Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Missouri judge Margaret Holden Palmietto gives the impression that she is as dubious of assault and trespass charges against my wife, Carol, as we are

Judge Margaret Holden Palmietto
My wife, Carol, appeared before a Missouri judge yesterday and -- get this -- the judge seemed dubious of the assaulting-a-law-enforcement-officer and trespassing charges against Carol.

At least that's my interpretation. Could I be wrong? Sure. But something the judge said -- and the way she said it -- surprised us, in a positive way. We're not used to getting positive vibes in a courtroom, so maybe I just don't know how to handle (or interpret) them.

Here is a report on Carol's brief appearance, which was in a "cattle call" format, with maybe 15 defendants there while we were present. By the way, it was in the smallest court room I've ever seen. Maybe it's considered a hearing room, and not a court room; not sure about that one, but some people have walk-in closets that are bigger than this room. Jurors in this room probably would have to sit on each other's laps.

The event for Carol was advertised at case.net (Case Number 1631--CRO7731, State v. Carol T. Shuler) as a "bond appearance hearing." We thought that odd because Carol already had made bond, and that was reflected in the docket. We discovered yesterday afternoon that the record had been updated to say yesterday's hearing included an arraignment.

Judge Margaret Holden Palmietto, an appointee of Democratic Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, read the charges to Carol, gave her information about the Greene County Public Defender's Office, and set another appearance for 9 a.m. on March 15.

Along the way, Palmietto said the following: "I assume you plead not guilty?" Carol answered yes, but the question caught both of us off guard. Maybe that's because we thought it was only a bond hearing, and it would not involve any questions of such substance.

Palmietto did not actually roll her eyes, but given the tone of her voice, one could imagine her doing that. It was if she was saying, "Dumb-ass deputies and cops bring these kinds of bogus claims against people they abuse all of the time, and the dumb-ass prosecuting attorney lets them slide through every time. Listen, honey, you and I both know these charges are bullshit. You don't look anything like the kind of person who would 'assault' a cop. I knew there was no way you were pleading guilty to this pile of feces."

Is that interpretation wishful thinking on my part? It could be. Did Palmietto use the "I assume" phrase because almost everyone who comes before her pleads not guilty, and her mind has become trained to expect that? That could be, too.

But is it possible we actually have a judge with more than a few brain cells -- one who doesn't automatically buy everything cops or prosecutors put in front of her? Maybe the judge read the probable-cause statement, looked at Carol, and noticed the obvious incongruity?

My amateur psychology on a judge can only go so far, so I will leave it at that for now. But we learned enough about the charges yesterday to leave with a revised version of what might have been going through Judge Palmietto's mind: These charges are worse than bullshit; they are a fraud on the court system and the public -- and they would have to improve drastically to reach the level of bullshit.

(To be continued)  


Anonymous said...

It's clear to me cops brought this case against Carol because they are concerned about a lawsuit for breaking her arm.

Anonymous said...

The cops should be concerned. If they had done that to my wife, they would have a lot more to worry about than just a civil case.

Anonymous said...

Hope you are right about the judge. Would love to see the cops get their asses kicked in this case.

Anonymous said...

Roger, unfortunately your reputation proceeds you. Judges talk and lawyers talk, and they also read things online. They know you and your wife. They know you are frequent fliers. They know you have had ongoing legal problems. 99% of defendants don't get written up in the press, as you have.

The idea that she is favorably biased toward you is wishful thinking on your part. Quite the opposite, actually.

You should really, REALLY get a lawyer. You're driving toward a cliff, as usual.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:48 --

I ran your comment just to show what a load of crap it is, what a load of crap you are.

You claim this has to do with "frequent filers." Well, someone filed charges against Carol, not the other way around. Your comment is plain stupid.

My reputation among honest lawyers (there are some) is high. They know we've been abused by the court system, and I hear from those folks regularly.

If you read the post, you would know we asked for information about the public defenders office. You have to apply for that, and we intend to do so.

If you are so concerned about us having a lawyer, why don't you offer to pay for one? They aren't free, you know. You're blather, however, is cheap.

You are all talk and no substance.

Anonymous said...

@8:28 is a dumb shit who basically writes the same thing in every comment. How stupid is he? He makes a big point of LS's statements being wishful thinking. LS himself said in the post he might be engaging in wishful thinking. We need @8:28 to tell us that? Duh!

If a judge said to me, "I assume you plead not guilty?" I would find that peculiar, too. The usual question, I suspect, would be, "How do you plead?"

None of us knows what the judge meant, if anything, by what she said. But it's for sure that 8:28 adds nothing to this conversation.

BTW, if the judge knows something about LS's "reputation," positive or negative, she should recuse herself. 8:28 essentially is accusing the judge of being corrupt.

Anonymous said...

8:28 operates under the assumption that hiring a lawyer makes things better. A lot of times it doesn't, and this blog is testimony to that. In fact, unethical lawyers are famous for making matters worse, while enriching themselves. I agree that you would be wise to try to find a good lawyer, but I don't need to tell you that simply hiring a lawyer does not guarantee anything.

Anonymous said...

Hope you will be reporting on probable cause statement.

legalschnauzer said...

Oh, I will. It's a doozy.

Anonymous said...

That judge is pretty cute. I wouldn't mind having a hearing . . . or whatever . . . with her.

Anonymous said...

Does the probable cause statement mention that Carol wound up with a broken arm?

legalschnauzer said...

Nope. Not a word.

Anonymous said...

I hope it works out well for your wife and you. I saw the xray and it looked like the bone allmost broke the skin. That would take a large amount of force if you asked me. It seems to me that many police have lost their way when it comes to dealing with the public. They treat everyone/everything like it's a major crime. I just don't see why that level of force was needed to control your wife. It's sad but in a way your luckly, if your wife had been black, they would have shot her. Maybe you can find a good civil rights lawyer to take your wifes case. They should be paying her health bills, not trying to lock her up. They are out of control, in my veiw.

legalschnauzer said...

Thanks for your comment, @12:05. That a trauma surgeon was required to fix this injury speaks volumes. It was the kind of thing seen in car wrecks or other incidents at high speed and exceptonal violence. Don't think it's the kind of injury normally caused by one person to another.

Anonymous said...

So they break this woman's arm, try to blame her, and then fail to mention her broken arm in the probable cause statement. Some cops are f---ing evil. There is no reason to mince words about it.

legalschnauzer said...

Wait til you see the probable cause statement, and we will be reporting on it shortly. Not sure there is a single truthful statement in it.

Robby Scott Hill said...

This country has issues that need to be settled on a New Civil War Battlefield. Some people who call themselves "peace officers" need the living shit beaten out of them.

e.a.f. said...

Robby Scott Hill, beating the living shit out of these people will not help. It will only confirm what they think of others.

It is interesting the Judge made that comment. being unfamiliar of course with American Judges, simply on some one conducting a hearing asking/ensuring the "defendant" had pled not guilty, is certainly interesting.

with so many less than legal actions of police officers, the best defence is an offence and these officers have been very offending. They and their sheriff were there for reasons than otherwise given. The actions of the police, arresting Carole, is simply, blaming the victim. It frequently works. Might not in this case, but if you're in the wrong, anything is worth a try. good luck!