One must wonder, in which nations around the globe, conditions today prevail, such as documented in the case of Roger Shuler in the United States.
jz
______
Anti judicial corruption activist/blogger Roger Shuler was beaten up and arrested by Shelby County Sheriff Deputies on October 23, 2013. Since then, he is falsely imprisoned. No end to the false imprisonment in sight!
Legal Schnauzer
The memory of a beloved pet inspires one couple's fight against injustice.
Monday, March 17, 2014
The memory of a beloved pet inspires one couple's fight against injustice.
Monday, March 17, 2014
Why Was Legal Schnauzer Publisher Roger Shuler Detained at the Jefferson County Jail?
This is Carol, Roger's wife. Legal Schnauzer publisher Roger Shuler recently was held for more than a week at the Jefferson County Jail because of a hearing in the Jessica Medeiros Garrison case.
Shuler was transported for a 30 minute hearing on March 5 before Circuit Judge Don Blankenship. Shuler expected to be returned that day, but stayed in the Jefferson County Jail for a week before he was finally returned to Shelby County.
"I have no idea why I was detained so long at the Jefferson County Jail," Shuler said. "I don't know if it's just a case of general incompetence or someone was intentionally interfering with my case, but my experience in the Jefferson County Jail was extremely unpleasant."
Shuler was transported for a 30 minute hearing on March 5 before Circuit Judge Don Blankenship. Shuler expected to be returned that day, but stayed in the Jefferson County Jail for a week before he was finally returned to Shelby County.
"I have no idea why I was detained so long at the Jefferson County Jail," Shuler said. "I don't know if it's just a case of general incompetence or someone was intentionally interfering with my case, but my experience in the Jefferson County Jail was extremely unpleasant."
Thursday, March 6, 2014
"Crystal Clear" Law Proves that Legal Schnauzer Publisher is Due for Immediate Release from Jail
This is Carol, Roger's wife. The law is "crystal clear" that a preliminary injunction in an alleged defamation case is unlawful under the first amendment according to a free speech expert. Paul Alan Levy, an attorney with Public Citizen, was talking about a Virginia case styled Dietz v. Perez. But he might has well have been talking about the case of Legal Schnauzer publisher Roger Shuler because the two cases are almost identical in terms of facts and applicable law.
Levy's statement provides further proof that Shuler's incarceration is not grounded in law and he is due for immediate release. Despite the clear cut nature of the law, Levy said it is not unusual for judges to grant preliminary injunctions in such cases. That simply is a sign that laziness and incompetence run deep in America's courtroom.
From a Public Citizen article that Levy wrote:
Levy's statement provides further proof that Shuler's incarceration is not grounded in law and he is due for immediate release. Despite the clear cut nature of the law, Levy said it is not unusual for judges to grant preliminary injunctions in such cases. That simply is a sign that laziness and incompetence run deep in America's courtroom.
From a Public Citizen article that Levy wrote:
"At the appellate level, and in the reported cases, it is crystal clear that, as the petition for review argues, a preliminary injunction against alleged defamation is an impermissible prior restraint. But it is not uncommon to hear about trial judges issuing temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions against alleged defamation. These orders are often made because they are sought ex parte and the judge does not do original research leading to clear law forbidding ex parte injunctions against speech, or because the defendant’s lawyer lacks enough sophistication to recognize and argue the prior restraint issue, or, in the end, because the trial judge just wants to do what he sees as fair. It is also not unusual for trial judges to “split the baby” by issuing an order that gives something to both sides. Apparently, we need more appellate precedent reminding trial judges that the First Amendment forbids such injunctions."
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Alabama Inmate at Shelby County Jail is Severely Beaten Over Alleged Theft of Telephone PIN
This is Carol, Roger's wife. An inmate was severely beaten by another inmate on Feb. 26 in the cell block where Legal Schnauzer publisher Roger Shuler is housed at the Shelby County Jail. The fight apparently started over theft of a telephone PIN account, the same problem for which Shuler has been victimized.
"This was the second most disturbing event I've witnessed in jail, next to the suicide of an inmate," Shuler said. "One man wound up with numerous welts and abrasions all over his head and face so the potential is there for serious damage. It's particularly disturbing that this involved alleged theft of a PIN account because I've experienced that myself. I know from experience that the Shelby County Jail provides no security or privacy for telephone use, and it's extremely easy for PIN information to be stolen. Even worse, the jail has done nothing to investigate my case which involved the loss of $99 and I'm still out that money and I have no evidence that the jail has even looked into it."
"This was the second most disturbing event I've witnessed in jail, next to the suicide of an inmate," Shuler said. "One man wound up with numerous welts and abrasions all over his head and face so the potential is there for serious damage. It's particularly disturbing that this involved alleged theft of a PIN account because I've experienced that myself. I know from experience that the Shelby County Jail provides no security or privacy for telephone use, and it's extremely easy for PIN information to be stolen. Even worse, the jail has done nothing to investigate my case which involved the loss of $99 and I'm still out that money and I have no evidence that the jail has even looked into it."
