Skip to main content

View Diary: CEO Threatens A Lawsuit Against Progressive Blogger (176 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Once again . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    semiot

    it's not my opinion what the law is. That's because I can read.

    Since you apparently can't be bothered to click a link, here is the key finding from Wesson v. Wesson. The basic facts are identical to those in Rollins. Let me know if there is anything in that you don't understand.

    By the way, I only found out about Wesson because about three different lawyers for Sherry Rollins cited it. I'm just borrowing from the work of lawyers, all of whom correctly cited the law, and decided to give up and drop out of the case when the judge refused to follow it:

    The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Alabama court erred in exercising jurisdiction in this matter when the husband previously filed a divorce action in a New York court. The record reveals that the parties resided together in New York until their separation in approximately January 1991. It further reveals that the husband was a resident of New York at the time of filing the New York action. Therefore, jurisdiction would have been proper in New York. Once jurisdiction has attached in one court, that court has the exclusive right to continue its exercise of power until the completion of the case, and is only subject to appellate authority. Abernathy v. State of Alabama ex rel. Dana Abernathy Dunn, 627 So.2d 425 (Ala.Civ.App.1993); Dillard v. Dillard, 601 So.2d 1017 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); Swigert v. Swigert, 553 So.2d 607 (Ala.Civ. 954*954 App.1989); and Martin v. Martin, 509 So.2d 1054 (Ala.Civ.App.1986).

    Based upon the foregoing, this court finds that the Alabama court did not have proper jurisdiction to enter a judgment of divorce in this action. Without proper jurisdiction, the judgment is void and, therefore, we dismiss this appeal.


    •  Geekesque . . . (0+ / 0-)

      you seem strangely silent when the real law is staring you in the face. How interesting.

      •  Did the New York court dismiss (0+ / 0-)

        the divorce action in that case?

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 01:35:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Geekesque (0+ / 0-)

          What difference does it make? The issue is the same as in Rollins--Alabama did not have jurisdiction once jurisdiction already was established in another state.

          Beyond that, what happened in NY is not relevant to the issues I'm covering. If you are interested in that, feel free to look it up.

      •  Actually, I'll pick up this gauntlet (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Darmok, Geekesque

        The basic facts in Wesson are actually quite different.   There, the husband filed a divorce in one state, and then filed a second divorce in another state.

        Here, it appears the wife filed in one state and the husband filed in another.   This would be a vastly different circumstance.

        You've made a number of rather extraordinary claims in this posting, and I see you've made similar allegations elsewhere (such as Salon's open forum).   I'd like you to back them up a bit more, with perhaps less hyperbole and innuendo.   Can you please provide copies of the following:

        (1)   A copy of the South Carolina decision "transferring" the matter to Georgia, along with any briefing on that issue?   The reason i ask is that one way that the South Carolina court may have properly made the transfer is if the wife and husband both agreed to it.   Since the wife and the husband both ended up in Georgia at some point, that may clear up the issue that you raise.  

        (2)  A copy of the Georgia court's ruling which kept jurisdiction and any briefing on that issue.   We have the motion, which citesone case (which factually appears distinguishable, as I mention above).   Can you give us a little bit more, so we can understand why the georgia court did what it said?   Right now, all we have is your explanation, and, with all respect, since you aren't a lawyer, I'm not sure that you have a real understanding of what happened.  

        Finally, I want to ask you a set of more troubling questions .   Why are you writing about a divorce that took place 6-7 years ago?   How is this even remotely relevant to today?   I mean, you can drag his ex-wife and kids back into the news, but why?   What does it show about this man which is relevant to today?   How do his kids feel about having their child support issues be dragged through the press?  

        In sum, this guy appears to be a private citizen from a powerful family.   You've gone out of your way to paint him as some sort of awful person who has left his kids damn near destitute and who has the power to manipulate the legal system in two states.   Why do you care?   What is the upside of this barrage?  

        would you please do us the favor of:

        (1)   posting the decision of the South Carolina court "transferring" the divorce to Alabama?   Its not on-line, and I'm not going to pay a runner to go pull the file for me.  I'm interested.

        •  Cthulhu (0+ / 0-)

          A few responses:

          1. The crux of the Wesson decision is as follows:

          It further reveals that the husband was a resident of New York at the time of filing the New York action. Therefore, jurisdiction would have been proper in New York. Once jurisdiction has attached in one court, that court has the exclusive right to continue its exercise of power until the completion of the case, and is only subject to appellate authority.

          That is exactly on point with Rollins. In Rollins, the wife was a resident of SC when she filed a SC action. Therefore, jurisdiction was proper in SC, and that court had exclusive right to continue its exercise of power.

          I suspect you are smart enough to see that the pertinent circumstances are identical. You just happen to be in "contrarian" mode today?

          2. You apparently want me to respect your various requests, as if I am your personal go-fer. But you can't even get the states right. You keep referring to the case being moved to Georgia. The move was to Alabama. Georgia has nothing to do with this case.

          3. I haven't made "allegations," here or in any other forum. I have reported what public documents and the actual law show--that the case was decided contrary to law. That's called journalism. It has nothing to do with "hyperbole" and "innuendo." And it isn't "extraordinary"; this kind of corruption happens in American courts on a regular basis. I report about it on my blog all the time. I've witnessed it first hand, in both state and federal courts. What's "extraordinary" is that the mainstream media ignores the story, and as a result, the American public has no idea that quite a few of their courts are cesspools.

