 |
X-ray of Carol Shuler's shattered arm, broken by a Missouri deputy. This image, taken before any repair efforts, shows that the force was so violent that the humerus (the large bone in the upper arm) almost was forced through the skin. This is X-ray No. 2 of three showing the injury before treatment.
(X-ray from Cox North Medical Center, Springfield, MO.)
Why are we just now able to show you original X-rays of my wife's broken arm, taken before trauma surgery was performed to repair the damage? The answer lies with Jim Arnott, the Sheriff of Greene County, Missouri, who was standing about five feet away when one of his deputies slammed Carol to the ground and yanked on her arms while handcuffing her during an unlawful eviction on September 9.
Carol was trying to enter our apartment to retrieve some of our belongings, as she had been told she could do. Specifically, she was trying to get our cat's litter box and was headed to the front door for that purpose, when a deputy jumped her. I saw the whole thing from about 15 feet away, while seated in the driver's seat of our automobile, which was parked in the driveway. Arnott saw it from a vantage point about 10 feet closer than mine. And what was the sheriff's immediate reaction to seeing one of his deputies brutalizing a 55-year-old woman who was trying to get her cat's "latrine"? Arnott's response was to lie. He pointed at Carol and said, "She assaulted a police officer." That statement is absurd to anyone who witnessed the event. And it's even more absurd when you consider that Carol wound up with a severely broken arm that required surgery, and there is no indication that any of the half dozen or so officers on hand--armed with at least one assault rifle and numerous handguns--suffered the slightest scratch. How badly was Carol's arm broken? The image above is the second of three X-rays we received of her original injury, before any repair was attempted. The break is so severe that . . . well, I get both sick and outraged just looking at it. Why have we been slow to bring these images to you? Well, that's largely because Carol was in custody when they were taken. Yes, you heard that right--with her arm broken as you see above, she was handcuffed (both arms twisted behind her), thrown in the back of a cruiser and transported to the Greene County Jail. Because of Arnott's lying eyes--and lying tongue--she apparently was going to be charged with assaulting a police officer. The deputy who drove her to the jail told her she was facing a felony and likely a $100,000 bond. At some point, Carol (likely in shock; she would receive treatment with oxygen) announced that her arm was killing her. Someone finally took notice, decided this might be serious, and had her transported to Cox North Medical Center, a few blocks from the jail. Most of Springfield's modern medical facilities--including Cox South (where Carol eventually had surgery)--is on the city's southside, in an area known as "The Medical Mile." Cox North, which dates to 1906, is a remnant of the city's medical past. When I was growing up here in the 1960s and '70s, Cox North was known as Burge Hospital. The facility now is used mostly for psychiatric services, but it does have X-ray equipment. And after seeing images produced at Cox North, it didn't take a knowledgeable medical person long to say, "This woman's arm is broken, badly." News must have gotten to Arnott in a hurry because Carol was taken to Cox South to have her arm set and get scheduled for trauma surgery. At some point, Arnott must have decided that Carol didn't assault anyone after all--and bringing bogus charges against her might make his department look even worse than it already was looking. At any rate, we haven't heard anymore about charges against Carol. As for charges against the officer, that might be another story. It looks like Ben Fields, the school-resource officer who was fired in Richland County, South Carolina, after body slamming a 16-year-old female student and dragging her across a classroom, might face criminal charges for assault--and it appears, thankfully, that the student sustained no serious injuries. A look at the image above (plus another one below) make it clear that Carol was severely injured. And while the South Carolina officer was lawfully on school property, the Missouri deputy had no lawful grounds to be on our rented property. We are consulting with a number of individuals about the possibility of filing criminal charges (likely a felony) against the officer, along with a civil-rights complaint to the FBI, and a police-brutality lawsuit. As for Sheriff Jim Arnott, we know his first instinct was too lie. His second instinct seems to be to "stick his head in the sand" and hope the problem goes away. We don't think either of those strategies is going to work. |
 |
X-ray of Carol Shuler's shattered arm, broken by a Missouri deputy. This image, taken before any repair efforts, shows the shredded humerus just above the elbow joint. This is X-ray No. 3 of three of the injury before treatment.
(X-ray from Cox North Medical Center, Springfield, MO,)
|
84 comments:
Those X-rays make me cringe. Please give my best wishes to Carol for a speedy recovery.
Did the cop who broke Carol's arm look like he was on steroids?
Not really, @11:49. He was fairly tall, and much bigger than Carol, but not overly muscular. For whatever this is worth, he wore sunglasses the whole time, even inside the apartment. Was this to hide dilated pupils, perhaps from amphetamine use? I don't know. But he was agitated and overly aggressive from the get-go. His favorite phrase was "You're done," "You're done." he said it multiple times, to both me and Carol.
The guy who roughed me up in our garage in Alabama . . . now, he looked like a candidate to be on steroids.
