tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post604900428064862005..comments2024-03-12T21:13:06.850-05:00Comments on Legal Schnauzer: My wife did not "get physical" with any Missouri deputies during eviction, but even if she had, it would have been legal under the state's "Castle Doctrine" lawlegalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-29073497199199260622017-05-07T10:38:51.540-05:002017-05-07T10:38:51.540-05:00Thanks for the kind words. Many Americans have no ...Thanks for the kind words. Many Americans have no idea that our justice system is badly broken. legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-76844151393533277382017-05-07T09:54:44.505-05:002017-05-07T09:54:44.505-05:00I enjoy your blog, I hope the best for you and the...I enjoy your blog, I hope the best for you and the road you face.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-42862692934766825822017-05-07T09:52:25.824-05:002017-05-07T09:52:25.824-05:00I have read so many papers where a person does 18y...I have read so many papers where a person does 18yrs for false imprisonment, from mistakes collecting evidence to proper filing of reports and interviews completed properly by cops and prosecutors. from their mistakes a man lost his for the last 18 years and they're not held accountable for the mistakes they made I'm not even sure if they have to say they're sorryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-38359401250419113552017-05-07T09:36:05.673-05:002017-05-07T09:36:05.673-05:00@9:16 --
Malicious intent is not always the stan...@9:16 -- <br /><br />Malicious intent is not always the standard on the civil side. You have many personal injury cases, for example, where the standard is negligence, recklessness, wantonnes, etc. In our case, we have evidence of intentional conduct on the civil side. The officer knew we had timely filed a notice of appeal, but they acted unlawfully anyway. On the criminal side -- Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law -- the statutory standard is "willful" conduct.<br /><br />Intent is a long, complicated subject under the law, and I can't go into it adequately in this space. But victims should not assume that "malicious intent" is the standard, and that the proper mindset is difficult to prove. Many times, it is not.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-50771387544994926332017-05-07T09:20:38.955-05:002017-05-07T09:20:38.955-05:00niceniceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-11474714605845267612017-05-07T09:16:23.128-05:002017-05-07T09:16:23.128-05:00I agree with you on your assessment of the castle ...I agree with you on your assessment of the castle doctrine. It is an important law that should be followed but it should also be clearly Define so there's no question to where a man's Castle is really a man's Castle. <br />It's a shame law enforcement uses bully tactics instead of calmly communicating with citizens of the public. What would it have hurt to give it another day to collect proper information and calmly communicating to avoid anyone getting hurt or being at risk of death. It's a shame That the mentality of law enforcement is "we are right and never wrong" do what we order you to do or face loosing your freedom... and getting the shit beaten out of you... but it should not be any Wonder why they think they are right all the time its because no can tell them they are wrong except for themselves. It should be illegal for any agency to police itself. The old world of abusive military style of enforcing the law is getting out of hand and only getting worse. I guarantee that George Washington would be pissed at all of us Americans to allow the Kings soldiers enforcing tyranny on its citizens all over again. Would any of our forefathers want to engage in a revolutionary war knowing that it wouldn't do any good if the future being us would allow the bullies of the past to return once again.<br />Enforcing the law has gotten out of hand bye the officers of the law forcing their law as they see fit.<br />Enforcing the law is wrong in my opinion. Forcing others to do as they're told or else, is not what our forefathers wanted for us. <br />The cops mentality should change two protecting the law and following the law just as us commoners do in protecting and following the law there should not be a separate set of rules. I know it's tough to be a cop but that's enough to automatically give law enforcement the right to be judge jury and executioner.<br />But my question is to you after all that is said and your property being illegal entry by the Sheriff's Department and you win your case.