Down Deep Into Roger Shuler’s Paranoid Mind (And Schmalfeldt’s Terrible “Journalism”) (Update: More on McGarity's Side of Things)

This is the latest post in what I half-jokingly call The Kimberlin Saga^®.  If you are new to the story, that’s okay! Not everyone reads my blog.  The short version is that Kimberlin has been harassing me for over a year, his worst conduct being when he attempted to frame me for a crime.   I recognize that this might sound like an incredible claim, but I provide video and documentary evidence of that fact; in other words, you don’t have to believe my word.  You only have to believe your eyes.  So, if you are new to the story, go to this page and you’ll be able to catch up on what has been happening.

Update: See at the end of this post for a major update, that corrects a lot of the facts recited in this post.

So Roger Shuler was arrested a few days ago for violating what I consider to be an unconstitutional court order saying that he cannot publish anything defamatory about Rob Riley and the improbably named Liberty Duke.  He was also specifically told not to disseminate the claims that Riley and Duke had an extramarital affair (Duke is a woman), that they conceived a child through that affair, and then aborted said child and to take down all materials under their control where they made that allegations.  Again, my gut tells me that Shuler has actually defamed these people, but I suppose it will shake out in the course of a trial.  I will try to reach out to Riley’s attorneys for comment soon and maybe verify some rumors that I heard that would make this story categorically impossible.

But again to me the scary part is the order not to defame.  If it was limited to not telling this specific story that the court found to be defamatory, that would be one thing: then the boundaries of the order would be clear.  I’m not sure I like that, either, but it would trouble me far less.  But to put him under a general anti-defamation order is troubling.

(By the way, Seth Allen remains under a virtually identical “do not defame” order due to his default in Kimberlin’s defamation suit against him.  I am sure Bill Schmalfeldt will denounce that order in 3... 2... 1...)

So in short, Shuler got my attention.  That led me to a little digging and and what I saw was a very paranoid mind at work.  First, a little about his background.  Contrary to what Bill Schmalfeldt has “reported,” Shuler doesn’t appear to be a lawyer, at all.  I mean I looked up his own google profile, and it doesn’t mention any expertise in law or any legal education background.  And his linkedin profile equally says nothing about him being an attorney.  Even in his legal pleadings, he doesn’t refer to himself as a lawyer.  Even when I am filing pro se, I make sure to mention I am a lawyer so the judge is more likely to take me seriously.  And he is not admitted in Alabama.  So besides Schmalfeldt’s word, I see literally no evidence that he is a lawyer.  He is just a blogger who put “legal” in his writing name who presumably focuses on legal issues.  Or at least on his many lawsuits.

(Update: Sources familiar with the case have verified he is not a lawyer.  Which means Schmalfeldt's headline at Digitial Journal was wrong.  Jump to the end for the full story.) 

And by the way, I am not putting Shuler down by saying he’s not a lawyer.  There is nothing wrong with not being a lawyer.  But we have to get things right, and it is an embarrassment on the part of the Digital Journal that they seem to have made a mistake in their headline.  But, bluntly, this is the kind of shoddy “reporting” I have seen from Schmalfeldt on a regular basis.  Even when he is not maliciously hiding the truth, even when he seems to be trying to get things right, he gets things laughably wrong.

Of course nothing beats today’s tour-de-force from Schmalfeldt.  Schmalfeldt was told by his bosses not to talk about those of us involved in the Kimberlin story, so he thought he could get away with it, by not actually saying the name “Lee Stranahan,” but regular readers know that is exactly who he is talking about when he writes this:

Right wing bloggers don't even need to have something actually happen to them to get the right wing blogosphere up in arms.

One writer for the extremist right wing blog Breitbart.com claimed a phony rape threat from a man with a progressive neurological disorder who lived 1,400 miles away from him. He sent the police to the man's house, then cried to whoever would listen that he needed money, lots of money, so he could relocate his family. Right wing bloggers from coast to coast came to his aid, exhorting their readers to raise money for this man, who continued with his claim of death and rape threats from a man who would have to ask his wife to drive him the 1,400 miles to commit this imaginary crime the right wing blogger created in his mind.

