Skip to main content

View Diary: Will we let Roger Shuler ("The Legal Schnauzer") suffer alone and forgotten? [Update] (97 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What an asinine comment. (11+ / 0-)

    Contempt of court has long been misused to muzzle opponents. I have no opinion on the merits of Shuler's case but misuse of our court system by the rich and connected is abhorrent and should be condemned by all of us.

    If you don't watch news, you're un-informed. If you watch Fox news, you're mis-informed. (paraphrasing Mark Twain)

    by edg on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 01:16:46 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Awesome. Let me ask you a question (3+ / 0-)

      The principle that is at stake in the Shuler case is whether a person has the right to ignore court orders with which they do not agree.

      Do you think that people should be able to unilaterally ignore court orders with which they don't agree?  

      My answer to this question is "no."   I feel this way because personal disregard of even erroneous court orders will lead to chaos.   Do you disagree?   If so, why?   ANd do you have any legal precedent to support your position, or are you just saying that every individual can do what they please, and to hell with the courts?

      •  I pray ... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JVolvo, tgrshark13, Johnny Q

        that with beliefs like "personal disregard of even erroneous court orders will lead to chaos", you are never put in a position of power over any other human being.

        If you don't watch news, you're un-informed. If you watch Fox news, you're mis-informed. (paraphrasing Mark Twain)

        by edg on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 01:50:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Can you explain the basis of your argument? (8+ / 0-)

          My explanation for this belief is the fact that our judicial system is advesarial in nature, and that there will always be one litigatant who is displeased with a court ruling.

          So, take a divorce case, where a huspband is ordered to pay child support to his ex-wife.    The husband says thayt this is bullshit, his wife was a cheating bitch who never worked a day in her life, now she gets to take a portion of his earnings and sit back and enjoy life.   Its slavery!  Its serfdom!  It violates the Bible!   He decides to ignore the Court's ruling -- and does not pay.

          This same principle comes up every day in our court system, where one litigant loses and thinks the court is wrong.   We have a way of dealing with this issue in our system -- its called an appeal.   In order to appeal, one complies with injunctive relief or obtains a stay by seeking redress through a higher court.   We don't allow people to just ignore court orders they don't like, even if the order later turns out to be incorrect.   This principle has been litigated and reaffirmed time and time again, because no person should place themselves unilaterally above the law and, in effect, act as judge in their own case.

          So...that's my basis, that a society of laws functions only when court orders are treated as binding.   Tell me:  what do you think the rule should be?   Do you truly think that a person shiould be able to disregard the order of the court simply becausethat person does not agree with it?   Surely, you can see that there might be problems with this approach in a diverse society?

          •  Thousands of cases of non-payment of support (0+ / 0-)

            Prison sentences aren't used for non-payment of support.

            Please find another argument for your support of authoritarianism.

            “Industry does everything they can and gets away with it almost all the time, whether it’s the coal industry, not the subject of this hearing, or water or whatever. They will cut corners, and they will get away with it. " Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D, WVa

            by FishOutofWater on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 10:20:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  O, Cthulhu! How Easy for You to Say (0+ / 0-)

            "This same principle comes up every day in our court system, where one litigant loses and thinks the court is wrong.   We have a way of dealing with this issue in our system -- its called an appeal."

            You remind me of A. H. Caplan's quip about defendants faced with appealing a quickie civil restraining order.  The plaintiff has taken a few minutes to fill out a simple questionnaire, and had all kinds of sympathizers and court officials holding her hands.  The defendant is now restrained ex parte and without notice, and then a few days later the abomination is made permanent.   Where does HE go to fill out papers to appeal the damnable injunction against him?

            And that's the whole idea behind an injunction obtained by the powerful.  The powerless will now play hell getting the injunction lifted.

            Cthulhu, how close are you to these adversary parties?  Or, may I say, are you one of them, or their attorney?

            If you'll read that Harvard U. law note I gave you the link for in another post, you'll see why MLK and his group of peaceful Gandhi-inspired ministers decided to disobey the Birmingham injunction.  They had just gotten clobbered when they tried to appeal in the corrupt Jim Crow courts in Georgia. --------->>

            "King and his colleagues learned of the order and spent the next day deciding what to do. In a prior civil rights struggle in Albany, Georgia, the same thing had happened: King had helped to mobilize a peaceful protest plan only to face an injunctive order. In Albany, the protesters decided to abide by the court order, to challenge it, and appeal it. In the meantime, though, the resolve, discipline, and momentum of the movement dissipated."  
            --- from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/...

