 |
| Carol Tovich Shuler: The face of a "cop assaulter" |
We found out last Friday that Carol had been charged with "assaulting a law enforcement officer" and trespass, based on an incident where she was surrounded by three deputies, and one of them grabbed her, slammed her to the ground, and viciously yanked on her arms -- breaking her left arm so severely that it required trauma surgery. What are the take-home lessons from our experiences of yesterday?
(1) You can be arrested for failure to appear, even though the court admits it never notified you.
(2) The victim of an assault can be charged with assault, as long as the actual perpetrator is a "law-enforcement professional."
(3) Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott, who saw his deputies brutalize Carol from five feet away and then declared, "She assaulted a police officer," is a lying, cheating, crooked criminal son of a bitch, and we intend to prove it. (Oh, did we forget to mention that he's a bastard, too?)
(4) Greene County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson, who filed charges against Carol on the last possible day to do so, is just as bad as Arnott.
This is the state of America's "justice system" and a classic example of so-called fiscal conservatives (Arnott and Patterson both are Republicans) who waste taxpayer money on outrageous scams like this.
Carol spent about six hours in custody, but she never was actually incarcerated, and never changed into jail clothes etc. The fine folks at Hilton Bail Bonding arranged for her release, the cost was $100, and Carol received a court date -- yes, she actually was notified this time.
We soon will go into more details about the facts, law, and curious timing of this whole charade. But for now, let's focus on the official record at case.net. If you go to case number 1631-CR07731, you will find this notation on 9/21/2016:
09/21/2016 -- Returned Mail--Undeliverable
Document ID - 16-CRSU-6650; Served To - SHULER, CAROL T; Server - ; Served Date - 19-SEP-16; Served Time - 00:00:00; Service Type - First Class Mail; Reason Description - Other; Service Text - Attempted - not known; unable to forward./jar
Once you wade through the administrative gibberish, it's pretty clear what this says: The court -- apparently unable to afford a process server -- sent notice of the court date via first-class mail, and it came back as "undeliverable" and "unable to forward."
If you click on "Parties and Attorneys," it becomes clear why the notice was undeliverable. Her address is listed as:
SHULER , CAROL T , Defendant
4070 S FORT AVE
SPRINGFIELD, MO 65802
That was our address when we were unlawfully evicted on September 9, 2015, by . . . the Greene County Sheriff, with Jim Arnott (his own bastard self) on the scene. It's the place where one of Arnott's deputies broke Carol's arm. And yet, "justice officials" could not figure out that we likely did not live at a place where we, and our belongings, were thrown on the street -- and Carol was beaten up. We haven't lived at that address for roughly 16 months.
 |
| An X-ray of Carol Shuler's arm after trauma surgery, showing multiple fracture lines and hardware she will live with for the rest of her life. (X-ray from Cox South Medical Center, Springfield, MO, from the staff of trauma surgeon Dr. Brian Buck.) |
This all was ordered, best we can tell, by white conservative Christians, mostly men. And yet, many Americans are concerned about the possibility of Syrian refugees coming to our shores? Heck, refugees from anywhere could only help this cesspool of a country that no longer even merits being called a "democracy," where our supposedly cherished constitution means absolutely nothing in court rooms, law firms, and police/sheriff departments, from sea to shining sea.
By the way, the judge who actually issued the warrant is a woman, Margaret Holden-Palmietto, who apparently needs to be checked for any signs of brain-wave activity. Holden-Palmietto was appointed by Gov. Jay Nixon, which means she probably is a Democrat. That means she will get her butt kicked when she runs for election someday against a Republican who presumably will have a pulse -- although a pulse is optional for a Republican candidate in southwest Missouri.
But this should be scary for anyone who cares about justice. As an avowed liberal, I tend to hold female Democrats in high regard. Heck, I married one. And you would think that Margaret Holden-Palmietto, who probably is no dummy, would be strong enough to stand up to the entrenched corruption in Missouri's third largest metro area. But she clearly is too weak, too timid, or too distracted to actually stand firm against the rot that is going on all around her.
Her job, I guess, is to protect the citizenry from the Carol Tovich Shulers of the world.