And on he goes.  Can you spot the dishonest statements here?  Well, for starters, it was Bill Schmalfeldt who wrote what I considered to be a rape threat, in conjunction with the unbalanced writer “OccupyRebellion.”  I mean isn’t that something he should mention when discussing it?  Look, I won’t say a person absolutely can’t cover a story they are involved in, because indeed that is often used as a method of silencing journalists: make them part of the story to stop them from reporting on the story.  Brett Kimberlin uses that tactic on a regular basis.  But you have to be open and honest with your readers if you do.  And Schmalfeldt is not being honest when he doesn’t mention he is the source of the alleged threat.  Because then if he mentions that he is reporting on his own conduct, instead of reporting on a third person’s conduct the reader might make the mistake of thinking that he is being objective on the subject.

And if he was honest enough to actually repeat the full quote of what I considered to be a rape threat, then readers might really question his version of events.  Here’s what he said:

But maybe it would be nice for a pro-rape asshole such as yourself to understand the fear a woman faces at the concept of rape.

How many men do you figure it would take to hold you down, Stranny. [sic]

I bet one could do it.

And he did this right around the time he published Lee Stranahan’s home address and right after OccupyRebellion called on people to attack and rape Lee’s wife while he was away from home.  A journalist would mention it, which is why I say Bill Schmalfeldt is not a journalist.  And seriously, Digital Journal needs to do more fact checking if they are going to keep him on as a writer.

Anyway, returning to Shuler, looking over his life there are really only two conclusions one can draw: either this man has regularly been the target of vast conspiracies against him...  or he is a paranoid little nutjob.

For instance, he was fired from the University of Alabama where according to Raw Story (!) he worked as “[a]n editor in the University of Alabama Birmingham (UAB) publications office,” because he wrote bad things on his blog about Karl Rove and the firing of U.S. Attorneys.  Or because he is old.  Or because he is a man.  Indeed he can’t make up his mind what supposedly motivated his unfair firing, which is part of the problem in the eyes of the District Court.

And of course this line stuck out at me when he claimed there was some kind of vast conspiracy against him:

The use of the word “conspiracy” (and the invocation of §§ 1985 and 1986) add nothing except to express Shuler’s belief that all of the entities he sues are conspiring against him. The use of the word “conspiracy” is analogous to use of the word “fraud”. Both terms require specific descriptions of the overt act or acts complained of in order to meet pleading standards.

Indeed, some of what he did in that case seems a little odd.  In discussing a document filed by Shuler, the court says:

Shuler has pretty much told his whole life story, with emphasis, of course, on his bad experiences as a UAB employee. But, he still has not stated a viable claim against any defendant. He has literally highlighted in yellow large portions of the material he has filed. The court finds no more significance in the highlighted portions than it does in the other portions.

There is no word of whether he used ALLCAPS or Eleventy!!!!!1!1!!!1!  And then we get this remarkable paragraph:

The court has attempted to conduct civil conversation with Shuler as a pro se litigant. Shuler is his own worst enemy. He is almost as aggravating to the court as the court is to him. It has been impossible for the court to communicate to him the impossibility of his position, much less to get him to accept it. If Shuler had a good lawyer, the lawyer might get through to him. But, Shuler obviously does not trust lawyers any more than he trusts courts. He seems to enjoy being his own lawyer. He has given his only client some bad advice.

And then things get particularly creepy:

Shuler has accused this court of colluding with UAB and the UAB defendants. Why he did not attempt to add the judge as a defendant is anybody’s guess. The court sincerely regrets that by ruling against Shuler, his opinion of the judicial system and of this particular judge, will be reinforced.

