Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for the reply (0+ / 0-)

    First, let's talk about that which we can agree upon.

    (1)   Now, we use something called Keycite, which is just an updated Shephards.   There's not a lot out there on this point.   I wish there was, because it would resolve the matter once and for all.

    (2) You are correct that Shuler is under a civil injunction to remove documents from his blog.  He refuses to do so.  

    (3)  I was not there.   I am not a part of this litigation.   I don't represent anyone suing Shuler or contemplating suit by Shuler.   I have no Alabama clients.   I don't know why you think I might be part of this, but I'm not.   If I was, I surely would not be blogging on the issue.

    (4)   I agree with your analysis that Shuler should take the matter down and then challenge the injunction.   This would give him standing to pursue the injunction and get out of jail.   This is the essential point I have been making throughout this diary.

    Things we probably don't agree on, by maybe:

    (5) Related to 4, above, if Shuler would be less interested in being a pretend martyr  (Oh, look at me, I'm incarcerated!  Oh the woe!  Oh the woe!), he could actually, you know, effect some change.   He could, for example, move to set aside the injunction immediately in the Court of appeal -- taking with him the ACLU, various other groups, and virtually every attorney in the world -- and win.   He could force the recusal of the judge and get a real shot at a fair trial.  

    He could then take depositions of the now-removed judge and try to find out the basis of the special assignment and try to show that there was actually a conspiracy against him.   He could fucking win.  Unfortunately, that isn't what Shuler seems to want.   He'd rather wallow in contempt and screw up his chance of victory.  Which leads me back to my original point -- I'm not going to do anything for him.

    Things we probably don't agree on:

    (6) I disagree that being a lobbyist makes one a "public figure."   Perhaps she is a limited purpose public figure, but (taking the accusations as true) having sex with the son of the ex-gov does not make one a public figure for all purposes.

    (7)  I'll leave it to the jury of Kossacks on the meaning of Vance.   Look at FN 15 and the text associated with it, which surely suggests that the collateral bar rule would apply to a prior restraint on speech.   You simply say I'm wrong, which is an excellent ipse dixit, but doesn't really do much.  

    (8)  Popehat says that the collateral bar rule may well apply, and talks about Walker.   I'm sorry you feel otherwise.

    (9)  This has to come up through the state courts; from there it goes to the US Supreme Court.   I've got no good way to remove the matter.  

    (10)   You claim that, based on your reading, Walker doesn't apply to the facts of Shuler.   I don't see it that way.   Surely, however, if it took you two days of research, you recognize that my citation of Walker was not some kind of off-the-wall idea?   I understand your position that it shouldn't apply, but surely, you wouldn't think it insane if it did apply?  

    And finally,

    (11)   I'm sorry you don't like the abortion clinic example, but I think its still valid.   If Mr. Shuler obtained truthful information about the abortion, he must have gotten it from somewhere.   It wasn't from the woman.   The only people who would know she had an abortion were the doctors and the people at the clinic or payment information from her own medical files.   How is that different than an anti-choice group getting the info?

    (12)   Now, you do have me on one point.   The "learned" trial judge certainly did not write a great amount in his order -- he cited two cases, one of which was a business disparagement / trade secret case.   One could infer (if one was very generous) the reasoning that might have caused him to cite those cases -- and I did.   But, in my defense, this is what the appellate courts will do -- they can affirm on any grounds, and will look to see if there is any possible validity whatsoever.   That is the problem

    •  One more thing (0+ / 0-)

      I'll need to give you the last word.  

      Having sat now through a multiple-day depositions, (big case, 200 defendants, here we sit, everyone gets to ask questions), its been extremely enjoyable to argue about things with real consequences.   This is why I became a lawyer, so many years ago.

      Unfortunately, its now time for me to start preparing to ask my half-hour of allotted questions, and after that, I'll doubtlessly return to my office and be swamped under a gajillion emails.   So, my ability to respond further will be limited.

      I will say this:   you have asked me why I bother to do anything on this site -- why do I care about Mr. Shuler, what the hell is going on?   Well, if you practiced today, you would find that the mind-numbing nature of large litigation practice can only be alleviated by finding parts of the law that are interesting, and discussing those.   I've appreciated the time you've spent -- certainly, its been more fun than asking about obscure issues involving securities spreads.  

      In any event, thanks again.   I've enjoyed the debate, even if we remain at loggerheads.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site