Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Sexual-abuse case involving Dr. Larry Nassar and USA Gymnastics shows that our courts consistently fall short when it involves equal protection under the law


Dr. Larry Nassar
(From cbssports.com)
A casual observer of recent activity in the USA Gymnastics sexual-abuse case in Michigan could have the impression that American courts actually are striving to achieve equal protection of the law -- especially in matters that involve alleged contempt of court and abuse of girls and women by men in positions of authority.

My wife, Carol, and I have up-close-and-personal experience with such matters in two states -- Alabama and Missouri -- and we know U.S. courts are a long way from acting with anything approaching consistency and enlightenment. No matter how many life sentences are imposed against Dr. Larry Nassar -- the physician and sexual predator at the heart of the Michigan case -- the public should not fall for any notion that our courts truly dispense justice. The sideshow created when Randall Margraves -- the father of three Nassar victims -- tried to attack the doctor in court only adds to evidence that our courts are not to be trusted, even in a case that has attracted national media attention.

The criminal cases against Nassar likely ended yesterday, with a judge imposing another 40- to 125-year sentence. That could be interpreted as a form of justice for the victims. But criminal cases are about punishment for wrongdoers, and they do little or nothing to address the victims' damages. That can only come from civil cases, and lawsuits already are mounting against USA Gymnastics, Michigan State University, and other entities connected to Nassar.

Are the victims guaranteed anything close to justice in civil matters? Absolutely not. Michigan State is one of the most powerful entities in the state, and we know from first-hand experience with the University of Alabama, that you should never underestimate the ability of a state university to cheat its victims. When I was screwed out of my job of 20 years at UAB, the university was more than happy to take advantage of U.S. District Judge William M. Acker Jr.'s corrupt rulings, granting summary judgment when no discovery had been conducted.

That simply cannot be done, per Snook v. Trust Company of Georgia, 859 F. 2d 865 (11th Cir., 1988), and University of Alabama lawyers surely knew this was a monstrous cheat job. But they stayed quiet because it benefited them. Would Michigan State's lawyers do the same thing to Larry Nassar's victims? Well, they've already shown signs that the answer is yes. MSU has moved a federal judge to dismiss complaints against it in the Nassar matter on the grounds of "state immunity." From an article at the Lansing State Journal:

MSU has asked a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuits against it by some 140 women and girls who say former university doctor Larry Nassar sexually abused them because as a state institution it "retains absolute immunity from liability" for his actions. . . .

Attorneys for the university furthered their argument that Michigan State University and its current and former employees should be dismissed from the nine lawsuits by saying the statute of limitations had expired, the plaintiffs lacked standing for protection under the federal Title IX law or because MSU employees are also immune from liability.

"In the fall of 2016, Nassar was unmasked and exposed for what he is: a fraud, a pedophile, and a criminal," attorneys wrote. "He has now publicly admitted that he abused his position of trust to surreptitiously sexually assault his patients under the guise of medical care. He will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars — and deservedly so."

Michigan State has signaled clearly that it intends to do everything in its power to make sure Nassar's victims walk away empty handed. If that doesn't make you want to throw up in your mouth just a little . . . well, I've seen the University of Alabama pull the same stunt -- and get away with it.

I suspect the public perceives that the Nassar criminal sentencing signals his victims will achieve justice in the civil arena. But we warn against jumping to such conclusions.  We've seen here in Missouri that powerful institutions, who have abused women once, are likely to try it again.

Members of the Greene County Sheriff's Office -- acting at the behest of corrupt landlord Trent Cowherd and his corrupt lawyer, Craig Lowther -- broke into our rented apartment, with no authority from a court, and wound up breaking Carol's arm in more than two places (a comminuted fracture).

X-ray of Carol Shuler's broken arm
Did the thugs take accountability for their actions? Are you kidding? They concocted a bogus "assault of a law enforcement officer" criminal case against Carol, which she has been fighting for more than a year --and it clearly is a "cover charge" designed to impede her chances of achieving civil justice.

How weak is the cover charge? The Probable Cause Statement shows there is no accuser -- no one with a name makes any claim that Carol assaulted anyone. That can't be done under the Sixth Amendment to he U.S. Constitution, but it's being done right here in the Missouri Ozarks. Even worse, the supposed "victim," Officer Jeremy Lynn, admits in his incident report that he initiated contact with Carol -- and that means, as a matter of law, she could not have assaulted him.

All of this raises a discomfiting question: What if Larry Nassar had been a cop, or a doctor who worked for law enforcement? What if he had routinely sexually abused female inmates in the Michigan corrections system? Would the justice apparatus be doing everything in its power to protect him?

The answer, in my view, likely is yes. Also, we encourage the public not to buy into the notion that the justice system, and those who are powerful enough to manipulate it, care one iota about justice for Larry Nassar's victim.

We've already seen signs that Michigan State is working against the victims, and you can only expect that to intensify.

As for contempt of court, our justice system has proven beyond a doubt that it routinely butchers that concept. More on that issue is coming.





100 comments:

Anonymous said...

"But criminal cases are about punishment for wrongdoers, and they do little or nothing to address the victims' damages."

A victim receives a measure of justice when her perpetrator is punished with a degree of severity that matches the harm done.

Anonymous said...

You appealed the corrupt District Court ruling against you in blatant disregard for the law, didn't you? I know appellate judges are not likely to allow such blatantly illegal rulings to stand.

legalschnauzer said...

@7:16 --

Yes, I appealed the corrupt District Court ruling, and I've written about it many times here at Legal Schnauzer. Just do an LS search on "Acker and UAB and 11th Circuit," and you'll find tons of stuff to read -- assuming you are interested in the facts and law of the case.

You really think appellate judges aren't likely to let blatantly illegal rulings stand? They do it all the time, and I've given probably more than a dozen examples on this blog.

I guess appy judges are a new group for you to serve as Mr. Apologist? Try asking Don Siegelman, former gov of Alabama, about the 11th Circuit.

legalschnauzer said...

@7:15 --

Unless restitution is ordered, a criminal court doesn't do much of anything to address damages to the victim. I'm sure these victims would rather see Nassar found guilty than not guilty. But a criminal case is styled "State v. Jones" for a reason. It's designed to seek justice for "the people," not for any particular victim. That is left to the civil system, and my point is that it's very much up in the air how the victims will be treated in the civil arena.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Michigan State University is run by assholes.

Anonymous said...

Lots of universities are run by assholes. The University of Alabama is for sure run by corrupt assholes, and I've written in great detail about that here.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure why Nassar had to be there to hear the victim statements. Seems the court was just inviting an incident like the one involving Mr. Margraves.

Anonymous said...

How many lawsuits have you been involved in? What's your win ratio?

Anonymous said...

Schnauzer, it really sounds like there is a vast conspiracy against you. The question is, how high up does it go? Trump?

Anonymous said...

With your background and brains you should be able to attract an honest, decent, sharp/sharp lawyer, like a Jonathan Turley for example, to work with you; Not him per se, but someone with his expertise and skills. He has a website, BTW and might be willing to give your plight some exposure. The NYTs found your story worthy of a few paragraphs and that says much about the constitutional controversy surrounding your struggle. If you could sustain that kind of attention, who knows how much help you might generate. So far, all on your own, you've begun to shake up the powers that be, much much more than most people have or could. You could very well be the catalyst for sweeping reform so desperately needed at this time in our young nation's development. Our judiciary's decline into the abyss, its moral decay, its crumbling moral authority is so severe, so dangerous, so far removed from what it was designed for and could and should be, we must sound the alarm. You have begun that process and from what I sense, you are not going to give up. You are not weary.

Working with a real scholar, a true expert's expert is of utmost importance at this point, IMO; someone to nudge you along in the right direction; someone who can help you focus on the most important legal principles and objectives, to save your time and energy, that would be cool.

One would hope that somewhere, Someone would be willing to give you some expert legal guidance. (Mark Lane of JFK conspiracy fame would have--for a price. He enjoyed taking on the system, but he passed away recently.) Have you looked into the University of Missouri's Law School for pro-bono work? I think pursuing the court that had you incarcerated under questionable constitutional grounds could become a source of funding for a lawyer willing to work on a contingency basis. Some falsely imprisoned Americans have received significant compensation.

Anonymous said...

When I was recruited out there they were strongly associated with Kellogg's.

Anonymous said...

"I'm not sure why Nassar had to be there to hear the victim statements. Seems the court was just inviting an incident like the one involving Mr. Margraves."

He was there to give his victims the opportunity to make him confront up close and personal the exact nature of the damage he did. Those young women deserved the chance to make him aware just what his life of crime had contributed to the world. That was a cathartic episode in their lives. Therapeutic and healing.