          4. I live in Alabama, and I have a copy of the documents that were filed with the Court of Civil Appeals here. That file shows:

          A. No document transferring the case to (Alabama, not Georgia). The record shows the case was never transferred here by a SC court. An AL judge simply took it.

          B. No copy of an (Alabama, not Georgia) ruling that held jurisdiction. Sherry Rollins' various lawyers filed 3-4 motions to dismiss in AL, citing Wesson v. Wesson, among other cases, and showing that jurisdiction had been established in SC for roughly four years. Ted Rollins' lawyers, based on the public record, never cited any law showing that the case was due to be moved to Alabama. That's because no such case exists, based on my research.

          5. I will do you a favor and say that no SC transfer ruling is online because it doesn't exist. The case never was lawfully transferred.

          6. Are you saying that your peculiar need to ask certain questions is "troubling"? I will agree with you there. But I will give you more credit than you deserve and respond:

          A. Are you saying that writing about events that happened 6-7 years ago has no relevance today? Writing about 9/11 would not be relevant? About the Civil Rights movement? About WWII? You have an unorthodox approach to history.

          B. You seem to be asking, "Why, Mr. Shuler, are you interested in this case?" Here's why: I live in Shelby County, AL, where the Rollins case was unlawfully handled by an AL judge. My wife and I have had extensive experience with being treated unlawfully in that court. Those experiences led me to start a blog about justice issues in Alabama and beyond. We've heard from numerous other citizens  who've had similar experiences. Sherry Rollins happens to be just one of those people.

          I researched her case and found that she was, in fact, cheated in court, as were her two daughters. That's why I write about it. My tax dollars were used to help cheat Sherry Rollins and her daughters. That's why I write about it. My tax dollars fund the appellate court that unlawfully failed to correct the trial court. That's why I write about it. Ted Rollins plans to build a $26-million project at Auburn University in Alabama, my home state. The public has a right to know how he conducts his affairs. That's why I write about it. The case continues to have repercussions for its victims. Sherry Rollins and her daughters are on food stamps. Sherry Rollins visits pawn shops near the end of each month to make ends meet. That's why I write about it. Alabama citizens need to know how their state courts really work. That's why I write about it.

          You simply don't care about injustice that happens right under your nose? If that's the case, I feel sorry for you. It appears you are living a wasted life. What purpose are you serving on this earth? If you wrote an autobiography, would it be called "The Purpose-
          Free Life"?

          You want to know how Sherry Rollins and her daughters feel about the case? Contact me at rshuler3156@gmail.com, and I will get you in touch with them. You can ask them yourself. Let's see if you really are interested in this case, and the people who have suffered because of it.

          Here are some questions for you? Where do you live? Does it matter to you if the courts that you help fund operate according to the law? If you don't care, why not? What does that say about you as a citizen?

          If you don't care about public affairs, why do you read Daily Kos? What's the point?

          I've given you my personal e-mail address and invited you to contact me because you've expressed an interest in this case. You can have my phone number. It's (205) 991-7438. Will you contact me? Are you really interested in justice?

          •  Thanks so much for your response. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Geekesque

            You are correct on one point -- I should have typed Alabama where I typed Georgia.   Sorry:  posting on an iphone while moving makes it hard to type and review prior text.   Let me address your other points:

            1.  You indicate that you believe the Wesson case is controlling, writing:

            1. The crux of the Wesson decision is as follows:

            It further reveals that the husband was a resident of New York at the time of filing the New York action. Therefore, jurisdiction would have been proper in New York. Once jurisdiction has attached in one court, that court has the exclusive right to continue its exercise of power until the completion of the case, and is only subject to appellate authority.

            That is exactly on point with Rollins. In Rollins, the wife was a resident of SC when she filed a SC action. Therefore, jurisdiction was proper in SC, and that court had exclusive right to continue its exercise of power.

            I disagree with your analysis.   I believe that the governing case is Ex parte Buck, 291 Ala. 689, 287 So.2d 441 (Ala. 1973).  This case is described in its synopsis as follows:

            Original petition for writ of mandamus to require vacation of order denying petitioner's motion attacking jurisdiction of court in divorce proceeding. The Court of Civil Appeals, 51 Ala.App. --, 287 So.2d 447, issued writ conditionally and denied application for rehearing and respondent petitioned for writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court, Jones, J., held that, although California court had jurisdiction of divorce action brought by wife, where husband, who later brought divorce action in Alabama, was bona fide resident and citizen of, and domiciled in, Alabama, and children were physically present with husband in Alabama, Alabama court had jurisdiction of husband's suit and that Alabama court also had equity jurisdiction to award temporary custody to grandparents, Alabama residents.

            The only way to reconcile Wesson and Buck that I can see is on the grounds I previously indicated -- namely, in Wesson, the husband had filed the initial action in one state, didn't like the result, and then tried another state.   The Buck decision, however, is by a court superior to Wesson -- and this would tend to explain why the Alabama court in Rollins.

            This is not me being contrarian.   This is me being a lawyer and looking at precedents.   You claim in your Paragraph 4 B that you conducted research and were unable to find any reason why Wesson would not control.  I am intrigued:   why did you ignore the Buck decision, since it is from the Alabama Supreme Court?

            2.   You have me -- I was careless.   I should have talked about Alabama, but since I was unable to do much more than read 4 lines of text on an iphone when I wrote it, it doesn't seem like I'm crazy.   Yes, I'm a law geek -- I did read Wesson on westlaw, but I screwed up the jurisdiction.  

