Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  a few quick thoughts (9+ / 0-)

    (1) I haven't waded through all the comments in detail, although I see Roger's innuendo easily enough, but I know from my own experience that he's capable of pounding the table on behalf of an argument that really makes no sense at all.

    (2) It's at least logically possible, given what I know and the very great deal that I am aware of not knowing, that Shuler is being badly mistreated in this case even if he is far from a hero.

    "Democracy is a political system for people who are not sure they are right." —E. E. Schattschneider

    by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 01:46:29 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yes... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sylv, elmo, NotGeorgeWill, MKSinSA, Ahianne

      I was hardly the only person who drew Mr. Shuler's ire.  I gave the link so that people could at least understand where I am coming from.  

      And let me go a step further.   I will assume for purposes of this discussion that the Court's injunction was improper and it would be vacated on appeal, if properly brought.  Let's assume that he was signled out for this mistreatment as well.  

      The Supreme Court dealt with a similar issue many years ago.   Martin Luther King ran a protest march in violation of an illegal injunction.   Held:  even if the injunction was issued erroneously, Dr. King was still in contempt.   That is why he was in the Birmingham jail when he wrote his famous letter.

      •  Injunction Against Roger Shuler (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NotGeorgeWill, Black Max

        Reply to Cthulhu.  Your analogy of Walker vs. City of Birmingham (1967) and the illegal prior restraint against the content-based internet free speech of Roger Shuler is false.  Walker was about the violation of an injunction to enforce parade permits and regulate pedestrian and motorist traffic in Birmingham.  I hope you are not a lawyer because you are not even close, and as a lawyer you should be.  You should know better.

        It's up to a civil jury to determine if Shuler's statements about Riley and Duke are defamatory, not Judge Neilson.  The minute we let political judges take peremptory leaps to find facts in lieu of petit juries, we're on the low road to another Third Reich.

        The injunction is against the wrong party.  It ought to be against Claud Neilson and the sheriff of the county where Shuler is being held.

        And no, I'm not a lawyer.  I'm retired.

        •  Actually, I am a lawyer (0+ / 0-)

          And your reading of Walkeris far, far f-a-r outside the mainstream.

          I challenge you:   find a case where a person violated an injunction, was found to be in civil contempt, and then successfully argued that since the injunction was invalid, the contempt was also invalid.   The Supreme Court in Walker found that contempt would apply even if the injunction was constitutionally suspect.  

          •  Providence, Cthulhu, Providence (0+ / 0-)

            You found the case yourself, after you went out on a limb and said it didn't exist.
            http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/...
            (Discussing In Re Providence Publishing.)

            •  Yes, I am aware of it (0+ / 0-)

              With all respect....I tried to choose my challenge very carefully,  I'm aware of Providence.   Its a criminal contempt case.  

              However, can you find a civil contempt case?   I couldn't find one, and I looked pretty hard.  

              And yes, in this case, it makes a great deal of difference.   A criminal contempt is to punish someone for violating a Court order.   A civil contempt is to hold someone in jail until they comply wit a court order.   One is to punish, the other is to persuade.

              Of course, that's the problem in this case.   This isn't a case about a violation of a court order leading to punishment (at least, so far as I can tell).   Instead, this is a case about an ongoing refusal to follow a court order.   I think that Walker and Vance suggest that the ongoing violation will allow the contempt to stand (this goes back to United Mine Workers).  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site