<br />Where can we be protected from any law enforcement agency by claiming it was a clerical error or a simple human mistake and no malicious intent present to harm anyone they just thought they were doing their job, so they say ,so they think. So either cops are never wrong Or they protected by the courts of any wrong doing what so ever no matter what under the cover of unknowingly human error and calling it a simple mistake. <br />The only way you can turn this around on the law enforcement is to prove malicious intent by the sheriff.... correct? And that is always 99% impossible to prove anyone purposely broke the law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-69057852880621734742017-04-30T09:30:52.631-05:002017-04-30T09:30:52.631-05:00Good. Don't let the door hit you on the way ou...Good. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-72879819639796549252017-04-30T07:37:42.339-05:002017-04-30T07:37:42.339-05:00I will trouble you no further. I am no con artist...I will trouble you no further. I am no con artist -- indeed I'm confused what con I could be playing. I don't represent any party in any suit involving you. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-4454126043929762372017-04-29T23:19:53.895-05:002017-04-29T23:19:53.895-05:00@11:01 --
You can't read your own case. From...@11:01 -- <br /><br />You can't read your own case. From Nandan:<br /><br />"“Judgment” as used in these rules includes a decree and any order from which an appeal lies. A judgment is rendered when entered. A judgment is entered when a writing signed by the judge and denominated “judgment” is filed. The judgment may be a separate document or included on the docket sheet of the case.<br /><br />"Rule 74.01(a) requires that “a judgment must be (1) in writing, (2) signed by the judge, (3) denominated ‘judgment,’ and (4) filed.” The rule is a “bright line” test to determine when a judgment becomes final and appealable. City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 853 (Mo. banc 1997)."<br /><br />The judgment you claim to have read clearly is marked "filed" on 8/31/15. That is a "bright line" test, end of discussion.<br /><br />However, in this case, the 8/31 order is marked interlocutory, with a hearing on other issues set for 10/1. That means an appealable final judgment would not come until some time after 10/1. The eviction on 9/9, well ahead of 10/1, was about as grossly unlawful as one can get. <br /><br />You are right about one thing: You acknowledged your analysis might be incorrect, and it is. <br /><br />I don' care who you are, but you aren't the disinterested party you claim to be. You are a con artist, and you aren't worth a damn at the law.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-2229713577428070522017-04-29T23:01:20.077-05:002017-04-29T23:01:20.077-05:00I am not he. I did go to the docket sheet and read...I am not he. I did go to the docket sheet and read the judgment. It appears dated August 27. Yes I saw when it got put on the docket but I don't think that governs per the case I cited. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-5735846953791566862017-04-29T21:29:32.931-05:002017-04-29T21:29:32.931-05:00@7:57 --
Your review of the case is, as you anti...@7:57 -- <br /><br />Your review of the case is, as you anticipated, incorrect. The 8/27 docket entry shows that only an interlocutory judgment had been entered. The 8/31 docket entry shows a dated entry, which means the clock started ticking at that time. There is no judgment dated 8/27, and no evidence that anything was filed on that date. Your reading of Nandan is way off target.<br /><br />You do, however, inadvertently raise an important point. Even the 8/31 docket entry labels this an "interlocutory judgment." That means it was not appealable, and no final judgment was to be entered until after a hearing scheduled for 10/1. That means we were not subject to eviction until sometime after 10/1. The the cops and the landlord (Cowherd) and Cowherd's lawyer (Lowther) were even more far off than I thought. The clock had never even begun to tick when cops unlawfully broke into our residence and broke my wife's arm.<br /><br />This adds to evidence that our "eviction order" was signed by Craig Lowther and Deputy Scott Harrison, but not by a judge. That makes the eviction even more grossly unlawful than it already was. It also sounds a lot like fraud, what do you think? It also sounds a lot like a crime, one that needs to be investigated at the direction of the US attorney, what do you think?<br /><br />As for the notice of appeal, we filed the appellate fee as required. There was no bond because there were no money damages designated in the order. If you read the order, you should be able to see that. <br /><br />Thanks for pointing this out. It makes our civil case even stronger and our grounds for citing castle doctrine law even stronger.<br /><br />BTW, you really expect me to believe you are a disinterested party. Mr. Lowther, don't make me laugh.