            3.   Again, respectfully, I disagree that you have shown that the Rollins case was decided in a manner contrary to law.   So far as I was able to tell, Buck governs this dispute, and Buck by my readings says that the pendency of a divorce action out of state does not preclude Alabama from exercising jurisdiction.   At the very least, and giving you every benefit of the doubt in your position, the question of whether there has been an improper decision is not cut-and-dried.   If anything, and again, with all respect, I think that most lawyers would agree that your position is the weaker position.

            And yes, you have used hyperbole and innuendo.   Your article suggests that courts in two states acted together to help a prominent person get out of paying child support and obtaining an unjust divorce decree.   That would be "innuendo."   As for what journalists do, my experience is that journalists writing about law generally have a lawyer (not affiliated with one of the parties) help them understand the law before offering opinions on it.   You've offered the opinion that Wesson was controlling, but you haven't explained why it should govern in light of other cases.   Grabbing one case and waving it around does not establish anything -- or, to quote one of the legal maxims which was drilled into me in my first decade of practice, "A brick does not make a wall."

            4A  You are using phrases which are incorrect, and this has led to some confusion.   Earlier in your response to another commenter, you suggested that the case was transferred -- which I interpreted to mean that there was an actual transfer of the file.   Now, you tell me that there was not a transfer order.   The Alabama court did not, however, "take" anything from another jurisdiction so far as I can tell.   Instead, it sounds like there were two competing cases being litigated, and the Alabama court reached judgment first.   This is perfectly legal, perfectly constitutional, and perfectly normal.

            4B  Just for the record, Buck appears to me to be restating an obvious and well-known legal principle in Alabama regarding the effect of an out-of-state case.   In that event, there wouldn't need to be any direct citation of Buck for an Albama court to rely on its principles.  

            5.   Thanks for letting me know.   I interpreted your language regarding transfer literally.   It sounds to me like the other action merely stagnated.  

            6.  Thanks for the credit.   I wrote:

            Why are you writing about a divorce that took place 6-7 years ago?   How is this even remotely relevant to today?   I mean, you can drag his ex-wife and kids back into the news, but why?   What does it show about this man which is relevant to today?   How do his kids feel about having their child support issues be dragged through the press?  

            You responded:

            Are you saying that writing about events that happened 6-7 years ago has no relevance today? Writing about 9/11 would not be relevant? About the Civil Rights movement? About WWII? You have an unorthodox approach to history.

            Actually, what I was asking you to do was explain why what appears to be a relatively normal divorce involving a private citizen is deemed newsworthy by you, a journalist.   While certainly you can write about it ad nauseum, I'm trying to understand why you believe that the fact that a judge reached a different conclusion of law than you means that something untoward occurred.  

            You then stated:

            I researched her case and found that she was, in fact, cheated in court, as were her two daughters. That's why I write about it. My tax dollars were used to help cheat Sherry Rollins and her daughters. That's why I write about it. My tax dollars fund the appellate court that unlawfully failed to correct the trial court. That's why I write about it. Ted Rollins plans to build a $26-million project at Auburn University in Alabama, my home state. The public has a right to know how he conducts his affairs. That's why I write about it. The case continues to have repercussions for its victims. Sherry Rollins and her daughters are on food stamps. Sherry Rollins visits pawn shops near the end of each month to make ends meet. That's why I write about it. Alabama citizens need to know how their state courts really work. That's why I write about it.

            Thanks.   This is what I wanted to know.   You appear to believe that Ted Rollins cheated his ex-wife in court, and therefore, the public should know about that because he's about to engage in a public works project and therefore is a public figure, and because you think that Ms. Rollins and his daughters continue to suffer from an unjust result.

            The problems that I have with your position are

            (1) so far, you've cited one case, which appears to be distinguishable, and ignored what appears to be binding precedent, and now indicated that an appellate court looked at this and affirmed the decision.   Thus, at least on the jurisdictional issue which you hang your hat on, there appears to be no manifest error.  There may be problems with the outcome, but so far, you haven't identified shown why this result was in error.

            (2)  If "people behaving badly in divorce" is grounds to preclude folks from receiving public funds, I would suggest that the ranks of the unemployed are about to swell dramatically.  

            You then write:

            You simply don't care about injustice that happens right under your nose? If that's the case, I feel sorry for you. It appears you are living a wasted life. What purpose are you serving on this earth? If you wrote an autobiography, would it be called "The Purpose-
             Free Life"?

            In fact, I do care about injustice.  That's why I wrote a response to you.   I think that you have ignored precedent, misstated the law, and wrongly suggested that a court violated the law regarding jurisdiction.   I think, in other words, that you are being unjust -- perhaps out of sympathy with the ex-wife, perhaps because of your well-publicized problems with the Alabama legal system, or perhaps because you are merely ignorant or incapable of seeing the case from a different perspective.

            You then wrote:

            You want to know how Sherry Rollins and her daughters feel about the case? Contact me at rshuler3156@gmail.com, and I will get you in touch with them. You can ask them yourself. Let's see if you really are interested in this case, and the people who have suffered because of it

            You are a journalist, right?   Why don't you write about what they told you and how they feel, rather than making your readers go get the information?

            As for your offer, thank you, no, I will not contact you.   For a variety of reasons, I prefer to remain anonymous, and unfortunately, this precludes me outing myself to you.   Besides, how will me calling Ms. Rollins help her?   I doubt she wants to hear me opine that the Alabama courts were right to retain jurisdiction of her divorce.  

