama appointee, is corrupt, incompetent or both.

Court-related news has been out there for about five years, suggesting Ingram has become a bit unstable herself. I had heard about a 2013 case styled Ingram v. Allred, where a Walker County judge found Ingram to be in contempt of court and ordered her jailed for 60 days -- that finding was overturned on appeal -- but I thought Angie Ingram no longer was an issue in my life. A reader, however, alerted me a few weeks back to a nasty exchange on Ingram's Facebook page among participants in TGUBDW

What are the dog wars? Well, I've never been able to figure it out, but it seems certain dog breeders and rescue types disagree about how to conduct such business -- and Angie Ingram is on one side, with a lot of people who disagree with her (hate her?) on the other. I've heard from a number of Ingram's opponents over the years -- and I would love to help anyone who is an enemy of Angie Ingram -- but I haven't posted on the subject because I just can't figure out the convoluted nature of the conflict.

Someone alerted me to a spirited debate that had broken out on Ingram's Facebook page, and my name got in the middle of it. A reader who did not take kindly to Ingram's position on dog-related matters fired back by posting a Legal Schnauzer report about our experiences with Ingram's law firm. That apparently got Ingram riled up, so she decided to take a few shots at me. From an Ingram comment:

As to my "legal" history, do your research and do it properly. I don't post anything but facts and those that have come to a conclusion and I can document. Since you're not a lawyer, you probably wouldn't understand that since you and your friends seem to know and believe everything you can "google". I don't use google for my fact finding.

You idiots posting things about the Legal Schnauzer and me and my being a debt collector make yourself look like fools. Look at this man's blog. He is a conspiracy theorist. Oh yeah, birds of a feather ... I think one of your friends said that.

Then take a look at the the $3.5 million judgment awarded against Roger Shuler aka the Legal Schnauzer. That's what happens to people like him that post defamatory crap. So you think you know it all ... that man sued me twice. Guess what - he lost TWICE. He even threatened to kill me, all the defense attorneys, and the federal judge Abdul Kallon. So go ahead and promote what that man has to say about me. Do a little more research on him ... he has sued probably 10 or more people or companies and LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE. He worked at UAB and was fired for blogging that crap on their time. Oh, he sued them too ... and lost.

Wow, this woman seems to have lost her mind. First, nothing I've written at Legal Schnauzer ever has been proven in court, as a matter of law, to be false or defamatory. Second, it's a matter of public record that I was fired at UAB for writing a blog, on my own time and resources, about the Don Siegelman case. The evidence is tape recorded, just like the violations of the Federal Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) against Ingram's law firm.

Not content with those lies, Ingram really becomes unhinged -- claiming I threatened to kill her, certain defense attorneys, and a federal judge? Where on earth does she get this stuff? In fact, it's like she's begging me to sue her for defamation -- and she might get her wish.

Perhaps this is the kind of behavior that got her in trouble with a Walker County judge. From the opinion in the Allred case:

Ingram's office is in Jefferson County, but she represents creditors in collection actions throughout the state. During the last several years, she has represented creditors in a number of collection actions in the district court. In May 2011, the district-court judge who had been presiding in those actions ("the trial judge") ordered Ingram to appear at a show-cause hearing on May 20, 2011. That show-cause hearing related to actions she was handling in general rather than the underlying action in particular. At that show-cause hearing, the trial judge stated, in pertinent part:

"THE COURT: Over the last two-and-a-half years there's a lot of times that ya'll either haven't had anybody here, or you have local attorneys, for whatever reason, and they don't know what cases they are here on, they don't know what's going on with the cases. And then what I do—well, what I started out doing is continuing those because I figured, well, mistakes happen and somebody got mixed up somewhere. As it continued to happen, I dismissed those cases. If there was a good reason why you missed, I would consider reinstating those cases. Now what I'm seeing is, nobody shows up. I have people that take off work, people that hire lawyers, they're here, and nobody is here on your side. I dismiss them and then I get a slew of motions to reinstate, which is further a waste of my time. You know, I'm ruling on everything two or three times because ya'll can't be bothered to come up here, and I'm very unhappy about that, Ms. Ingram." 
Ingram explained that she had arranged for a local attorney to appear on several occasions in the district court but that he had proved unreliable and that she would not be relying on him in the future. Ingram also apologized to the trial judge.

