Did Roger Shuler Violate Alabama Law by Impersonating an Attorney as ‘RogerS’?

Posted on Comments

Portrait of a Kook: Roger Shuler

On Oct. 24, Patterico called attention to a commenter using the name “RogerS” at BreitbartUnmasked.com, a site rather notorious for attacking enemies of Brett Kimberlin and Neal Rauhauser. Conspiracy theorists won’t believe it was just a coincidence that, the day before Patterico published that post, authorities in Shelby County, Alabama, arrested blogger Roger Shuler on contempt of court charges.

Speaking of coincidences, however, when Brett Kimberlin fanboy Bill Schmalfeldt reported the arrest of Schuler, he described Shuler as an attorney — and Shuler is definitely not an attorney, so we have to wonder where Schmalfeldt got that mistaken impression.

Oh, Patterico, can you please tell us what “RogerS” was doing?

One of the cast of little transparent sock puppets at Breitbart Unmasked is a fellow who goes by the handle “Roger S.” This “Roger S” was recently on the site talking up the high quality of Kimberlin’s recent RICO lawsuit. My God, Roger S says, the defendants ought to be scared. And Roger S should know! He himself is a lawyer who has handled RICO lawsuits himself! With devastating results!

Hmmmm. So it seems that “RogerS” was presenting himself at a pro-Kimberlin site as an experienced attorney, and pro-Kimberlin blogger Bill Schmalfeldt erroneously “reported” that Alabama blogger Roger Shuler is an attorney. Just a coincidence?

Aaron Walker examines the evidence suggesting that this is not a coincidence, that Schmalfeldt and “RogerS” were in frequent communication, and that Schmalfeldt knew that “RogerS” was Roger Shuler of Alabama and, apparently, believed the bogus claims by “RogerS”/Shuler that he was indeed an experienced attorney.

Readers may examine that evidence and decide for themselves what to believe. Roger Shuler’s got himself a whole heap of trouble down in Alabama nowadays. Having frequently (and unsuccessfully) gone to court as a pro se litigant, Shuler is now on the defense against some very experienced attorneys, including the formidable Bill Baxley.

One might pity Shuler, were it not for the type of atrocious defamation that has been Shuler’s ouevre as a blogger. And if Roger Shuler was indeed “RogerS,” what about this comment?

RogerS on September 20, 2013 at 5:29 pm said:
Well, I think Kimberlin has it correct in his suit, saying that Mr. McCain is not a “legitimate journalist.” Legitimate means that the journalist follows legitimate rules of ethics established by legitimate governing bodies. As you have made abundantly clear, Mr. McCain refuses to follow these legitimate rules of ethics. Instead, he engages in what is obviously malpractice journalism, just as a lawyer who violates the rules of ethics on a wholesale level engages in malpractice lawyering.
I would go even further, and say that Mr. McCain could never be hired by a legitimate media or news company because of his serial violations of the rules of ethics. I believe that he knows this and that is why be engages is his smear blogging tied to tip jar donations.
Mr. McCain is a blogger, a smear blogger, but he is not a journalist as that term is used in the profession. As an attorney, I have no doubt that a federal judge will agree with Kimberlin’s portrayal of Mr. McCain.

Ahem. What horribly false things to say about me, “RogerS.”

Sitting your ass in the Shelby County Jail now, aren’t you, “RogerS”?

Maybe I should just let bygones be bygones, and work myself up some sympathy for Roger Shuler’s constitutional rights.

Trying.

Trying real hard.

Gosh, this is embarrassing.

Despite my profound commitment to the First Amendment, and my concern about “prior restraint” issues in the Shuler case, for some reason I’m unable to work up any sympathy at all for Roger Shuler.

Tell you what: Have yourself a look at the various comments of “RogerS” at BreitbartUnmasked.com and tell me what you think.







Now, it just so happens — lo and behold! — that on Oct. 31, “RogerS” showed up in the comments at BreitbartUnmasked.com to deny that he is Roger Shuler. “Xenophon” vouched for this and, of course, we can always trust what an anonymous blogger says when vouching for the veracity of an anonymous commenter, right?

See, there are coincidences and then there are coincidences. As anyone can see from the comments I’ve screencapped, “RogerS” had been commenting quite frequently: Oct. 17, Oct. 18, Oct. 19, Oct. 21, Oct. 23 and then . . . silence, beginning the same day Roger Shuler was arrested in Alabama, continuing for a full week until, after Aaron Walker pointed out that it is a crime in Alabama to impersonate a lawyer, suddenly “RogerS” pops up to say he is definitely not Roger Shuler.

What kind of coincidence do you think that was? And don’t you think that authorities in Alabama, who seem to be very zealous in their enforcement of the law, might be able to get a subpoena to determine whether Roger Shuler was indeed the phony lawyer “RogerS”?

Because it seems to me that if there were probable cause to suspect Roger Shuler of actually committing a crime — as opposed to a mere contempt of court problem regarding civil litigation — they could get a search warrant for Roger Shuler’s computer.

However, that’s just common sense talking. I am not a lawyer, and I sure as hell would never impersonate a lawyer on the Internet.

 


62 comments

  2. But, but, but … surely someone who is clearly a senior partner with Acme Law would be a honest-to-goodness, genuine, lawyer.

  5. Faildox? Doxing isn’t where anyone might have gotten the notion that Roger S was Shuler. It was Bill Schmalfeldt trumpeting in the comments that he knew Roger S, (as Shuler), and knew his background and “bona fides.” Bill claimed this intimacy in at least two threads. Roger S never thought enough of it (despite return visits) to deny the connection.

  7. This was also attached to wacky advice and Shuler’s history of pro-se practice with similar wacky notions.

  8. And apparently Shuler is set to vouch for Roger S not being himself , despite claims of his pals in the comment section at BU.

  9. The very thought that Popehat either could or should be joined to this RICO suit for merely encouraging donations to those needed some assistance defraying their legal expenses, is more than ample proof that Roger S. is most definitely NOT a lawyer. Er . . . . Obviously

  11. Oh, dear God…

    If I were in court today, I would object and say “Your Honor, the witness has identified the wrong person, so you must order a judgement of acquittal.”

    And then the actual lawyers and the judge would have a sidebar to discuss whether you might be a danger to yourself or others.

    Jailed is bad enough, Roger. Don’t be getting yourself committed.

  13. So what’s this idea of a “journalistic code of ethics” from “legitimate rules of ethics established by legitimate governing bodies” come from?

    It sounds like a way to delegitimize people you don’t like.

  15. It’s total bullshit, is what it is, especially considering the source.

    If you’ll go read Patterico’s item on “RogerS” you’ll discover that, whoever “RogerS” is, he is definitely NOT a lawyer — giving advice that any first-year law student would know is wrong. So here you have someone who is pretending to be a lawyer, and professing himself an arbiter not only of law, but of journalistic ethics.

    Now if, as I believe we have strong reason to believe, “RogerS” was in fact Shuler, then his noise about “legitimate” journalism is laughably absurd, because Shuler has vilely defamed people without any substantiation whatsoever, claiming only that “sources” told him that his various targets we having illicit affairs.

    Go read his blog: You’ll see Shuler refer to these alleged affairs as if they were a proven matter of fact, linking back to his own dubious “reporting” as if it were proof.

    It’s total bullshit.

  16. Yeah, I’ve noticed before that “Xenophon” doesn’t seem to understand what I’m doing in terms of documenting the existence of Team Kimberlin.

    “Xenophon” seems to think that I am attempting to (or that I need to) identify who is who behind the various online pseudonyms. But see, I am the defendant and it is merely necessary for me to be able to show reasonable grounds for characterizing this collection of individuals — both identified persons like Schmalfeldt, Rauhauser, Karoli and Osborne, and such Internet personas as @BreitbartUnmask, @Occupy_Rebellion, @X3n0ph0n, etc. — as apparently acting on behalf of Kimberlin. It isn’t as if I have asserted any private knowledge about this; I merely described what was apparent from visible evidence.

    Poof! No defamation on that count.

    But “Xenonphon” doesn’t seem to understand.

  18. In my humble opinion it sounds a lot like what Schmalfeldt tried to peddle to the court. That he had to contact Hoge in violation of the Peace Order because the Society of Professional Journalists (whose sole requirement for membership is that you pay them) suggests that you contact the subject of your story to get their side. (Of course they do NOT say to keep harassing them after they tell you to go pound sand and leave them alone.) Add in the fact that Schmalfeldt claims to know Schuler and Bob’s yer Uncle.

  22. “Go read his blog”
    Would it be the same good reporting if I just pretended to read his blog?
    Damn. Making that crack didn’t make me feel any better than Schuler, Stacy. Didn’t Mr. B call that sort of thing “punching down”?

  23. Last I heard, profession associations are not “governing bodies” in a legal sense, unless codified by state or federal law in some fashion. And then only within specific areas, not any “code of conduct”, unless that’s also codified by law.

    Lawyers come to mind. Medical professionals as well. Engineers, not so much, although they are governed by legal code in some areas (but enforced by the legal system, not any “governing body”.

    Which makes the rant of RogerS over “McCain versus Code of Journalistic Ethics” so much more bullshit.

    Especially since, as far as I know, any narrow minded, greasy, obese twit can call themselves a journalist just because they can. Just look at Bill Schmalfeldt.

    That doesn’t mean anyone will take them seriously, of course. That’s because a legitimate journalist has credentials and professional experience. It helps to be employed by, or at least associated with, some sort of news organization, but it isn’t essential. From what I’ve read and seen, that’s more like belonging to the right social club in most regards.

    Ergo, Stacy is indeed a legitimate journalist, and RogerS was using smear techniques to de-legitimatize him.

    Which means you’re doing the right thing, Stacy, ‘cuz you are really pissing off BK and his flying monkeys.

  28. Any law that would criminalize pretending to be lawyer in blog posts & comments (as against doing to in the course of offering legal advise to a client or when standing before a court) would be deemed unconstitutional under the First Amendment, particularly in light of the 2012 decision U.S. v. Alvarez (which voided the Stolen Valor Act).

  30. Replying to myself here…After reading Aaron Worthing’s detailed analysis, it looks like this is a much closer question, as the creepo under discussion blogged about proposed motions re specific ongoing cases, and purported to be offering advise to specific individuals. I still think that all this is likely wrongful yet First Amendment-protected activity absent an actual (fake) attorney client relationship or representations to a court, but – not having made a study of issues involved – concede only moderate confidence in this conclusion.

  31. There is a reason most lawyers preface any advice they give without the person being a client with words to the effect of “This should not be construed as legal advice.” If those he was giving advice to thought he was a lawyer then he may have committed fraud, which is what the law is for.

Comments are closed.