I think a set of stories on the background of the sheriff are in order!? I'm sure there are some bones in that closet beyond just this.
Let me guess: Arnott is a Republican?
You are correct, @12:29, although we shouldn't assume that corruption is limited to the GOP and its mostly white adherents. Jefferson County, Alabama judge Don Blankenship is proof that a black Democrat also can be a sleazebag.
"you're done" as in you are done collecting your belongings? Did he order y'all out of the apartment?
Why did they take Carol to a psychiatric unit first to evaluate her injury?
Was Carol behaving quietly and normally before she was brought down to the ground? You have published reports before of Carol becoming hysterical and screaming (without physical injury) on at least one occasion involving conflict with police and even an aggressive bill collector. I saw that the records from Cox have been provided to your counsel and the counsel seeking a probate conservatorship of you and Carol. Do you know what the records show? Please don't take my questions the wrong way. No one could blame her for being hysterical after being hurt so badly (in addition to having the eviction be so confrontational.)
You must have the worst luck. How is it that every judge you've been before, is corrupt or doesn't know the law? Have you ever thought that you might be the problem? I'm sure the Sheriff let her go so he wouldn't be responsible for the hospital bills and Carol will be arrested later. They have a while before the statute of limitations runs out.
May God's healing be upon her. Amen.
Here's a challenge for you, @2:18. Look up the files and the case and statutory law and the cases in question and tell me which ones were decided correctly. You obviously are taking the lazy man's out with your smart-ass questions. Let's see if you have the work ethic and intelligence to actually make your point.
BTW, how does letting Carol go not make the sheriff responsible for her hospital bills? If that's what he did, you (not me) are describing a seriously corrupt sheriff. It certainly would be interesting for Sheriff Arnott to later seek the arrest of a citizen that his own deputy left with a shattered arm, while the deputy had not a scratch on him. I would almost look forward to that carnival and seeing Arnott explaining why his deputies were on the property when they, by law, could not be there.
Why don't you ID yourself for our readers and tell us what personal stake you have in all of this. It obviously is personal for you . . . that, are you are off-the-charts ignorant.
Nice try, @12:50, but Carol wasn't taken to a "psychiatric unit" to evaluate her injury. She was taken to Cox North because it's about three blocks from the jail and has X-ray facilities. It had nothing to do with a psychiatric evaluation.
I don't know about the medical records you reference; I haven't seen them, but I do know this: Carol has not been served in the guardianship matter, so the court has no jurisdiction over her. My understanding is that opposing counsel sought Carol's records and an order, even though Carol has not been served. Seems like a gross invasion of privacy, and perhaps a violation of federal law, on the part of the lawyer and my brothers.
No, @12:43, it was "you're done" as in "you can't talk to me anymore. You are trying to talk rationally about the law and/or your rights, and I'm not interested in that."
That was the context in which he repeatedly used those words with me, and Carol has indicated his tone was the same with her.
Again, is it fun to suck-up so shamelessly for corrupt cops, or maybe you are a corrupt cop? Why don't you make this more interesting by identifying yourself for my readers, so we all know what your agenda is. You obviously have one.
Isn't it interesting that a certain type of commenter shows no concern about a woman's injury that is likely to leave her with 75 percent usage (at best) of her arm? The same commenters seem to have no concern about tenant rights, only those of the landlord.
No wonder law enforcement is in such disarray. The field and its supporters are filled with unbelievably shallow people.
Hey, @2:18, I guess we are supposed to take the word of all those honest cops, like the guy up in Chicago who was stealing and staged his suicide to look he was a hero?
Yep, you can always trust a "man in blue."
Great comment, Chuckles. I was about to make the same point, and you beat me to it.
Some of the commenters sound like the deputy who broke Carol's arm, the sheriff who oversaw the "eviction," or some of their cronies. I guess they think the rest of us are too stupid to figure out who they are.
No doubt they are nervous, and they should be.
Heal quickly, Ms. Carol. We need you on the front lines for justice!
Ever notice, LS, that these weasel commenters never take up your challenge to identify themselves and their affiliations? That tells us all we need to know about them. They are liars, cheats, and cowards. Great combination. Their mothers must be proud.
"Nice try, @12:50, but Carol wasn't taken to a "psychiatric unit" to evaluate her injury. She was taken to Cox North because it's about three blocks from the jail and has X-ray facilities. It had nothing to do with a psychiatric evaluation. "
I think you mistake my intention if you call that a "nice try" at anything but understanding what you have related accurately. You mentioned the main purpose of the facility she was taken to. I was under the impression that she was taken directly to the other section of the hospital, I thought it was adjacent enough to have been taken there first. I didn't look it up. Is it much farther away?
Is that where they generally take injured persons brought into the station?
As have made us aware, there is a probate conservatorship filing by one of your brothers. There was a hearing yesterday where medical records were produced based on subpoena related to some earlier care for both of you, and records from Cox that at this stage were provided but only for attorneys, including your representative in the proceeding, to review. I don't know any more than that, I was wondering if you did.