            I   think its legitimate to ask if Ms. Rollins and her daughters agree with your using them as talking points to attack Mr. Rollins.   If you can give me a reason why you think my calling her will help, I'll reconsider, but I suspect that this is merely a rhetorical gambit, so that you might castigate me for not caring enough about Ms. Rollins.  Castigate away: until I hear a sounder basis for why the Alabama court acted outside the boundries of the law than what has been identified so far, I don't see how calling Ms. Rollings helps anyone.

            You then wrote:

            Here are some questions for you? Where do you live? Does it matter to you if the courts that you help fund operate according to the law? If you don't care, why not? What does that say about you as a citizen?

            If you don't care about public affairs, why do you read Daily Kos? What's the point?

            I'm not sure why you care where I live, but, for the record, as I have indicated previously in other places, I live in Texas.

            I do indeed care that the courts that I fund operate according to the law; this is why I like to elect judges who will take the time to research the law beyond a single, intermediate court precedent.  

            As for why I read Daily Kos, its because the aggregation of news and opinions here provides better insight into the world at large than any other location on the web, and because I enjoy being able to participate as a member of this community, and because this provides a forum for progressive politics.   This does not mean, however, that I agree with every post that is made at daily kos -- particularly on legal matters.  Indeed, if you read my comments, you'll see that I disagree with many posters on their legal analysis.  

            •  Cthulhu (0+ / 0-)

              I didn't ignore the Buck case. I researched the cases that were raised by either party in the Rollins case, and Buck is never mentioned. Ted Rollins' lawyers never raised Buck as grounds for moving the case to AL. In fact, I dont' see where they cited any case for moving the case to AL.

              You are citing a 1973 case that I can't even find on the Internet. Wesson is a 1993 case, and the opinion itself cites 4-5 other cases that are much more current than Buck.

              Apparently, you can't find the full Buck case either because you don't cite anything in it, only what you say is a synopsis. If you have the full case, feel free to send a link. I'd be happy to look at it.

              The few references I've seen to Buck on the Web involve strictly child-custody matters, after a divorce and apparently after one parent or another moved. That's a vastly different set of facts and law than were present in Rollins.

              Wesson is the controlling law, and even Ted Rollins' lawyers don't argue otherwise. Not one lawyer in Rollins v. Rollins, on either side, raised Buck or disputed Wesson as controlling law. So either the lawyers here are idiots or you are off target.

              Congratulations for raising a classic red herring.

              As for your other statements, I'm not going to bother addressing them. When you refer to Rollins as a "relatively normal divorce case" . . . well, that statement is so far off the deep end, that I see no reason to continue communication on this subject. And your notion that I am being "unjust" . . . well any respect I had for you pretty much left the building with that one.

              You are honest enough to admit you are a lawyer, and I give you credit for that. But you aren't honest enough to admit that you have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that our courts apply the law correctly--when many of them do not.

              By the way, I knew you would want to remain anonymous. That makes it much easier to be a bomb thrower, to muddy the waters by raising inapplicable case law--that not even lawyers in the case have raised, according to the documents I have.

              I only suggested that you contact me and/or Sherry Rollins because you wanted to know how she feels about my coverage of her case. I figured it would be best if you asked her yourself. I never thought it would be a good idea for her to discuss anything with you in your role as a lawyer.

              You can't get the state right, and you blow up her case--in your mind--based on a synopsis of a case that is almost 40 years old. Why would she want to waste her time talking to you?

              Not sure why I've wasted my time communicating with you. I've seen your kind many times here on DK. My work as a reporter gores your ox, and that's why you try to shoot it down. You have a lot of company among lawyers who read Daily Kos. Many of you are much more interested in protecting your profession than in promoting justice and fighting injustice.

              •  Cthulhu (0+ / 0-)

                You say you are a lawyer in TX, and I'm pretty sure Campus Crest has several properties in TX. In fact, I think they might have more properties in TX than in any other state. Not sure about that, but I think that might be the case.

                Anyway, makes me wonder if this explains your interest in this subject. Might also explain why you wish to remain anonymous.

                By the way, it's not "hyperbole" or "innuendo" to report what a public court file shows. It's journalism, the kind that apparently makes you quite uncomfortable.

                •  Whoops, sorry, didn't see this ad hominem (0+ / 0-)

                  Let me respond, so that there is no confusion.

                  To my knowledge, I (and every person in my firm) has never represented Campus Crest, Mr. Rollins, or any of their affiliates, subsidiaries, insurers, lenders, contractors, subcontractors, or bonding agencies, nor are we seeking such representation now, nor do we expect to have such representation in the future.  

                  And I'm sorry you have trouble understanding what the terms "innuendo" and "hyperbole" mean.   Let me see if I can help you.   An "innuendo" is an insunuation, usually of wrongdoing, which is designed to suggest that the person subject of the innuendo did something wrong without directly saying so.  

                  From one of your articles in Legal Schnauzer:

                  What did it mean for Ted Rollins? Not much. He filed a lawsuit for divorce against his wife in Alabama--and Shelby County Judge Al Crowson actually allowed it. For anyone who's had a few days of Law School 101, that last sentence should shock the conscience. That's because such a transfer of a case across jurisdictional boundaries simply cannot be done.