In a last-ditch effort to wave the olive branch and end this opinion on a non-controversial and soothing note, the court will not find Shuler’s pro se complaint, and his pleadings, so frivolous as to call for the imposition of sanctions. Although the defendants were prevailing parties, arguably entitled to attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Title VII, and/or the ADEA, the court will not entertain any post-judgment application for attorneys’ fees or other sanctions. With respect to sanctions and attorneys’ fees questions, the court cannot, of course, speak for the Eleventh Circuit as to matters that occur there, while that court considers Shuler’s inevitable appeal.

You can read that entire opinion, here.  And you can read what happened in that appeal, here.  Of particular note is footnote 1, discussing Shuler’s motion to recuse:

Shuler also argues that the district court erred by denying multiple motions to recuse. He contends that the district court was communicating secretly with the opposing party or interested third parties, as evidenced in part by the court's statement, "I know that UAB and the people over there are very anxious about this." Shuler also contends that the district court intended to misapply the law, as evidenced by the court's suggestion that Shuler learn about the procedure for filing a writ of mandamus. We find no abuse of discretion in denying the motions to recuse. There are no facts "that would convince a reasonable person that bias actually exists."

In other words, Shuler was being unreasonable, i.e. paranoid.  Seriously, that is the kind of off-the-cuff comment judges make all the time, going by obvious things like body language.  For instance, earlier today I mentioned the April 11, 2012 circuit court hearing involving Brett Kimberlin.  In it, Judge Eric Johnson said this toward the end:

I think this respondent [that’s me], and I haven’t heard from him, but I think he, like you, probably would have rather been some place else today doing something else, and I’m sure he probably would have also.

It goes on all the time, and it is not evidence of collusion.  It’s just how some judges are.

Next up we have the Shulers (him and his wife, whom I will not name) v. Ingram and Associates et al.  His wife shows up in a lot of these suits.  Basically American Express claimed he owed them a debt and they sicced a collection agency on them.  He claimed various violations on federal law that limits the tactics debt collectors can use.  The court granted summary judgment which is their way of saying there was literally no evidence to support any of his claims.  Then came the appeal, back to the Eleventh Circuit where he claimed he was railroaded on discovery, which went on for more than a year.  Um, okay.  That appeal failed.

And then sadly, apparently he lost his house.  In Shuler v. Swatek et al, an “unpublished” 2012 opinion, the Eleventh Circuit lays out the facts:

Roger Shuler and [ommitted] Shuler, proceeding pro se, appeal the district court's dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 civil rights action alleging that William Swatek and Mike McGarity, both private citizens, together with Shelby County Sheriff Chris Curry, Deputy Sheriff Bubba Caudill, and Alabama Circuit Court Judge Hub Harrington, violated their federal civil rights by carrying out a sheriff's sale on their house. McGarity obtained a tort judgment of $1,525 against Roger Shuler. Shuler did not pay, and McGarity obtained a writ of execution to enforce the judgment on the Shulers' house, signed by Sheriff Curry. Judge Harrington ordered the sale of the house to proceed. A sheriff's sale of the house occurred in May, 2008, and a sheriff's deed to the property was recorded in the Shelby County Probate Court.

The Shulers then sued all five defendants, alleging that the sale violated the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against them on the basis of personal animus and because of the Shulers' political beliefs. The Shulers sought both damages and an injunction or declaration that would invalidate the sheriff's deed to their house.

Hey, losing one’s house is rough, especially over such a relatively trivial debt (although later Shuler reports that the new owner is still letting them live there, hmm...).  You can read his apparent complaint in that case, here, and you will be treated to a fourth theory about why he was fired from the University of Alabama and a very heavy helping of crazy.  See, according to Shuler, there was a bitter dispute with his next door neighbor, named Mike McGarity.  To hear him tell, it was one of those stupid disputes where one neighbor says the property line is at a given spot and the other is absolutely certain it is a few feet over.  Underneath it is your right to property, yes, but rather than be adults and settle this as adults, there was an ongoing feud over the thing.  Eventually there was, of course, a lawsuit and this is how it broke down.  McGarity was found to have trespassed on the Shulers’ property and was required to pay the entirety of $1.  Which is the court’s way of saying, “you are right, but why are you wasting your time with this.”  McGarity had sued Shuler for malicious prosecution (for trying to get him charged with criminal trespass), and that was dismissed.  But McGarity also sued for conversion (civil theft, more or less) because some balls had found their way onto Shuler’s yard and instead of throwing them back or letting them retrieve it like any reasonable person, he threw them out.  So the jury found that the Shulers’ owed McGarity for the cost of those items which was the debt that in turn prompted the sale.