The following colloquy then occurred:

"THE COURT: Well, I'm not necessarily—

"MS. INGRAM: And it's not—

"THE COURT:—casting stones at anybody. And I didn't bring you over here to throw you in jail or anything like that. I don't think that's appropriate. I just want you and I to be on the same page on this.

"MS. INGRAM: I understand.

"THE COURT: If this continues to happen, here's where I am at. I want you to know so there's no misunderstanding.

"Particularly, in cases where I have other attorneys that are here and there's nobody here from your office, I'm going to entertain motions for attorney's fees on those cases. I'm going to start fining you if I feel like somebody has come here. A lot of these people can ill-afford to miss a day of work anyway. And if they take off work and come up here and there's nobody up here to prosecute that case, there's going to be some punitive damages—"

Ingram then failed to appear at another hearing, and she did not give the judge advanced notice. The judge found her in contempt:

Also on March 6, 2012, the trial judge had the Walker County Sheriff's Office send a deputy sheriff to Jefferson County to arrest Ingram. At the March 21, 2012, show-cause hearing, the Walker County deputy sheriff testified as follows. He met a Jefferson County deputy sheriff on the afternoon of March 6, 2012, and the two deputies went to Ingram's office. When the deputies arrived at Ingram's office on the second floor of a building, the receptionist told the deputies that Ingram was in the yogurt shop downstairs. When the deputies went to the yogurt shop, Ingram was not there, and the deputies asked an employee of the yogurt shop where Ingram was. The yogurt-shop employee telephoned an unidentified person. Upon concluding his telephone call, the yogurt-shop employee told the deputies that Ingram would come down to the yogurt shop in a few minutes. The deputies waited, but Ingram did not appear. The deputies asked the yogurt-shop employee if Ingram was coming down, and the yogurt-shop employee made a telephone call to an unidentified person but told the deputies he did not get an answer. The yogurt-shop employee later made another call to an unidentified person and reported to the deputies that Ingram would not be able to meet with them because she was meeting with a client. The deputies then went back upstairs to Ingram's office and told the receptionist that the yogurt-shop employee had told them that Ingram was in her office. The receptionist told the deputies that Ingram had left the office for a meeting. The deputies asked to search Ingram's office to verify that she was not there, and the receptionist allowed them to do so. The deputies did not find Ingram in her office. The deputies then left the building but stopped in the parking lot to have a conversation before getting into their automobiles. While the deputies were conversing in the parking lot, a man who identified himself as Ingram's husband approached them and asked the deputies if they were looking for Ingram. When they responded in the affirmative, the man either said that Ingram knew the deputies were coming or that she knew the deputies were looking for her, that she was not at her office, and that the deputies would not be able to contact her. The Walker County deputy then called the trial judge, who told the deputy to tell the man who had identified himself as Ingram's husband that, if Ingram would come with the deputy, she could get out of jail but, if she did not come with the deputy, the trial judge was going to be gone for a few days and the trial judge did not know when Ingram would get out of jail. The deputy relayed to the man who had identified himself as Ingram's husband what the trial judge had said. The man who had identified himself as Ingram's husband then walked off, and the deputies left.

The opinion indicates the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals let Ingram off the hook on a technicality. But the record indicates she ran into a judge who refused to let her run a debt-collection outfit in a shoddy fashion. That might be why Ingram's current Web site suggests she now is focusing mostly on tenant-landlord law and animal law, not so much on debt collection.

By the way, I'm not the only one to incur Ingram's wrath recently. In a Jan. 3 Facebook post, she attacked Lisa Sharlach, director of women and gender studies at UAB. It appears to have something to do with TGUBDW, but I can't figure out exactly what.

