Legal Magazine

"Crystal Clear" Law Proves That Legal Schnauzer Publisher is Due for Immediate Release from Jail

Posted on the 06 March 2014 by Rogershuler @RogerShuler
This is Carol, Roger's wife. The law is "crystal clear" that a preliminary injunction in an alleged defamation case is unlawful under the first amendment according to a free speech expert. Paul Alan Levy, an attorney with Public Citizen, was talking about a Virginia case styled Dietz v. Perez. But he might has well have been talking about the case of Legal Schnauzer publisher Roger Shuler because the two cases are almost identical in terms of facts and applicable law.

Levy's statement provides further proof that Shuler's incarceration is not grounded in law and he is due for immediate release. Despite the clear cut nature of the law, Levy said it is not unusual for judges to grant preliminary injunctions in such cases. That simply is a sign that laziness and incompetence run deep in America's courtroom.

From a Public Citizen article that Levy wrote:

"At the appellate level, and in the reported cases, it is crystal clear that, as the petition for review argues, a preliminary injunction against alleged defamation is an impermissible prior restraint.  But it is not uncommon to hear about trial judges issuing temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions against alleged defamation.  These orders are often made because they are sought ex parte and the judge does not do original research leading to clear law forbidding ex parte injunctions against speech, or because the defendant’s lawyer lacks enough sophistication to recognize and argue the prior restraint issue, or, in the end, because the trial judge just wants to do what he sees as fair.  It is also not unusual for trial judges to “split the baby” by issuing an order that gives something to both sides.  Apparently, we need more appellate precedent reminding trial judges that the First Amendment forbids such injunctions."

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog