Leaderboard 728 X 90

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Why did the state of Missouri wait until the last possible day to bring criminal charges of trespass and assault on law enforcement officer against my wife?


X-ray of Carol Shuler's broken arm,
shattered by Missouri deputy
We have presented evidence that the arrest of my wife, Carol, in Missouri might have been an act of retaliation for our reporting on Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions and his closeted homosexuality. That, however, is not the only instance of curious timing regarding Carol's arrest on bogus charges of trespass and "assault on a law enforcement officer."

Their is no probable cause to support the charges in the first place. I know because I've read the probable-cause statement from Deputy Debi Wade, who supposedly was present when we were unlawfully evicted on September 9, 2015, and a male deputy shattered Carol's left arm so severely that it required trauma surgery for repair -- and she is expected to regain only 75 to 80 percent usage.

I say Officer Wade "supposedly" was present because her probable-cause statement is pure fantasy. I'm not sure there is a single truthful statement in it, and it says right at the top that false statements are "punishable by law." One female office was present that day, and I suppose that was Debi Wade. But it's curious that Wade created the probable-cause statement because I saw the whole event where Carol was brutalized and had her arm broken -- and she and Wade never made contact with each other. At least two male deputies -- Scott Harrison and the unknown officer who broke her arm -- made contact with Carol. Why didn't one of them make the probable-cause statement?

Sheriff Jim Arnott pointed at Carol after she had been slammed to the ground and beaten and claimed she had "assaulted a police officer." He ordered her taken to jail, where someone finally noticed she was in severe pain and both of her arms were purple and had her taken to a nearby emergency room. That's where X-rays showed her arm had been broken, the bone snapped in two and completely displaced. Why didn't Arnott make the probable-cause statement? Evidence is overwhelming that Arnott committed a federal crime by ordering a baseless arrest, and that evidence only is getting stronger now that Carol, the victim of an assault, has been arrested for an assault.

Deputy Debi Wade
(From facebook.com)
We will examine the probable-cause statement in a series of upcoming posts. But for now, let's look at procedural oddities connected to Carol's arrest:

* The statute of limitations for bringing misdemeanor criminal charges in Missouri is one year, and the incident was on September 9, 2015. A review of the docket at case.net (Case number 1631-CR07731) shows Greene County Prosecutor Dan Patterson did not file the charges until Sept. 8, 2016. In other words, he waited until the last possible day to bring charges. If this were a case of true assault on an officer, even of the misdemeanor variety, why would a PA let the alleged perpetrator remain free for almost one year?

* Carol failed to appear at an arraignment because, as the court docket shows, she never received notice of the hearing. That prompted someone, probably Greene County Circuit Clerk Thomas Barr, to order her arrest, on October 31, 2016. Deputies did not attempt to make the arrest until January 27 of this year and actually made it on Jan. 30. Why would officers wait almost three months to make an arrest that had been ordered last October? Did those who swear to "serve and protect" wait until our Legal Schnauzer reports on Jeff Sessions (and federal judge Bill Pryor) to take action? Was there collusion between corrupt individuals in Alabama and their brethren in Missouri? Was Carol's arrest, in fact, an act of retaliation?

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would say they waited until the last moment to file because they knew there were no grounds for the charges.

Anonymous said...

Not sure I understand. Who is the blonde woman in the photo?

legalschnauzer said...

She is Debi Wade, the deputy who wrote the probable-cause statement, which probably does not have a single truthful statement in it. It says on the document that false statements are "punishable by law." She made plenty of them.

TRACY IRELAND said...

This is seriously wrong!! You know that you were absolutely targeted because of your political views. Snacks of 1960's Alabama and Mississippi collusion. I know it exists

Anonymous said...

Sounds to me like they waited until last moment so they could at least have the charges filed and then wait for instructions from someone on whether to proceed or not. The instructions to proceed apparently came in late January.

Anonymous said...

After this sort of hatchet job, why on earth would any lawyer represent you? Rather than move on and focus on the merits of an appeal, you have to trash the reputation of someone who helped you and then quit when you behaved in a clearly “self-defeating” way. You’re a terrible client, with the impulse control of a toddler.

Anonymous said...

I want as many people as possible to know that you have been under a full-bore, nonstop assault from Sessions and his subordinates for quite some time. Most people don't realize that he has already revealed his plans. He revealed these plans in a letter bearing all of the hallmarks of having been written by a mischievous zob. Not only is his letter entirely lacking in logic, legally questionable, and utterly lacking in empathy, but his goal seems to be nothing less than to destroy a life.

Anonymous said...

The world is a hostile place, Roger. Is there any greater proof of that then the rise and fall of someone like Donald J. Trump? We would not have needed someone like him to run as President if it were not for the abuses of power and privilege that are now routine among our elites. He was one of them and has sucked at the teat of power, abusing women and drugs and using his wealth to get what he wants. Now he fights for us. That is why voters here and in Alabama turned out in record numbers and make him the next President.

Ben said...

Roger, can you address the claims made against you on Facebook. I'm a supporter of your work but this is troubling. Are the screenshots faked?

Anonymous said...