                  It can be done, however, in GOP-controlled Alabama when your name is Ted W. Rollins--and you are part of one of America's richest families. It probably did not hurt that Ted Rollins had worked for years with Bradley Arant Boult and Cummings, one of the largest and most conservative law firms in Alabama.

                  See, you are implying that Mr. Rollins received special treatment.   You don't say he got special treatment.   You just point out that he's rich, he is GOP, he is well connected, and that the GOP dominates the county where he filed suit.   See?   You get to insinuate that he did something wrong, but you don't spell it out.

                  Let me give another example.   You are smart enough to know that accusing me directly of being a shill for Mr. Rollins might get you a warning or banned -- it might even generate some hide rates, because at Daily Kos, you don't accuse people of being paid shills without some damn good proof.   So, instead, you say:

                  You say you are a lawyer in TX, and I'm pretty sure Campus Crest has several properties in TX. In fact, I think they might have more properties in TX than in any other state. Not sure about that, but I think that might be the case.

                  Anyway, makes me wonder if this explains your interest in this subject. Might also explain why you wish to remain anonymous

                  See - that's an innuendo.   Its a sly suggestion that I've done something wrong, but if I were confront you, by, for example, suggesting that you had no fucking basis to make this suggestion that I am affiliated with Rollins, you'd come back and say something like "Suggestion?   What suggestion?   I'm just asking questions."

                  Its really easy to use innuendo to smear someone unfairly.   For example, one might ask whether you are in any way expecting compensation from Campus Crest competitiors who will benefit if Campus Crest is discredited in its attempt to get a contract with Alabama.  Or, since you are so interested in Ms. Rollins case, one could ask whether you have received favors from her -- sexual or otherwise -- since you admit being in contact with her.   Do you fancy her?   Is that why you have taken on these labors on her behalf?   Is she related to you by blood or marriage?   Is she an employee?  I'm just "asking questions," but you gotta admit, its weird, isn't it, you spending all this time attacking her ex, talking about how tough her situation is, trying to help her supposedly for free, wink wink nudge nudge say no more, say no more squire....

                  See, this would be innuendo.   Its the same sort of thing you are doing by "asking questions" about my motives.   Its the same sort of thing you are doing by implying that Mr. Rollins received special treatment even though case law suggests otherwise.   Its not a fair way to discredit an opponent, in my opinion, which is why I don't do it.  Indeed, I don't expect answers to any of the questions I asked, and I freely admit that no one should insinuate from the fact that I asked the question any suggestion that you have impure motives.   I'm just illustrating how it feels to be a victim of innuendo.

                  BTW, this was parodied beautifully in South Park, where Cartman begins acting like Glen Beck and "asking questions" about Wendy.   You see, you can "ask questions" to imply wrongdoing, and then walk away from it if anyone complains.  

                  •  Cthulhu (0+ / 0-)

                    There's a big difference between what I've written about Ted Rollins/Campus Crest and the examples you give--my work is supported by facts.

                    It's a fact that Ted Rollins' case was transferred from SC to Alabama, after it had been litigated for almost four years in SC, and that is contrary to black-letter law. It's also a fact that Ted Rollins is a member of one of America's wealthiest families and he is represented by Bradley Arant, one of the powerful, pro-business law firms in Alabama.

                    Maybe you think that being wealthy, and being represented by powerful interests, do not give one an edge in American society. If so, I suspect you are in the minority.

                    Your examples are not based remotely on fact, and you've offered no information that they are.

                    BTW, I didn't say you or anyone at your firm has represented Rollins/CCC or its affiliates. But your interest in sticking up for Rollins/CCC by publishing bogus information regarding the applicable law in the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case is suspect with me.

                    •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Darmok

                      You keep saying that the decision was contrary to black lettrer law.   It wasn't.   "Black letter law" is the law as enunciated by the Alabama Supreme Court.   And, forgive me, but you aren't a lawyer and you have no real idea how to conduct legal research.  

                      You a;so keep saying the case was transferred.   It wasn't.   There was no transfer of venue.   Instead, a competing case was opened.  These are vastly different things.  

                      Now, on to a more critical point -- yes, indeedy, you never said that me or anyone at my firm represented Rollins/CCC.   Like I said, you used innuendo to make that point.   In fact, if you look back at what I posted, I even explained that if I were to say that you suggested a relationship, you'd respond that you were just "asking questions."   And wow, look, that's what you just did -- and you then repeated the innuendo, this time with hyperbole that I'm pushing a "bogus" case.

                      I'm pleased that you now understand what constitutes innuendo.   And, from your tone, I guess you can now see how tough it is to respond to an innuendo.   I mean, you keep publishing a bogus interpretation of law, based on a case which can be distinguished, and refuse to accept the existence of other cases which take the exact opposite position.   One could begin to wonder why you keep pressing such a bogus position -- Hmmmm.   Inquiring minds want to know....

                      See?   That's why innuendo sucks -- its impossible to fight, and anyone can make out an insinuation based on whatever theory they want to push, cherry-picking a framing point to cast aspersions in the form of a question.   Its intellectually dishonest -- and I suspect you know it.

                      As for wealth and power not giving an advantage in society, I didn't argue that, any more than you argued that all wealthy people are corrupt.   Why do you keep assigning me motives which I do not have and arguments which I do not advance?  

              •  Mr. Shuler (0+ / 0-)

                I will try to address each of the issues you have raised.

                I didn't ignore the Buck case. I researched the cases that were raised by either party in the Rollins case, and Buck is never mentioned. Ted Rollins' lawyers never raised Buck as grounds for moving the case to AL. In fact, I dont' see where they cited any case for moving the case to AL.

