Monday, October 14, 2013
Photos Show That Bill Pryor Has Same Eye Condition That Was Present In Young Man At Gay Porn Site
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
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 |
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).
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 |
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
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 |
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 |
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.
Monday, October 7, 2013
AL Republican Rob Riley Resorts to Intimidation Campaign To Clean Up His Record For Run at Spencer Bachus' Seat
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Rob Riley Sues Blogger And Then Tries to Keep The Case Sealed From Public View
 |
| Rob Riley |
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.
Lawyer In Birmingham Accuses Jessica Medeiros Garrison Of Lying Under Oath In Divorce From Tuscaloosa Politico
.jpg) |
| Jessica Medeiros Garrison |
Jessica Garrison perhaps is best known at the moment for her long-running extramarital affair with Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange. Garrison apparently has filed a lawsuit against me, claiming my reports on the Strange affair are false and defamatory. (I say "apparently" because I have not been lawfully served with the complaint and have not read it. All I know about it comes from a report at Alabama Political Reporter.)
Jessica Garrison's credibility, however, takes a serious hit in an August 26 letter from Birmingham attorney Lisa L. Woods. The letter is addressed to W. Cam Parsons, a lawyer for Tuscaloosa businessman Stan Pate.
During the recent campaign for Tuscaloosa's municipal elections, Pate allegedly established a Web site and purchased outdoor advertising that claimed Lee Garrison was a poor choice to be chair of the city's school board. To help drive his point home, Pate apparently borrowed from the Garrison v. Garrison divorce case, in which Jessica Garrison made a number of unfavorable statements, under oath, about her ex husband.
If Pate's goal was to keep Lee Garrison out of office, he failed. Garrison narrowly won his race in an election that drew national attention after reports about sorority girls receiving free drinks and other improper enticements during the voting process. How bizarre was the normally quiet Tuscaloosa election? Photos surfaced of Lee Garrison wearing a penis nose--and he still won, with the help of a University of Alabama Greek community that must approve of such hi-jinks.
No one can accuse Stan Pate of being unclear about his feelings on the school-board race. Pate allegedly published the following from a Verified Amended Petition for Modification of Custody that Jessica Garrison filed in her divorce case. (See the full document at the end of this post.)
The father has repeatedly exhibited a willingness to forfeit time with his son to pursue recreational and social activities that often involve excessive drinking and late nights. He also admittedly has had a gambling problem and takes controlled medications for which he has no prescription or medical need. The father also has a bad temper and a consistent tendency to rage, often in the presence of the child. Moreover, the father and his wife are cigarette smokers and have pets, both of which contribute to the child's ongoing allergies.
Obviously, the Garrison divorce/custody battle generated some rancor. And Lee Garrison hired Lisa Woods to help express his unhappiness about Stan Pate's alleged use of the above language. Here is a portion of what Ms. Woods stated to Pate's lawyer, Cam Parsons:
Given your years in practice, I am certain that you understand that, sometimes, things are said in the course of divorce and post-divorce matters that are not true. Simply stating that some third party "swore" to such information does not make the statements true. That said, we ask that you advise Mr. Pate to take his website down and refrain from making or repeating false statements against my client.
To ensure that her position was clear, Ms. Woods pretty much repeated it in a letter directly to Pate. (See both Pate letters at the end of this post.)
You have posted a court filing, purportedly by Ms. Jessica Garrison and/or her counsel. It is our position that the statements contained in the same were false then and are false now. An Objection and Response to those false allegations was filed on my client's behalf. We notice that you did not bother to place that document on your post. We perceive this as disregard for the truth in your posting.
In her zest to defend Lee Garrison's honor, Ms. Woods seemingly does not recognize the serious nature of what she is saying about Jessica Garrison. The court filing is not "purportedly by Ms. Jessica Garrison and/or her counsel." It is by Jessica Garrison, in the form of a verified petition--and that means it is signed under oath. Here is the language at the end of the petition:
Before me, the undersigned authority in and for said county, in said state, personally appeared JESSICA MEDEIROS GARRISON, who, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she has read the above and Verified Amended Petition for Modification, and the facts therein are correct and true.
Jessica Garrison has signed her name on the line above the word "Affiant," which is defined as "a person who signs an affidavit and swears to its truth before a Notary Public or some person authorized to take oaths, like a County Clerk."
In a likely attempt to protect a fellow member of the legal tribe, Lisa Woods makes it sound like Jessica Garrison's false statements are no big deal. In fact, they are of the utmost seriousness, under the law. In essence, Lisa Woods is claiming that Jessica Garrison committed first-degree perjury--and that is a felony that could send Garrison to prison and cost her a bar card.
Is Jessica Garrison a glorified con artist who cheated in a sexual way with Luther Strange and cheated in a criminal way to help maintain custody of her child? Does that mean any legal complaint Jessica Garrison has filed against me is likely to be fraudulent?
Based on the words of lawyer Lisa Woods, a reasonable person could concludes the answer to both questions is yes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)