He should have been in a cage during that proceeding.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:45 --

That makes sense. I think Kellogg's is based in Battle Creek, MI, which is not far from East Lansing, home to Michigan State.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:33 --

I'm not part of the conspiracy -- I'm a victim of the conspiracy -- so I don't know how high it goes. I can, however, make an educated guess. There is ample evidence to suggest the conspiracy involves Jeff Sessions or people connected to him, such as U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor.

You probably are aware that Sessions has risen from his corrupt base in Alabama to a spot right under Trump's right wing. So yes, it's quite possible that it gets close to Trump, although Trump and Sessions apparently have been on the outs for a while.

If you seriously want to know how high this might go, I'd suggest you watch the documentary on the Don Siegelman case. I reported more on the Siegelman case -- in more depth -- than any other journalist. And I've published irrefutable evidence here that I was cheated out of my job at UAB because of reporting on Siegelman case. A lot of the same nasty critters around the Siegelman case likely have been part of cheating Carol and me.

My guess is that you are a jokester and a troll, who is not seriously interested in any of this, but I know other readers are serious about these issues, so I'm responding for their benefit.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:23 --

If you are only interested in who "wins" lawsuits, you can read your local newspaper, check court records, or get on a mailing list for courthouse press releases.

This blog involves analysis of court rulings, to determine whether judges did or did not rule according to the law and the facts. When judges fail to uphold the law, we provide citations to law, showing how they cheated the public. We've done that on cases that involve Carol and me -- plus cases that do not involve us at all. Why don't you call Don Siegelman, Sherry Rollins, Bonnie Cahalane, and Linda Upton (to name just a few) and ask what they think of our reporting.

My question for you: If you are only interested in who "wins" lawsuits, why are you here? You clearly can't grasp the kind of reporting we do, so why do you bother to show? Sign up for a court press release service. That's apparently all you can handle.

Anonymous said...

Weren't you really fired from UAB for doing non-UAB work on UAB property and on their clock?

Anonymous said...

Answer - there's entertainment value in seeing what ridiculous hypocritical BS you'll write next. It's watching a dumpster fire. A train wreck.

legalschnauzer said...

@5:04 --

Nope. I was fired from UAB for writing a blog about the Siegelman case, on my own time and resources. I've got that in a tape recorded conversation with a UAB official named Anita Bonasera. Nowhere in the whole process did UAB present one shred of evidence that I was doing blog work on university time. You can check the UAB Faculty and Staff Handbook online, and it says if a supervisor has any such concerns, she must give oral warning to the staff member. My supervisor, Pam Powell, admitted in my grievance hearing that she never presented such a warning, so the university's own actions show that I was not using UAB resources for personal business.

This has been covered here many times, and it's a matter of public record that Judge Acker ruled unlawfully, granting summary judgment with no discovery, which clearly is contrary to 11th Circuit law -- in fact, it's contrary to all law, across all jurisdictions.

If you read this blog in a serious way, you should already know the answer to your question. That you don't know the answer tells me you are a fraud and a troll. For those actually interested in the facts and law on this issue, here is URL to a key post:


https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2012/07/jerry-sandusky-case-unmasks-morally.html

Anonymous said...

"Judge Acker ruled unlawfully, granting summary judgment with no discovery..."

Legal, Are you sure about that? A book I read on workplace rights--an excellent resource for every employee who works in an at will state-- described the possibility that in fact a judge could dismiss a case legally at the summary judgement level. If I remember, the author, a lawyer in this area of law, made a point to let the reader know that a lawsuit could get tossed without recourse before it got off the ground.

legalschnauzer said...

@5:40 --

Entertainment value, right. You can't even come up with a semi-creative reply. You're also not smart enough to provide a single specific example of "ridiculous hypocritical BS" reporting on my part. Give it a shot; bet you can't do it.

Face it, you're just not very bright, and you also are lazy and dishonest. Must suck to be you. You're here because your ox is being gored, and you're not even smart enough to hide your status as a troll.

legalschnauzer said...

@7:48 --

You read a book? No kidding? What's the title, who was the author?

Yes, I am sure about that, and you would be too if you clicked on the link in the post (4th graph) to Snook v. Trust Company of Georgia, controlling 11th Circuit law on the issue. Since you are such a learned reader, I'm sure you won't want to miss this opportunity to read the actual controlling law. Here is URL straight to the case. Read it, give it a shot:

https://openjurist.org/859/f2d/865

Based on your comment, you don't even seem to grasp the issue at hand. It's not whether a judge can grant or deny summary judgment. It's whether he can consider summary judgment before discovery has been completed. The answer is, "No, he cannot." But that's exactly what Acker did, and the 11th Circuit upheld him, violating its own precedent. Read Snook.

That's the reality of American courts. Try reading Snook, and maybe you will grasp what it says. Then again, maybe you won't.

Anonymous said...

"Federal Rules of Civil Procedure › TITLE VII. JUDGMENT › Rule 56. Summary Judgment
Rule 56. Summary Judgment"

"(b) Time to File a Motion. Unless a different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery."

You can oppose such a motion, too. You can depose a witness before discovery starts. Seeking summary judgement can be an effective tool for the defense in a number of ways including blocking damaging evidence from surfacing.


legalschnauzer said...

@8:04 --

What's your point? The issue isn't about when a party can file a motion for summary judgment. It's about when a judge can consider such a motion, and the answer is only after discovery. You don't even grasp the issue at hand, so why do you keep making yourself look like a fool.

Here is the case law from Snook v. Georgia Trust Company. Not sure how much more clear I can make it. But then you aren't really interested in the law, are you?

"This court has often noted that summary judgment should not be granted until the party opposing the motion has had an adequate opportunity for discovery. E.g., Littlejohn v. Shell Oil Co., 483 F.2d 1140, 1145 (5th Cir.1973) (en banc), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1116, 94 S.Ct. 849, 38 L.Ed.2d 743 (noting the high fatality rate of summary dispositions at a time before the facts have been fully developed); Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Co. v. American Fidelity Life Insurance Company, 606 F.2d 602, 609 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 820, 101 S.Ct. 77, 66 L.Ed.2d 22 ("Summary Judgment should not, therefore, ordinarily be granted before discovery has been completed."); Murrell v. Bennett, 615 F.2d 306, 310 (5th Cir.1980) (citing Alabama Farm Bureau ). The party opposing a motion for summary judgment has a right to challenge the affidavits and other factual materials submitted in support of the motion by conducting sufficient discovery so as to enable him to determine whether he can furnish opposing affidavits. Parrish v. Board of Commissioners of the Alabama State Bar, 533 F.2d 942, 948 (5th Cir.1976). If the documents or other discovery sought would be relevant to the issues presented by the motion for summary judgment, the opposing party should be allowed the opportunity to utilize the discovery process to gain access to the requested materials. Id. Generally summary judgment is inappropriate when the party opposing the motion has been unable to obtain responses to his discovery requests. Cowan v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc., 790 F.2d 1529, 1532 (11th Cir.1986).

The issue of inadequate discovery was called to the district court's attention by the parties in their briefs addressed to the motion to compel. In their response to the plaintiffs' motion to compel, defendants asserted that a ruling in their favor on the pending motion to dismiss or for summary judgment would render moot any discovery issue.1 Plaintiffs responded to this assertion by reminding the district court that "motions for summary judgment are premature and should not be granted until the party opposing such a motion is permitted to make discovery essential to his case." Therefore, the district court should have been aware of the plaintiffs' contention that they had not been able to obtain, through discovery, evidence essential to their opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The discovery requested was clearly relevant to the pending motion for summary judgment, both as to the securities fraud and RICO counts.

legalschnauzer said...

Here is more from Snook. The key finding: There can be no consideration of summary judgment without a proper record, built on discovery. In my UAB case, there was no record -- zero -- because there was no discovery:

In the case at hand, plaintiffs' filed a motion to compel, which was briefed extensively. The motion sought to compel the production of documents relevant to the pending motion for summary judgment. Therefore, plaintiffs properly directed the district court's attention to the fact that their discovery requests were still outstanding. The district court should have ruled on the motion to compel prior to entering summary judgment for the defendants. Its failure to rule on the motion to compel circumvented the policy underlying discovery in cases in which a summary judgment motion is filed.

[T]he whole purpose of discovery in a case in which a motion for summary judgment is filed is to give the opposing party an opportunity to discover as many facts as are available and he considers essential to enable him to determine whether he can honestly file opposing affidavits.