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-69263946877830652902017-04-29T19:57:26.328-05:002017-04-29T19:57:26.328-05:00Hello. I am a lawyer who occasionally practices i...Hello. I am a lawyer who occasionally practices in Missouri. I understand you don't much like lawyers. I don't represent any of the parties you are fighting. I'm commenting for entertainment -- nothing I'm writing is legal advice. I don't represent anyone you've mentionned -- specifically, not your brother, not your mom, not the Sheriff, not any county you've talked about, not the landlord, no company or agent of any of them. I am purely a kibbitzer. <br /><br />I know I'm not going to win any friends with this post, but....according to casenet, your judgment was signed on August 27, and indicates there was a full hearing. The judge found against you .... meaning that the argument you paid rent or that this action was brought too early failed. <br /><br />Since the judgment was signed on August 27, that's the date of entry. The Nandan case says that one does not wait for the file-stamp by the clerk -- its the judge who enters judgment. This means that the 10-day clock started August 27 -- meaning that, at least on its face, it looks like there was no statutory violation.<br /><br />As for your notice of appeal, I believe you had to file a bond or obtain an in forma pauperis to get the appeal to stop the eviction. I didn't find evidence in the record to show that you asked for a bond....<br /><br />So....why am I writing this? Well, you have an extensive following -- you are a hero to a great many for your yeoman work in Alabama, and you are a journalist with 30 years experience. You know much and more; I, as I am told over and over again, don't know anything. What I'm worried about is that someone reading your stuff is going to decide that the castle defense means they can shoot a landlord or deputy who comes to evict them, based on their incorrect reading of a case file, and that they will cite you as a defense....<br /><br />And that will be the next tool to discredit you and all that you do. <br /><br />So, please, be careful. I apologize if my review of your case is incorrect; I am, in fact, glad to see you challenge all of this. For what it is worth, I think that there was a great error -- it looks to me like this should have been brought as a detainer action (which has more forgiving deadlines) than a rent and possession case. Which means, I suspect, that the Court lacked the power to throw you out of your house, because that is not what specifically was asked for....*if* you raised that issue on a timely appeal.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-4386777062957735432017-04-29T07:45:34.637-05:002017-04-29T07:45:34.637-05:00A comment from a friend who suffered similar perso...A comment from a friend who suffered similar personal destruction down South: "You would be amazed at the extreme tactics that these wealthy, powerful people will use to destroy their enemies," going on to say, "if they want something really bad done, like murder, etc., they will sometimes get a crack addict to do it." Sadly, quite often, "officers of the court," (lawyers) have the connections to the underworld at their fingertips and little else needs to be said by a client besides, "I have this problem. How can WE take care of it?" Next question is quite possibly, "For how much?" <br /><br />Roger found that leaving the state doesn't work, because he's up against a well-connected, extremely powerful network who wants him silenced and they will also be sure that he never gets any form of legal justice. Leaving the country might not work either because great wealth travels circles around the globe. If they want to destroy a person, they will find a way to do it. When they've taken everything a person has, at least in the USA he's still guaranteed FREE SPEECH. Roger, your blog might be the reason you're both still alive. <br /><br />One thing is for certain. The police generally won't unravel these kinds of conspiracies, because they can't put their "higher ups" in prison. They know they can't win in court against them, just like the rest of us. It's another one of those glitches in the system that needs to be remedied.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-21961274527857112432017-04-28T22:44:11.810-05:002017-04-28T22:44:11.810-05:00To Anonymous @ April 27, 2017 at 11:00 AM They ...To Anonymous @ April 27, 2017 at 11:00 AM They were probably fingered by some of their enemies in Alabama, message carefully, possibly politically conveyed to Missouri. Then the common, classic "bait and trap" police tactic was used. Intimidate, harass, provoke, startle, frighten–– get a reaction from your victims then change the story and destroy them with it. It's amazing how networks of people connect from state to state, whether through politics, business, finance, family, or social means. Soon everyone in America will have to wear cameras 24/7 to help avoid this kind of conspiracy and prove their innocence. Never forget, most police are good folks–– problem being they all fall under the same hatchet called politics while straddling the barrel called salary and benefits. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-64242986059791877102017-04-27T22:35:46.681-05:002017-04-27T22:35:46.681-05:00@8:49 --