                This is not how a responsible person performs legal research.   It is certainly not what I would expect from a journalist of your level of experience.  

                Apparently, you can't find the full Buck case either because you don't cite anything in it, only what you say is a synopsis. If you have the full case, feel free to send a link. I'd be happy to look at it.

                The few references I've seen to Buck on the Web involve strictly child-custody matters, after a divorce and apparently after one parent or another moved. That's a vastly different set of facts and law than were present in Rollins.

                Actually, I use a service called WESTLAW to conduct legal research, because it lets me conduct searches.   However, the Buck case can be found here if I've done my citation correctly.  Otherwise, go to findacase.com and look it up.

                I cited the WEST synopsis because it gave a good overview of the case.   However, to make the point more plainly, from the free web citation there is the following quote:

                The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals takes note of the fact that the question of jurisdiction of that court was argued and resolved in California on July 27, 1973. The California Court determined that it did have jurisdiction of the cause and such determination was made after the husband (respondent there) had filed a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction and had personally appeared before that court to so argue. The Court of Civil Appeals then concludes that the California determination as to jurisdiction is res judicata and entitled to Full Faith and Credit by the Alabama Court, citing our case of Ex parte Aufill, supra, and Stallworth v. Stallworth, supra. This Conclusion does not militate against the result which we reach here. The fact that the California court has jurisdiction does not preclude an Alabama court from also having jurisdiction where one of the parties to the marriage is domiciled within this state and the children are physically present here.

                The is from the Albama Supreme Court.   Yes, it is an older opinion that Wesson -- but that is irrelevant, because Buck controls, as it is from a a higher court.

                From what you have previously said, the facts in Rollins are very close to Buck.   The children, according to you, were domiciled in Alabama after the South Carolina action was filed.   The father was domiciled in Alabama.  The mother, who filed the original out-of-state petition, was living in Alabama when the Alabama case was filed.  As a result, per Buck, the Alabama court could exercise concurrent jurisdiction.  

                Surely, you can see that this issue is not as simple as you have made it in your diary, even if you disagree with my reading of Buck.

                You then write:

                Wesson is the controlling law, and even Ted Rollins' lawyers don't argue otherwise. Not one lawyer in Rollins v. Rollins, on either side, raised Buck or disputed Wesson as controlling law. So either the lawyers here are idiots or you are off target.

                Congratulations for raising a classic red herring.

                Go.   Read the Buck opinion.  All Mr. Rollins attorneys would need to do is oppose the motion to dismiss (even tacitly).  If the trial court already knew of Buck, the lawyers for Mr. Rollins would not need to cite it -- and may have chosen not to for tactical reasons.

                There's nothing red about my herring, sir.   In fact, I've cited you the relevant case law, and you disagree, but you haven't read the case, and then tell me the case is irrelevant.   You are a journalist, right?   You deem this to be normal journalistic practice when reporting on a legal story?

                You then write:

                As for your other statements, I'm not going to bother addressing them. When you refer to Rollins as a "relatively normal divorce case" . . . well, that statement is so far off the deep end, that I see no reason to continue communication on this subject. And your notion that I am being "unjust" . . . well any respect I had for you pretty much left the building with that one.

                Sigh.   So far, you haven't told us anything abnormal, except that you think Wesson controls.   Since I've handled perhaps a dozen divorce cases, and you appear to have handled none, I will leave it to the reader to judge whether your statement or mine has more credibility.  

                I am sorry you think that it is "just" to imply that a court committed a travesty of justice when it appears you have no basis to reach that conclusion.    

                I wasn't aware that you had any respect for me previously.   Its one of those things I grieve for on long winter nights.

                You then write:

                You are honest enough to admit you are a lawyer, and I give you credit for that. But you aren't honest enough to admit that you have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that our courts apply the law correctly--when many of them do not.

                By the way, I knew you would want to remain anonymous. That makes it much easier to be a bomb thrower, to muddy the waters by raising inapplicable case law--that not even lawyers in the case have raised, according to the documents I have.

                You switch with amazing rapidity from the specific to the general.   You tell me that the Rollins court made a plain error; I challenge you and point out that your assertion does not appear to be the case.   You then tell me that I have a vested interest in perpetuating a myth that our courts apply the law correctly because I am a lawyer.  

                My interest in this case is merely trying to correct what i perceive to be an error in your statements.   Since I regularly write appellate briefs, I don't think I have much of a vested interest in saying that courts apply the law correctly -- 20% of my practice is built on saying that they do not apply the correct law.   Having said that, however, does not mean that I think that the Rollins court got its decision wrong.  In fact, everything you have shown me suggests that, at least on the jurisdictional issue, the Rollins court was correct.  

                You then write:

                I only suggested that you contact me and/or Sherry Rollins because you wanted to know how she feels about my coverage of her case. I figured it would be best if you asked her yourself. I never thought it would be a good idea for her to discuss anything with you in your role as a lawyer.

                You can't get the state right, and you blow up her case--in your mind--based on a synopsis of a case that is almost 40 years old. Why would she want to waste her time talking to you?

                As for a 40 year old case and its lack of validity, let me spin a case back at you, decided the same year:  Roe v. Wade.   I think its still the law of the land.   I also think that various intermediate appellate courts have tried to scale it back; most of those attempts have been eventually overruled.   Just because a supreme court decided something in 1973 does not make it invalid.

