Tagged: Legal Schnauzer Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Roger Schnauzer 3:06 am on November 27, 2012 Permalink
    Tags: , Legal Schnauzer,   

    Is Roger Shuler Guilty of Online Defamation? 

    It is very possible that Mr. Roger Shuler is guilty of online defamation against CEO Ted Rollins. Let’s review the legal definition to see if he meets the necessary criteria…

    Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone’s reputation, and published “with fault,” meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.

    What are the elements of a defamation claim?

    The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:

    • A publication to one other than the person defamed;
    • A false statement of fact;
    • That is understood as:  a). being of and concerning the plaintiff; & b). tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.

    Can my opinion be defamatory?

    No, but merely labeling a statement as your “opinion” does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it’s likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion (“I really hate George Lucas’ new movie”) rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion (“It’s my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database”).

    What is a statement of verifiable fact?

    A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse.

    Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?

    Yes. A private figure claiming defamation—your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop—only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a “reasonable person” would not have published the defamatory statement.

    A public figure must show “actual malice” — that you published with reckless disregard for the truth.

    Who is a public figure?

    A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures—a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate—someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure—for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence.

    Examples of public figures:

    • A former city attorney and an attorney for a corporation organized to recall members of city counsel
    • A psychologist who conducted “nude marathon” group therapy
    • A land developer seeking public approval for housing near a toxic chemical plant
    • Members of an activist group who spoke with reporters at public events

    What are the rules about reporting on a public proceeding?

    In some states, there are legal privileges protecting fair comments about public proceedings. For example, in California you have a right to make “a fair and true report in, or a communication to, a public journal, of (A) a judicial, (B) legislative, or (C) other public official proceeding, or (D) of anything said in the course thereof, or (E) of a verified charge or complaint made by any person to a public official, upon which complaint a warrant has been issued.” This provision has been applied to posting on an online message board, Colt v. Freedom Communications, Inc., and would likely also be applied to blogs. The California privilege also extends to fair and true reports of public meetings, if the publication of the matter complained of was for the public benefit.

    What is a “fair and true report”?

    A report is “fair and true” if it captures the substance, gist, or sting of the proceeding. The report need not track verbatim the underlying proceeding, but should not deviate so far as to produce a different effect on the reader.

    If I write something defamatory, will a retraction help?

    Some jurisdictions have retraction statutes that provide protection from defamation lawsuits if the publisher retracts the allegedly defamatory statement. For example, in California, a plaintiff who fails to demand a retraction of a statement made in a newspaper or radio or television broadcast, or who demands and receives a retraction, is limited to getting “special damages”—the specific monetary losses caused by the libelous speech. While few courts have addressed retraction statutes with regard to online publications, a Georgia court denied punitive damages based on the plaintiff’s failure to request a retraction for something posted on an Internet bulletin board. (See Mathis v. Cannon)

    If you get a reasonable retraction request, it may help you to comply. The retraction must be “substantially as conspicuous” as the original alleged defamation.

    What if I change the person’s name?

    To state a defamation claim, the person claiming defamation need not be mentioned by name—the plaintiff only needs to be reasonably identifiable. So if you defame the “government executive who makes his home at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,” it is still reasonably identifiable as the president.

    What are some examples of libelous and non-libelous statements?

    The following are a couple of examples from California cases; note the law may vary from state to state. Libelous (when false):

    • Charging someone with being a communist (in 1959)
    • Calling an attorney a “crook”
    • Describing a woman as a call girl
    • Accusing a minister of unethical conduct
    • Accusing a father of violating the confidence of son


    • Calling a political foe a “thief” and “liar” in chance encounter (because hyperbole in context)
    • Calling a TV show participant a “local loser,” “chicken butt” and “big skank”
    • Calling someone a “bitch” or a “son of a bitch”
    • Changing product code name from “Carl Sagan” to “Butt Head Astronomer”

    Since libel is considered in context, do not take these examples to be a hard and fast rule about particular phrases. Generally, the non-libelous examples are hyperbole or opinion, while the libelous statements are stating a defamatory fact.

    How do courts look at the context of a statement?

    For a blog, a court would likely start with the general tenor, setting, and format of the blog, as well as the context of the links through which the user accessed the particular entry. Next the court would look at the specific context and content of the blog entry, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the blog’s audience.

    Context is critical. For example, it was not libel for ESPN to caption a photo “Evel Knievel proves you’re never too old to be a pimp,” since it was (in context) “not intended as a criminal accusation, nor was it reasonably susceptible to such a literal interpretation. Ironically, it was most likely intended as a compliment.” However, it would be defamatory to falsely assert “our dad’s a pimp” or to accuse your dad of “dabbling in the pimptorial arts.” (Real case, but the defendant sons succeeded in a truth defense).

    What is “Libel Per Se”?

    When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se:

    A statement that falsely:

    • Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
    • Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
    • Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
    • Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.

    Of course, context can still matter. If you respond to a post you don’t like by beginning “Jane, you ignorant slut,” it may imply a want of chastity on Jane’s part. But you have a good chance of convincing a court this was mere hyperbole and pop cultural reference, not a false statement of fact.

    What is a “false light” claim?

    Some states allow people to sue for damages that arise when others place them in a false light. Information presented in a “false light” is portrayed as factual, but creates a false impression about the plaintiff (i.e., a photograph of plaintiffs in an article about sexual abuse, because it creates the impression that the depicted persons are victims of sexual abuse). False light claims are subject to the constitutional protections discussed above.

    What is trade libel?

    Trade libel is defamation against the goods or services of a company or business. For example, saying that you found a severed finger in you’re a particular company’s chili (if it isn’t true).