THis is not the full docket entry, just the part that is public relating to the cox records. I don't know anything more than what is written here:
Karen Gambon, Custodian of Records for Cox Health produces medical records of Respondents pursuant to subpoena. Cox records are marked as Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and tendered to court pursuant to court order.
"how does letting Carol go not make the sheriff responsible for her hospital bills?"
It's not dispositive either way. They might have a reasonable basis to arrest, and decide not to charge. Even if Carol were (hypothetically, not saying this is the case) guilty as sin, they would not "have" to bring charges. And even if she were determined to be not only chargable but guilty, they could end up being culpable for how they treated her and responsible for her bills.
Roger, is it possible Carol broke her own arm in an effort to free herself from the arresting officer?
Well Tom, us weasels(aka normal people), don't want this douche bag making things up about us and blasting them on the internet, like he does to everyone else. Roger is a whiny, always the victim, douche bag. It is always the fault of someone else. Will you actually let this post cry baby? Doubt it.
Nice imitation of a third grader, @10:36. And I apologize to third graders who might take offense at being compared to you.
Why don't you contact Carol at Facebook and ask her yourself, @6:59:
https://www.facebook.com/CarolTovichShuler
You know more than I do, @5:04. Again, I'm not sure how Carol's personal medical records can be subject to a court order when she hasn't been served and is therefore not under a court's authority. Raises pretty serious privacy issues with me.
I can only relate what Carol said sheriff's officials told her, @5:01. She was told that they took her to Cox North, which once was a full-service hospital but now is primarily a psychiatric facility, because it has X-ray facilities and is the closest medical center to the jail. I don't know the exact distance, but you almost can throw a rock from one to the other.
My understanding is that Carol was taken to Cox North because of its proximity and its X-ray equipment; it had nothing to do with Carol's psychiatric status. Once it was determined that she had a severely broken arm, she was transported to Cox South, a much more modern, full-service facility on the other side of town, where her arm was set and she was scheduled for surgery.
Does the sheriff's department normally take brutalized, beaten, and injured prisoners to Cox North? I don't know. Why don't you direct that question to Sheriff Jim Arnott. His contact info is on the Greene County Missouri Sheriff's Web site.
As for the medical records stuff, I haven't seen them and know almost nothing about them. I do know Carol has not been served in the case, and thus is not under court authority. How, her medical records can lawfully be produced is beyond me.
If your brother(s) are trying to have you declared mentally incompetent and have filed suit accordingly, she (and you) are under a court action and documents can be procured accordingly.
If Carol was in jail, they would be responsible for transportation to and from the hospital and to the physical therapy. Since jails have to provide medical care for inmates, they would be required to pay for any treatment that wasn't covered by insurance, much the same as a minors guardian. I have heard of similar decisions from different correctional facilities. They also might not charge her because they believe she has a mental condition.
You are so full of horse manure, @1:40, that I don't even know how to begin to make a response. I will just run your comment, on the possibility that someone might find comedic value in it.
Hey, @1:30, are you and 1:40 the same person. You seem to have about the same intelligence level. If you want to be taken seriously, try citing some law to support your conclusions.
You can't, of course, because the law is clear: A court obtains personal jurisdiction over an individual only when service has been lawfully completed. That hasn't been done with Carol.
It's complicated with the records issue, but I know the court got some notice that service had been effected, but it was an error by the process server (corrected now by the process server). You two are represented in the probate action. The records were provided to the court, the court decided they were for attorney eyes only at this point, (neither the judge nor your brother see them) and all agreed to delay any hearing, during which time I gather they intend to effect service or declare Carol served. I don't think that your representative objected to having the information, and it's probably for the best for everyone to understand what is really going on.
In @1:40's defense, taking on expense of care *is* (whether it should be or not) a practical issue that does affect charging decisions. She is not in custody now, I presume, though I don't know what time she officially ceased to be in custody it probably is related to her need for medical care in a hospital setting.
I hope @6:59 doesn't mind me butting in since he asked you and not me
" is it possible Carol broke her own arm in an effort to free herself from the arresting officer?"
I don't know what caused Carol's injury, it's not likely that she did unless pulling away resulted in a fall. Distal humerus injuries like that are associated with high-impacts (collisions) and falls (including falls from being knocked down), especially backward falls where the hand on the affected arm reflexively braces, taking much of the force of the fall. Such fractures are more common in older person, and persons with compromised bone. Twisting could easily have exacerbated an injury from the fall.
If Carol was just walking by and tackled by surprise, then it would be the tackling that made her go down.
Is Carol really up to typing out answers to complicated questions? I don't want to burden her just to satisfy my desire to know details, while she's hurting.
I just checked the Missouri Court website and it says that you have been served. Do you plan on going to the hearing?