Other than being a smart-ass, what know...@8:49 -- <br /><br />Other than being a smart-ass, what knowledge or qualifications do you have that allow you to make any kind of informed statement about this situation. I'm guessing the answer is zero?legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-489808321431345842017-04-27T20:49:58.373-05:002017-04-27T20:49:58.373-05:00"It's not out of the question, in my mind..."It's not out of the question, in my mind, that the plan was to murder us."<br /><br />Yes, that's totally right. Because you're *so* important. Widely read by many, a threat to the powers that be, and not insane at all. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-10245591314017219812017-04-27T16:34:09.795-05:002017-04-27T16:34:09.795-05:00@4:32 --
Thanks for sharing. Typical that Alabam...@4:32 -- <br /><br />Thanks for sharing. Typical that Alabama would write a Castle Doctrine Law that lets corrupt cops slip through the cracks. The law seems to assume that a cop performing "official duties" is acting within the law. Reality tells us that is not necessarily the case.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-87333836153992650812017-04-27T16:32:03.316-05:002017-04-27T16:32:03.316-05:00Alabama law lets rogue cops off the hook . . .
T...Alabama law lets rogue cops off the hook . . . <br /><br />The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:<br /><br />d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-38414954678272898392017-04-27T14:37:38.375-05:002017-04-27T14:37:38.375-05:00@2:04 --
Agree. Guns aren't nearly as protec...@2:04 -- <br /><br />Agree. Guns aren't nearly as protective as people think they are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-42281526558432117412017-04-27T14:04:52.212-05:002017-04-27T14:04:52.212-05:00Here's what's so dangerous about these Cas...Here's what's so dangerous about these Castle Doctrine Laws: They encourage citizens to engage in force with individuals who are likely to have an edge in weaponry and training. In Carol's case, it appears she would have been justified under the law to break out a gun against invading cops. But, as you note, the cops were heavily armed and trained in the use of weapons, so Carol probably winds up dead or severely injured. That's not much of a victim, but the NRA and others who push for these laws don't care about that. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-16547490078526848992017-04-27T13:00:58.326-05:002017-04-27T13:00:58.326-05:00I think the cops knew their entry would be unlawfu...I think the cops knew their entry would be unlawful, so they concocted the 911 tale as a reason to bring heavy artillery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-1741054286518906852017-04-27T11:19:07.153-05:002017-04-27T11:19:07.153-05:00(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (...(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:<br />(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.<br />(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.<br />(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.<br />(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.<br />(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.<br />(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §610; Acts 1979, No. 79-599, p. 1060, §1; Act 2006-303, p. 638, §1.)<br /><br />legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-73049517397821109522017-04-27T11:17:46.816-05:002017-04-27T11:17:46.816-05:00a. The person against whom the defensive force is ...a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;<br />b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;<br />c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or<br />d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.<br />(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.<br /><br />(Cont.)legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-24541828894975445592017-04-27T11:16:32.642-05:002017-04-27T11:16:32.642-05:00@11:12 --
Good question. I did some quick resear...@11:12 -- <br /><br />Good question. I did some quick research and found this. Haven't studied it yet:<br /><br />Section 13A-3-23<br />Use of force in defense of a person.<br />(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:<br />(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.<br />(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.<br />(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.<br />(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:<br /><br />(Cont.)legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-43546879044992954942017-04-27T11:12:53.213-05:002017-04-27T11:12:53.213-05:00I wonder how Alabama's castle doctrine law rea...I wonder how Alabama's castle doctrine law reads. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com