(To be continued)
40 comments:
I would have more sympathy toward you and your wife if you had in the past conducted yourselves in a proper manner. You're well known trouble makers who seem to have a problem with honesty. Clearly you were hiding from the police officers the other night. Shameful. You've been nasty and litigious for years. People like you don't get cut a lot of slack from the system or from anyone who knows of your reputation.
At the end of the day you'll both have criminal records, which as far as I am concerned is completely appropriate. You are a nasty pair of sociopaths hiding behind journalism and progressive politics.
Nice to see that Missouri is just as corrupt as Alabama.
You can be arrested for failure to appear when you aren't notified that you are supposed to appear? Is this what our courts are about these days?
To readers:
I published the comment from "Willard Marlborough" above just as an example of the kind of inane comments I get, especially in a TrumpWorld where Jeff Sessions (and maybe Bill Pryor) are key figures. Notice that Willard questions my honesty, but he almost certainly is using a false name. Also, notice that Willard is butt-hurt about "progressive politics."
I get dozens of mindless BS comments like this, and I've set it for most of them to automatically go to spam. But just wanted sane readers how there to get a load of "Willard's" act.
Willard:
A few questions:
(1) Can you cite any examples of anything I've said or done that is "dishonest" regarding events described on this blog -- or anywhere else, for that matter? Let's hear some specifics.
(2) Do you know how our trail of litigation started? What case was it? Who was plaintiff and who was defendant? Before that, had we ever been involved in litigation?
(3) Can you cite any legal case, where one of us was a party, that was correctly decided under the law? Please explain why any such case was correctly decided?
(4) Can you cite any crime that Carol or I actually have committed? Please explain.
(5) What's your problem with progressive politics, and what does that have to do with various legal issues reported here? Are you an ideologue who is butt-hurt because we've pulled the mask off some of your conservative "stars"?
Willard: You are a POS. And you're stupid. And you are probably fat and ugly.
The perfect conservative.
That bit about progressive politics tells you all you need to know about Willard. He's a dumb ass and a knuckle-dragger.
I wondered why I felt so safe yesterday. Must have been because Carol was off the streets.
You mean to tell me, they can send a criminal summons in regular U.S. mail, and if you don't get it, you can be subject to arrest?
That's not the law, but that's what was done in Carol's case. I will have details in an upcoming post.
Carol has the face of someone who has been in a lot of scraps.
Oh, I'm constantly having to keep her out of brawls. She gets all liqoured up and goes, "I won't to go assault a cop. Someone find me a cop." It's tough being married to a roller derby queen.
(1) Yes, there are many examples of your dishonesty. Your general approach seems to be the sexual smear, which you have used against everyone from Obama to Pryor to all those supposed "cheaters" to Garrison. Readers here are familiar with the dozens of examples. You make extraordinary claims without even ordinary proof, so no one should be surprised when you get burned.
(2) There isn't really a "trail of litigation", if you look at what happened critically. You've connected dots, but your conclusions ("its a conspiracy!") isn't backed up by facts.
(3) You are not a practicing lawyer. At best I'd call you a polymath, and at worst a barracks lawyer. You can quote chapter and verse of the law, but you don't know how the law actually works. If you did, you'd have some success. Your legal defeats, which are predictable, will just continue.
(4) Your mis-understanding of the law again. Your wife has just been charged with assault. I expect she will plead guilty to a lesser charge and will end up with a criminal record. And what I expect you to do after that is to say that she wasn't guilty and didn't commit a crime... when she has already pleaded guilty. This is the sort of thing you do.
(5) I'm a progressive! I don't live anywhere near AL (thank god). I'm very familiar with political people of all stripes who hide behind ideologies so they can bully and demean people. But I would say you find behind your un-sourced "journalism" more so than your supposed progressiveness. You have the right to publish anything you want, but that doesn't make what you write true, and there are consequences regardless.
@10:28 thanks for the comments. Not sure you have enough information to determine whether I am stupid or just don't share your opinion. I am a little on the fat side, but I'm as God made me.
@10:54 I'm a progressive/liberal/leftie. Lots of people use their politics as a weapon.
@11:13 Carol has been charged with a serious crime and will have to held to account for what she has done.
@11:27 I think we can draw our own conclusions.
@11:29 Roger, are you joking? That comment is going to end up cited in court, as it should be.