The hearing has been continued. If you checked the Web site, you should have seen that. I've never said I wasn't served; Carol hasn't been.
I don't know, @2:57. Send her a friend request and ask her. If she can't do it typing, she probably would talk to you by phone.
I can shine some light on your points, @2:53:
* As for the original claim that Carol has been served, that simply was a lie by the process server, which says a lot about the kind of people we are dealing with. He originally claimed she was with me at the time of my service, and he served her then, too. She wasn't with me, was nowhere near me.
* I don't care one way or another about the medical records because there is nothing unusual or embarrassing in them. But I do care about procedure. Carol cannot be subject to a court order when she has not been served and is not under court jurisdiction. That my brother's lawyer sought that, and the judge allowed it, says a lot about their integrity (or lack thereof). Also, we received a document that said our attorney was entitled to seek medical records, but it said nothing about the other side getting them--especially before they've even come close to establishing a prima facie case that a guardianship is merited. This is just more of the same scare/terror tactics we've experienced for 15 years. It happens in Alabama, it happens in Missouri. The medical records don't scare us because there is nothing unusual there--and we have no medical conditions that even come close to meriting a declaration of incompetency under Missouri law. But I do care about legal principles and procedure and fundamental fairness. If they want to get into a subpoena battle, I can seek e-mails, texts, phone records etc. from my brothers and various other individuals--and I suspect that would be most enlightening. Two can play that game if they want it to go that way.
* I disagree with your point about "serving Carol or declaring her served." I'm aware of no provision of law that says a court can just declare someone served. It either is done, by one of several methods, or it isn't. It can be done by publication, which we may or may not see, but our attorney probably would make us aware of that.
* I don't know if "expense of care" is a consideration in charging issues or not. But if it is, that's a very dubious practice. I'm not an expert on criminal procedure, but I think a police agency would have a hard time taking someone into custody, releasing them with no charges, and then trying to bring charges later--even though no facts have changed. They either had legit charges earlier or they didn't--and their actions show they didn't. Keep in mind, this isn't just a matter for the sheriff. If Missouri has any remotely honest magistrates--and that's a big if--such a person likely is to take a dim view of arresting someone weeks later on charges that were not brought at the time of the incident.
* Certain commenters here probably don't want to believe this, but this is simple stuff: Sheriff Jim Arnott is a liar, he lied about what happened a few feet in front of his face, and when confronted with irrefutable evidence (a broken arm) that indicates Carol was the assaultee, not the assaulter, he ditched charges that he knew were bogus to begin with. But that still means Carol was falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned, and Mr. Arnott can't get around that. He has no more integrity than the rogue cop in Chicago who staged his own suicide, and we now know had been a liar and a thug for years. Arnott and some of his underlings should be subject to criminal investigation for their actions in this case.
Roger, evidence supporting the officers claim he was assaulted by Carol as she tried to resist his arrest would have been captured on the officers body camera or any other officers nearby. Does any video exist?
I realized the hearing was continued when I checked the court's website. My question to you was do you intend on going to the hearing? Had it not been continued my question would have been, did you go to the hearing? You see one is past tense and the other is future. I was merely letting you know that I did check the court's website so you would know I took that step. I don't recall you ever openly saying that you were served, just that Carol was not. My question is about your intent, which is either yes I am going or no I will not go or perhaps a I haven't decided / none of your business. You dodged the question by making a statement of things I already knew. I think the answer is no, you don't intend to go. My reasoning behind this is, the hearing was scheduled to happen the day it was continued and I saw no mention of you being there. If you skipped the day the hearing should have happened if it were not continued, you will skip the next one too. If you believe you and Carol are so far away from being declared incompetent then you need to quit avoiding service. That makes you look crazy. I wonder if there could be a default judgement in a probate court. Guess we'll find out.
Medical conditions sometimes determine if someone brought in to be booked is released from custody. It's a normal intake issue. It doesn't mean charges will be brought later, but it also doesn't mean charges can't or won't be brought later. But there are many reasons a good-faith arrest does not ultimately result in booking, including compassionate ones. Releasing her from custody without booking is not, per se, any evidence of false arrest.
I hope they do not decide to charge your wife, especially if Carol did not mean to disobey any order and was only quietly walking towards the apartment to complete removal of some needed items, under the reasonable impression she had permission to do so.
Without asserting that police are honest even as a rule, it's unfair to paint the dishonest actions of a single officer as evidence that police are mostly dishonest.
Have you been able to obtain the police report related to the eviction yet? It should shed some light on how the arrest will be defended.
The court can accept certain proof of service, and declare Carl served. Publication is one way to do it according to Missouri rules of procedure. It's best not to delay accepting service here since both of you are already aware of the court proceedings and have representation. Service will take place and delay doesn't really serve your interests here.
Thanks for the additional photos.
I'll be borrowing those as well.
As far as the text is concerned, you have blogged about this same subject matter many times over. There are, however, a few unique excerpts that are of use.
Gee, the man of mystery is back. Can't wait to see what that brings. Surely will be something clever. After all, he "calls the shots." Hah!
You are a bit off base, @2:07. You seem to be implying that Carol is delaying service. The opposite is true. Neither of us is aware of a single attempt to serve her. You shape it as a matter of whether Carol accepts service. The truth is that service hasn't been presented. Any delay is on the part of the court or the plaintiff. Whether we are aware of the proceedings or not has nothing to do with proper service, and you cite no law regarding these situations where the court can "accept certain proof of service." You either serve someone or you don't, and the server hasn't done it yet. It's not complicated.
I would suggest you brush up on the law regarding false arrest and false imprisonment, @1:55. Sheriff Arnott already is liable for both, and I doubt that he wants to commit the same unlawful acts again. I also doubt that a magistrate would want to sign off on a warrant in a situation where the sheriff's own actions show he had no probable cause, that Carol was the assaultee, not the assaulter. Kind of hard to explain away that broken arm.
You have so many facts wrong, @8:04, it's hard to know where to begin. But I can make these points:
(1) I've been served, so I'm clearly not avoiding service. Neither is Carol; we've seen no sign of anyone attempting to serve her.
(2) I didn't appear at the most recent hearing because our attorney told us the day before that it was postponed.
(3) To my knowledge, the hearing has not been rescheduled. Until it is, I have no reason to think about whether I will attend or not.
I don't know if video or audio exists or not, @6:02. If it does, it should be under the control of Sheriff Arnott. Why don't you call or e-mail and ask him?
Hey, @7:33, why don't you tell us what you hope to accomplish by "borrowing" LS's photos and text? From my point of view, I don't see where you can accomplish anything. That makes me think you are either a phony, a sicko, or a coward. It's certainly possible that you are all three.
LS doesn't seem the least bit concerned about your shenanigans, and neither am I. But I do wonder what a greaseball loser like yourself thinks you can accomplish here.
This is a blog written by an intelligent person for intelligent people. You simply don't fit in.
How did the process server find you? Given the fact you have a history of avoiding service and your staying in a hotel, I'm shocked he found you. I'm even more shocked you didn't file a motion to quash service. Why don't you get your attorney to serve Carol? That way the process server doesn't get any money and you can get these hearings over with.
Don't be arrogant about service wrt to the conservatorship. Missouri rules of procedure are public.
You cannot avoid it, and playing games of delay feeds into the claims of mental unwellness. Make sure Carol doesn't try to hide from it if a process server comes knocking.
Roger,as "caveman lawyer" you know you have to prepare your own defense so contact Sheriff Arnott and get that video before it mysteriously disappears.
I am too busy to do the work and remember the orange jumpsuit is for you...not me.
My defense of what, @6:43? What am I defending?
I know about the Missouri rules of civil procedure, 5:19, and I probably know their holdings much better than you do. As I've already stated, I've been served, so I'm not avoiding anything. Neither is Carol; we've seen no sign that anyone has attempted to serve her.
We aren't delaying anything, and you're notion that the plaintiff's failure to serve Carol feeds into claims of our mental unwellness . . . well, that's laughable. If someone knocks on our door, Carol will handle it how she sees fit.
The process server found me in a public place. I'm out and about all the time, like most folks, and I don't have a history of avoiding service. I do have a history of challenging unlawful service. In this instance, the service was lawful, so there was no reason to challenge it. It's no big deal when handled lawfully, according to the rules of civil procedure.
As for serving Carol, that's up to the server and her. It's not her job to make it easy for them, and the plaintiff (my brother) didn't exactly create a sense of good will by filing an unlawful subpoena for her medical records, when she had not been served and was not subject to a court order.
You might want to check the docket at case.net, @4:20. At the moment, there is no hearing scheduled, so there is nothing to "get over with."
Hiding out from a process server is not in Carol's interest. Any sign of avoiding will play into already existing claims about mental unwellness. In fact authorizing your appointed court representative to accept service is probably the best thing you could do.
My mistake Roger,you are not defending anything but certainly preparing for Carol's
defense.Good luck.
How many times do I have to say that we have seen no signs of attempts to serve Carol, @4:41? How many times must that be said before you comprehend?
If you want me to consider your advice, share your name and contact information, so we all know who you are. I don't make a habit of taking advice from people who don't believe in themselves enough to state their identities.
Uh, @5:56, what makes you think we are preparing for Carol's defense--of what? She isn't charged with anything.
It's flatly false that there have been no attempts to serve Carol - at least one attempt was made, per court records; it was not successfully carried out.
If you won't take good advice, no one can help you. Your attempts to avoid service have never served you well; they resulted in harm to you and for that matter, to Carol, because you made yourself an object of pursuit. It has cultivated the image you know , true or false, that other persons have formed of you, and it may well serve to influence the court in this case. Ask a licensed attorney if you doubt me. Consult your court-appointed representative, or use google to find legal sources you trust with advice you can trust.