That, my friends is merely set up.  Then Shuler refused to pay and started to trash McGarity on the internet.  For instance here he is doxxing McGarity’s brothers for some reason.  Allegedly McGarity didn’t really try very hard to collect on this debt until Shuler trashed him on the net and then he sought to collect, through several steps by foreclosure.  By the time this case was filed he had lost the house and alleged a whole bunch of constitutional violations as a result.  Let me dispose of one, his claim that this was the result of his speech.

Guess what?  A private citizen is allowed to discriminate against another private citizen because of speech.  If you put up a sign for higher taxes and I choose not to invite you into my home as a result, that is speech discrimination.  If you proceed to trespass on my property and I seek legal recourse, yes it is speech discrimination since I wouldn’t do so but for your politics.  And it’s legal.  I mean it’s also being a grade-A jerk, but it is legal.  The same can be said for his claim against McGarity.  He was allowed to say, “I’ll let it go until Shuler pisses me off again.” And he was allowed to let that blogging be the trigger for his renewed interest in collecting the debt.  Its schmucky, but legal.

And that is assuming that Shuler is telling the truth.  Indeed that is presuming Shuler can perceive the truth, which is doubtful when you appreciate the full depth of the crazy in his complaint.  First, the Eleventh Circuit was underselling the breadth of the lawsuit.  He also sued McGarity’s lawyer, Bill Swatek, because why not?  And he sued the bar association for not disciplining said lawyer.  He claims a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because of some unnamed discrimination in the system against him, or something, defamation based on the court filing legally required notices, conspiracy (but of course) and negligent failure to discipline an attorney among other things.

Oh, and 42 U.S.C. §1985, which coincidentally is one of the same statutes that Brett Kimberlin cites in his RICO suit.  The same suit that a “Roger S.” said at Breitbart Unmasked said was “very well framed.”  Hmm...

And, dear reader, I am not done with the crazy, yet.  If anything, I am underselling it.  No, see, from all this we get theory of his termination #4.  And you have to read it to believe it (or more precisely to believe how paranoid he is):

In the weeks leading up to the sheriff’s sale, Roger Shuler began experiencing problems on his job at UAB [University of Alabama], where he had worked for 19 years.  He was wrongfully accused of unprofessional conduct, and not long after Shuler filed a formal grievance against his supervisor, he was placed on administrative leave contrary to clear UAB policy. The university took this action on May 7, 2008, just five days prior to the scheduled sheriff’s sale and it appears this was done because the Shulers refused to meet with Bill Swatek to “work something out.” On May 19, 2008, one week after the sheriff’s sale and one week after it was clear the Shulers were not going to cave in to threats on their property, Roger Shuler was unlawfully terminated from his job. He remains unemployed as this case is filed.

So it was a combination of politics, his age, his gender, and the university deciding to lean on him in the dispute over a $1,500 debt...

But we aren’t done with the crazy, yet.  You see, I skipped over what he thought of the initial sale of the property next door: he even seems to think McGarity moving in next to him was part of the conspiracy, too.  I kid you not:

The genesis of the instant lawsuit dates to December 1998, when Mike McGarity bought the property at [AW: address omitted, but basically right next door to the Shulers]. The Shulers had lived in their home for approximately nine years and never had a serious problem with a neighbor. But McGarity bought the house next to them in a mysterious, under-the-table deal that, based on information and belief, was engineered by a real-estate agent named Phyllis Tinsley. The previous owner of the house was Fred Yancey, the head football coach at Briarwood Christian School, and his wife, Sharon. The Shulers enjoyed an excellent relationship with the Yanceys. But in an unannounced fashion, with no for-sale sign in the yard, the Yanceys sold their house and moved to a home on the Briar wood campus, where they reportedly lived free of charge for several years.