Willard:
Re: 11:13 -- Carol has been charged with a third-degree misdemeanor, which is about as low-level a "crime" as you can get in most jurisdictions. Obviously you haven't read Missouri law or my posts on the subject, but the state essentially is claiming she brushed up against a deputy, as you might brush up against someone at Wal-Mart. Except at Wal-Mart, you aren't likely to break someone's arm like a twig.
Re: 11:29 -- You apparently have no understanding of sarcasm or hyperbole. You think I was being serious? Then, you have given folks enough information to conclude you are stupid.
Willard:
(1) If there are so many examples, why can't you give one? You claim I'm dishonest, which means I've stated something that isn't true. You've stated nothing regarding alleged "sexual smears" that isn't true. It's a matter of fact that no post here ever has been proven, by law, to be false or defamatory.
(2) Yes, there is a trail of litigation outlined here, and it started when a neighbor (Mike McGarity) with a long criminal record sued me. In other words, I was the defendant. Everything else has grown from that one case, which I've written dozens of posts about. The McGarity case has nothing to do with conspiracies. It's a matter of fact that a career criminal sued me, and I had never been involved in any litigation before that. If Judge Mike Joiner had lawfully decided the McGarity case, none of these other cases happen -- and Legal Schnauzer never exists. I also never know that our court system is grossly corrupt.
(3) Ah, so you admit I accurately cite the law, but I don't know "how the law works"? How interesting. That implies that you know how the law "works." Please tell us how it works.
(4) So you are Karnac the Magnificient now, a sage and soothsayer? And I notice, you didn't answer my question. I'll take that to mean you can't cite any "crime" that Carol and I have actually committed.
(5) Oh, so your statement re: progressive politics makes no sense, and the same applies to all of your other statements. Weak stuff, "Willard."
Willard surely you jest? No, well here goes: the U.S.A. has a Constitution, not that it is being adhered to much lately. However, every one has the right to Free Speech and that is what L.S. is engaging in. You may not like what he has to say, but he has the right to say it. if you don't like what he was saying one has to wonder why you come round this blog. Willard might I remind you the history of the U.S.A. is based on the citizens being "trouble makers". that is what the Tea Party back in the 1700s was all about. its what Abraham Lincoln was all about. its what Civil Right advocates were all about. it was the men and women of the American military are all about. they are all trouble makers. the U.S.A. has been a trouble maker for many in that they have defended what is right and proper. Even "troublemakers" have the right to protection under the law.
Willard, what does "conducted yourself in a proper manner" mean, really I'd like to know. I think it reasonable to conclude "proper manner" in your opinion comes down to not rocking the boat. there is this old time tradition in the U.S.A., I've read about it, about protesting and not obeying laws you consider unjust.
What is not right and proper in this case is wasting taxpayer's dollars on arresting Mrs. L.S. Now go find another blog to comment on or are you just coming here to demonstrate your ignorance.
For you information this blog was rated as one of the 10 best legal blogs a few years ago and does get read by all sort of people outside of the U.S.A. Its considered a "progressive blog" by some. Its informative and if you can't handle that, time to put your big boy pants on.
Roger, you are being very unfair on "Willard Marlborough".You know very well he cannot possibly produce that which does not exist.
"Willard Marlborough". The slime under your rock is drying out. You had better get back there quick before it dries out and cracks!
I'm so very sorry Carol was arrested because the police couldn't do their job properly. this is why many start to dislike the police, they arrest people for almost no reason and this is one of those cases.
Arresting Carol was a waste of tax dollars. why they waited until the lst day is beyond me, except some one asked them to arrest her. This is one of those cases where police departments usually don't want to arrest any body and just want it all to go away. it cases like this where they usually send someone around to apologise and offer to pay the medical bills, etc. Oh, well this is Trump land.
didn't read far enough down the list of comments. found more "advise and clarification" from Willard.
In my opinion Willard isn't here for his health. More like he's here in an attempt to detract from the blog and L.S.'s writings. Wonder why Willard does go to all this effort writing here? Willard who are your friends???????????
I would suggest we all take Willard as some sort of comic relief and not get too exercised about his writings.
Steve:
Oh, but it is there. Williard claimed it was there. Willard just isn't bright enough to find it, and he's not bright enough to back up the points he tries to make. Looks like you aren't either.
Yes Roger. I am so dumb I actually put money into your account! ( no need to publish this)
(1) Okay, here's just one of dozens of untruths: Obama has had sex with men. Can you prove it? No. It's untrue. Period.
(2) Right. "nothing to do with conspiracies" but "our court system is grossly corrupt". Got it.
(3) Anyone can cite the law, but you and I aren't lawyers. When I need legal advice, I get one. Something you should consider. I've never lost a case. You've lost how many now?
(4) Who is Karnac the Magnificent? And what would he have to do with any of this?
(5) I'll stand by my statement. And I won't resort to insults to try to make my point.
You and your wife are criminals, dangers to yourselves and others. You have made death threats here, resisted arrest, dodged the police, ripped up legal documents after you were served, stalked women, recorded calls without permission... it's a long list! You both belong in jail... the sooner, the better!
Steve:
Sounds like I misinterpreted your comment. I thought the "slime under your rock" was a reference to me, but upon closer reading, it appears you were referring to this Willard character.
I didn't recognize who you were at first, but now I think I do. You are a true friend, and my apologies for an inappropriate response. I thought I was responding to one of the many crackpot commenters we have been attracting lately. Again, my apologies for misunderstanding your comment. I didn't realize it came from friend, not foe.
Willard:
(1) The Obama story originated with reporting from Wayne Madsen, who I consider to be a reliable source. He, and others, have reported Karl Rove used the FBI to gather dirt on Obama during the 2008 transition, and that explains Obama's refusal to pursue criminal investigations against members of the Bush regime. Quite a few political insiders believe that story to be true, and I'm one of them. You are entitled to believe it isn't true, but that does not mean you are correct. Again, you can't cite any examples.
As for your other points, I've spent too much time with you today, and I don't give a crap what you thin, and you can go straight to hell.
Goodbye and good riddance, jerk-off.
Why do people like "Willard " who despise you continue to troll your page??? You do not go to restaurants that you do not like the food so why go to blogs you do not like the person? I am very sorry about all the trouble you and Carol have.
You raise a profound question, @7:21, one I've asked myself often. I've even stated multiple times that commenters who don't like what I do here are more than welcome to go somewhere else. There is no shortage of other blogs to read, and I've got plenty of intelligent, thoughtful readers, so I don't need these loons. I almost beg them to go read something else, but they can't seem to drag themselves away.
I don't know that it's a matter of these folks despising me. And I don't know that they fear me. But I represent something that causes them consternation. These people, and Americans in general, are not used to seeing our court system unmasked. It almost has never happened in mainstream media; most reporters just assume that judges are honorable people and actually apply the law -- when, in fact, many judges are dishonorable and intentionally cheat some parties, while benefiting others.
A guy like Willard, I'm guessing, has a vested interest in the legal system or in a particular case, or in something that he fears will become a case. Actually, Willard sounds a lot like someone I know, someone I used to consider a friend. Not sure I'm right about that, but if I am, "Willard" definitely has reason to be concerned about future legal issues that will land on his doorstep.
You use the word "troll," and I think that fits. A troll seems to be someone who has nothing to add to a conversation, but sticks in pins and needles anyway, just to irritate -- or to try to irritate. I think we attract more than pure trolls; their trolling is a response to a certain unease our reporting causes. I suspect quite a few of these folks are used to having things go their way, and they are concerned my reporting might somehow change that. Perhaps that's why there is so much personal animus in their comments -- and a total lack of legal knowledge, or even an attempt to understand legal concepts.
Thanks for your question and for your expression of concern. BTW, what do you think drives guys like "Willard"? You are more than welcome to practice amateur psychology here. I do it all the time.
I would like to take this opportunity to clarify something that a lot of people apparently don't understand. I've seen a number of folks accuse Mr. Schnauzer of "hiding from the police" or "trying to avoid service" because he did not answer the door when someone knocked. In the United States, and probably all other civilized countries, you have zero obligation to answer when someone knocks on your door. They can be wearing a uniform, they can be holding "important papers" or a boa constrictor, they can be the frickin' pope, and you are 100 percent entitled to ignore them. You can agree or disagree with Mr. Schnauzer's actions or his posts on various subjects . . . but he had every right not to answer a knock on his door, and it did not mean he was hiding or avoiding anything. "Willard" raised this issue in his first comment above, and I figured it was a good time to straighten this out. For the record, I never answer a knock on my door unless I know it's a friend who has told me he/she is coming. I just don't do it, mainly for security reasons and also because I don't like being bothered.