Angie Ingram seems to be engaging in erratic behavior that could lead to the two of us crossing swords in court again. When someone wrongfully accuses you of threatening to kill people, it's serious business.

It appears I might not be the only one who has grounds for doing battle with Ingram.

Below is a video that captures Ingram's debt-collection thugs committing multiple violations of the FDCPA. Having this or a related video thrown in her face probably is what got her pissed off enough to make all kinds of false statements about me.


37 comments:

Anonymous said...

Will you be doing her pro se?

Anonymous said...

Just out of curiosity, how many law suits have you lost?

Anonymous said...

Did you really lose all those cases?

Anonymous said...

Roger, do you know what the elements of defamation are? One of them is damages. How have you been damaged? You don't have a job, do you? If that's true, how have you suffered financially from this supposed defamation? Your blog is still the #1 blog in the US, isn't it?

legalschnauzer said...

@9:08 --

Yes, I do know the elements of defamation? I've written about them several times here. Do you? Why don't you cite them? Let's discuss.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:40 --

No, I didn't, not under the law. Why don't you look them up? Then, read the opinion and do the research to determine if the outcomes is in line with the actual law. Let us know your findings.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:00 --

Just out of curiosity, how lazy are you? Look the stuff up yourself. Then do the legal research to determine if the case was decided correctly under the law. Angie Ingram -- and some of the commenters on this post -- remind me of the Trumpies hollering "fake news, fake news."

People should have enough brainpower to understand a legal case is not a football game. Actually, football games in our country are conducted with the highest of integrity -- but we let judges conduct hackery behind the closed doors of court rooms.

Angie Ingram's FB comments show just how stupid she is. She reaches for the LCD by saying "he lost, he lost!" That's because she's too lazy and stupid and corrupt to discuss what really happened in those case."

legalschnauzer said...

@7:43 --

I didn't say I would be filing a case at all. But when someone falsely accuses you of threatening to kill several people -- and I have the email in question, which proves Ingram's statements are false -- it's a damned serious matter.

If someone did this to you, you'd just ignore it?

legalschnauzer said...

@9:08 --

Here is the heart of a defamation case under Alabama law, from a case styled Blevins v. Barnes. I'm guessing it will be news to you.


The tort of defamation involves the protection of the “reputation and good name” of the plaintiff.   Michael L. Roberts & Gregory S. Cusimano, Alabama Tort Law, § 24.0, 831 (1996).

“The foundation of an action for libel or slander is a malicious injury to reputation, and any false and malicious imputation of crime or moral delinquency by one published of and concerning another, which subjects the person to disgrace, ridicule, odium, or contempt in the estimation of his friends and acquaintances, or the public, with resulting damage to his reputation, is actionable either per se or per quod․”

Anonymous said...

the lawyers referenced above stabbed you in the back? the judge was corrupt? you have the worst luck; it seems you always get the worst lawyers and the worst judges.

legalschnauzer said...

Here is link to Blevins v. Barnes. Lots of good stuff in this case re: Alabama defamation law:


http://caselaw.findlaw.com/al-court-of-civil-appeals/1467554.html

Anonymous said...

Post the email you mention @12:41

legalschnauzer said...

@12:41 --

Be happy to. Just contact me and provide the name/contact info of the person making the request.

legalschnauzer said...

@12:44 --

Yep. It's a matter of public record. Look it up. The lawyers -- Darrell Cartwright and Allan Armstrong -- admitted to "facts" that had already been proven in discovery were not facts. They are worse than back stabbers. It's almost certain that someone shuffled cash under the table to make sure our own lawyers screwed us. It's clear now they were communicating in a improper way with the Ingram crowd, violating client confidentiality.

BTW, Cartwright and Armstrong might be looking at a lawsuit themselves now. They are two of of the worst low-rent, morally bankrupt bastards to ever walk the earth.

Anonymous said...