And then of course additional crazy came into play over at Daily Kos where he wrote this about the suit he lost that gave him the loss that led to foreclosure on his house:

McGarity's lawsuit would have needed to improve drastically to reach the level of frivolous. But his lawyer (William Swatek) has a son (Dax Swatek) who "consults" for a number of GOP politicos and has ties to Karl Rove. That means Bill Swatek, even though he has a 30-year record of corrupt and unethical activities in the legal profession, can get away with virtual murder in Alabama courts.

That's why Circuit Judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves made a boatload of unlawful rulings that caused the lawsuit to go to trial--when, by law, it could not possibly go to trial.

That’s right, he lost $1,500 to McGarity because of Karl Rove.  Come on, isn’t that clear?

Well, maybe this article over at OpEdNews, which sells itself as a liberal news and opinion site, will clear things up:

Swatek's son, Dax Swatek, is a Montgomery-based political consultant for the Republican Party and was Gov. Bob Riley's campaign manager in 2006. Dax Swatek's mentor is Bill Canary, president of the Business Council of Alabama and husband of corrupt U.S. Attorney Leura Canary (of Don Siegelman-case infamy). Bill Canary, of course, is a close associate of Tom Donohue, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Karl Rove, Bush White House and GOP fund-raising strategist.

Literally as I read that, I started to think, “what is this, six degress of Kevin Bacon?”  And then I read the next paragraph:

Bill and Dax Swatek are the Kevin Bacon characters in our Legal Schnauzer story, providing "six degrees" of connections to some of the sleaziest Republicans in American history. Does all of this suggest that my unlawful termination at UAB and the bogus auction of our house were driven, at least in part, by GOP political operatives? Does it suggest that our problems with debt collectors also might involve GOP politicos? We think the answer to both questions is yes.

Look, how can I explain this, folks?  It is true that you can connect a lot of people in Hollywood, maybe even all of them, to Kevin Bacon.  Like for instance, I might say to you the following...  “Robert Deniro is connected to Joe Pesci via Goodfellas.  Joe Pesci starred in Home Alone with Macaulay Culkin.  Elijah Wood played co-stared with Culkin in The Good Son.  Elijah Wood was Frodo while Ian McClellan was Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings movies.  McClellan was also Magneto in the first three X-men movies while Hugh Jackman also appeared as Wolverine.  And Hugh Jackman had a brief cameo in X-men: First Class which starred... Kevin Bacon.”  And all of that is true, but it doesn’t follow that Joe Pesci was cast in Goodfellas because Kevin Bacon demanded it, okay?  Connection and control or even influence are different concepts.

And of course with all this crazy flying around, you might have missed that debt collector theory.  That harkens back to the Ingram case mentioned above, and yes, he thinks this is involved, too.  From a post at the Legal Schnauser, his blogspot blog, where he discusses the real reasons for his termination (this being “real” reason number five, if you are counting).  He discusses a complaint that he put personal files on his hard drive and then writes:

Why did they care what was on my hard drive?

Well, here is a possible answer: In the last few months I worked at UAB, I met with several attorneys--on my free time--about filing a possible lawsuit against Pennsylvania-based NCO and Birmingham-based Ingram & Associates for multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

I provided several of those attorneys with digital copies of recordings I'd made of my conversations with representatives from Ingram & Associates about a debt I allegedly owed to American Express. I kept the original tape in a safe place at home and put one copy in my desk drawer at work.

My guess is that one or more of the attorneys I consulted, who did not take the case, notified Angie Ingram that a guy who worked at UAB had a heck of an FDCPA lawsuit against her--with tape recordings to back it up.