            •  Hey, I just saw this.... (0+ / 0-)

              Pretty amazing.   I was waiting for your to respond below -- you mentioned you would be giving me a full response to my Walker argument.   Sorry I missed this.

              A few random things:

              (1)   I am not representing any person or entity that has a dispute with Mr. Shuler or is contemplating suit against Mr. Shuler or, to my knowledge, who has been mentioned by Mr. Shuler.   I represent only myself -- a person who has crossed swords on this site with Mr. Shuler.   I am not a litigant against Mr. Shuler, nor am I involved with Mr. Shuler's many opponents.  

              (2)   Interestingly, Mr. Shuler questioned when I spoke against his position whether I was an attorney representing one of his targets.   He had no basis to ask that question -- it was a pretty vile insinuation -- and I took him to task for it.   It amounts to suggesting that I am a paid shill -- a sort of no-no around here.

              (3)   What is your connection to Mr. Shuler?  

              (4)  It is doubtful the opponents would hire me.   I am a known supporter of Democratic candidates in my home state of Texas.   I do not represent any Republican-oriented political organization or PAC or anything similar.   I do not raise money for Republicans.   I have been involved in civil rights litigation in the past.

              (5)  Yes, I understand that the situation in Walker was dire, and that Dr. King and his supporters felt they could not obtain a fair shake in the Alabama courts.   Walker nevertheless held that they had to try to appeal before violating the injunction.   Dr. King didn't try.   That's why he ended up in jail -- even though the Court thought the injunction was probably invalid.

              (6) "The Powerful" filing frivolous lawsuits to harass the weak is an interesting theory.   It is, of course, a flaw in our system -- the costs of filing a lawsuit are low, and the expense of dealing with that lawsuit is high.   So, query:   was Mr. Shuler one of the "powerful" when he filed a frivolous lawsuit against his neighbor, and then an even more frivolous lawsuit against the judge who ruled in favor of his neighbor?   Or, was that all about "obtaining justice" for the poor oppressed Mr. Shuler from the judge who ruled against him?

              (7) It is awesome that you are so solicitous of Mr. Shuler's right to slut shame.  Tell me:  where does a woman who has had her private medical information improperly accessed and released by Mr. Shuler go to stop the release?     This might seem like a snarky question, but, in fact, its really not.  

              You see, in your framing, Mr. Shuler is the one who is powerless -- he's just some fucking blogger, up against the power elite.   But one can see this in a vastly different light.   Mr. Shuler, rather than being powerless, is the one with the power here -- after all, he controls when and how he will release private medical information about the woman (if he's telling the truth) or what lies he will speak about a private person (if he's lying).  One can argue that it is the woman in this case who is powerless, and Mr. Shuler is the one with the power.   Given that scenario -- where is the woman to go for justice and redress, other than the Court?

               

      •  wrong (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stevelane

        the principle here does the state of Alabama, when a person catches officials and bigwigs, have the right to attack, slander, and harass a person who is exposing them? Does the state of Alabama have the right to misuse their power when their conspiracy to jail former governor Siegelman, is exposed?

        You should look into the back story, especially how Shuler's neighbor was enlisted in the attempts to jail him. Alabama has been trying anyway it can to shut him up, for a long time. The truth is, Schuler knew he was doomed if he responded to the court, and doomed if he didn't. The courts already proved their bias and corruption against him.

        "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

        by azureblue on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 08:29:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Again, let's take the slut-shaming angle (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stellaluna

          Why do you believe Mr. Shuler had a constitutional right to slut shame a woman by publishing her private medical records?

          Let's assume Mr. Shuler was telling the truth -- he exposed a woman's private medical records regarding her decision to have an abortion.  He isn't her doctor, and it sure would appear that he had no legal source to support his reporting.  Which means -- and a judge could so find -- that if he had the information, he got it illegally.

          Do you think Mr. Shuler, if he obtained the private medical information illegally, should have had the right to publish it, even if it causes harm to the woman?

          Again, let's change the facts slightly.   Imagine that an anti-abortion group broke into a Planned Parenthood and obtained hundreds of abortion records.   It announced it was intending to publish the names, one by one, on a website called "Baby_Killing_Sluts.com"   Could a court enjoin that publication?  

          For the record, courts do have the power to enjoin the publication of trade secrets obtained illegally.   If you believe that the constitution protects the publication of those who have had abortions, but not trade secrets, then tell me -- Why do you believe people have a constitutional right to slut shame, but do not have a constitutional right to publish trade secrets?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site