Willard:
You sure are a strange "progressive." You favor the rights of cops to abuse over the rights of citizens to be free from abuse and unlawful intrusions. You express no concern whatsoever about the deprivation of civil rights. You seem to support courts and judges that issue rulings clearly contrary to law. You support violations of the Fourth Amendment.
So what is it again that makes you progressive? Sounds to me like you are on the fringe of the Trump/Hitler wing of the Republican party. Your claim to be progressive comes across like a vegan who makes frequent stops at What-A-Burger.
@2:53 I care a great deal about civil rights. I understand that Roger was jailed in violation of the Constitution and that his speech was subjected to prior restraint. I have no strong opinion about some of the legal matters, though seeing Roger's anger directed at me and others, I have a pretty good idea of who is to blame.
The problem is, even liberals and progressives can be wrong, and they can be criminals and they can do wrong. I really shouldn't have to tell you or anyone that. You can be right about some issues but wrong in your personal conduct. And that is the reality in the case of Roger and Carol. I won't list again the many things that Roger has done wrong. Some behaviour is unethical, some might have been criminal. The abuse he spouts in this blog, including death threats, stands out for me.
@2:53 I'm not worried about proving my politics to you or anyone else. If you can't see that someone can be wrong while being idealogical "correct" in other ways, you've missed the point of living.
@10:31 Well and good, I suppose, if Roger's avoidance of service wasn't part of a broad pattern of questionable behaviour.
@7:21 Why do I bother to comment? Because Roger has done and is doing harm to innocent people, and to himself and his wife.
Any reasonable person knows that Roger has brought most of his hardships on himself. There's no real conspiracy against him, just people who now don't like him because he is paranoid, nasty, and litigious. How long did it take him to attack online the judge who ordered his wife's arrest, ascribing all sorts of false motivations to her? It's a cycle of self-destruction.
Just the other day I warned someone who wants to "help" Roger, telling them that Roger will turn on them just as he turned on all his lawyers, his family, and many others.
It's funny that Roger or anyone else would conclude that I'm part of some sort of southern power elite, or even a Republican. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm a leftie academic in the northeast with zero connections to Trump or business elites. I guess some people get sucked into Roger's paranoid worldview, but I can think critically enough to avoid that. I have no interest in any legal case whatsoever.
This is @2:53 --
Willard, you say Roger is angry at you. That sounds like he knows you. Do you know him? Is that why you are taking things he says so personally? If you are just a commenter using a fake name, why would Roger direct his anger at you?
Are you saying anyone is to blame for something if they get angry about it? Is is possible that Roger's "anger" (your term) is more like irritation at your insulting comments and your inability to answer the questions he posed to you. Is it possible Roger simply has little or no respect for you? From some of your statements, is that justified?
You've called Roger and his wife "criminals," and you wonder why he might be angry with you? Again, you seem to have a serious disconnect in your thinking, and yet you claim to know something about "the point of living." If you said about me what you have said about Roger and Carol, I guarantee I would be angry. I would want to track you down and punch your lights out. Does that make me to blame if others cheat me.
Let's try this: You say something is wrong about Roger's personal conduct? Well, what is it, and who are you to judge him? Have you walked in Roger's shoes? Have you ever been unlawfully arrested, thrown in jail wrongfully (which you admit happened to Roger), seen your wife's arm snapped by a cop (assuming you are married)? Ever had your house swiped out from underneath you?
What has Roger done that you consider unethical or criminal? Do you realize those are powerful allegations? When has Roger made a death threat on here? I don't recall it.
Gotta tell you, pal, you sound like a judgmental Christian conservative. Your utter lack of empathy and compassion for someone you admit has been abused sounds a little like sociopathy. And if you care about civil rights, it's situational, at best. Maybe you would be a little better off to look at your own behavior and not so much at Roger's.
Willard:
1. When have I avoided service. That is a legal term with a specific definition. Do you know what it is?
2. What innocent people am I hurting, and why do you care, and how do you know?
3. Your fourth paragraph indicates you know me, and yet you are too big a coward to ID who you really are?
4. How did I ascribe "false motivations" to the Missouri judge? I said in firm language that she was wrong, and she is on the law, but what false motivations did I cite? You think it's OK to arrest someone when the court admits she never received notification of a court date?