Have I mentioned on this blog that lawyers tend to protect one another? Well, they do, and they will violate all kinds of ethical rules in order to do it. Someone probably violated my attorney-client privilege in an effort to alert Angie Ingram that a UAB employee could cause her big trouble.

I suspect that's where William E. Swatek, and his family ties to the Alabama Republican Party, rode to the rescue. We've already mentioned a possible alliance between Ingram and Swatek. And we've written many times that Dax Swatek, Bill's son, is a GOP consultant who has served as campaign manager for Governor Bob Riley.

What position does Bob Riley hold as part of being governor? He is ex oficio president of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, which oversees UAB.

As a favor to Bill Swatek and Angie Ingram, would someone close to Bob Riley have made sure that a certain UAB employee got cheated out of his job? I would say the answer is yes.

And of course Bob Riley Sr. is the father of the attorney who sued him for defamation and eventually landed him in jail.  Even I can see the connection there, but it is a much straighter line than Shuler is likely to admit.  His jihad against Bob Riley Jr. is starting to look more and more like revenge against Bob Riley Sr. with this Liberty Duke being collateral damage.

Oh, and this is not the only termination he thought that the debt collectors had a hand in.  That brings me to Shuler v. Infinity Property and Casualty.  Although the Shuler in this case, is Mrs. Shuler, Roger’s finger prints are all over the case:

Plaintiff's theory is that defendant Nettles, a lawyer representing a defendant sued by plaintiff in the FDCPA case, called her friend at Infinity, lawyer Erin May, and persuaded her to cause plaintiff's termination. Even assuming this to be true, there are no facts pleaded from which to infer that Lunsford and Jenkins personally were aware of this effort or agreed to participate in it. It is just as likely that they acted based on their own judgment of plaintiff's work performance or were directed by superiors to take steps against plaintiff without any knowledge of her FDCPA case or its connection to Infinity. The complaint must plead facts that make a plausible claim, not a mere speculative one, and as to Lunsford and Jenkins, the complaint fails to do so.

One can only guess how much Mrs. Shuler actually goes along with any of this, so I will be agnostic on that point.

But in some ways you can see the deep down crazy going on in just one post, entitled: “Rob Riley Is Writing Court Orders To Benefit Himself In Lawsuit Designed To Stifle Reporting About Affair.”  In it, he reveals shocking evidence that the judge’s orders in his present litigation with Riley and Duke are really being written by Riley.  It’s like as if when Riley makes a motion before the court, he files a proposed order that has everything on it but the judge’s signature!  Which proves corrupt collaboration!  Eleventy!!!!1!1!!!*

And boy does this prove further the conspiracy against him!

Public documents indicate Alabama Republican Rob Riley is preparing court orders that wind up with a judge's signature and then are issued as if they originated with the court. In fact, Riley's law office apparently has prepared all of the key orders that have been rendered so far in his defamation lawsuit that seeks to shut down my reporting on Riley's extramarital affair with lobbyist Liberty Duke.

Jay Murrill, an attorney at Riley's law firm who is representing his boss in the case, appears to have written an order to grant a preliminary injunction and seal the public file, plus an order to hold us in contempt. If granted, the contempt order could subject us to incarceration.

How disturbing is this scenario? Rob Riley, the son of former two-term governor Bob Riley, seems to be serving as a party, legal researcher, court clerk, and de facto judge in a Shelby County Circuit Court case styled Robert R. Riley Jr. and Liberty Duke v. Roger Shuler, [Mrs.] Shuler and Legal Schnauzer, Civil Action No. 2013--236 and 237.

Do Rob Riley's ties to his father and related GOP heavyweights--not to mention national figures such as Karl Rove and Jack Abramoff--give him the clout to take over a court case and run it for his own benefit? That's exactly what appears to be happening.

Of course every reporter and many lay persons are probably doing this, by now:

(The Holy Facepalm)

You see, what he is describing is in fact what happens in each and every case.  When lawyers make a motion before the court, the judge asks you to present a proposed order.  This is true of both sides.  The side moving the court to do something jots something down that says blah, blah, blah the motion is granted and maybe it is further ordered and you add any refinements.  The side opposing jots down something that says blah, blah, blah the motion is denied.  There might even be cross motions.  But the point is you are supposed to come to court with a proposed order.  And then the judge decides who wins the motion, and then depending on the outcome to accept one party or the other’s proposed order, or reject both and come up with a third version.  And in most cases, if the judge is not happy with your draft and you are the winner, he or she asks you to write a new proposed order, by hand, on the spot.  They even have forms for it.  It is in all frankness done because 1) 90% of such orders are very pro forma anyway, and 2) it saves the judge’s effort.  And there is nothing unfair about it, because both sides can do it...   provided they win the motion.

You can see, for instance, where a judge granted an order restoring my freedom of expression last year (after which I was SWATted), here.  My attorney submitted that to the judge.  We didn’t name the judge on the form because we were not sure who was on duty, but Judge Rupp or someone in his office apparently used a stamp and reportedly Rupp wrote the additional language in the first paragraph by hand, language that lawyers recognize as a formality positively demonstrating that the other side had a fair chance to oppose it.

The extra bizarre thing in the post is that one of the commenters understands this and struggles in vain to explain it:

Really? You're freaking out about the fact that a party submitted a proposed order that was granted by the court? That's the way that 95% of judges operate--and, in fact, that's why there's an option on AlaFile and on every federal district court's filing site to submit a proposed order. Many judges REQUIRE parties to submit proposed orders along with their motions. If a judge doesn't like the proposed order, he or she is free to change it. This isn't something nefarious; it's basic filing practice. And you're suggesting that the judge's signature on the order may have been forged because Demopolis is a long way from Shelby County? Does spatial distance have any real impact on electronic communication, Roger?

Since the majority of the commenters are anonymous it is hard to follow the conversation, but the commenters are all still acting like it is a scandal.  But Shuler, I suspect, had started to suspect that his argument was not so strong, backing off his sinister conspiracies a tad in the comments:

I've pretty much stayed out of this discussion, but I will pipe up here. My post makes no claim that lawyer-written orders aren't commonly done. It also makes no claim that they are unlawful, although I believe they should be, particularly on matters that involve taking away someone's freedom.

It's clear that they are not specifically allowed by the rules of civil procedure.

He goes on in a subsequent comment to explain that Riley and company were not the prevailing party and other prattle.  When a person—possibly the same person—corrects him, he is told he is no longer welcome at the blog.  On a lunatic’s blog, the voices of reason are labeled trolls.

None of which justifies what the judge did in issuing what I think is an unconstitutional order.  But it perhaps explains it.  He is a nutty guy who tries judges’ patience.  And you have to wonder if right now they have transferred him to a nice little prison hospital with a rubber room...

And given what I have read, maybe that is best, but I am not thrilled at how we got here.

  

Update: I just got off the phone with a person who I shall only refer to a “person familiar with the case speaking on background.”  In other words, I am protecting this source, and the reason why I am doing this is because according to that source (and what I can see on the public record) Shuler sues pretty much everyone, including several lawyers who represented him (meaning Shuler).  I am only going to cite this source for things s/he had relatively direct knowledge of.  S/he also told me a lot of things that s/he described as local rumors that are interesting, but I don’t feel are verified.  I may work to verify them.  But where his knowledge is fairly direct I consider this source to be credible.

(And to be clear, I am not concerned that this source is being dishonest about those rumors which this person forthrightly referred to as rumors, but obviously there is a concern about information that has passed through too many hands.  I believe this person was very honestly describing the rumors he or she heard but they are rumors.)

Anyway, that person corrected the record on several points.

First, Shuler is not a lawyer.  I said it didn’t look like he was one above and now that is confirmed.

As for the McGarity case mentioned below, this is McGarity’s side of it.  McGarity moved in next to Shuler and had the land surveyed.  The survey was wrong.  Based on that erroneous survey he did things like build a fence, walked on what he thought was his property but in fact it was Shuler’s etc., all reasonable mistakes from a simple understanding.

There was also a dispute because McGarity’s kids would occasionally knock balls into Shuler’s yard and Shuler was being a jerk and not letting them get them back.  So McGarity would go into the yard and get them.  Shuler even apparently videotaped this because... um, crazy.  And other times Shuler would get them first and put them in the trunk of his car where they couldn’t retrieve him.

I asked this person how McGarity was found not guilty of criminal trespass and s/he said that the jury found that McGarity lacked intent.  That seems to work well enough for putting the fence in the wrong place and all of the other trespasses resulting from the erroneous survey, but not for getting the balls off the property.  My guess is the truth is the jury said, “yeah, he’s guilty, technically, but give me a break” and let him off on light jury nullification.  I’m not objecting to that—if I was on the jury I’d probably vote the same way—but that’s what it seems to have been.  Either that or the prosecutors didn’t care about McGarity getting the balls from Shuler’s property and only charged him for the misplaced fence, etc.  But it seems that McGarity was technically guilty of trespass and Shuler was guilty of being a shmuck about it, which is reflected in the civil jury finding McGarity trespassed and awarding Shuler only $1 in damages.

As for the $1,525 debt, this source tells me that Shuler didn’t throw out approximately $1,500 worth of balls, but instead that $1,500 was the exact amount that McGarity paid in legal fees fighting the stupid criminal trespass case.  S/he said the jury didn’t say what was being awarded for what, but logically it seems that the jury awarded the full amount of attorney’s fees, and a few bucks for the lost balls.

As for the collection of that debt, this person said they waited maybe a year before taking any serious steps to collect just to give time for voluntary compliance.  There was no mention of it being connected to any of Shuler’s blogging.  They first attempted to collect by executing against Shuler’s car, but this person claims Shuler hid his cars and that they are very old and not worth very much (presumably in terms of blue book value).  So according to my source, he was evading reasonable attempts to collect, according to this person.  Shuler complains that they didn’t send him requests to pay, but their view was he should have paid on his own and certainly once they were trying to execute against his car, he knew they were trying to get paid.  Shuler also saw a conspiracy in the fact that the sheriff kept warning him his house was about to be sold, but in fact it was a courtesy call designed to give Shuler a chance to work out an arrangement (probably like a payment plan) instead of seizing the property involved and it is done routinely.  This wouldn’t be the first time Shuler saw conspiracy in the ordinary machinations of the courts.

As for the current status of Shuler’s house, what Swatek, McGarity’s former attorney, has purchased is Roger Shuler’s interest in the house.  The house is equally owned by Mrs. Shuler.  At law that means that Swatek has the legal right to force a sale of the house and kick them out, to redeem that interest  (because you cannot divide a house), but up until now Swatek has done nothing with it. The Shulers still live in that home as some of Shuler’s writings indicate.

Finally, we did talk about the more recent arrest of Shuler.  This person said “I know what he is thinking” and went on to say that Shuler will probably remain in jail in the hopes of becoming nationally famous as a martyr for free speech.  And as I indicated yesterday, Riley’s attorneys are in real danger of making that fantasy come true.

I have reached out to other persons so if we are lucky you will see further information.

  

---------------------------------------

* Since I know my family reads my blog and they are not, as well... net nerdy as I am I will explain what “Eleventy!!!!1!1!!!” means.  It is a way to mock people on the internet who try to use techniques to create emphasis, such as ALL CAPS, and multiple exclamation points.  Typically “eleventy” is followed not only with multiple exclamation points, but with a  few 1’s mixed in, to mimick how such excitable people will be only sporadically hitting that shift key at the same time as the 1 key, to further mark their carelessness.  So it has become a bit of a joking meme of bloggers to mock them with.

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the donation link on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.