                As for being a bomb-thrower, and so forth, I thought that journalists accepted the need for some people to remain unnamed.   And as for talking to Ms. Rollins, I'm lost.   I asked how she felt about you using her case (and her children) as a talking point in your vendetta against her ex-husband and her children's father.   You tell me to go call her myself.   Again, if Ms. Rollins' plight is part of your story as a journalist don't you think you should report that part of the story, instead of instructing a reader to go find out for himself by calling her?

                Finally, you write:

                Not sure why I've wasted my time communicating with you. I've seen your kind many times here on DK. My work as a reporter gores your ox, and that's why you try to shoot it down. You have a lot of company among lawyers who read Daily Kos. Many of you are much more interested in protecting your profession than in promoting justice and fighting injustice.

                You've wasted time with me because I (and other commenters on this diary) have suggested that your reporting is not credible.  You've done your best to discredit me by ad hominem and by pointing out that I got a state wrong, but you have never been able to beat back the essential point I have rasied -- namely, the precedents from Alabama go against your position.  

                As for protecting my profession, how does point out that you are wrong on jurisdiction make me a shill for lawyers?  

                Anyway, you've got your case.   I'll give you the last word, and leave it to the readers to determine whether your view of the law is correct or not.  

                •  Cthulhu (0+ / 0-)

                  Once again, you get the most basic facts wrong about the Rollins case.

                  The Alabama Supreme Court based its finding in Buck on the state's duty to protect one of its citizens--the husband who lived in Alabama when he filed his lawsuit.

                  The circumstances in Rollins are exactly the opposite. Ted Rollins, based on the public record, never has been domiciled in Alabama. He lived in South Carolina and filed a lawsuit in Alabama.

                  In fact, Sherry Rollins was the party domiciled in Alabama, and she was the one, based on Buck, who was due to be protected as a citizen of the state. Instead, Circuit Judge D. Al Crowson subjected her to a lawsuit by a non-citizen, acting contrary to both Buck and Wesson.

                  Not that my position needed to be strengthened, but you actually strengthened it. Thank you very much. (And thanks for the link to Buck, by the way. Interesting case. Glad to see it supports what I've been reporting all along--that Alabama judges royally shafted one of their own citizens, Sherry Rollins, contrary to clear precedent on multiple issues of law.)

                  You raise the issue of credibility. Let's review yours: (1) You got the state wrong re: the location of the Rollins case; (2) Your theory that Buck should govern the Rollins case is based on your assertion that Ted Rollins was domiciled in Alabama. But he was not, he never has been, and I've never written that he was.

                  Furthermore, you suggest that for roughly 18 years--from 1993 when Wesson was decided until now-- the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has been intentionally ruling contrary to binding precedent of the Alabama Supreme Court--and getting away with it. If that's the case, you must be even more cynical about our justice system than I am.

                  Buck addresses very different issues from those present in Wesson. As a lawyer with extensive appellate experience, plus work in matrimonial law, you surely are smart enough to know that.

                  Why you intentionally have attempted to obscure the truth about the facts and the law in Rollins is really the story here.

                  I suspect you charge $300 to $500 an hour for your legal services. Yet, you've invested a fair amount of time on this site trying to discredit my work--apparently for free.

                  I feel certain that you did that for a specific reason--and it had nothing to do with a desire to educate the reading audience at Daily Kos.

                  After all, I've shown that you weren't trying to educate at all-you were trying to obfuscate. At that, you have failed.
                   

                  •  Sigh. (0+ / 0-)

                    You plainly do not understand matrimonial jurisdiction, but I'm glad you bothered to at least attempt to read Buck.  Thankfully, other persons reading this will realize what I am saying, even if you don't.

                    To make the point very clear, Buck says that (1) the existence of a pending case in another jurisdiction does not prevent an Alabama court from hearing the case, (2) this is particualrly true when, after the first case was filed in another state, the children from that marriage end up in Alabama (as was the case here).   Conversely, Wesson says that the party which filed the case in the first jurisdiction cannot, when dissatisfied with that lawsuit, then file the case in Alabama.  

                    You keep saying that Wesson must govern.   I'm trying to show you why it doesn't apply in the way that you say it does.   I'm also trying to show you that questions of divorce jurisdiction are not as cut-and-dried as you would have them be.   And, most critically, I'm trying to drive into your head the difference between holding and dicta.   Since Rollins was upheld on appeal (according to you), this would suggest that maybe, just maybe, there is an explanation for the outcome re: jurisdiction other than all the judges are crooked.

                    I'll leave it to the jury of Daily Kos to pick over the case law, if they are interested, to determine who is right.   Perhaps people will all see it your way; perhaps not.

                    As for the remainder of your allegations, I wish I could get paid $300 - $500 per hour to do what I do.   Unfortunately, I am paid much less than that.   I do thank you for the compliment.

                    Re, your point that an Alabama intermediate court has been deciding matters wrong for 18 years, um, no.   Wesson does not contradict Buck, it merely provides a gloss on it for one specific situation.

                    As for your point that I understrand matrimonial law and appellate law, thank you.  

                    As for why I'm bothering to respond to you, well, you see, I really respect Geekesque.   You (far above) decided to suggest when he stopped responding to you that he somehow was cowering the face of your brilliant legal acumen.   I picked up the gauntlet because your crowing I found offensive and legally wrong.   And so, I got on Westlaw and did a few moments research.

                    Total time on this project for me:   2.6 hours.   Hardly a jihad, and more fun when traveling than reading Skymall.  Its interesting that you view my interest as having ulterior motives, but alas, no, I'm so dull that I find arguments over jurisdiction interesting.  

                    Good luck, but I urge you to exercise far greater caution when rendering an opinion on "the law."  

                    •  Cthulhu (0+ / 0-)

                      I distinctly recall you saying that you were going to give me the last word on the subject. Then you reply twice more to my statements. Seems you lied.

                      You also conveniently ignore the crux of the Wesson finding, which is directly on point to Rollins--and neither party in the Rollins case disputes that. In fact, you go to great lengths to state that Wesson says something it does not say. Here is what Wesson really says:

                      It further reveals that the husband was a resident of New York at the time of filing the New York action. Therefore, jurisdiction would have been proper in New York. Once jurisdiction has attached in one court, that court has the exclusive right to continue its exercise of power until the completion of the case, and is only subject to appellate authority.

                      You also ignore the fact that you were wrong about your whole basis for claiming that Buck applied--that Ted Rollins was a resident of Alabama when he filed a lawsuit here. Buck is grounded totally in the finding re: a lawsuit filed by an Alabama citizen. Ted Rollins never has been an Alabama citizen, I caught you in your blunder, and understandably you are uncomfortable at being proven to be a blowhard, a fool, or both.

                      If you went to all of this trouble because of your respect for Geekesque, I'd say you wasted your time. And you need to do a better job of picking your online compadres.

                      •  Oh, I will give you the last word; (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Darmok

                        Its just that you keep bringing up new points.   Now, I'm a liar, because I wouldn't let you insinuate that I'm employed by Mr. Rollins.  So yeah, you'll get ther last word if you want it...when the argument is through.

                        No, I'm not particularly uncomfortable with my "blunder" regarding Mr. Rollins citizenship, since trying to follow all your threads is somewhat difficult, and since you will only post pieces of the file.   You see, personal jurisdiction is granted over a petitioner by the filing of the lawsuit....but you knew that, already.

                        As for blunders, alas, tis true, I've made a few.   It is, after all, not my case, and I haven't spent that much time on it.  When we asked for additional case filing information, you told me to go get the file myself. B  ut, let's see:

                        (1)   You keep claiming that the case was transferred.   It wasn't.  

                        (2)   You keep claiming Wesson to be black letter law.   It isn't.

                        (3)  You claimed that you did legal research, but you couldn't find a case on-line when given the citation.  

                        (4)  You keep claiming that the Alabama court did not have jurisdiction over an Albama domicilliary because of a prior lawsuit filed by that domicilliary in another state.   This isn't the law.

                        Nice to meet you, Mr. Kettle.   Why, what a fine shade you are wearing!

                        I'm sorry you don't like Geekesque.   He has a very sharp mind.   I respect him a bunch.   Pico, too.   We don't agree on many issues, but I've always found both to be insightful.

                        Ta ta, fellow citizen.

                        •  Cthulhu (0+ / 0-)

                          So you lied again about giving me the last word. In other words, the argument goes on as long as you are losing. I guess it will go on a long time then.

                          You admit you have a hard time following the simplest facts about the Rollins case, and yet you can't resist commenting on them anyway.

                          "Stolen" actually would be a better word to describe what happened to the Rollins case. Do you like that better than "transferred"? We'll go with stolen then.

                          I've read the entire file, and you admit you haven't. BOTH sides indicate that Wesson is controlling law. There is no dispute on the record, even from the judge or Ted Rollins' lawyers.

                          I conducted legal research on every case that was referenced by either party, or the judge, in Rollins. No one raised Buck. That's because it doesn't apply. That's because Ted Rollins was not a citizen of Alabama when he filed his lawsuit, contrary to what you thought.

                          I haven't "Shepardized" Buck, but I have doubts that it's even good law. It's almost 40 years old. Why don't you go back to 1875 and see if you can find something that, in your mind, contradicts Wesson. Geesh, Louise.

                          The notion that two cases could go on simultaneously in two different states doesn't even pass the common sense test. That, however, is irrelevant because Ted Rollins was not an Alabama citizen when he filed his lawsuit, contrary to your skewed notions of what has taken place in this case. Buck never has been and never will be an issue in Rollins v. Rollins.

                          You've proven you can't get the most basic facts correct, but we are supposed to believe your research on a case that you've shown you know nothing about--on a record that you haven't even looked at.

                          If a few Kos readers, such as Geekesque, want to buy into your poppycock, fine with me. It won't fly with me, and I suspect it won't fly with readers who have functioning brain matter between their ears.

                          You've proven you are a liar about giving me the last word. And I see no reason to believe that you don't have some interest in the Rollins situation--or some friend/associate of yours does.

                          Lawyers engage in a lot of tomfoolery, but they don't do it for free--unless they have a good reason. You are too dishonest to reveal what your true agenda is.

                          No wonder you wanted to remain anonymous. Again, you have my e-mail, my phone number, and my real name and location. You can reach me any time if you feel so strongly about your position.

                          You now have said "ta ta," meaning for the second time that you are ready to drop this charade. I'm betting you have lied once again.

                          Some free advice: Lick your wounds, admit you got your ass kicked by a non-lawyer, and save yourself further embarrassment. You are in way over your head, fellow citizen.

                          By the way, Geekesque has to engage your services to help fight his battles? Pathetic. He picked the wrong guy, I'd say.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site