Agree with 9:11. The late filing makes two things more likely:

(1) The charges are groundless.

(2) Someone directed the Missouri cops to make the arrest.

legalschnauzer said...

Ben:

What claims against me are on Facebook? I'm not aware of any such claims.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:14 --

Who was trying help me? Whose reputation did I trash? I suspect you are a bot, so I'm not expecting an answer.

Anonymous said...

Re: 10:29 AM

That is not true. You have deleted posts and blocked people making them. You know damn well what the claims are.

Come clean.

Anonymous said...

A large number of legal cases are filed just before the expiration of the SOL. It is a common practice in both civil and criminal cases. In itself, filing a suit or charges at the deadline is not an indication of something underhanded.

legalschnauzer said...

@11:51 --

Why don't you ID yourself so we can tell if you are someone making an educated comment or an uneducated comment?

legalschnauzer said...

@11:09 --

Who are you, and why are you butting in on my conversation with Ben?

Anonymous said...

We need to start calling @11:51 "Mr. Apologist." He's an apologist for corrupt cops, lawyers, judges, prosecutors, landlords -- you name it.

If there is any corrupt a-hole in a position of authority, Mr. A can apologize for him.

Hell of a way to go through life.

legalschnauzer said...

I think that's a great idea, @1:07. Another possibility might be "Thug Lover." There doesn't seem to be a thug for whom he can't apologize. But I like "Mr. Apologist" best.

Anonymous said...

I'm pretty sure @9:14 is referring to Davy Hay as the lawyer who "tried to help you." That the comment reappears today on a post about your wife's case tells me you are dealing with a bot.

legalschnauzer said...

Good point, @1:31. Thank you. I think I'm dealing with several bots today.

Anonymous said...

Hey, 11:09 . . . Are you a fraud, a rude piece of shit, or both? Someone named Ben asked LS a question, LS replied, and then you broke in? Looks like you are both "Ben" and "Anonymous." You create multiple identities to deceive people? Is that how you roll? Very clever.

Why don't you answer Schnauzer's question? Why hasn't Ben answered Schnauzer's question? It seems to be a simple enough question. What the hell are you talking about on Facebook?

Not that I care, and I doubt Schnauzer cares, but you brought it up, so maybe you can shine some light on what the "F" you're talking about. Unless, of course, you are making it up, Mr. Double Identity.

legalschnauzer said...

Unpublished comment from "Ben" at @12:43:

"The claim (with a screenshot) that you posted positive comments to your blog posts as "anonymous". The one in the screenshot was you posting as a "paralegal", agreeing with your legal assessment. That comment is now gone from the blog, but the same text appears in a later comment from "anonymous"


My question for "Ben":

Who made this "claim"? I haven't seen it.

legalschnauzer said...

So, "Ben," you aren't going to tell us who made this "claim"? Sounds like it's no claim at all. Oh, wait . . . a nameless person on Facebook made a "claim," so it must be true.

Is that the world you live in, "Ben"? To quote Trump, "Sad."

Anonymous said...

What's with these dumb bells, and some claim on Facebook?

legalschnauzer said...

@7:29 --

I'm not sure, I haven't seen it and have no idea what they are even talking about. I just know a few people mention a screenshot and Facebook, but that is it. Why it would involve me, I don't know.

I asked some guy named "Ben," multiple times, to tell me who made the mysterious and mythical "claim," and he didn't respond. That tells me he doesn't know, so I don't give a crap what it is. I'm assuming it's nothing of consequence. A "claim" by an unknown person on Facebook has the "news value" of scum on a toilet bowl-- that is, if the claim even exists, and I don't know that it does.

e.a.f. said...

OMG this is all so confusing. Need a chart to keep track. Read this on Valentine's day, one could say there isn't a lot of love out here in the blog world.

A. 10:29 a.m. It is the right of any blogger to block people and comments they don't want to deal with. There is no right to be published on another person's blog. its that simple. It is a regular occurrence on any number of blogs around the world by small and big time bloggers. My suggestions: if you want to voice an opinion that L.S. doesn't want to print/post, get your own blog.

as to coming clean, Surely at this stage of the game, Mr. L.S. takes his baths/showers on a regular basis. However, your comments do sound a tad muddy.

It is not unusual for some people to remain A. when posting on blogs given their positions. However, once people start making negative comments and "calling out" a blogger, one could reasonably conclude there is more at stake than "privacy" considerations.

I've always suggested to L.S. that he simply block, not post nasty individuals or respond to them. (trolls, etc.) Its is his blog, not ours. He provides information and opinions. We get to comment and that comment doesn't have to agree with the blogger, but its always best to remain polite.

legalschnauzer said...

I should mention that "Ben" is a fouled-mouth little punk who apparently comments under multiple names to deceive readers. Then he whines like a little girl when he doesn't get his way, and I won't publish his phony comments that are based on a claim by someone he can't, or won't, even name. He has no moral high ground, and he can jump up my ass for all I care. He's just a warped Trumpista, who probably is scared shitless that the Flynn resignation is going to cause TrumpWorld to collapse on itself.

Here is a salutation for Ben: Fuck you!