Are you just a lazy, moral rube? It's pathetic that a semi-adult would come on a blog and be so utterly without ethical fiber. If you have children, I feel for them, because they certainly aren't receiving any moral instruction from you.

Anonymous said...

Angie Ingram is a Doug Jones supporter, so that's probably one reason she's pissed at you.

Anonymous said...

Most third graders probably know not to go on FB and write crap like that. But Angie Ingram, with her bar card, doesn't know any better? Might be the single dumbest thing I've ever seen a lawyer do.

Anonymous said...

Props to the judge in Walker Co. for giving Ingram a small dose of hard ball. And you know what? She couldn't handle it. She couldn't handle a judge who made her toe the line just a little bit.

Anonymous said...

If Angie Ingram were a doctor, she'd be a back-alley abortionist. She's the legal equivalent, running a blood-sucking operation in the shadows -- until one judge finally stood up and said, "Enough."

This Walker County case essentially confirms the allegations in the federal lawsuit you and Carol brought several years ago. Some of your nameless, pissant commenters should actually read the Walker County case and then go back and read allegations in the Shuler lawsuit. Lots of overlap. Of course, that takes a little thought, so I'm sure that won't be an attractive option for them.

Anonymous said...

Angie's looking a bit chunky these days. The Dallas Cowboys have linebackers on their roster with smaller thighs than that.

Anonymous said...

Ingram is a bully. She's been in the bullying business for years. She's trying to bully Mr. Schnauzer now. I hope she winds up looking like Wile E. Coyote, holding a stick of TNT. She deserves it.

Anonymous said...

Big question about these Walker County cases: Did Angie Ingram have documentation to prove any of these debts actually were owed? My bet is the answer is no. So, you probably have two things going on here: (1) Lawyers weren't showing up for Ingram; (2) They probably had no evidence to support their cases, even if they had appeared.

The way I read it, Ingram probably was running a warmed-over theft ring -- what most of us would call organized crime. She's damned lucky her fat ass isn't in federal prison.

legalschnauzer said...

@4:46 --

You are on target. I think the Walker Co. judge smelled a rat -- not only were Ingram lawyers not appearing, they probably had no cases, which is why they weren't appearing.

It was a scam, and the judge sniffed it out. Good for him.

Jeffco judges have been coddling Ingram for years.

Anonymous said...

I don't recall every reading it but I wonder what was the outcome of the debt from American Express? Did you pay it? Was there court? Or did it go away via a different route?

legalschnauzer said...

@6:00 --

My memory was that it never was proven we owed it, as likely was the case with many of the court filings in Walker County. I don't know that a court case ever was filed over the "debt." Her junkyard law firm violated federal law so blatantly -- as you can see from watching the video with this blog -- that we sued her ass in federal court before she could get out a filing. It's also possible that never was going to file because it became clear we weren't going to be an easy mark.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Ingram agreed to quit doing debt collection law in order to get the Walker Co. judge -- and possibly the feds -- off her ass.

She goes on about Legal Schnauzer "lost" this case and "lost" that case. Well, here is my question for her: "Angie, who lost her debt-collection practice? Who got run out of that little scam industry . . . bitch? Oh, and by the way, who were deputies from Walker County trying to arrest . . . bitch? And who hauled ass and hid somewhere, sending out her pathetic husband to cover for her?"

Who did all of those things, bitch?

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to @7:56 --

Post some facts about stuff you claimed happened in court. Send it to me.

What about this stuff about "skulls and sidewalks" and such? Send it to me. Get the "evidence" out in the open.

Or maybe you are just pulling stuff out of your ass and have no clue what you are talking about. Where's the beef? Maybe there is no beef.

Anonymous said...

you are well aware of those comments, you made them yourself.

Again, others see these comments as threats, how are so many continually making this mistake if you are such a gentle, stable person who never publicly dwells on his enemies being shot or smashed to a pulp? A health care professional also felt duty bound to warn police that you were talking about resisting eviction with deadly force? others report you have been removed from courtrooms for threatening out ruts directed against various participants including prosecutors.