Parrish, 533 F.2d at 948. By failing to rule on the motion to compel, the district court deprived the plaintiffs' of their right to utilize the discovery process to discover the facts necessary to justify their opposition to the motion. It is clear that many of the documents requested are relevant to the issues raised by the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It is also clear that many of the requested documents are discoverable. Accordingly, the entry of summary judgment and dismissal of the pendent state law claims was improper and must be reversed. On remand the district court should consider the plaintiffs' motion to compel in light of the rules governing discovery and should order the requested documents produced as appropriate. Once there is an adequate record, the district court may again consider the defendants' motion for summary judgment.B. Propriety of the District Court's Denial of Preliminary Injunction

Anonymous said...

This court has often noted that summary judgment should not be granted until the party opposing the motion has had an adequate opportunity for discovery

("Summary Judgment should not, therefore, ordinarily be granted before discovery has been completed.

However, the party opposing the motion for summary judgment bears the burden of calling to the district court's attention any outstanding discovery. Id. at 1530. In Cowan, the court concluded that the nonmovant properly apprised the district court of the outstanding discovery request.

1. If the district court had treated the motion as one to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, this assertion might be true. However, the court considered factual matters outside the pleadings submitted by the defendants. Therefore, the procedures governing motions for summary judgment were invoked. See Rule 12(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure"

The exceptions may be what allowed the judge to rule as he did.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:22 --

Do you just enjoy looking stupid? You seem to revel in it. Here's a hint for you: There is a search function on this blog, and you can find what has been reported on most any issue we've covered.

In this instance, I filed motions that called to the court's attention the lack of discovery at least four times. I've written about that here many times; it's a matter of public record for anyone who cares to check the court file. The motions were published here many times until Ashley Madison/Trump bots stole everything in my Scribd account. In other words, there is no excuse for your ignorance.

Are you lazy, stupid, or both? My suggestion? Give up because you are in way over your head on issues you clearly are not capable of grasping. You are sad, fella, sad.

legalschnauzer said...

From a 2012 post: https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2012/04/rogues-in-robes-did-federal-judge.html


In Snook, the Eleventh Circuit found that a party opposing summary judgment need not file an affidavit to invoke the protection of Rule 56(d). Instead, the nonmoving party simply must bring to the district court's attention that discovery is outstanding. Once that is done, consideration of summary judgment is premature. From Snook:

This court has often noted that summary judgment should not be granted until the party opposing the motion has had an adequate opportunity for discovery. . . . The party opposing a motion for summary judgment has a right to challenge the affidavits and other factual materials submitted in support of the motion by conducting sufficient discovery so as to enable him to determine whether he can furnish opposing affidavits. . . . Generally summary judgment is inappropriate when the party opposing the motion has been unable to obtain responses to his discovery requests.

I was not allowed to even make discovery requests, much less obtain responses--and I filed two motions alerting the court to this. (See one of those motions below.) But Acker ruled on summary judgment anyway.



Make research your friend, @8:22. The search function on this blog practically spoon feeds it to you. You actually can educate yourself and avoid looking like a turnip -- unless, of course, you enjoy looking like a turnip.

Anonymous said...

So UAB did fire you for violating their policy. You just seem to be relying on them not giving you a warning first. Whatever.

Anonymous said...

If you filed motions opposing SJ on time, upon what basis did the appeals court rule? "(b) Time to File a Motion. Unless a different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery." The motion for SJ can be filed 10 seconds after the case is filed up to 30 days after the close of discovery.

"I was not allowed to even make discovery requests, much less obtain responses-..." On appeal, how did the court justify dismissing your case?

Don't fail to consider key words and phrases like "generally", "should not be", "usually".

Didn't realize the search function would help so much. It will save time.

Anonymous said...

"In Snook, the Eleventh Circuit found that a party opposing summary judgment need not file an affidavit to invoke the protection of Rule 56(d). Instead, the nonmoving party simply must bring to the district court's attention that discovery is outstanding. Once that is done, consideration of summary judgment is premature. From Snook:"

Correct, unless the time frame for discovery expired.

Anonymous said...

Or "(e) Failing to Properly Support or Address a Fact. If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may:

(1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact;

(2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion;

(3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials — including the facts considered undisputed — show that the movant is entitled to it; or

(4) issue any other appropriate order.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:04 --

Good God, you are such an idiot, it's laughable. Again, make research your friend. Acker set no discovery schedule, and the parties never met, as required by Rule 26. This has been reported here many times, and it's another sign of Acker's corrupt acts. It's his duty to make sure a discovery schedule is set, and I quote him from a court transcript admitting that no schedule was set and no discovery was conducted. Acker even uses the term "he's right," referring to me and my notices to the court that no schedule was set and no discovery conducted. Acker also admits, in open court, that I was entitled to discovery, but he ultimately did not allow it and granted summary judgment anyway.

This has all been available on this blog, for years.

I know your skull is too thick to grasp this, but I'll say it anyway: MAKE THE FACTS YOUR FRIEND. They are right here on this blog, and you will be amazed what you will learn -- if you want to learn. You clearly are a troll, with no interest in learning, and my reporting gores some ox of yours, so you aren't going to change. Not capable of it.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:02 --

Look it up yourself. It's been reported here many times. The search function won't help you. It might help a fence post or two, but it won't help you. Hah, what a joke you are!

legalschnauzer said...

@9:02 --

Try actually listening to what Bonasera said. She said I was fired for writing about the Siegelman case, clear and simple. She says nothing about me doing personal work on university time. And Pam Powell, my supervisor, claimed she had warned me about this and that, but when the grievance committee asked her to provide evidence of such warnings, she said she didn't have any. Again, this has been reported here for years.

The issue of a warning is important only because that's how UAB policy is written. You can check online for that yourself, if you aren't too lazy. It's called progressive discipline -- oral warning, written warning, termination. It's not something I came up with; the university wrote the policy.

The supervisor has a duty -- if a problem is suspected -- to raise the issue via oral warning. If that doesn't solve it, then written warning. If that doesn't solve it, termination can be an option.

None of those steps ever happened with me, so UAB's own actions show I was not violating any policy.

You apparently are too dim to grasp it, but progressive discipline is very common in the workplace.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to 9:13 --

Either read the controlling law at Snook v. Trust Company of Georgia or STFU.

Anonymous said...



"The issue of a warning is important only because that's how UAB policy is written. You can check online for that yourself, if you aren't too lazy. It's called progressive discipline -- oral warning, written warning, termination. It's not something I came up with; the university wrote the policy."

Makes little difference what the UAB policy is. Right to work state. They can fire you because you followed every rule in every policy book ever written.

Anonymous said...

LS: You attract a fair number of trolls, and I would encourage you to take that as a compliment. It means you are reporting accurately and afflicting the comfortable, so that's a good thing. People like 9:02 and 9:04 like the system the way it is, because they benefit from it, and your journalism frightens them. You are messing with their pile of toys, and they don't like it.

As for the summary judgment, anyone who tries to argue that summary judgment can be considered without discovery . . . well, they have rocks in their cranium. It simply can't be done, and what Acker did to you is one of the most monstrous cheat jobs I've heard about in court. It makes me sad for my profession that we've stooped so low in the ND of AL.

I've practiced before Acker for about 20 years, so I'm not surprised at what he did. He is a flaming racist, who attended the Dixiecrat Convention in Birmingham in the late '40s -- pushing Strom Thurmond for president and building primarily on a foundation of opposing integration of the military.

He's a bad egg, close to both Rob Riley and Doug Jones, so it's likely one or both of those clowns were pulling his strings. Jones has been tight with UAB officials for year, so I'm guessing he was involved for sure. And as you've reported, Jones and Riley have formed an ugly alliance over HealthSouth cash.

Anonymous said...

"There is a search function on this blog, and you can find what has been reported on most any issue we've covered."

"The search function won't help you. It might help a fence post or two, but it won't help you. Hah, what a joke you are!"

Anonymous said...

"There is a search function on this blog, and you can find what has been reported on most any issue we've covered."

"The search function won't help you. It might help a fence post or two, but it won't help you. Hah, what a joke you are!"

There is no proof that your judge engaged in ex-parte communications with UAB. For him to say that they are really nervous over there is certainly not proof. He could have overheard someone somewhere mention that in passing to a stranger. You simply don't know.

Anonymous said...

And yet you've lost every case you've ever been involved in. Numerous judges. All corrupt? I think you're failing to grasp something very fundamental throughout all of this.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:42 --

I take it you aren't an employment lawyer? That's good because you clearly would be out of your depth. A few points:

(1) I was in a protected class -- over 40 years of age -- so the right to work issue had no bearing on the case. No employer can discriminate against a member of a protected class.

(2) A government employer cannot violate an employee's First Amendment rights. And Anita Bonasera's own words show that is exactly what UAB did.

You seem to be from the old "you can be fired for a good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all" school. But that only goes so far in the employment environment. It does not allow discrimination against a member of a protected class -- and one way to prove discrimination, under the law, is to show that an employer failed to follow its own policies, or applied them inequitably.

So, contrary to what you say, failure to follow policy is a central issue in discrimination cases. And I assume even you can grasp that someone who works for UAB is a government employee who enjoys First Amendment protections.

Bottom line: You are clueless.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:52 --

Two things:

(1) No, I haven't lost every case I've been involved in. That's a matter of public record.

(2) Can you cite a single case I've lost that was decided correctly under the law? Can you cite one, or is that too much effort for you? Give it a shot, I can't wait for your reply.

You like to take the easy way out, clinging to the baseless argument out of desperation. Let's see you prove that you are something more than a mindless troll. I don't think you can do it.

Anonymous said...

I think it was on yesterday's post that some airhead commenter claimed you had been thrown out of a courtroom, and you and Carol had been found, by law, in contempt. You challenged the commenter to provide examples. Has he done that?

legalschnauzer said...

@10:09 --

Nope, he hasn't. And he won't, because he can't. Those things didn't happen -- and when challenged on it, the guy apparently took a long gulp and decided to go silent.

Anonymous said...

"(1) I was in a protected class -- over 40 years of age -- so the right to work issue had no bearing on the case. No employer can discriminate against a member of a protected class."

The right to work law applied to you. They can fire you if you are 21 or 99. There's no proof you were discriminated against because of your age.

Failure to follow policy is a weak component in an employment discrimination lawsuit, depending on specific circumstances. If you stole money from the company, they will fire you without recourse.

You claim twice on the tape that Ms. Bonasera said it was "all" about your blog. That is not what she said. She said your blog was a very small part of the picture and that it was related to other non-related things. She said it was small part.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:17 --

I'll put this bluntly: You are full of feces, and your knowledge of employment law is subterranean.

(1) Right to work laws do not allow for discrimination against protected classes. You simply are wrong. Sure, an employers can fire wily and nily, but that doesn't mean it's lawful. If they do it against members of a protected class, in a way they violates federal law, they are looking at big-ass court judgments.

(2) There absolutely was proof of discrimination due to age, and it surfaced even without discovery. It involved a former coworker named Doug Gillette. Look it up.

(3) Failure to follow policy is a central component in an employment discrimination lawsuit. I didn't steal money from the company, so that argument isn't worth a pot of piss.

(4) Of course, Bonasera tried to dodge the blog issue -- even she knows about the First Amendment protections of government workers -- but she proceeded to admit I was targeted because of my reporting on the Siegelman case. She says that multiple times, so she can't even track her own lie.

Anonymous said...

As I mentioned, there are several factors that can justify summary judgement. I didn't list all of them. And, just to let you know the links you cited don't open for me. Others that didn't work previously now do, so thanks for that. Hope Carol is well. I imagine this puts a bit of a strain on her.

There is no proof that your judge engaged in ex-parte communications with UAB. For him to say that they are really nervous over there is certainly not proof. He could have overheard someone somewhere mention that in passing to a stranger. You simply don't know.

The right to work law applied to you. They can fire you if you are 21 or 99. There's no proof you were discriminated against because of your age. You can be fired if you are protected as a disabled person.

Failure to follow policy is a weak component in an employment discrimination lawsuit, depending on specific circumstances. If you stole money from the company, they will fire you without recourse.

You claim twice on the tape that Ms. Bonasera said it was "all" about your blog. That is not what she said. She said your blog was a very small part of the picture and that it was related to other non-related things. Then, she said it again, it was a small part.

Again, that your wife's motion took several days longer for her filing to appear on the docket makes perfect sense in light of the fact that as a pro-se she could file electronically. Your court does offer free assistance to the pro-se, however, on these kinds of procedures, something my court didn't do. That is a nice feature.

So far, you haven't established that you were the victim of unlawful discrimination. You do make it clear that "hearing" what you are told is an area where you need improvement. "Seeing" the viewpoints of others with whom you disagree is weak, as well. Just from the brief interaction we've had, it is obvious you are intelligent, articulate and passionate, and quite gifted.

legalschnauzer said...

Need to make one correction. The correct spelling of my former UAB colleague's name is "Doug Gillett."

A blog search on those two words will call up our reporting on evidence that I was, in fact, the target of discrimination based on age. In fact, it was about as blatant as age discrimination can get, and it's one of many reasons UAB did not want any discovery in the case.

Anonymous said...

(3) Failure to follow policy is a central component in an employment discrimination lawsuit. I didn't steal money from the company, so that argument isn't worth a pot of piss.


Didn't say you stole money, did I? Correct if I'm wrong. What I communicated was this: stealing will trump policy. It is an example of how weak company policy is depending on the circumstances.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:38 --

You just flat refuse to read Snook, right? I assume that's because you know it's not favorable to your position, so you think if you ignore it, the rest of us will, too.

You really expect to earn any kind of respect with that kind of low-rent approach? Show that you have read and understand Snook. Until you do that, anything you write is pure horse manure.

There is no reason for me, or anyone else, to have the slightest respect for anything you say -- on any topic. You plainly refuse to educate yourself, but you keep hanging around, like a fly on an elephant's ass.

Read and grasp Snook, or hit the exits. You won't be missed, I promise.

Anonymous said...

I'm reminded of the old story about "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

legalschnauzer said...

@10:45 --

If my memory of UAB policy is correct, you are wrong -- or you at least have no point.

I'm pretty sure UAB policy, when I worked there, addressed issues like stealing. The gist was that serous offenses -- like stealing, fighting, etc. -- can be grounds for immediate dismissal. In other words, the university can skip over the oral and written warning requirements of progressive discipline and go straight to termination for certain serious offenses. But my case did not involve even allegations of such serious offenses.

In Anita Bonasera's own words, it involved alleged computer-usage issues -- with Bonasera admitting those were driven by Siegelman content on my blog, not actual improper usage on m part -- and UAB's Acceptable Use Policy specifically requires progressive discipline. Another example of the university violating it's own policy, which is an essential component of many discrimination cases.

Bottom line: Stealing is part of UAB policy, so it doesn't trump anything.

Anonymous said...

I read it yesterday. I reviewed additional procedures and law. I would appreciate the opportunity to examine copies of the transcripts from both the district and appellate courts.
I haven't found the unabridged version of dockets. I would enjoy reading the Complaint. Just in these few brief moments of reviewing what you have presented, I found and named numerous errors on your part.

What concerns me most is your imprisonment. I suspect you have a legal foundation there, to pursue severe error or perhaps misconduct, by that judge. False imprisonment, if it applies in your case, is a most serious violation according to any legal standard.

legalschnauzer said...

@11:04 --

You read what yesterday? Who are you, and why should I care what you read? Why should my readers care?

Here's a hint: If you don't identify yourself, I have no way of knowing what you are talking about or who you are in the list of 50-something comments above. Plus, if you do not ID yourself, I have no reason to care what you've read or what you think. If you want to be taken seriously, give us some reason to do so.

You say, "I found and named numerous errors on your part." Oh, really? You haven't named anything to me or given me a reason to think you have any clue what you are talking about.

But wait! You're concerned that a journalist was thrown in prison because of his blogging, posts that (to this day) never have been found to be false or defamatory, as a matter of law? Wow, you really are concerned about that? Gee, you think there is a legal foundation to pursue there? No kidding?

Wow, until you gave your stamp of approval, I didn't know if there was anything to that whole false arrest/false imprisonment/First Amendment thing or not. Whew, what a relief to know you recognize there might be issues there.

Anonymous said...

I am Old Charlie, the all time loser

In the shuffling madness
Of the locomotive breath,
Runs the all, time loser,
Headlong to his death
He feels the piston scraping
Steam breaking on his brow
Old Charlie stole the handle and
The train it won't stop going
No way to slow down
He sees his children jumping off
At stations, one by one
His woman and his best friend
In bed and having fun
He's crawling down the corridor
On his hands and knees
Old Charlie stole the handle and
The train it won't stop going
No way to slow down
He hears the silence howling
Catches angels as they fall
And the all-time winner
Has got him by the balls
He picks up Gideons Bible
Open at page one
I think God He stole the handle and
The train won't stop going
No way to slow down
No way to slow down
No way to slow down
No way to slow down
No way to slow down
No way to slow down
No way to slow down
No way to slow down
No way to slow down

Ian Anderson
Jethro Tull

Listen to it loud, blaring
on a cold, icy, winter's night

Anonymous said...

(e) Failing to Properly Support or Address a Fact. If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may:

(1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact;

(2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion;

(3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials — including the facts considered undisputed — show that the movant is entitled to it; or

(4) issue any other appropriate order.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56

Number 3 has a lot of latitude for a judge to justify granting summary judgement.

It makes no difference who I am. I went through hell in a federal court and I know a judge who is thoroughly corrupt. Bought and paid for, sitting on his butt awarding millions to friends, senators, lawyers who put his behind on the bench. They have almost unlimited power. They are crafty, connected, a close-knit family just like the mafia, and they perpetrate their deeds behind the mask of decency. They commit more heinous crimes than any other organized criminal gang. They are the untouchables. They wield more power than any other criminal organization in our history. And almost no one knows.

legalschnauzer said...

@11:51 --

I don't care who you are, but I find it odd that you simply refuse to read the Snook case. You don't seem to deny that it's controlling 11th Circuit law, and I imagine every circuit has a similar case.

I've reported on other discrimination cases where Acker followed Snook, but he didn't follow it in my case. I can find no other case where he has grant summary judgment without discovery. That's corruption, and you are wasting your time trying to change what apparently makes you uncomfortable.

Acker's own words via transcript in court show he knew I was entitled to discovery, that no discovery schedule had been prepared (his duty), and no discovery had been conducted (because I notified the court of the fact multiple times.)

I see no point to your posts. You are twisting yourself into a pretzel to provide some glint of an excuse for Acker's actions. But got news for you: You aren't even coming close. The answers are in Snook, as I've reported for 7-8 years, and you can't change that -- even though you want to try, for some reason.

Anonymous said...

"I don't care who you are..."

"Who are you, and why should I care what you read? Why should my readers care?"


Nope. Not trying to change a thing. I read Snook.

You don't have a copy of your Complaint or transcripts? At times you say things as if they are facts which is a very common thing for us to do. So far, however, I've found several errors in your claims, as I told you.

If you would rather not take even one simple example I cited, that's fine, but don't confuse me with a post. LOL. For example, listening to the tape you asked me to listen to, the woman never claimed what you were absolutely certain she said.

Anonymous said...

You know what a devil's advocate does. I remember reading in a book about Vince Lombardi that he had his first string offense run the Packer's Sweep until they could do it consistently, at full speed, while cutting to within 1" of the boundary he established. They ran it over and over and over and over. Can you guess why? At that level, to win, you better be flawless. Make the practices much tougher than the toughest games could ever be. Be more than prepared to be at your best every moment you engage in the play.

The opposition you face, many of them at least, are or will be, finely tuned, experienced, knowledgeable litigators who have devoted their lives to kicking butt in courtrooms. They eat, breathe, sleep the law, procedures, tricks of the trade and building networks of jurists they expect will give then the benefit of any doubts whenever they can.

Your training and education are in journalism. And you have a keen mind. I'm hoping you can expose the vast septic system that most of us rely upon to try to eek out a measure of earthly justice on occasion. Your enemies are many, eager to destroy you/your cases. They want to eat you up. I want you to succeed. Nothing I've said is personal, except the positives. Examining your positions, legally, backwards and forwards, over and over, with top notch legal coaching or representation only increases your chances for success.

Hopefully, in 50 years from now, Americans will look back at what you've accomplished with deep gratitude. Hopefully, because of your efforts today, people will be treated with respect and according to the law.

legalschnauzer said...

@12:51 --

You apparently haven't comprehended Snook, so it makes no difference whether you've read it or not.

I've run the complaint and transcripts here for years, until they were stolen from my Scribd account. They still are available in the public record, via PACER, so research your heart out.

You've cited errors in a comment here? What time was the comment posted? Where is it? What specifically are the errors?

As for Bonasera, it's not open to debate what she said. If you can't do better than that, just close up your troll shop and take it somewhere else.

Here is word for word from the Bonasera transcript:

AB: She was able to determine what you were working on and whether it was related to your blog . . .

RS: Well, you just said it, it’s all about my blog. You just said that.

AB: That was a piece of it. Some of it was research related to your blog, from my understanding. I understand there were some things about Siegelman, screens up about Don Siegelman, things that they saw you doing that they consider to be research for your blog because then that was topics that you wrote about on your blog.

RS: Those are also news articles that we are supposed to keep up with, about Alabama, stuff in the news.

She is saying I was singled out for "investigation" because of my blog, and its contact about Siegelman. Look up the words "Doug Gillett," and you will find this is absolute proof of age discrimination. If you can't be honest enough with yourself to acknowledge that, then go to hell and leave us alone here. I'm not interested in communicating with a con artist.

A point of law that you probably can't grasp: Bonasera's words show it WAS all about my blog and the Siegelman content. But even if you are stupid enough to buy her "it was a piece of it" crock, that's admitting I was the victim of unlawful discrimination and First Amendment violations

A government employee cannot be terminated -- or face any negative consequence on the job -- for conduct protected by the First Amendment. Bonasera admits my blog was "a piece of it." She's lying, but even if you take that as true, the blog can't be any piece of my termination. She's just admitting to a First Amendment violation. Shows you she is not very bright, and if you buy her line of baloney, you aren't very smart either.

Anonymous said...

"Here is word for word from the Bonasera transcript:

AB: She was able to determine what you were working on and whether it was related to your blog . . .

RS: Well, you just said it, it’s all about my blog. You just said that.

AB: That was a piece of it. Some of it was research related to your blog, from my understanding. I understand there were some things about Siegelman, screens up about Don Siegelman, things that they saw you doing that they consider to be research for your blog because then that was topics that you wrote about on your blog.

RS: Those are also news articles that we are supposed to keep up with, about Alabama, stuff in the news."

That's a "piece" of what she said. She never said, your words, it was all about your blog, did she? That is what you said she said, but she didn't. That's just one example of error. You would do well to acknowledge you are not perfect, wouldn't you agree?

legalschnauzer said...

@1:12 --

Thanks for the kind words. In my view, you are giving way too much credit to lawyers. I've yet to "lose" a case because of good lawyering on the other side. It's always been because of corrupt judges.

I'm not even in the profession, and I can wipe the floor via written motions with most any lawyer I've seen. Hell, even Bill Acker admitted that in open court, that my motions were better than what he sees from many lawyers. I've seen plenty of lawyers -- Rob Riley and everyone at his firm, Bill Swatek, David Gespass, many others -- who are flat-out incompetent. They are horrible lawyers and even worse as people.

These people, to put it bluntly, aren't very smart. They are babied and coddled by judges and . . . well, what happens when you spoil a child? You raise a crappy person.

The same applies in law. Judges baby these con artist, and that produces crappy lawyers. They don't have to earn anything; it's handed to them.

Are there lawyers out there who "kick butt" in the courtroom? Maybe so. But I sure as hell haven't seen any of them. I would encourage you to look at lawyers with a much more skeptical view. Many of them are just not that smart, and they certainly have thin legal skills.

Anonymous said...

"She is saying I was singled out for "investigation" because of my blog..." Maybe you were singled out, Roger, but that is not what she said. Do you believe that none of your colleagues had Big Brother looking over their shoulders, too? They would be foolish to investigate just one of their journalists. It may have seemed they chose you and you alone, but you are in error if you think that is what she said.

legalschnauzer said...

@1:23 --

I've never claimed to be perfect, but that's not the issue anyway. I'm right about this, and you are too dishonest to acknowledge it.

Every single explanation Bonasera gives is about my blog -- every . . . single . . . one. Can you cite an explanation from her that's not about my blog? No you can't. So, yes, it was all about my blog -- and my statement is accurate. You haven't shown error, and you can't show error. You lie, but the words on paper and on tape, don't lie.

Anonymous said...

"Thanks for the kind words. In my view, you are giving way too much credit to lawyers. I've yet to "lose" a case because of good lawyering on the other side. It's always been because of corrupt judges."

I didn't say or mean to imply you were out skilled by the lawyers you've encountered. Not at all. Out experienced? Of course. More clear on the fine meanings of certain procedures? I would guess they'd have to be. You haven't worked at this for thirty years. They have advantages simply by being trained lawyers. And, if you are superior to them in every way that counts in a court of law, that is great!!

You will, however, sometime in the near future most likely face the cream of the cream as you travel further into the "playoffs." You very well may get to the "show" the Super Bowl of the Courts where Ginsburg, Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Kagan, Alito and Sotomayor will be lying in wait for you.

Anonymous said...

Roger, I haven't lied once to you.

legalschnauzer said...

1:28 --

I was singled out, and I know it. You think I can't ask around with my coworkers and find out if they were investigated. I did, and they weren't. I know they were foolish enough to single me out because . . . well, there are a lot of smart people at UAB, but the people involved in my case were not among them. I was singled out because of my reporting on Siegelman, and that is exactly what Bonasera said -- no matter how much she tries to back her way out of it, and no matter how you want the words to say something other than what they say. I had at least three coworkers -- all younger than me -- who wrote blogs. Were they investigated? Hell, no. One of them, Doug Gillett, wrote a political blog on work time -- he admitted it -- and he wasn't investigated. He also wasn't terminated. That's age discrimination, big as life.

Sorry, but you are fighting a losing battle because you simply don't know what you're talking about -- and I do know this stuff backwards and forwards, both the facts and the law. You've picked the wrong guy with whom to fight this battle, so I'd suggest you pack it in.

legalschnauzer said...

@1:43 --

I have no idea who you are, and what you are talking about. Did I say you lied to me about something? Where did I say that, when? I'm lost.

Do you understand that I'm at a disadvantage here? You know who you are, and you know who I am, but I have no clue who you are? That makes communicating a little tough on my end.

Anonymous said...

Roger, I am not going to sign up with PACER and pay 8 cents a page so I can see what transpired. I would love to offer what I can to be of any help to you through the legal system, but I'm not going to purchase transcripts. I may have nothing to offer you, you may be right, but my motive has been pure, except that i do hope you will succeed, to pave the way for others of us who were bruised by this out-of-control beast. The courts were supposed to be a place of refuge for the innocent, I thought once upon a time; a sacred place where we were all equals pursing the truth, come what may. Perhaps they were only dreaming when they wrote the constitution. Perhaps they got carried away with fanciful and preposterous images of a judiciary that would never succumb to reality. But, I thought many gave their lives so we wouldn't end up butchered, badgered and confined without just cause.

legalschnauzer said...

@1:42 --

Yes, lawyers have the advantage of experience, but I have the advantage of having good cases. I always have, I've always been on the right side of the facts and the law. That doesn't make me a better person than anyone else, it just means I've always been in the right on these court matters, and lawyers on the other side have always been in the position of trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit. That's hard to do, but it helps to have the judge in your pocket.

I'm just one of many people who have been on the right side of things and still got screwed over and over in court. Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, Sherry Rollins, Linda Upton, Wes Teel, Bonnie Cahalane, Gary White, and Richard Scrushy are just a few others.

Anonymous said...

"You lie, but the words on paper and on tape, don't lie."

Yes, you said I lied.

No, Roger, I did not say you were not singled out. I said, based on what she said during that taped session with her you had me listen to, you could not conclude that they singled you out.

I'm not fighting you. I want you to win. That's what I'm doing here, Roger.

legalschnauzer said...

@1:54 --

That's fine. I'm not trying to tell you how to spend your money. Just saying PACER is one place it's available. And yes, PACER is expensive, so I don't blame you for not wanting to go that route.

This is a bit of a sore point with me because all of that information was right here, until Scribd essentially stole my documents. I hope to sue Scribd and get those documents back -- and if I'm successful in that endeavor, the documents will be back here. But that might take a while, and I have higher legal issues to pursue at the moment.

Anonymous said...

Do you see where you said that I lied?

legalschnauzer said...

@2:01 --

To the extent that you've spent a chunk of the day trying to massage Bonasera's words, you did lie. I don't care what you are trying to do, but I do hope you grasp this: That conversation with Bonasera is absolute proof of discrimination and First Amendment violations. It's proof that I was cheated out of my job of 20 years. That matters one hell of a lot to me, and I take it damned seriously. To have someone try to play word-salad games with Bonasera's clear statements . . . well, I take great exception to it.

This is my career we're talking about, my way of supporting myself and and my loves ones, my way of making a living -- and Bonasera's words plainly show I was cheated out of my career. That's of the utmost seriousness to me. And if you can't appreciate that, I'd suggest you steer clear of me.

This is life and death stuff on my end, so you either understand that, or you are well advised to skip on out of Dodge. If you think it's fun to tweak me, I'd suggest you find another hobby.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:09 --

Yes, and I stand by that statement. You did lie. You've lied over and over about the Bonasera statement, and I don't appreciate it. As noted above, I'd suggest you leave me alone.

Anonymous said...

"I've never claimed to be perfect, but that's not the issue anyway. I'm right about this, and you are too dishonest to acknowledge it." Again, I haven't lied to you once or been dishonest.

E"every single explanation Bonasera gives is about my blog -- every . . . single . . . one. Can you cite an explanation from her that's not about my blog? No you can't. So, yes, it was all about my blog -- and my statement is accurate. You haven't shown error, and you can't show error. You lie, but the words on paper and on tape, don't lie..." I did not lie, not once.

"I was singled out, and I know it. You think I can't ask around with my coworkers and find out if they were investigated. I did, and they weren't."

But that is entirely different. Asking around is something other than what was said in that taped interview. Precision is key and I have not mastered it by any means, but the courts demand it when they want to decide an issue. She did not say you were singled out. She did not say it was all about your blog. In fact, she said pretty much just the opposite several times. It was a small piece of it. It was a small part of it.

In the portion I heard, the topic was your blog and she engaged in that conversation with you primarily to emphasize that your blog was not the main issue. The time you spent on blogging, 3 hours times 27 days or 81 hours, was a piece of it, she said, too, not the content.

I'm for you bro.

Anonymous said...




Good night Roger. Good talking with you my friend.

legalschnauzer said...

Let me establish this for one final time. Every single explanation Bonasera gives is about my blog. Every one. Two are about the blog content -- the Siegelman case. She gives not one explanation that isn't about my blog. So my statement that she said it was all about my blog is correct. I asked if you can provide anything to the contrary, and you can't. You can't change the words that are right in front of you.

Second, you are lying about the "3 hours, times 27 days business." Bonasera never said I was blogging for that period of time. She never said I was blogging on university time at all. She claimed that was "non-work related activity," as determined by the supervisor against whom I had filed a grievance. BTW, that goes directly to retaliation, which was a key element of the case that I have't reported on much.

Finally, you're not conning me with that "I'm for you, bro" bullshit. You are a troll, pure and simple, so don't think you are fooling anyone. The only question is who are you, and why are you a troll on this issue. I suspect I know the answer to both those questions, but I'll keep that to myself for now.

Anonymous said...

Written Warning
A written warning may be given after repeated violations, after a verbal warning, or for serious first time misconduct.

Operative words are "may be". It does not say we must give you written warnings before termination.

legalschnauzer said...

A final point to show how warped and corrupt these UAB people are. Bonasera's "3 hours" bullshit . . . well, first of all that was determined by a supervisor (Pam Powell) against whom I had filed a grievance. UAB policy is that an employee is to file a grievance without facing any kind of reprisal. Hah, so much for that? Retaliation doesn't get more clear than that what happened in my case.

I encourage readers to try to grasp this: Bonasera is essentially saying that if I checked the Weather Channel at work, or ESPN, or stlouscardinals.com, or fleetwoodmac.com . . . that was "non-work related activity" -- for me. If my coworkers checked such sites, it wasn't investigated, it was fine. Hell, they could be spending hours on porn, and that wold have been fine. No one checked it, they only checked me.

Also, Bonasera implies that we worked strict 8-hour shifts. Well, that's not true. I was a salaried employee, frequently subject to being at work for more than 8 hours a day.

Finally, Bonasera is hinting that my "non-work related" activity was unusually high. Well, we don't know that at all, because mine was the only one checked. Hell, mine might have been the lowest in our group, and it almost certainly was lower than my boss, who printed out personal shit all the time.

UAB has the progressive discipline policy to protect employees from unscrupulous supervisors. But it certainly didn't protect me, which suggests my termination was driven from the highest levels of the university, from the highest levels of state government. That all goes to the extremely sensitive nature of the Siegelman case, and I encourage readers to view the documentary if you haven't already done so.

It shines major light on the environment in which I was cheated out of my job.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:42 -- A few points:

(1) I'm pretty sure that's not the language that was in place when I was terminated in 2008. Please share with us the 2008 language from the You and UAB Handbook.

(2) Also, please share the 2008 language from the UAB Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) re: use of university computers. Is that to be handled via progressive discipline? I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. Why wasn't that applied in my case?

(3) Also share the 2008 language re: the rights of a UAB employee to file a grievance. It's supposed to be done without fear of reprisal, right? Why I was I terminated by a supervisor against whom I had filed a grievance. I'm pretty sure UAB policy is that such a termination never should happen.

(4) You state, "It does not say WE must give you written warnings before termination." Who is "we"? Do you work at UAB? Why don't you provide your name and contact information. Look forward to receiving that.

Anonymous said...

We're you fired for the blogging or because of discrimination? You have said it both ways. If UAB has a history of firing 30 year old white guys and you, would you still cry discrimination? Being part of a protected class doesn't mean you can't be fired.

legalschnauzer said...