  • Roger Schnauzer 10:15 pm on November 26, 2012 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , Legal Schnauzer   

    Cyber bullying-not limited to teens 




    From the Cyberbullying Research Center

    Advice for Adult Victims of Cyberbullying

  • Roger Schnauzer 9:30 pm on November 24, 2012 Permalink
    Tags: , , Dr. Phil, Legal Schnauzer, ,   

    Dr Phil in War Against Cyber Bullies like the Legal Schnauzer Roger Shuler 

    Dr Phil and Cyberbullying

    Bullying is certainly rampant in schools. Cyber bullying is an epidemic but we are pointing out, just like Dr. Phil says, this is the new wild West. And we want to bring to light that while children and teens are cyber bullied–adults are as well. Yes they may not be as ‘defenseless’ but cyber bullying is a vile, pathetic cowardly act for all–whatever age.

  • Roger Schnauzer 6:25 pm on October 31, 2012 Permalink
    Tags: Legal Schnauzer,   

    5 Steps in Avoiding Cyber Blackmail 

    Often cyber bullying and cyber blackmail go hand in hand. It is very common for people these days to become blackmail victims online. Attack bloggers use innuendo and trumped up or misleading facts to distort the truth and smear their innocent victims good name. Many cyber bullies are blackmailers in disguise, with wild delusions of making millions off of their intended targets.

    Here are 5 steps avoiding cyber blackmail:

    If you do not want something about you to be known – avoid putting it online. Do not write your personal thoughts about anybody as it is read not only by your friends but others who know their way around the Internet.

    Avoid uploading pictures of yourself and what valuables you have – this is the easiest way to invite blackmailers, stalkers, hijackers, kidnappers and scammers in your life.

    Adjust your social networking so only your friends can see private information about you. Do not post your phone number, mobile number, email address, street address and any personal information in the Internet.

    Avoid communicating with anyone other than legitimate friends; at least verify communication from new people. Do not talk to strangers.

    If a message looks dubious, delete it. Do not click on links unless you are absolutely sure what they are.

  • Roger Schnauzer 5:13 pm on October 31, 2012 Permalink
    Tags: Campus Crest, Legal Schnauzer, ,   

    The Story of Amanda Todd 

    If you are responsible for bullying someone online, you are a reprehensible human being and have no concept of the pain you cause. Your anti-social lashing out is only a mask for deep seated feelings of inadequacy and self loathing. The story of Amanda Todd should serve as a warning to those people who so careless attack others without provocation, proof, or any sense of decency. You are the scum of the earth.


  • Roger Schnauzer 5:05 pm on October 31, 2012 Permalink
    Tags: Legal Schnauzer, , ,   

    Please Stop Hurting People 

    So hurtful….so painful…why? Why?

  • Roger Schnauzer 6:20 pm on October 15, 2012 Permalink
    Tags: , Legal Schnauzer, ,   

    October is Stop Bullying Month 


    • Fb19 8:12 pm on October 20, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Cyber Bullying is a growing problem. Web sites such as the Legal Schnauzer let people spread destructive lies with no consequences to the publisher. Mr Schuler hurts families and innocent people with false stories and there is no way to stop him.

      • jay 1:48 am on October 24, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        If Roger Shuler had any money or a job, then he could be stopped but he has nothing to do but put out trash. You can’t stop him because he has nothing to lose. He puts out trash because he has already lost everything.

    • jay 12:30 am on October 29, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Let’s all join to publish the truth about Roger Shuler and his nonsense blog. He has no credibility, but let’s destroy all his nonsense by publishing the truth. He won’t last any longer than he did at UAB. He’s a nut. That’s why he has no job and a house being taken in judicial action.

    • larry 12:03 am on October 31, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Why don’t you allow anonymous comments? are you like Schuler?

  • Roger Schnauzer 3:59 pm on October 10, 2012 Permalink
    Tags: , Legal Schnauzer, , , wikipedia   

    Wikipedia Addresses Adult Cyberbullying 

    Recognition of adult and workplace cyberbullying tactics
    Cyberbullying isn’t just for tweens or teens I’ve found. From Wikipedia:

    Common tactics used by cyberstalkers is to vandalize a search engine or encyclopedia, to threaten a victim’s earnings, employment, reputation, or safety. Various companies provide cases of cyber-stalking (involving adults) follow the pattern of repeated actions against a target. While motives vary, whether romantic, a business conflict of interest, or personal dislike, the target is commonly someone whose life the stalker sees or senses elements lacking in his or her own life. Web-based products or services leveraged against cyberstalkers in the harassment or defamation of their victims.
    The source of the defamation seems to come from four types of online information purveyors: Weblogs, industry forums or boards, and commercial Web sites. Studies reveal that while some motives are personal dislike, there is often direct economic motivation by the cyberstalker, including conflict of interest, and investigations reveal the responsible party is an affiliate or supplier of a competitor, or the competitor itself.

    In the case of Roger Schuler, the so-called Legal Schnauzer, he likes to defame and defame with erroneous information for potential monetary gain, out of boredom or to just plain practice vile immorality.

    • jay 3:16 am on October 23, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      If you look at Legal Schnauzer you will see he is a nut. He loses every case. He appeals every case. How many has he won? ZERO. He’s a nut with an ax to grind against everybody. His facts are wrong but he is judgment proof because he is broke. Nobody bothers to even sue him.

      • Mallory 4:30 am on November 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        I am a big fan of Legal Schnauzer’s site. Can you please give a specific example of what you are referring to? It seems he has hit a nerve with you.

        • jranchero 10:24 pm on November 26, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Check out this about section and all you have to do is look at any of Legal Schnauzer’s cyber bullying posts and you will see he calls his writing journalism,. True journalism doesn’t defame and should give a balanced view versus muckraking the innocent. Thanks for your post. http://legalschnauzerexposed.com/sample-page/

compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help
shift + esc