It's one thing to bitch about the prosecutor habiving a legal,career despite a DUI some years ago befor he entered law school, another to star threatening relaliation of another kind, I hope you don't try it or you will,end up incarcerated yourself. Carol failed to appear in court and has a warrant out for her arrest...it's an independent crime to the original charge and now there is more to hang over her than ever,

Anonymous said...

You have no character to defame or any financial dealings that are damaged by anyone’s statements. Basically you are a piƱata that people can hit over and over with no repercussions because you burned all your bridges through terrible life choices. Have a good night.

Anonymous said...

Hang in there Roger. You have paid a heavy price for speaking truth to power. I have followed you since finding your site searching Bingo in the state of Alabama. More often than not your reporting comes to fruitation...especially on politicians. Keep up the good work.

legalschnauzer said...

@7:28 --

I figured you had no clue about defamation law. Thanks for proving me right.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to 10:39 --

@7:28 hasn't made a citation to law. Look at his comment above. Show me where there is a citation to law. There isn't one, so I'm not countering an argument he hasn't even made. His words are pure fluff. Of course, he's welcome to contact me to discuss the matter, but he'll never do that.

He knows he's "all hat and no cattle," completely out of his element.

Anonymous said...

An intelligent, articulate, educated, law-abiding citizen speaking out against the sorry (criminal) state of our courts, our judges and our lawyers, does my heart and soul some real good. Thanks to you, Mr. L. Schnauzer, for bringing your experiences with our corrupt judiciary to the attention of all who have ears to hear and eyes to see to begin to comprehend how much trouble our cherished Third Branch has created for us and themselves.

Our men and women donning black night gowns do not yet perceive the danger they are in; their inexcusable conduct will not, it cannot, continue. America is a land built upon laws and equal justice for all and a justice system above reproach is an absolute necessity if we hope to survive as a thriving democracy. The time has come to pour light onto this debacle and we know that those obligated legally and morally to police themselves refuse to do so. What a tragedy.

Anonymous said...

These thugs who pervert "justice" for their personal gain and for their friends are an incredibly difficult band of mobsters to prosecute. They know the Law inside and out and they are immune from virtually every legal means to hold them accountable.

The canons demand that they police their own, but they don't. Try to find a lawyer willing to consider pursuing a judge over corruption. It won't happen. They protect themselves carefully, thoroughly. They are highly skilled legal authorities joined in a brotherhood tighter than the mafia. They are dangerous, out of control and hold our democracy hostage.

Anonymous said...

The University of Missouri School of Journalism is one of the best in the world. Many brilliant journalists have graduated from there.

Anonymous said...

Where does the average citizen go when she knows she's been treated poorly in a court of law? O.k., "poorly" isn't a good choice of words, because we can be handled with disrespect and even contempt and still receive justice. Where do we find legal assistance when we know that rules and regulating procedures are ignored or abused and we cannot present the evidence before an unbiased trier of facts. The honest answer is nowhere, unfortunately. Lawyers will not take a case in which judicial misconduct is the issue. But, all too frequently what we see is inappropriate judicial rulings based on corruption destroy our opportunity to seek justice.

Challenging judicial misconduct through the established, formal, court authorized channel is a bad joke. In that format the complainant is not permitted to explain how the judge's threats scared her away from speaking up, when the opposing lawyer just lied to the judge. If opposing counsel lies to the judge, the pro-se must be given the opportunity to refute that lie immediately. A judge must not be allowed to refer to a pro-se litigant in a civil case as a criminal without evidence. The judge must not lie and say he never threatened the litigant with imprisonment when in fact he did just that, and there is a recording proving it.

In this the greatest of all nations in all of history you and I are own our own. Our youth died in vain fighting in wars to preserve our constitution.

Anonymous said...

If you mean lost, that would be her own family who have lost everything and are suing her for $ millions after she sold them that POS law dc lawfirm.