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
New York Times Article Falsely Claims that Legal Schnauzer Case Raises First Amendment Questions
This is Carol, Roger's wife. The headline on The New York Times article says the Legal Schnauzer case raises questions about the first amendment. One sentence in the article says that the case makes for "an exceptionally messy test of constitutional law." But the article as a whole does not say that at all. In fact, the article states that the case really is about judicial incompetence and corruption in an Alabama courthouse.
Every legal expert cited by The Times says that Alabama Circuit Judge Claud Neilson has ruled unlawfully in the Legal Schnauzer case, resulting in the incarceration of publisher Roger Shuler. None of the experts says that the case raises new issues regarding the first amendment. A 2012 Virginia case called Dietz v. Perez states unequivocally that a preliminary injunction in an alleged defamation case is unlawful under the first amendment. The facts and procedure of the Schnauzer case are almost identical to Dietz, and that means that Shuler's incarceration is unlawful and he is due to be released immediately.
"This case really is about unlawful actions in an Alabama courtroom." Shuler said. "The first amendment has been rock-solid for roughly 230 years and the Dietz case shows that it's still very much intact and nothing in my case raises new issues regarding the first amendment. It simply is a matter of a rogue judge who has so far gotten away with making rulings that go way outside the law."
Every legal expert cited by The Times says that Alabama Circuit Judge Claud Neilson has ruled unlawfully in the Legal Schnauzer case, resulting in the incarceration of publisher Roger Shuler. None of the experts says that the case raises new issues regarding the first amendment. A 2012 Virginia case called Dietz v. Perez states unequivocally that a preliminary injunction in an alleged defamation case is unlawful under the first amendment. The facts and procedure of the Schnauzer case are almost identical to Dietz, and that means that Shuler's incarceration is unlawful and he is due to be released immediately.
"This case really is about unlawful actions in an Alabama courtroom." Shuler said. "The first amendment has been rock-solid for roughly 230 years and the Dietz case shows that it's still very much intact and nothing in my case raises new issues regarding the first amendment. It simply is a matter of a rogue judge who has so far gotten away with making rulings that go way outside the law."
Monday, March 3, 2014
Legal Schnauzer Publisher Roger Shuler Will Appear at Jefferson County Hearing on Wednesday, March 5
This is Carol, Roger's wife. Legal Schnauzer publisher Roger Shuler will appear at a hearing at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, March 5 at the Jefferson County Courthouse. The hearing, before Judge Don Blankenship, is in a lawsuit filed by Republican political figure Jessica Medeiros Garrison. The hearing reportedly will involve an attempted default judgment that Garrison is seeking. Shuler is unlawfully incarcerated in the Shelby County Jail because of a lawsuit filed by Rob Riley, one of Garrison's Republican political allies. Garrison is the former campaign manager for Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange.
.jpeg) |
| Luther Strange and Jessica Medeiros Garrison |
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Dietz v. Perez Case in Virginia Proves that Legal Schnauzer Publisher is Unlawfully Incarcerated
This is Carol, Roger's wife. A Virginia woman took to the internet in 2012 to voice her displeasure with a contractor who had done repair work on her townhouse. That lead to the most recent first amendment case that proves Legal Schnauzer publisher Roger Shuler is unlawfully incarcerated.
Dietz v. Perez holds that a preliminary injunction in an alleged defamation case is an unlawful prior restraint under the first amendment. It's the most recent national case to make that finding adding to the roughly 230 years of U.S. law on the subject.
Jane Perez heaped criticism on Dietz contractors after she felt that they botched the home repair job. She went onto consumer sites Yelp and Angie's List to state her criticism, and Dietz responded by suing her and asking a judge to force her to remove critical comments. The judge refused to grant a full injunction, but he did force Perez to remove comments about two issues. The Virginia Supreme Court overturned that ruling and said that Perez could not be forced to remove the comments.
Here is a link to a report on the case by the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press: Virginia Supreme Court Reverses Injunction Against Online Commenter.
Dietz v. Perez holds that a preliminary injunction in an alleged defamation case is an unlawful prior restraint under the first amendment. It's the most recent national case to make that finding adding to the roughly 230 years of U.S. law on the subject.
Jane Perez heaped criticism on Dietz contractors after she felt that they botched the home repair job. She went onto consumer sites Yelp and Angie's List to state her criticism, and Dietz responded by suing her and asking a judge to force her to remove critical comments. The judge refused to grant a full injunction, but he did force Perez to remove comments about two issues. The Virginia Supreme Court overturned that ruling and said that Perez could not be forced to remove the comments.
Here is a link to a report on the case by the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press: Virginia Supreme Court Reverses Injunction Against Online Commenter.
"A Virginia woman being sued by her home contractor for libel won't have to remove negative comments she posted on Internet review sites about him, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled.
The state’s high court reversed a Fairfax County Circuit Court judge’s ruling ordering Jane Perez to delete portions of her review of the contractor on Yelp and Angie’s List. In her review, Perez mentioned that her jewelry was missing. She also referenced the outcome of a suit brought by the contractor against Perez for nonpayment.
The Circuit Court also barred Perez from making similar claims on other online comment sites.
In a one-page ruling issued on Dec. 28, a three-judge panel of the state Supreme Court vacated the Circuit Court’s Dec. 7 order, saying the injunction was not justified and the lower court did not specify how long it would be effective."The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia and a Washington-based advocacy group called Public Citizen helped represent Perez in the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment