SHULER et al v SWATEK et al demonstrates just how loony the world of Roger Shuler is:

He got into repeated arguments with his next-door neighbor and finally sued over a minor property line dispute, winning $1 in damages. His neighbor countersued, claiming that Shuler had appropriated some of his belongings, and won compensation and probably lawyers' fees, in total $1525, which Shuler refused to pay. Several years later, Shuler started his blog to discuss these disputes, so the neighbor retaliated by insisting on payment of the $1525 he had won in court. Shuler took the view that all this was illegitimate and therefore required no action from him, so his home was sold for $1525. Later, Shuler went to court pro se attempting to overturn the sale and lost repeatedly. It's just nuts

The following is from the opinion in his Federal suit:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
29 December 2010
SHULER et al v SWATEK et al

... In 1998, McGarity purchased the property adjacent to Plaintiffs’home .. Since then, Roger Shuler and McGarity have embroiled themselves in several disputes, ranging from litigation to actual physical altercations. After several verbal spats regarding their shared property boundary, Roger Shuler initiated a criminal trespass suit against McGarity in the spring of 2000 wherein McGarity was acquitted. Shortly thereafter, McGarity filed suit against Roger Shuler, alleging malicious prosecution and conversion, seeking damages of $25,000 .. In the 2004 trial, the jury returned a verdict against McGarity on Shuler’s trespass counterclaim, awarding Shuler $1 in damages .. The jury also found that Shuler had converted McGarity’s property and awarded McGarity $1,525 in compensatory and punitive damages. In October 2006 .. Shuler and McGarity engaged in a physical altercation .. Plaintiffs reported the incident to the .. Sheriff’s Office, but chose not to file criminal charges ... In the summer of 2007 .. Shuler started a blog .. to discuss his troubles with McGarity ... This decision allegedly prompted McGarity to try to collect on the jury award he secured on the 2004 conversion claim ... Swatek applied for a writ of execution .. to seize Plaintiffs’ cars or home for a sheriff’s sale to pay the outstanding judgment. Plaintiffs received notice of levy .. informing Plaintiffs of the impending sale of their home and property ... Plaintiffs received over twenty-five (25) phone messages .. informing them of the upcoming sale and inquiring whether they had arranged a settlement ... Plaintiffs explained that they were not attempting to work out a settlement because they believed the original 2004 judgment against them was void and, in any event, they had claimed an exemption for their property ... Sheriff Curry’s office sought guidance from Judge Harrington ... Judge Harrington apparently disagreed with Plaintiffs’ position and ordered the sale to proceed ... Plaintiffs received notice of Judge Harrington’s order .. and admit that “the court file shows that Harrington indeed signed off on the sale” ... Plaintiffs contend .. Harrington “acted outside his official capacity” ... As a result, Plaintiffs did not appeal Judge Harrington’s order or take any other action to stop the sale ... The sheriff’s sale proceeded, as ordered ... Defendants have moved to dismiss ... For the reasons stated more fully below, the court DISMISSES this case ...