@7:18 --

Are you aware no discovery was conducted in the case? Your question touches on one of the problems caused by such corrupt actions from a judge -- no facts are developed, no record is developed upon which to base the granting or denial of summary judgment. Acker just pulled it out of his ass, with no facts having been officially established.

The facts, as I knew them, supported both claims -- age discrimination and First Amendment (and don't forget retaliation, for filing a grievance against my supervisor). I'm not aware of any law that precludes a complaint on all three charges. Are you?

Anonymous said...

Here we find a ruling from the court and opinions shared by Ken White,

"In order to state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause, Carol Shuler
was required to allege “that [s]he was discriminated against by establishing that
other similarly-situated individuals outside of [her] protected class were treated
more favorably.” Amnesty International, USA v. Battle, 559 F.3d 1170, 1180
(11th Cir. 2009). Shuler’s allegations fail to do so, because she did not plead that
she has been treated differently from similarly situated individuals by Harrington,
Curry, or Caudill. Accordingly, Carol Shuler has failed to state any violation of
the Equal Protection Clause." The appeals court

"The court repeats Mr. Riley's counsel's claim that Mr. Shuler called the court a "joke," claimed it lacked jurisdiction, and refused to participate in the permanent injunction hearing. As I said in my last post, that's a damnfool thing to do that may deprive Shuler of substantive appellate review.

The court ordered Shuler to remove the specified statements from the blog Legal Schnauzer and made it clear that he will remain in jail for contempt until he does so. (The legality of indefinite contempt incarceration is a subject for another post).

The written order doesn't change my analysis from earleir this week. The fact that the court calls this a permanent injunction rather than a preliminary injunction doesn't make it constitutional; I think it is still unconstitutional prior restraint because (1) the court issued it without a trial, and (2) there's nothing exceptional about the case permitting a rare exception to the prior restraint doctrine. However, Roger Shuler continues to be the biggest impediment to vindication of Roger Shuler's rights. His behavior is calculated to court martyrdom, not to protect his First Amendment rights. That's a shame."

Ken White

Anonymous said...

IV. Summary Judgment on Title VII Claim
Shuler claims that the district court erred by granting summary judgment to
the UAB defendants on his gender discrimination claim.

The individual defendants are not “employers” under Title VII, and thus Shuler’s claim against them fails. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 830 (11th Cir. 2007) (noting that
Title VII does not “countenance individual liability”). With respect to the Board, Shuler has failed to allege any evidence that he was discriminated against due to his gender.

“[A] pro se litigant does not escape the essential burden under
summary judgment standards of establishing that there is a genuine issue as to a
fact material to his case in order to avert summary judgment.” Brown v.
Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1990).

Bare and self-serving allegations are inadequate to carry the plaintiff’s burden on summary judgment. Stewart v. Booker T. Washington Ins., 232 F.3d 844, 851 (11th Cir. 2000). We find no error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment on this claim.

legalschnauzer said...

@11:04 --

Congratulations, you can copy and paste from a document issued by a corrupt appellate court! You should be mighty proud of that.

Why don't you notice the 11th Circuit's trampling of its own precedent, Snook v. Georgia Trust Company, which states that summary judgment cannot be considered when discovery is outstanding -- and in this case, no discovery was conducted at all.

Tell us what the Snook case says, and what the 1lth Circuit panel says about its own precedent. Look forward to hearing more on this from such a distinguished legal scholar.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:45 --

Why don't you provide a link to the "article" about the equal protection business. You clearly are mixing up two cases, but you apparently are too big a simpleton to recognize it.

You also seem to be implying that you are Ken White, putting his name at the end of of your comment. Are you Ken White or just a con artist trying to act like him?

As for Ken White, you show that even a fruit loop like him agrees I was treated unconstitutionally. Other than that -- and White's position on this has been known for roughly five years -- what is your point?

Your main point seems to be to prove that you can cut and paste. Congratulations on that big-time achievement.

Anonymous said...

Roger, comment on your interpretation of the tape recording, again, won't you? BTW, did you inform her you were taping your conversation with her or did you conceal that fact, illegally, from her? Has she sued you yet for that crime?

legalschnauzer said...

@9:11 --

I don't need to interpret the tape recording; it's easily heard by anyone with ears. I asked her about what was going on with the targeting of me for investigation -- by a supervisor against who I had filed a grievance for harassment -- and every explanation Bonasera gave was about my blog, its Siegelman content, or both. Every single explanation was about my blog, and the words are right there; no matter how hard you try, you can't change them. Why you would want to defend a batch of cheating university administrators is beyond me, but thankfully, I don't have to live in your scummy shoes. What a pathetic life you must lead.

As for Alabama recording law, you have no clue. Alabama is a one-party state, meaning it's legal to record where at least one party to the conversation is aware of the recording. I was aware of it, so it's legal, and I had no obligation to inform Bonasera. There is nothing illegal about it, and you would know that if you weren't too lazy and stupid to do a Google search.

And you think someone can't be "sued" for a "crime"? You seem to be proud of your stupidity, Isn't it time to go back inside from recess? You don't even know the most basic terms about our justice system.

Thomas S. Bean said...

I hate to trot out some of the common conspiracy theories based on verifiable suspicions (that only remain unproven because law enforcement does not do their jobs nearly as well as think that do)..............but.............a good case can be made that occult based esoteric philosophies and religions have been operational for a long time in America.

These bizarre hidden cults are notoriously dedicated to committing apostasies and deviant acts that include "abusing and exploiting weaker people" as not only an initiation to get to a higher level of power, but also as a sex addiction. The cognitive foundation for being a predator involves an elite, self serving, self appointed level of narcissism best described by M. Scott Peck in his book, "People of The Lie". [More on that later].

I've noticed that Republicans are always remarkably capable of outrageous secret criminality (NSA scandal, Cover up of NSA scandals) while successfully painting their faces with ineffable virtue as a common and pragmatic social mask to hide behind a veneer of respectability.

During the course of a thirty year contract vigilante harassment campaign, our wonderful degenerate scum known as county-city-state-federal law enforcement (South Dakota, Austin Texas, Arizona, Nevada) all colluded to silently sanction a secret COINTELPRO-Torture-
Assassination program that Seymour Hersh briefly hinted at (without successfully securing specific facts from cooperating primary sources with original and verifiable crime info from guys like me).

It was The Bush-Cheney White House (Republican Party Central) that promoted the Unitary Executive Branch Theory of Fascistic Abusive Presidential Power during a time of war (concocted by nefarious false flag black operators) to somehow sway, influence, and predicatively program the least capable idiots in society so that they normalize and internalize "EXTRAJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT" in any form including MURDER.

I'm afraid that breaking women's bones during a bogus eviction...is all too common and almost blase for those wackos known as Authoritarian Personalities. Resorting to dubious secret conspiracies to manufacture invalid legal pretexts to unleashing the expected "Anger Retaliation Overkill Signature" used by cops to punish targets....seems to be a form of entertainment personifying our wonderful public servants.

"...It's a dismal tide. Not just one thing...". Dialogue from "No Country For Old Men".

All the deviancy and predatory overkill destructive fascism is tied together under the umbrella of a Communist inspired technocratic surveillance state modeled after the worst tendencies promoted by Pentagon programming: "...we needed to destroy that village, to save that village...".

Anonymous said...

Check out Peck's most important contribution to society when he entered into the world of ponerology: the study of evil.

Below, the link provides a brief foray down a fifty shades of grey understanding of secret surveillance programs that politicize secret, intrusive, limitless, never ending targeting of The Legal Schnauzer.

http://www.james-l-drush.com/jd/peopleofthelie.htm

Also, read Frank Donner's "The Age of Surveillance" to hear from an ACLU attorney who represented victims of FBI COINTELPRO during The 1950's-early 1980's.

Try this link (copy and paste into google):

http://www.whale.to/b/berlet.html

Anonymous said...

It can be heard by anyone, and she's not saying what you say she says.

Your own paranoia and delusional wishcasting are getting in the way of you understanding, you overlay meaning that is not there.

This is of a piece with your other problems, it's part of a pattern that reveals mental problems that disable you.

I wish you could be helped, but you cannot. And you've done your best to alienate anyone who would try.

Thomas S. Bean said...

http://sutherlandsalute.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/people-of-lie.html

You might copy and paste that link into google.

Shows my blog article with comments in regards to Peck's contribution to Ponerology: "People of The Lie".

Hint: public servants, are not serving anyone other than themselves.

They grandstand as ineffable, self serving, power tripping bozo frauds like an insane cop clown posse, at a weird rodeo in which unsuspecting citizens are dragged out of the stands and forced to ride a raging bull while the rodeo clowns (Judges-prosecutors-cops-feds-vigilante contractor scum) all pretend to be doing their job providing some kind of help, while snickering about their laughable half assed efforts and collusional apathy.

Welcome to the weirdest rodeo for reluctant cowboys who don't wear boots....it's called the Marsupial Government Tit Vulture Academy (aka "The American Court System").

Hint: This bizarre Academy of Tit Vultures is located right next to "Jack Ass Junction" where higher rated clowns make policy.

legalschnauzer said...

Mr. Bean:

Thanks for sharing your insights about M. Scott Peck and "People of the Lie." Like many folks, I've read "The Road Less Traveled" several times -- a classic. Was not familiar with Peck's work on ponerology, but will put it on my reading list.

The quote you note at 1:43 is one of the typical communiques I get from trolling types. Is there something about it that jumps out at you? Would be interested to know your thoughts, especially since I get dozens of this kind of garbage, which go into my spam folder and never get published. I occasionally publish this kind of whackery to give legit readers an idea of all the psycho garbage that flows through here -- especially on certain topics, such as Ashley Madison, the police brutality against my wife (and her broken arm), even my UAB employment case from years ago.

Thomas S. Bean said...

Jumping out at me?:

--1) That first sentence has me confused.

--2) He created a new word: "wishcasting". Wish he would define that. Is "wishcasting" a new sniglet that needs a rigid definition? Sounds like "wishcasting" involves spells, witches, wiccan, the occult. Comedian Rich Hall back in the 1980's caught my eye with his "sniglet" routine. Sniglets are new words that are created to describe everyday annoyances. There must be a sniglet for an troll's obtuse posts...something like Jabberwocky + Troll ='s "Trocky". It's a "trocky" statement or post.

--3) I'm "overlaying meaning that is not there".

After reading Frank Donner's "The Age of Surveillance" (note, the date it was published...and imagine the secret technology now being used?) and after following the NSA wiretapping scandal mutate into (believe it or not) more power for the surveillance state, I have a suspicious interest in using a gestalt view of civil rights violations. I see some incidents are tainted by political retaliation (The Schnauzer story) and seem to follow repeatable protocols as part of a "pattern and practise" that is unconstitutional.

The Legal Schnauzer facts are similar to mine so I take an interest in this blog, hopefully to share some hard earned lessons as a target. I felt the Legal Schnauzer's travails are fact specific and also fall into a broader category of what I shall call "Post 9/11 Modern American Fascism". You can focus on the tree, or the forest as you wish.

--4) Most likely, this "trocky" statement is from some of my fans working the contract DOJ Community Gang Stalking Group. We Targeted Individuals emit light that attracts night creatures drawn to the energy and warmth of our torches.


Road Less Traveled: good book...easily ignored by academia as a simple work intended for easy reading for the public with some serious content written in a style that avoids the alienating pedagogical pretense common to most academic jabbering. I thought the book was thoughtful and contributed to my polished spirit: I'll have to go back and review it again.

If I find a used copy of Frank Donner's "The Age of Surveillance" I will send it to you: good book, great sentences, insights, phrases. Some of the best writing ever by an attorney confronted with secret political surveillance.

There are very few Legal Schnauzer's out there anymore: the herd has succumbed to a malaise brought on by fear and perhaps Tavistock Social Engineering using "Full Spectrum Dominance" (whatever that may mean). If I had the money, I would travel as far away from police state Amerika as possible, and I would keep moving until I couldn't lift my bags again.

Thomas S. Bean said...

http://whale.to/b/berlet.html

Government Intelligence Abuse: The Theories of Frank Donner

by Chip Berlet

..."At the core of his life's work was a key contention: The unstated and primary goal of surveillance and political intelligence gathering by state agencies and their countersubversive allies is not amassing evidence of illegal activity for criminal prosecutions, but punishing critics of the "status quo" in order to undermine movements for social change.

..."It was the institutionalized culture of countersubversion that most concerned Donner who worried that:

"An independent organ of state administration operating to monitor, punish, and frustrate extra judicially the political activities of a country's nationals is the classic embodiment of a political police force and, indeed, a benchmark of a police state.

Certainly we are far from a police state; but it would be a semantic quibble to deny that the FBI is a political police force with a counterrevolutionary mission typical of such units in nondemocratic societies."

Since evidence of actual wrongdoing was minimal, Donner suggested that within the intelligence community, "The selection of targets for surveillance, operations such as informer infiltration and wiretapping, and file storage practices reflect what may be called the politics of deferred reckoning, the need to know all about the enemy in preparation for a life or death showdown..."

The intelligence community "anticipated" threats by relying on "ideology, not behavior, theory not practice."

It treated activities which might be aimed--some time in the future--at undermining the government, as subversive.

"Domestic countersubversive intelligence is, in theory, future-oriented: 'subversive' activities are, in the language of the Bureau, those aimed at future overthrow, destruction, or undermining of the government, regardless of how legitimate these activities might currently be or how tenuous the link between present intentions and ultimate action."...

________________________________

Although The Cold War is over...the technocratic surveillance state still needs entertainment and scapegoats: there is too much money at stake. Free speech-Free Press by The Legal Schnauzer challenged the status quo and promotes careful review of Republican Party-Government repression. Thus...The Schnauzer must be hounded, framed, entrapped, enraged, assaulted, stalked by goofy neighbors, neutralized at jobsite, etc.

Believe it or not, I'll bet the weirdo surveillance donkeys consider you a terrorist. They changed the goalposts: anyone criticizing the Gov or advocating civil rights is now "fair game" for broken bones, evictions, chicanery by Judges, etc.

legalschnauzer said...

@11:07 --

Yes, and what do the donkies use against someone they consider a terrorist? Why, terrorism, of course. Carol and I have the bruises and shattered bones to prove it. They consider me a terrorist because my reporting is a threat to them -- and they can't go to my editor or publisher and issue threats to shut me down. I am my editor and publisher.

The Web has brought us into a whole new era of journalism that can's be threatened or contained, unless they intend to go over the edge to murder and assassination.

legalschnauzer said...

The first reference is to my conversation with a UAB "human resources" official named Anita Bonasera, of whom I asked several questions after I had been placed on administrative leave. She very clearly answers every question by saying that I was targeted because of my blog and it's content about the Siegelman case. In other words, I was cheated out of my job of 20 years for writing a blog -- on my own time and resources -- about the Siegelman case. Clear violation of First Amendment -- I was a government employee -- and discrimination, as I was only employee targeted and was in protective class due to age.

Here is URL to post about Boanasera conversation, which I tape recorded:


https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2012/07/jerry-sandusky-case-unmasks-morally.html

Thomas S. Bean said...

You've lost a lot, my friend.

Who would have thought "they" could turn your life upside down in so many ways with impunity? Republicans, bureaucrats, Authority Figures....all so called good solid citizens living in fear, hate, and retribution far removed from any integrity, loyalty, bravery, or principled action. Who would have thought that in the most litigious country in the free world, these nuts welcome being sued?

Good Lord.

For Heaven's sake...what is wrong with these fruit loops?

They must understand the court system as a hijacked, rigged, tilted, Marsupial old boy kangaroo rodeo clown circuit.

You call that behavior.....living life like a mature sublimated patriotic adult from the greatest country in the world?

Political neutralization at job sites: perhaps the most effective and all encompassing dirty trick by scumbags. And, aren't there criminal laws against this? Title 18 United States Code Sections 241, 242 are broadly written to include all conspiracies against all civil rights, but you don't see those US Attorneys filing criminal charges now do you?

Take away someone's money, and the target get's worn down from stress, fear, and distraction...the target, over time, loses civility and patience and faith and hope...he gets weaker as the predators circle for any easy kill shot. That's politicized counter subversion doctrine.


The job site slander rationalized as an investigation (unfocused and unproven) happened to quite a few people tied to me, and they were all good people...white collar professionals, and in good standing until some nefarious agent of repression showed up with a badge to conduct a fishing expedition that left supervisors suspicious and reactionary.

Thomas S. Bean said...

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bj5jvw/dissidents-abandoned-human-rights-iranian-surveillance-and-hacking

Too little too late.

Community Gang Stalking is backed up by all county-city-state-fed cops who control what prosecutors see and know and prosecute.

I have to laugh at "how easy it was to influence and destroy" what most Americans considered the greatest and free est, country in the world???!!!!

Look how easy it was and how seductively slick the misinformation and Oper Gladio False Flag morphed into what seems to be a "life and death struggle" against scapegoated stooges.

This is what happens when the herd gives respect to Government swine.