I'm not @5:56 - she isn't charged with anything yet but there is risk of that - she was arrested and brought to the station, and she has some exposure until the statute of limitations expires to any accusation of resisting or assault upon a police officer that could be made. I doubt any charges will be brought but it's prudent to consider that they are POSSIBLE.
In the matter of the probate conservatorship your family members may still be seeking (you know better than I if they mean to abandon the effort) Carol does need some attention to her interests, since a successful petition would mean others had power over her choices in some important matters.
Right you are again Roger. Because I live in peace and comfort with no enemies enjoying life"s wonderful blessings, I have not acquired the vocabulary that you have skillfully mastered in legal issues and certainly not as much legal knowledge. What I should have asked was not about Carol's defense, as she has not been charged with anything, but rather your preparation and intent to go after the county/state for the damages she has received. Good luck.
You might try reading my comments again, @4:26. I said we were "not aware" or had "seen no signs" of attempts to serve Carol. That's all we can go on--what we observe. If they've tried service in a way that was not apparent to us, so be it. Sorry it didn't work out for them. You might keep in mind that the process server, one Roger Huffman, already has lied once about serving Carol; he claimed he served her at the time he served me, that she was with me. Slight problem: She wasn't with me and was nowhere near me at the time. So Mr. Huffman has a history of causing false entries to be made on court dockets.
If you want your "advice" taken seriously, contact me via private e-mail at rshuler3156@gmail.com. We can arrange a time to talk via phone and you can ID yourself and describe your expertise in such matters. You also might be prepared to cite whatever "facts" you think you have that point to me ever avoiding service. I would like to hear them. "Advice" from anonymous commenters isn't worth much.
Another point: You don't know what kind of legal advice we might be getting--and from whom.
Look forward to hearing from you.
As for avoiding legal service, there is the time you ran inside your house and the garage door was closing that the process server had to throw the papers for the Garrison case under the door. There are the videos of Shelby County attempting service while you stood in an upstairs window that were posted on YouTube. That's at least two occasions off the top of my head and I'm sure there were multiple times during each case.
You seem incapable of comprehending facts or law, @5:45. The description in your first sentence is strictly from "Fantasy Island," and even the process server didn't allege I ran inside my house. I was pulling our car into the garage, and never saw or heard a process server, and Judge Don Blankenship (as buffoonish as he is) admitted service was not lawfully done.
As for the videos, who do you think took those? I did, to show that sending 3-4 deputies and 2-3 vehicles is not normal for serving process. And in fact, it wasn't. A lawyer who reviewed the record at that time said it showed a summons had not even been issued when those officers appeared, so they were not trying to serve process. Those officers were up to something, but they weren't serving process because they could not have had a summons. That means I wasn't avoiding service of process.
I know this is might be work for you, but try educating yourself a little before commenting. You might find that it's rewarding to actually know what you are talking about. Of course, knowledge might get in the way of your agenda, so that would be a problem for you.
And what was Dehart trying to give you after the traffic stop? You can fool some of these people, but he served you a civil paper. It doesn't matter if they send 10 deputies to your house to serve a paper or how uncommon it may be, it was still a civil paper. If it there were an ulterior motive (such as a warrant or whatever), they would have kicked your door in and handled business. Why else do you speculate they were there? Oh wait, answering the door and asking would have been too easy.
How dense are you, @6:08? The answer appears to be "pretty damned dense."
A. By law, an officer can not give you a "civil paper" (or anything else) once he has returned your license/registration, etc. and a traffic stop is over--unless he has probable cause to believe there is a crime associated with the vehicle. DeHart admits in court docs that it was a "pretext" stop, which means I likely never committed a traffic violation in the first place, and he stopped me only because of the civil papers, which he cannot do under the Fourth Amendment. I know the U.S. Constitution is a problem for you, but it matters to quite a few Americans, and it should matter to DeHart--although it obviously doesn't. There is a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on this subject, and I would suggest you read it (http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2015/04/new-us-supreme-court-ruling-helps-show.html) You'll be amazed what it's like to actually know what you are talking about.
B. Lawyer David Gespass reviewed the sealed file at the time of these service attempts and found that no summons had been issued. The summons is the document that legally calls (or "summons") someone to court. Without it, there can be no lawful service. At the time of the multiple cops banging on our door, and DeHart's bogus traffic stop, court records show there was no summons--and by law, this was not service of process. This post explains exactly what Gespass found, and I suggest you read it. You can read the letter he wrote on the subject. If you don't believe him, call and ask him about it--his number's in the phone book. (http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2015/07/letter-from-alabama-attorney-david.html)
C. There is nothing under the law that obligates me to open the door and ask cops why they are banging on my door. Have you ever tried to reason with a cop? I have, and it's a fruitless endeavor. As for why they were there, contact former Sheriff Chris Curry and ask him. I only know that they for sure were not there to serve civil papers.
BTW, here is a court document that describes exactly what happened with the process server in the Garrison case. I'm not aware of any document that even tries to dispute this, and Judge Don Blankenship (who is a really bad judge) ruled that service, in fact, had not been lawfully completed.
I know you have a hard time digesting facts, and you are resistant to learning about the real law, but one of my missions is to educate the public--even some of its most dense members:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/177407308/Jessica-Garrison-Lawsuit-Quash-Service
You filed that document with the court, so it doesn't prove anything. If I recall correctly, the Judge didn't make a determination. He said he would deliberate about the motion, but it wouldn't matter either way since they could have you served in the county jail. Rather than waiting for an opinion, they had you served in jail, thus making the judges deliberation a moot point.
As for Dehart's stop, you do admit he had civil papers for you, so you can't say for sure they were not there to serve civil papers to you earlier. What was contained in them can't be proven by you because you tossed them out of the window.
You state "There is nothing under the law that obligates me to open the door and ask cops why they are banging on my door," which actual shows that you were avoiding.
The document I filed in court persuaded the judge that service was improper, and even Bill Baxley must have seen that outcome coming because he then had me served in county jail. Given that jail regulations limit visitors (inmate's family, friends, ministers, their own lawyers) that service probably was unlawful, too--or the woman Baxley sent lied and claimed she was my lawyer.
As for the civil papers, I would suggest you read David Gespass' letter at the link provided. It shows there was no summons issued, and without that, there can be no lawful service--that means both DeHart and the other officers had some ulterior motive, or whoever sent them on a "service mission" without a summons had an ulterior motive. Plus, DeHart's own words show he violated the Fourth Amendment by making a traffic stop with no lawful grounds for doing so.
Your third paragraph is just another glaring example of your ignorance. You don't have a clue what avoiding service even means under the law, and whether someone does or does not answer the door when no legitimate service is being attempted does not come close to equaling avoidance of service. If I was really avoiding service, all they had to do was do service by process server or by publication. They didn't do it, so their own actions show I wasn't avoiding service just because they failed to complete their task over about a five-day period of time.
If my memory is on target, the law allows 60 to 90 days for service. That these jokers failed to serve Carol and me over about five days . . . well, that's not even close to the legal definition of avoidance. Again, sorry to cause you problems with facts and actual law. Better luck next time.
You were avoiding service of the lawsuit. Why, I don't know. Why you weren't willing to stand behind what you wrote with evidence to back it up, is a puzzle. You should have been prepared to defend the very damaging and defamatory claims you had made in public about the private acts of arguably private persons.
There was more than one attempt at service and you did run into your garage on one occassion. You included it in a motion to quash, here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/177407308/Jessica-Garrison-Lawsuit-Quash-Service. It matches the story of William Baxley, the lawyer who arranged for the server, in all details but one - whether the papers made it under the door. If you would deny the first, maybe no one should accept the denial of that point, either.
In any case the probate conservatorship is a different kind of case, and I'm here to tell you if you think it would help Carol to hide or run or play gotcha games with service, you are mistaken. There is no chance to run out the clock, and unreasonable avoidance will help support an impression formed by other means that mental illness has has made either or both of you unreasonable and paranoid so that you cannot manage your own affairs. Maybe it's moot at this point; maybe your relatives have no intention of going forward. Just please listen to the person who is bound by law to represent your interests and TAKE HIS ADVICE.
This is my problem with you - you are always looking for and proclaiming technicalities to excuse you. That course has never served you well. Instead of dealing with the inherent truth or falsity of claims you have made against people who also have a character to preserve, or just the reasonableness of your claims, you keep acting unreasonably and avoiding court and avoiding supporting your claims in that forum.
You were served papers, there was no need to post or use a private process server. What is your definition of avoiding? How did their action show you weren't avoiding? Your actions showed you didn't want to be served. What kind of person throws papers out of their vehicle? I have read comments on here that according to alacourt their was a summons. You say that Gespass had an ulterior motive for visiting you in jail, perhaps accidentally missing the summons when he was looking through the case file was planned to give you false hope. You don't believe anything he said to you except the part that fits your story.
You are a piece of work, @5:50. Here's a challenge for you, one I know you can't meet, and I know you are too lazy to even try:
* Try to find a single citation to law that says it is proper for an officer to conduct an unlawful traffic stop to "serve" court papers. I've already cited law that shows it is improper, but go ahead and see if you can find law to support your argument?
* My definition or your definition of avoiding service doesn't matter. The real definition is what counts. Can you cite it?
* You've read comments on here that there was a summons? Hah, what a joke. An attorney with almost 40 years of experience viewed the sealed file, at the time, and put in writing that there was no summons. But you want to believe an anonymous commenter who is viewing a file long after the fact, after it almost certainly has been tampered with. And you expect to be taken seriously?
* I never said Gespass had an ulterior motive for visiting me in jail. In fact, I know the people who arranged for his visit. I also never said I don't believe anything Gespass said. I've written extensively about his written statements and shown what seems to match the law and what doesn't.
* Here is your all-time ridiculous statement: ". . . perhaps accidentally missing the summons when he was looking through the case file was planned to give you false hope."
Do you realize how stupid this sounds. You are saying that Gespass "planned" to "accidentally" miss something in the file. Was it planned or an accident. It can't be both.
You really need to learn how to write in English--or is it your second language?
What technicalities are you talking about, @4:31. Share some. When have I avoided court after being lawfully summonded? Let's hear of some examples.
Where, @4:27, does it say in the Motion to Quash that I ran into the garage? Can you point that out?
And what, by the way, was "Bill Baxley's story"? It would be interesting to know since even he doesn't claim to have been present on the night in question.
Why should I take your advice about anything if you insist on remaining cloaked in anonymity. Contact me at rshuler3156@gmail.com and ID yourself and we can talk. I can make an informed judgment about whether your advice is worth taking.
If you give advice without stating your name and qualifications, it makes me think YOU might have a mental illness.
Who says the traffic stop was bogus? The only person I heard say that was you, but I bet Dehart would tell a different story. So, no there is no law permitting an unlawful traffic stop, but there is one that permits a lawful stop. There is one that says a traffic stop can not be unreasonably extended, but the handing of papers doesn't extend it an unreasonable amount of time.
As far as the planned accident, if he is ever called to court after he lied to you, I'm sure Gespass will say it was an oversight and he didn't mean to miss it. Have you gone and checked? You did talk of how unprofessional he was when he was at the jail, tossing his pencil. You did not trust him and your opinion is everybody has ulterior motives because they are out to get you.
As far as the definition of avoiding, why didn't you answer the question? If it is merely a question of looking it up, why didn't you just provide it? Sounds like you don't know if you legally avoided or not. Either way, you had no intention of accepting service.
DeHart's own words say the traffic stop is bogus. Read here:
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2015/05/alabama-deputys-own-words-show-he.html
I've already cited the law on avoidance numerous times on this blog. If you are too lazy to find it, that's your problem.
I've been served in multiple states on various matters, in Alabama and Missouri, so I have a history of accepting lawful service. During the time frame in question, I was out and about frequently and could have easily been served. If the cops couldn't do it, a professional process server should have been hired.
Of course, a professional server might have asked, "Uh, where is the summons?" Since there wasn't one, a professional probably would have refused to attempt service. The thugs from Shelby Sheriff's office were more than happy to give it a try.
I don't recall you citing the law on avoidance. Why don't you point me to it, you have provided links to other things, but you seem to be avoiding trying to give a definition.
You were served while you were "out and about". I'm not saying you should go to jail for it, but you were avoiding. If it looks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
As far as a bogus traffic stop, Dehart's words never contradicted the fact he said you ran a stop sign. That is the probable cause for the stop, whether or not his intentions were different does not make it bogus. You are trying to say he unreasonably extended the stop, but the stop was not bogus by anything Dehart has said.
Read this post at following link, and it answers your questions. If you can't grasp it, I can't help you:
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2015/04/new-us-supreme-court-ruling-helps-show.html
It doesn't, at no point in the post was the term or definition of avoidance. I asked for a link to the post talking about avoidance and you link to one that doesn't prove anything. The stop wasn't bogus nor was it extended. He gave you the papers immediately after giving you the ticket. There was no extra time and you voluntarily took the papers. I understand your opinion, but it will not hold up in court. The stop is a non issue. Where are the links to you defining and addressing avoidance?
The link goes to a new SCOTUS ruling that says an officer cannot extend a stop for any reason unless there is probable cause to believe a crime is connected to the vehicle. Once the license and registration has been returned to the driver, as it had been in this case, the stop is over unless the officer suspects criminal activity connected to the car. That is the very definition of a "pretext" stop, but DeHart never said a word about criminal activity related to our car, so he lied about it being a pretext stop. It actually was a bogus and unlawful stop.
On top of that, I've shown that DeHart not only violated our civil rights, he likely committed a crime. You should be able to find that post, if you care to actually read it.
If you can't understand Rodriguez, well, that's your problem. I can't help you, with that or with your legal research on avoidance. And unless you ID yourself and show you have some ability to grasp legal concepts, I'm not remotely interested in your opinion.
You said you have " already cited the law on avoidance numerous times on this blog", yet you can't point me to a single post. Since you have given links in the past, it is safe to say that was a lie. You haven't cited law on avoidance, otherwise, you would post a link.
It's not that I can't point to a post or give a link. I can give many. I'm just not going to do it for someone who seems to be a know-it-all, and who has refused to read and comprehend material at other links I've provided. You aren't worth the trouble, so do the research yourself.
Post a Comment