Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Lawyer Tony Farese Coaxed Guilty Plea From Client With Threat About a 75-Year Federal Prison Sentence


Tony Farese
How many ways can a criminal-defense lawyer cheat his own client? The prosecution of Mississippi insurance broker Ken Nowlin presents a classic case study on that disturbing question.

The Bush Justice Department indicted Nowlin, alleging he and former Lafayette County Supervisor Gary Massey had engaged in a kickback scheme involving an employee health-care contract. The case never went to trial because both men pleaded guilty, but a growing body of evidence suggests they were unlawfully pressured to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit.

How could this happen in a democracy where counsel supposedly has a sacred duty to represent the best interests of his client? The answer seems to be this: Quite a few attorneys do not take their sacred duties seriously--and that especially seems to apply at the Ashland, Mississippi, firm of Farese Farese & Farese.

We've already shown that one member of that august firm, Steve Farese Sr., was so busy sexually harassing client Penni Tingle that she wound up entering a guilty plea that she now seeks to have overturned. Anthony L. "Tony" Farese was slightly more subtle with his client, Ken Nowlin. But the end result was the same--a government target wound up pleading guilty to a "crime" we now know he almost certainly did not commit.

Our research indicates members of the Farese firm are more interested in gaining favor with government prosecutors than in representing the best interests of their clients. We also see signs that the Farese lawyers are not alone; Birmingham lawyer G. Douglas Jones, who once served as defense counsel for former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, seems to have a similar habit. In fact, Jones testified before Congress in 2007 about his undying respect for Bill Pryor, the former Alabama attorney general and current federal judge who is responsible for launching the Siegelman investigation.

How did Tony Farese coax a bogus guilty plea out of Ken Nowlin? For one thing, it's important to understand that federal statutes tend to be written in such murky language that most citizens have no idea what they say. God only knows how many Americans have pleaded guilty to violating statutes that they could not begin to understand--and in some cases, we are talking about defendants who are well educated.

Public documents show that Farese used a sort of "yin and yang" game with Nowlin--failing to dig for information that might have proven his client's innocence, while applying extraordinary pressure about the dangers of going to trial. (See document at the end of this post.) Let's take a closer look at how these two con games worked:

* Evidence, what evidence? Court documents show that Nowlin informed Farese repeatedly that Massey had a letter from Lafayette County Scot Spragins, saying that the payment arrangement Nowlin and Massey planned to implement was lawful. In fact, Nowlin told Farese and assistant U.S. attorneys Tom Dawson and David Sanders about the letter during a meeting on March 19, 2007. From the court file, where Nowlin is referred to as "petitioner":


During this meeting, Petitioner explained how and why he paid Massey the way he did. He also told them about the letter Mr. Massey said he had that allowed Petitioner to pay Mr. Massey the way he did. When Mr. Dawson asked Petitioner for a copy of the letter, Petitioner told him that he did not have one but they could get a copy of the letter from Mr. Massey. He explained that he and Mr. Massey did not conspire to hide anything and that there was no kickback or bribe involved in the way he paid Mr. Massey. Petitioner told them that Mr. Massey did not even know how he was paying him.

Did Farese make any effort to obtain a copy of this letter, which likely would have proven his client's innocence? It doesn't look like it. Nowlin wound up pleading guilty, and five days later, a Mississippi newspaper published an article about the Spragins letter to Massey.

* The prospect of a 75-year sentence--Nowlin began frantically calling Farese's office, to get a meeting about withdrawing the guilty plea. They could not meet with Farese until almost two months later. Larry Nowlin attended that meeting with his brother and provides this account in an affidavit:


Partly on my advice, Ken pled guilty on July 27, 2007. On September 28, 2007, I drove Ken to Ashland to see Farese. During this meeting, Ken told Farese that he wanted to withdraw his guilty pleea and tried to explain to Farese that he would have earned his four percent override on the Lafayette County insurance account no matter who had the insurance with the county. Farese became very angry and told Ken that he could not understand how he had ever made what he had made of himself as dumb as he was. Farese told us that we were not going to embarrass him and started dictating a letter saying that he was getting out of the case and told us to get out of his office.
Farese called me later that day and told me that if Ken was allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, he could be going to prison for 75 years. Farese also told me that if Ken insisted in going to trial, it would cost Ken more than $200,000. On my advice, Ken wrote Farese and told him that he did not want to withdraw his guilty plea . . .

Ken Nowlin wound up being sentenced to 30 months in federal prison. But we can all be thankful that Tony Farese was not embarrassed before his prosecutorial buddies.


(To be continued)








AL Lobbyist Liberty Duke Saw Her Marriage Dissolve Under Unusual Circumstances In Early 2006


Liberty Duke
Alabama lobbyist Liberty Duke, who has political ties to former Governor Bob Riley and his associates and family members, saw her marriage dissolve under unusual circumstances in early 2006.

Duke and Rob Riley are suing my wife, Legal Schnauzer, and me, claiming that my reporting on certain topics is false and defamatory. Court filings in the case include an affidavit from Duke in which she states, "To the best of my knowledge, I have never even been alone in a room with Rob Riley." These are among the documents that Riley and Duke have sought to have sealed in Shelby County Circuit Court.

What is unusual about Liberty Smith Duke's divorce from William Joseph Duke? For one, court documents show the couple lived in Chilton County--at 1155 County Road 368 in Verbena--but the divorce case was filed in Talladega County. Sources tell Legal Schnauzer that Talladega is known as an Alabama jurisdiction where divorces can be obtained quickly. Filing a divorce action in Talladega County also can keep sensitive information away from prying eyes in the home county.

Public documents in the Duke divorce do not include any inflammatory information, but that likely is because the case was resolved so quickly. Our sources say that someone was at risk of having dirty laundry revealed if the case did not reach a quick resolution. Given that William Duke initiated the divorce as plaintiff, the party in a weak position likely was Liberty Duke. Why was that?

Liberty Duke did not contest the divorce, and she did not even hire an attorney to fight it.


Rob Riley
How quickly did the Duke divorce reach a conclusion? William Duke filed the complaint on February 27, 2006, and a final divorce decree was issued on April 5, 2006. The whole thing was over in little more than a month, even though the Dukes were married for 14 years, they had two children, and a fair amount of property.

As a comparison, the Rollins v. Rollins case that we have covered extensively was litigated for three years in its proper jurisdiction, Greenville, South Carolina, before being unlawfully moved to Shelby County, Alabama, for more litigation.

Liberty Duke now is claiming that our reporting on certain subjects is false and defamatory. But she passed on multiple opportunities to answer questions on the subjects, and court documents show that she got divorced under duress. Her husband initiated the divorce, she did not contest it, and she clearly had no bargaining power--for some reason.


(To be continued)






Friday, October 11, 2013

Alan Colmes And Fox News Shine A Hot National Spotlight On Rob Riley's Thuggish Harassment Of Legal Schnauzer



Alan Colmes
One of the nation's leading liberal voices is shining a spotlight on Alabama Republican Rob Riley and his efforts to shut down our reporting about certain topics.

Alan Colmes reports at his Liberland blog that Riley's tactics smack of desperation and show shines of backfiring. In a post dated October 10 ("Desperation: Alabama GOPer's Harassment of Legal Blogger Backfiring?"), Colmes notes that Riley is seeking to hold me in contempt of court, even though a judge's preliminary injunction runs counter to black-letter Alabama law. Liberland compares Riley's legal shenanigans to an episode of the Keystone Kops:


Last week, an Alabama sheriff made what appeared to be a bogus traffic stop in an attempt to serve whistleblowing legal blogger Roger Shuler with legal papers. Rob Riley, a big player in Alabama GOP politics, had apparently filed an injunction against Shuler . . .
In a true Keystone Kourts move, Riley now seeks to have Shuler held in contempt of court.

How could all of this backfire on Riley? Attention from Colmes is a sign that a backfire already is in the works--and Colmes notes that Riley is almost begging for more unflattering attention:


Moves like that can ricochet back on the perpetrator pretty badly — especially as Shuler’s travails are being picked up by moire and more Internet sites. Riley is inadvertently begging for mainstream media coverage with his ill-conceived legal moves. As a certain other web site is fond of saying, “Developing Hard" . . .

Colmes perhaps is best known for his 13-year run as co-host of Hannity & Colmes, a nightly political debate show on Fox News Channel. He currently is the host of The Alan Colmes Show, a nationally syndicated talk-radio show distributed by Fox News Radio. Colmes is the author of two books, Red, White & Liberal: How Left Is Right and Right Is Wrong (2003) and Thank the Liberals For Saving America (2012).


Thanks to Colmes' longstanding ties to Fox News, Rob Riley's antics are becoming well known to a largely conservative audience, the folks that Riley apparently hopes to help represent in Congress by running for the U.S. House seat that Spencer Bachus (R-AL) is vacating. A post at Fox News Radio ("Intimidation of Law Blogger Tied to Alabama GOP Primary") picks up on that theme:


Following a week of intimidation and attempted unlawful service of papers on a law blogger whose national profile is rapidly on the rise, more pieces of the story are falling into place.
People who follow Alabama politics might well have put two and two together to figure out what was behind an apparent intimidation campaign targeting Roger Shuler, whose outspoken blog Legal Schnauzer has pulled no punches on matters of corruption in Alabama’s legal and judicial community.
Last Thursday, Shuler confirmed that one Rob Riley had filed a civil case against him, which explains a litany of visits and one very questionable “traffic stop” by local law enforcement.

After noting the apparent connections to Spencer Bachus' recent announcement that he will not seek re-election, the Fox News Radio piece compares Riley actions to missteps that other conservatives have made on the national stage:


This should come as no surprise to anyone. Rob Riley’s legal tactics are not unlike those of Tea Party Republicans who have realized that they have overplayed their hand with the government shutdown and a possible debt default and cannot dig themselves out of the hole they made.
In both cases, their actions are too little, too late.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Riley Tries To Hold Legal Schnauzer In Contempt Of Court On Preliminary Injunction That Doesn't Exist Under Law



Judge Claud Neilson
Alabama Republican Rob Riley has filed documents that seek to have me held in contempt of court for violating a preliminary injunction related to certain posts at this blog.

Under Alabama law, however, no preliminary injunction exists because we were not given proper notice of a hearing on the matter. In fact, Riley's own court documents prove that no lawful injunction exists.

How do we know? It's spelled out in an Alabama Supreme Court case styled Southern Homes, AL v. Bermuda Lakes, LLC, 57 So. 3d 100 (Ala., 2010)  As you can see, the ruling was issued in 2010, so it's not ancient law. A Yale Law School graduate like Rob Riley should be able to find it. But apparently that kind of research is beyond Mr. Riley's legal skills--and those of retired Circuit Judge Claud Neilson, who issued the injunction.

The Southern Homes case involved a preliminary injunction that a circuit judge issued related to the development of 87 acres in Madison County, near Huntsville. The order enjoined Southern Homes from taking any action related to its dispute with Bermuda. But the Alabama Supreme Court found the preliminary injunction was unlawful because Southern Homes did not receive sufficient notice of a hearing, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP). From the opinion:


Southern Homes argues, among other things, that it received insufficient notice under Rule 65(a)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., of the hearing on Bermuda's motion for a preliminary injunction, in violation of Southern Homes' due-process rights. We agree.
Rule 65(a)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides that "[n]o preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the adverse party." Rule 65(a)(1) does not specify how much notice must be given to the adverse party before a preliminary injunction can be issued. However, as the United States Supreme Court has held in interpreting the federal equivalent of Rule 65(a),2 the notice required by Rule 65(a) "implies a hearing in which the defendant is given a fair opportunity to oppose the application and to prepare for such opposition." Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda County, 415 U.S. 423, 434 n. 7, 94 S.Ct. 1113, 39 L.Ed.2d 435 (1974). See also Alabama Republican Party v. McGinley, 893 So.2d 337, 344 (Ala.2004) (holding that "[t]he hallmarks of procedural due process are notice and `the opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."'

The Alabama Supreme Court, in Southern Homes, made a clear distinction between the notice required for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction:


In Granny Goose Foods, the adverse party was given notice by telephone on the same day it was served with all the documents and the hearing was held, and the adverse party's counsel was present in the courtroom and argued on behalf of the adverse party at that hearing. The United States Supreme Court recognized that Rule 65(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., like Rule 65(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., authorizes a trial court to issue a 10-day temporary restraining order ("TRO") without notice to the adverse party. The Court compared the lack of any requirement of notice in Rule 65(b) for a TRO with the explicit notice requirement for issuing a preliminary injunction under Rule 65(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. The Court held that the "informal, same-day notice" that was provided to the adverse party in Granny Goose Foods, "desirable though it may be before a restraining order is issued, is no substitute for the more thorough notice requirements which must be satisfied to obtain a preliminary injunction of potentially unlimited duration." 415 U.S. at 434 n. 7, 94 S.Ct. 1113. See also Ciena Corp. v. Jarrard, 203 F.3d 312, 319 (4th Cir.2000) (holding that "[b]ecause a preliminary injunction is unlimited in duration, its entry always requires notice to the opposing party sufficient to give that party an opportunity to prepare an opposition to entry of an injunction").

In other words, the issuance of a preliminary injunction is serious business--and it requires that an adverse party be able to prepare opposition. Lawyers for Southern Homes had roughly two hours' notice of the preliminary-injunction hearing. According to Rob Riley's own documents, we had less than 24 hours' notice. (See petition at the end of this post, plus Riley's motion to seal the record.) The Alabama Supreme Court makes it clear in Southern Homes that such notice is not sufficient:


In the present case, it is undisputed that Southern Homes had less than two hours' notice of the hearing on Bermuda's motion for a preliminary injunction and that Southern Homes' counsel participated in the hearing only by telephone. Southern Homes was not able to submit written arguments in opposition to the motion or to submit evidence to support its arguments. Also, under the circumstances, Southern Homes could not call any witnesses. . . .

Southern Homes had to be given notice of a hearing in which it was given a fair opportunity to oppose the motion for the preliminary injunction and to prepare for such opposition. Southern Homes simply was not given such notice. Therefore, under these circumstances, we conclude that Southern Homes did not have a fair opportunity to oppose the motion for a preliminary injunction, and, thus, the circuit court exceeded its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction.

Like the Southern Homes lawyers, we were given no opportunity to submit written arguments, submit evidence, or call witnesses. That means Judge Neilson exceeded his discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction. And it means we were denied due process.

All of that doesn't even take into account the fact we were unlawfully served with the complaint, and any preliminary injunction violates long-held U.S. law forbidding prior restraint of free speech.

How does a Yale-educated lawyer not know this, not to mention a retired Alabama judge? One can only imagine.











Wednesday, October 9, 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court of 1931 Looked Into The Future And Saw Rob Riley's Thuggish Tactics In Alabama of 2013



The U.S. Supreme Court started becoming a joke in the eyes of many Americans with its 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore, awarding the presidency to George W. Bush. The trend picked up steam with the court's dubious decisions on campaign finance (Citizens United v. FEC, 2010) and the Voting Rights Act (Shelby County v. Holder, 2013).

It's easy to forget that the nation's high court once issued well-reasoned opinions, grounded in America's constitutional values. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court once acted with stunning foresight. We were reminded of that fact upon opening our mail on Saturday to find a Petition for Contempt that Homewood attorney Rob Riley--the son of former GOP governor Bob Riley (2003-2011)--has filed in a lawsuit against my wife and me. (See contempt petition at the end of this post.)

Riley contends that certain posts here involving lobbyist Liberty Duke are false and defamatory. Not content to litigate his claims on the merits, Riley persuaded specially appointed Judge Claud D. Neilson to issue a preliminary injunction that purports to force removal of posts from Legal Schnauzer and forbid future reporting on certain subjects.

Apparently convinced that sunlight does not benefit his case, Riley also persuaded Neilson to seal the case file and forbid reporting on the matter. (I'm not joking about this; you can read the judge's order here.) Sources told us a couple of days ago that the case--styled Robert R. Riley Jr. and Liberty Duke v. Roger Shuler, Carol T. Shuler and Legal Schnauzer, Civil Action 2013-236 in Shelby County Circuit Court--does not appear in the public files via AlaCourt.gov.

I knew immediately that Neilson's actions on Rob Riley's behalf were wildly unlawful. But I needed to conduct some research to realize they violated about 230 years worth of black-letter law on free speech. And that process gave me renewed appreciation for a U.S. Supreme Court that has a proud history--even though its present is embarrassing.

Peter B. Collins invited me on his San Francisco-based radio show yesterday to discuss the Riley case and associated activities. You can check out a preview of our interview here. Here is a key segment of our discussion:


PBC: It appears [the judge] has reached an arbitrary finding that you have, in fact, defamed these parties. I'm aghast that this could occur without your participation . . .  
LS: It can't, under the law. . . . I'm convinced the preliminary injunction was written by Rob Riley's office, and that happens a lot. . . . Even with (lawful service), we had less than 24 hours notice. The law is that you have sufficient notice to respond in writing, to call witnesses. This is not a minor deal. Preliminary injunctions aren't something judges are to toss out like baseball cards. . . . You don't know whether to get angry or laugh about it . . . this is so absurd. Most people intuitively know that this isn't right. You almost have to laugh, like it's an episode of "Hee Haw."

Published reports indicate Rob Riley intends to run for the U.S. House seat being vacated by Spencer Bachus, and that almost certainly is driving his Legal Schnauzer lawsuit.

Rob Riley wants an injunction against my reporting, even though no court of law has found it to be defamatory. The U.S. Supreme Court of 1931 could see thugs like Rob Riley in the future and found that such actions constitute unlawful prior restraint. The court went even further--in a case styled Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)--using the term "censorship" to describe prior restraint.

What exactly is Rob Riley up to? Let's consider these words from the Petition for Contempt that Riley doesn't want you to see:


Civil contempt is the "willful, continuing failure or refusal of any person to comply with a court's lawful writ, subpoena, process, order, rule or command that by its nature is still capable of being complied with. . . . " 
The Respondents' [my wife and me] above-described non-compliance with TRO and the Preliminary Injunction constitutes on-going civil, constructive contempt. Respondents' on-going contempt not only is an affront to this Court's clear orders, it causes on-going injury to Petitioners [Riley and Liberty Duke] through the continued publication of false, defamatory, and libelous statements.

The key word in the above section, of course, is "lawful." And 230 years of U.S. law shows Neilson's efforts to stifle a free press are unlawful. Riley's petition is a thinly veiled attempt to threaten my wife and me with jail for practicing journalism--the publishing of information that has not been found by any court to be defamatory.


Judge Claud Neilson
In Near, the U.S. Supreme Court saw that kind of thuggery coming and wrote the following:
When a newspaper or periodical is found to be "malicious, scandalous and defamatory," and is suppressed as such, resumption of publication is punishable as a contempt of court by fine or imprisonment. Thus, where a newspaper or periodical has been suppressed because of the circulation of charges against public officers of official misconduct, it would seem to be clear that the renewal of the publication of such charges would constitute a contempt and that the judgment would lay a permanent restraint upon the publisher, to escape which he must satisfy the court as to the character of a new publication. Whether he would be permitted again to publish matter deemed to be derogatory to the same or other public officers would depend upon the court's ruling.

That passage describes exactly what Rob Riley is trying to pull--he wants to suppress a free press, with the threat of a contempt finding that is punishable by imprisonment. The U.S. Supreme Court in Near found "this is of the essence of censorship."

It was unlawful in 1931, and it's unlawful in 2013--no matter how badly Rob Riley wants to replace Spencer Bachus in Congress.





How Did Jessica Garrison Have A Mt. Brook House in 2011, When Foreclosure, Public Auction Didn't Come Until 2012?



Jessica Garrison's house
in Mountain Brook
Court documents show that a Republican political operative with close ties to Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange was set to live in a Mountain Brook home in 2011, even though the property in question was not sold at public auction until summer 2012.

Jessica Medeiros Garrison perhaps is best known for her long-running extramarital affair with Strange, which has been the subject of numerous posts here at Legal Schnauzer. Garrison, the ex wife of Tuscaloosa school board president Lee Garrison, works for the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) and serves in an "of counsel" role with the Birmingham law firm Balch Bingham. She also worked in the Alabama Attorney General's Office under current U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions and current U.S. Judge Bill Pryor.

Did Garrison's ties to GOP heavyweights help her obtain a home in Birmingham's most exclusive suburb when the house apparently was not even on the market yet? Did powerful figures pull strings to help keep Jessica Garrison quiet about certain party secrets, and in the process, commit mortgage fraud, foreclosure fraud or other wrongdoing?

We don't have answers to all of those questions yet, but something funky clearly was going on with Jessica Garrison's purchase of a Mountain Brook home. Garrison claims in court documents that the house is within 60 miles of her former marital residence in Tuscaloosa, and that allowed her to maintain primary custody of her son.

In an e-mail dated August 14, I sought to question Garrison about her purchase of the Mountain Brook home, and she did not respond. But two days later, I received a letter from attorney Bill Baxley, threatening a lawsuit on her behalf. Garrison apparently has, in fact, filed a defamation lawsuit against me, although I have not been lawfully served with it.

Why is the house such a sensitive topic with Jessica Garrison? Perhaps it's because the dates involved in its purchase do not add up--and that suggests someone was pulling a fast one.

The house in question is at 119 Main Street in the uber quaint Crestline section of Mountain Brook. That is such a hot address that even a 1940s cottage of modest size can capture an eye-popping price. Jefferson County property records show Garrison's house has 2,213 square feet and is appraised at $439,900.

What about that curious timing? Well, let's first consider a document from Garrison's custody case titled "Verified Amended Petition for Modification of Custody." (See the full document at the end of this post.) The petition is dated August 22, 2011, and deals in part with Garrison's decision to give up a job at Strange's office in Montgomery in order to resolve a custody dispute. From the petition:


The Mother, acting under the good faith belief that a move to Birmingham would mitigate the tension between the parties, found a home in the Crestline community of Mountain Brook, Alabama, that she understood and believed to be within 60 miles of the Father's current residence. The Mother duly notified the Father of her intended change of principal residence by certified mail on or about July 26, 2011. Regrettably, the Mother's decision and actions appear not to have had the desired positive effect on the tension between the parties.

This establishes that Jessica Garrison had the Crestline home lined up on July 26, 2011, but that is at odds with a Foreclosure Deed on the property that is dated July 20, 2012. (See the full document at the end of this post.) The deed says a foreclosure sale was conducted via "public outcry" on July 20, 2012, with Burt W. Newsome conducting the auction for Renasant Bank. The document goes on to state:


Jessica Medeiros Garrison was the highest bidder in the amount of Thirty Thousand and 00/100 ($30,000), which sum of money Renasant Bank offered to apply to the costs of foreclosure and then to the remaining balance on the indebtedness secured by said mortgage, and said property was thereupon sold to Jessica Medeiros Garrison.

How did Jessica Garrison know she had a house in 2011 when it wasn't sold at foreclosure until 2012? We don't know--but we do know that Ms. Garrison isn't anxious to answer questions about it.








Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Judge In Rob Riley's Lawsuit Violates 230 years of U.S. Law To Impose Prior Restraint On Reports



Judge Claud D. Neilson
An Alabama judge's preliminary injunction in a defamation case runs counter to more than 230 years of case law on free speech in the United States.

Circuit Judge Claud D. Neilson issued a ruling dated October 1, 2013, ordering me not to write about certain issues involving Alabama Republican Rob Riley and lobbyist Liberty Duke. Neilson also ordered me to remove certain posts from Legal Schnauzer and went so far as to seal the entire file--with no apparent legal justification--and forbid any reporting on the case.

If all of that sounds unlawful to you, that's because it is. In fact, Neilson's order has to be a contender for one of the most outrageous legal documents in American history. It reads like something that might have originated from a court in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. (If you don't believe me, check out the order that Rob Riley and Judge Neilson don't want you to see, at the end of this post.)

So what is going on? Based on recent press reports and Riley's bizarre actions, it seems clear that he wants my posts to go away so he can pursue the U.S. House seat that Spencer Bachus is vacating. Judge Neilson apparently feels a Rob Riley candidacy is so important that it justifies trashing the U.S. and Alabama constitutions.

Neilson's order is unlawful on probably a half dozen grounds, starting with the fact that the defendants (my wife and me) have not been lawfully served, meaning the court has no jurisdiction over us. For now, we will focus on only one flaw in the Neilson document--that it constitutes a flagrant example of impermissible "prior restraint" on freedom of the press. (For a brief discussion of the relevant legal principles, see video at the end of this post.)

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear on numerous occasions that preliminary injunctions are unlawful in cases alleging any form of defamation (libel or slander). One of the most recent cases is styled Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544 (1993). From the Alexander opinion, authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist:


The term "prior restraint" is used "to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur." M. Nimmer, Nimmer on Freedom of Speech § 4.03, p. 4-14 (1984) (emphasis added). Temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions—i. e., court orders that actually forbid speech activities—are classic examples of prior restraints. . . . This understanding of what constitutes a prior restraint is borne out by our cases. . . . In Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, supra, we invalidated a court order that perpetually enjoined the named party, who had published a newspaper containing articles found to violate a state nuisance statute, from producing any future "malicious, scandalous or defamatory" publication. . . . Near, therefore, involved a true restraint on future speech—a permanent injunction. . . . 

Rehnquist hardly could be characterized as a wild-eyed liberal. Appointed to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon, the late Rehnquist now is seen by many court watchers as a precursor to such right-wing firebrands as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. If Rob Riley can't abide by Rehnquist's findings, it raises serious questions about the Alabamian's conservative "credentials."

Even more background on the bedrock principle of prior restraint can be found in a case that Rehnquist cited in Alexander. It's styled Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), and it involved a state statute that provided for the "abatement" as a public nuisance of any newspaper that was found to produce "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory" content.

The nation's highest court quickly found that the Minnesota statute collided with fundamental constitutional protections:


This statute, for the suppression as a public nuisance of a newspaper or periodical, is unusual, if not unique, and raises questions of grave importance transcending the local interests involved in the particular action. It is no longer open to doubt that the liberty of the press, and of speech, is within the liberty safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action. I

The Supreme Court then unmasked the Minnesota statute, revealing its true intent:


The object of the statute is not punishment, in the ordinary sense, but suppression of the offending newspaper or periodical. . . . This suppression is accomplished by enjoining publication and that restraint is the object and effect of the statute. . . . The statute not only operates to suppress the offending newspaper or periodical but to put the publisher under an effective censorship.

In language that has been in place for 82 years, the Near court goes straight to the mindset of Rob Riley and Judge Neilson in 2013:


When a newspaper or periodical is found to be "malicious, scandalous and defamatory," and is suppressed as such, resumption of publication is punishable as a contempt of court by fine or imprisonment. Thus, where a newspaper or periodical has been suppressed because of the circulation of charges against public officers of official misconduct, it would seem to be clear that the renewal of the publication of such charges would constitute a contempt and that the judgment would lay a permanent restraint upon the publisher, to escape which he must satisfy the court as to the character of a new publication. Whether he would be permitted again to publish matter deemed to be derogatory to the same or other public officers would depend upon the court's ruling.

Are Rob Riley and Judge Neilson trying to engage in unlawful censorship? The language of the Near court leaves no doubt that the answer is yes.


If we cut through mere details of procedure, the operation and effect of the statute in substance is that public authorities may bring the owner or publisher of a newspaper or periodical before a judge upon a charge of conducting a business of publishing scandalous and defamatory matter — in particular that the matter consists of charges against public officers of official dereliction — and unless the owner or publisher is able and disposed to bring competent evidence to satisfy the judge that the charges are true and are published with good motives and for justifiable ends, his newspaper or periodical is suppressed and further publication is made punishable as a contempt. This is of the essence of censorship.

In finding the Minnesota statute unlawful, the Near court notes that its ruling is grounded in state-court cases dating back 150 years. Considering that Near was decided in 1931, that means the opinion has roots in the early 1780s:


The fact that for approximately one hundred and fifty years there has been almost an entire absence of attempts to impose previous restraints upon publications relating to the malfeasance of public officers is significant of the deep-seated conviction that such restraints would violate constitutional right. Public officers, whose character and . . .  conduct remain open to debate and free discussion in the press, find their remedies for false accusations in actions under libel laws providing for redress and punishment, and not in proceedings to restrain the publication of newspapers and periodicals. The general principle that the constitutional guaranty of the liberty of the press gives immunity from previous restraints has been approved in many decisions under the provisions of state constitution.

What's the bottom line? If Rob Riley and Liberty Duke think my reports are false and defamatory, they can try to prove it under existing libel laws. But they cannot seek to restrain my reporting in advance, without any finding that it is defamatory.

As an attorney with a degree from Yale School of Law, Rob Riley surely is familiar with these fundamental legal principles. That he has filed such a lawsuit anyway means he should be subject to serious sanctions, including possible suspension of his bar card. 

Judge Neilson also has to know about prior restraint and its foundations. That he issued a blatantly unlawful order on such a fundamental issue suggests he should be the target of an Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (AJIC) investigation, similar to the one recently launched against Jefferson County Circuit Judge Dorothea Batiste.

The charges against Batiste, which resulted in a three-month suspension, pale in comparison to Neilson's proven actions in the Riley case. Based on the AJIC's actions against Batiste, powerful grounds exist for removing Neilson from the bench.

Batiste, of course, is a black female, while Neilson is a white male. Will skin color protect one judge while it caused another to receive intense scrutiny? Is AJIC a fundamentally racist organization? We might soon find out the answers to the those questions.







Thursday, October 3, 2013

Rob Riley Sues Blogger And Then Tries to Keep The Case Sealed From Public View


Rob Riley
Prominent Alabama Republican Rob Riley has filed a lawsuit against my wife and me over reports here at Legal Schnauzer about his relationship with lobbyist Liberty Duke. Riley claims our reports are false and defamatory, but he has taken a number of steps to shield the case from public view.

The Riley lawsuit explains the swarm of Shelby County sheriff deputies that repeatedly trampled our property and pounded on our door throughout last week. It also explains the fraudulent traffic stop that Lt. Mike DeHart conducted on Sunday afternoon in order to "serve" me with court papers.

How did we learn about the Riley lawsuit, given we threw court papers out the window in anger after DeHart had unlawfully stopped us on a trumped-up claim of rolling through a stop sign? Well, about a dozen papers remained in our car, and I retrieved them from a trash can at our home on Tuesday evening.

Most of those papers were copies of posts I've written about the Riley/Duke affair. But two of them included a header that identified a lawsuit styled Robert R. Riley Jr. v. Roger Shuler and Carol T. Shuler, civil action number CV-13-236. It apparently was filed in Shelby County Circuit Court on July 23, 2013.

I do not have a copy of the complaint itself, but the two-page document we do have is styled "Motion to File All Pleadings and Exhibits Thereto Under Seal." (See video at the end of this post for a discussion of this motion and other issues surrounding the Riley lawsuit).

The motion in question states in pertinent part:


Comes now Robert R. Riley Jr., Petitioner, and requests that this court order all pleadings filed in this case, and all exhibits thereto, filed under seal. In support of this Motion, Petitioner states as follows:
Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1(c) allows courts of this State to order that case filings be made under seal to protect the privacy of parties.
This case involves a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions based on highly defamatory false information about Petitioner being disseminated by Respondents into the public sphere. Said information subjects Petitioner to immediate and irreparable harm in the form of contempt and ridicule in the city, county, and state in which he lives. Filing court records that can be obtained by reporters or the general public will perpetuate the very harm this action seeks to avoid.
Based on the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court order that all pleadings, responses, replies, and exhibits thereto be filed under seal.

What are we to take from this? Here are a few things that come to my mind:

(1) Riley claims he has been defamed, but he has so little confidence in his case that he doesn't want anyone to know about it.

(2) Riley specifically wants to make sure that the press, mainstream and otherwise, never knows about anything involved in the case.

(3) Riley seeks to make an end run around the American notion of a free press. He seeks an injunction against reporting on a lawsuit he filed in a public forum, but he wants it all conducted in a private manner.

(4) If the lawsuit was filed on July 23, 2013, why was Riley just getting around to serving it last week? Was Riley allowed to file the case under seal, and if so, why? If that's the case, why was it unsealed briefly now, with an immediate attempt to seal it again? Is the stamped date accurate, or did someone in the Shelby County Courthouse stamp a phony date on it to obscure the real motives behind the lawsuit?


What ulterior motives might Rob Riley have? Well, he and his family are extremely close to U.S. Judge Bill Pryor, who has been the subject of recent reports here about photos of him that appeared at the gay porn Web site badpuppy.com in 1997. Pryor, as attorney general of Alabama, played a pivotal role in ensuring that Bob Riley was elected governor in 2002, when votes for Democratic incumbent Don Siegelman mysteriously disappeared overnight. Pryor ordered the questionable ballots sealed and threatened arrest for anyone who attempted to count them. (Seems like the Rileys and Pryor have an affinity for sealing records and keeping the public in the dark.)

Pryor also launched a state investigation of Siegelman, which morphed into a federal probe under the George W. Bush Justice Department. The 2002 election probably would not have been close enough to be stolen without the Pryor-initiated investigation. When Siegelman tried to run against Bob Riley in 2006, he and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy wound up indicted and convicted on corruption charges, even though the main bribery charge was filed almost one year after the statute of limitations had run.

The bottom line? Our series of reports on Bill Pryor's ties to 1990s gay porn started on September 17--and since have been picked up by an array of national Web sites.

Is it a coincidence that Rob Riley's lawsuit against me surfaces now, while his ally Bill Pryor faces national embarrassment, courtesy of this blog?

I think not.