5. You say I've turned on my family? How do you know that? As for lawyers, can you cite any who have done a good job for me?
@9:24 I don't know Roger. Have never met him and have no plans to meet him. I don't live anywhere near him.
Whether or not Roger has any respect for me, well, I can't care about that. I haven't intended to insult him personally. But I will call him a bully when he behaves like one. I don't condemn the person (Roger), just the behavior. But if he and his wife commit criminal acts, then they are criminals.
Who am I to judge him? Well, Roger has opened himself up to judgement by judging and condemning others without facts, and doing it publicly. All these people that supposedly screwed Roger... lawyers, judges, political people, cops, random people... and commentators like me, I guess. He attacks us all, calls us names, tells us we're stupid and unethical. He casts the first stone and then wonders why people throw stones back.
I've listed Roger's unethical actions above. I will dig up the death thereat, but it is still posted in the comments -- Roger stands behind it, I guess. His angry outbursts are well known from the legal record.
Sorry to disappoint -- not a Christian conservative. If you can't see Roger for what he is, that's your problem. I don't wish Roger or Carol any harm. But the world would be a better place without Roger's attacks and malicious lawsuits. There are standards of behavior that transcend ideology, as we're seeing with Trump.
Sadly Roger's story can only end one way at this point, and the end is coming soon, I think.
Willard sez: "You and your wife are criminals, dangers to yourselves and others. You have made death threats here, resisted arrest, dodged the police, ripped up legal documents after you were served, stalked women, recorded calls without permission... it's a long list! You both belong in jail... the sooner, the better!"
Then Willard sez: "Roger, you are angry and that's bad."
Pot, meet Kettle.
What a clown.
When Roger says something harsh about someone, it's "abuse." When Willard says something harsh about someone, it's "critical thinking."
Hah!
Everybody got that?
Hey Willard, @9:24 asked you to describe what Roger or Carol has done that's criminal. Now you say, "If they've done something criminal . . . " I take that to mean you don't know of anything criminal either of them has done.
Someone also asked you to provide example of a death threat Roger has made. You can't seem to do that either.
Got to agree with 9:24. You do sound like a sociopath.
Hey, Willard: Where do you teach? What subject?
If "Willard" is an academic in the Northeast, I personally will go to his house (or office) and perform a sex act on him -- the same one Donald Trump soon will be performing on Vladimir Putin.
Below is Roger's death threat. First, an anonymous commenter writes (October 24, 2016 at 6:00 PM):
I wonder if McGarity knows how lucky he is that he hasn't been shot stonecold dead? If your description is accurate of his actions and words toward Mrs. Schnauzer and you and I have no doubt they are I would have put several plugs in him a long time ago. And I could have made it look like self defense. You and Mrs. Schnauzer must be awfully patient, understanding people not to have exerted your Second Amendment rights on this POS.
to which Roger replies (October 24, 2016 at 6:05 PM):
I'm not real big on guns or Second Amendment rights, but looking back on it now, I kind of wish we had taken the route you describe. We'd probably be in a better situation than we are now. At one time, I didn't think I was capable of killing another human being, but I definitely am capable of that [killing] now and McGarity is one of several people I wouldn't mind seeing their brains splattered over the sidewalk. My preference, I guess, would be for someone else to do the shooting, but if it's left to me, I could do it now after what's been done to us.
URL is https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3669412675139526125&postID=8200449540567243681&bpli=1#c1499106246545178031 in case anyone want to check for themselves.
There's nothing ambiguous about this.
Roger threatened to kill McGarity.
Hah! You can't read Willard, dude.
I said I could shoot someone now, after experiencing years of abuse. I didn't say I would or will or even want to shoot someone. I certainly didn't threaten to kill McGarity.
Is English your third or fourth language? Sheesh! You say you are an academic? Where, at Puff State Junior College?
How ironic. We live in a country more or less run by the NRA, where millions of people have guns in their homes, indicating that they could shoot someone. So I'm no different from millions of Americans, except I'm probably way less likely to actually shoot someone than most.
You are right about one thing: It's not ambiguous; there's nothing close to a death threat in there. Nice try, though.
Post a Comment