 |
| Jeff Sessions |
Is that a coincidence? I don't think so, and it's not the only case of "curious timing" connected to Carol's arrest.
The question becomes even more profound when you consider Sessions is Donald Trump's nominee to be U.S. attorney general, and the Senate today is scheduled to vote on the Sessions nomination. So, as Sessions is poised to become this nation's chief law-enforcement officer, we see signs that he (or someone associated with him) ordered a bogus arrest on the wife of a blogger who had written a post that is unflattering -- and alarmingly true.
Does Jeff Sessions act like an organized-crime thug against those who might dare to report on his sketchy past? Americans had better be asking themselves that question before it is too late. In fact, it might already be too late -- unless a law-enforcement agency is able and willing to prove that Sessions essentially ordered a law-enforcement hit, which would be a felony, on the wife of a journalist.
Here are the basics on a possible tie between Sessions (and perhaps other political forces in Alabama) and Carol's arrest:
* January 11, 2017 -- We publish a post that Sessions is a closeted homosexual, and it so widely known that the Obama administration was prepared to out him if he tried to block the SCOTUS nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Once that threat became known to Sessions, Sotomayor was confirmed with relative ease.
* January 26 -- We publish a post about Sessions' late-night visits to see Bill Pryor, who appeared nude at the gay-porn Web site badpuppy.com in 1997. Pryor has gone on to become a notoriously homophobic and anti-LGBT judge on the U.S. Eleventh Circuit and was considered a favorite to receive Trump's nomination to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. That nod went to Neil Gorsuch, of Colorado, and there is evidence to suggest our reporting on Pryor's gay-porn past sent his chances into a death spiral.
* January 27 -- Around 6 p.m., we start receiving persistent knocks on our door. We aren't aware of anyone who is needing to see us, so we ignore the knocking. Finally, we realize Greene County deputies are on the premises, and they likely are the knockers. We can't figure out why they would be there until I check Missouri online court records and see Carol has been charged with "assault on a law enforcement officer" and "trespass" related to the unlawful eviction (on September 9, 2015) that left her with a shattered left arm, requiring trauma surgery to repair.
* January 30 -- Cops return and arrest Carol. She is released on $1,000 bond that evening and appeared in court to plead not guilty on Monday (February 6).
 |
| Bill Pryor, with and without robe |
If that's the case, it would mean Sessions is a criminal, likely surrounded by criminals. And by the time you read this, Jeff Sessions might already be attorney general of the United States.
God help our country.
(To be continued)
You may or may not be right, but there's no doubt Sessions is enough of a lowlife to be involved in this.
ReplyDeleteSessions will be a horrible AG. Why would anyone think his mindset has changed since he was rejected for a fed judgeship in the 1980s.
ReplyDeleteAboard the Eliza Battle,John andThomas ....being young and also past midnight..dozed off while watching the trap. The closing of the trap door brought them out of their slumber.John lit a corn stuck to see what was in the trap. It was a creature as white as a sheet, with sparse hair similar to a dog with mange. The creature,with it's large belly, reared onto it's hind legs and began to scream. John thrust the small torch towards it's face and saw red eyes and when the creature screamed, his breath turned to flames of fire. John and Thomas grabbed some rags , using them like whips to strike the creature, which tore them to shreds. The creature broke free from the trap and leaped into the water. The crew of the ship came charging on deck with several lanterns. Bob noticed the shredded rags, a whiskey bottle and some shoes and said they belonged to the General. John described the creature and said he looked as if he had gorged on a large meal. Thomas said it ate the General because he heard bones crunching while he was dozing.
ReplyDeleteMike responded, with a breaking voice, the mighty General is gone.... consumed by the creature. Gather what is left of him and we will give him a burial at sea. At sunrise the CSS General Beauregard appeared on the horizon flying a pillow case for a Battle Ensign. Admiral Tyron explained that the ship had fought a battle at Fort Pillow during the Civil War. The Stranger in the Shadows said the pillow ensign was similar to the gin ensign, therefore the ship was giving an invitation to join them for a pillow fight. Sheldon asked if the ship was commandeered by the new Attorney General. The Stranger replied" No" He continued that after the Hibernia was dispatched by the Obama Justice Dept. to shut down Mike's plan "A" which was the impeachment committee, Mike came up with plan "B". Victoryland marched to Virginia and captured the USS Merrimack. She has been renamed the CSS Virginia. The new U.S. Attorney General upon the CSS Virginia will engage in a Battle never witnessed before.
Meanwhile, unknown to the crew of the Eliza Battle, aboard the Victoria the General was butthurt....he had misinterpreted the pillow fight ensign for the gin ensign.
I see a pattern: You write about Bill Pryor's ties to gay porn, and you get arrested. You write about Jeff Sessions as a closeted gay who made many late-night stops at Pryor's residence . . . and your wife gets arrested. What's next?
ReplyDeleteThese people seem to be sensitive about their homosexuality.
The Sessions nomination proves Republicans are more loyal to their party than to their country.
ReplyDeleteExactly, @11:47. They are a tribe, loyal to their own laws/rules/customs, but not to the U.S. Constitution. They are un-American, which is why they try to claim the patriotic mantle so often. I've called them "The New Confederacy," and even Sessions' full name just drips of the Old South. Even in places like Idaho and Kansas, way outside the South, Southern thinking prevails. If we don't watch it, they will take the United States of America down with them.
ReplyDeleteWhen this all washes out, I think we will learn that Sessions new the 2016 election was rigged for Trump, and that's why he supported "Mr. Cheeto." With any luck, Jeffy will spend his senior years in a federal pen.
ReplyDeleteWhoever writes the Eliza Battle comments . . . they are damned entertaining. They always remind me of the "Titanic" movie, and I feel right now like we all are on "The Titanic."
ReplyDeleteCarol's arrest also coincided with your reporting on "Luv Guv" Bentley's latest embarrassment, taking "Home Wrecky Becky" and her cuckold husband (along with a mystery guest) to DC for the Trump bash. Plus, it's been reported that Bentley unlawfully targeted you after the story of his affair with Mason first came out at Legal Schnauzer. Isn't it possible the most recent harassment and abuse you've experienced in Missouri originated with Team Bentley, not Team Sessions?
ReplyDelete@12:24 --
ReplyDeleteI think your scenario is quite possible, and I'm glad you put it out there for consideration. It might also be possible that the two teams -- or segments of the two teams -- joined hands to help initiate Carol's bogus arrest. You might recall that Garrison, in her Marie Claire story, presented herself as a "sister in arms" with the noble "Home Wrecky Becky." Of course, that was before "Luv Guv" was caught on tape expounding on the wonders of Becky's boobs and her nether regions, which he evidently had explored with great gusto and some regularity -- even though the relationship wasn't physical. Garrison and Mason -- with their unbridled ambition, over-arching greed, and limited abilities -- truly deserve each other. They represent Southern womanhood at its worst.
Carol got arrested because an officer thought she was trying to enter the property against instruction (and you have indicated that the officer claims she made improper contact or resisted him.)
ReplyDeleteThis did not have to happen, and would not have happened, if you had vacated the premises a month after receiving notice that your lease was expiring, or negotiated some additional time to remain with the landlord, instead of digging in your heels, living there without paying rent for August and September, and failing to make any new arrangements. Even if your lease had converted to a month to month lease, Cowherd chose to ask you to vacate with 30 days notice. That's what "month to month" means. It was clear you would never be extended an ongoing lease, and any prudent person would have begun seeking some other living arrangement.
Your original lease had a guarantor - you could not qualify on your own. Cowherd had the right to give you 30 days notice to leave; if one follows your premise that they were a day late, you still overstayed by more than 60 days.
Your brother offered you accomodations at the market rate with no credit check. You rejected this in favor of a more advantageous situation (where the landlord is literally asking you to leave) a choice that further degraded your realistic options.
If you really thought Cowherd had done you wrong, you should have moved, then sued for your additional expenses from the improper forced move (not that you would have prevailed, but that is what you would have been entitled to if they had been in the wrong.)
The reason they wanted you out is that you were a poor risk for paying rent, and you decided the best way to establish your "rights" was to prove them absolutely right.
@3:54 -- How many times are you going to write this same garbage? Don't you have any new angles you can come up with? You just repeat the same inaccurate stuff over and over.
ReplyDeleteI was there and you weren't, and this is indisputable fact. Cowherd was trying to force us out due to a provision that was not in the lease. That's called breach of contract, and Cowherd's representative admitted to it in court and admitted to it in a taped phone conversation.
If you know someone is breaching a contract, and you want to let it go, that's your business. This was our business, and we chose to fight it. If you don't like it, or don't approve of it, tough. Frankly, it's none of your business -- unless it is your business, and you are concerned about your side winding up with a poor result, that you know your people f'd up, and you are in the spinning alternative facts game.
Maybe you need to get a job with the Trump admin.
As for the rest of your post, there is so much wrong with it that I could go on for 10 paragraphs, but I'm bored with you, and have no desire to respond in detail to an anonymous coward who tries to spread bogus information.
Roger, all of your life events will correlate with some conspiracy theory you post on your blog. It would be hard for it not to. Correlation does not equal causation.
ReplyDeleteWhere do I say correlation equals causation? I say something happened one day, and something else (a possible response) happened the next day. That's it; not hard to figure out.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's a coincidence. If you do . . . well, it didn't happen to your wife, did it?
THe provision was in the lease - the guarantor of the lease agreement decided not to renew the guarantor arrangment. You got the required 30 days notice when the twelve month period ended. Conversion to month to month doesn't mean you have to stay even a stingle month - or they give you one. Even if you want to say their notice was technically a day late (it wasn't, but I've seen you argue the point) You had no more than thirty days to remain after the twelve month lease ended. You don't seem to understand a month to month lease is endable on either side at the will of either tenant or landlord.
ReplyDeleteYou lost your case against Cowherd, and the matter is closed. You put yourself and your wife in a terrible position by refusing to face reality. You actually mighty have been able to negotiate one more month, but you burnt your bridges with the rental office immediately
Again: If you really thought Cowherd had done you wrong, you should have moved, then sued for your additional expenses from the improper forced move (not that you would have prevailed, but that is what you would have been entitled to if they had been in the wrong.)
ReplyDeleteYou should not have subjected yourselves to the risk of an eviction action. At the very least it materially damages your ability to get a new lease with a new landlord in the future. You hurt yourself and your family.
@5:01 --
ReplyDeleteYou have no clue. You don't even know what provision we're talking about. I've read the lease word for word, and it's not there. A Cowherd rep admitted under oath it's not there, and that is a breach of contract.
I understand a month to month lease perfectly well. But the landlord can't try to end it by breaching the contract. You do not know what you're talking about, and you are wrong on every point you raise. And the matter isn't over with, not by a long shot.
@5:03 -- I assume you are the same dunderhead as 5:01. We didn't subject ourselves to risk of an eviction. We followed Missouri law to the letter, and you either know that or you are stupid. We filed a notice of appeal, which put a stay on the eviction, and eviction was unlawfully scheduled inside the 10-day window when there can be no execution. Look it up. Again, you either know this and want to play the con man or you are stupid and lazy.
ReplyDeleteWe could not lose the appeal, under the law. But we also would not have lost at trial level, except Missouri seems to have judges every bit as corrupt as the ones in Alabama.
Had we lost the appeal, though, we would have moved, and no eviction would have been necessary. My mistake was in not knowing the level of corruption with Cowherd, Lowther law firm, Greene Co. Sheriff, and Missouri judges.
The month to month provision is in the lease! If you don't understand that they had the right to terminate with 30 days notice,and so did you, you don't understand how leases work. They did not renew a 12 lease because your guarantor backed out.
ReplyDeleteYou really shot yourself in the foot. By the way, you lost all of your legal actions related to your tenancy. And you overstayed by more than 60 days without paying a cent.
There is no corruption, only you not being sensible enough to know the writing on the wall when a landlord asks you to leave because you cannot be qualified for a renewal.
ReplyDeleteYou had no guarantor for a month to month lease, and they knew that, and gave you the required 30 days notice.
You could have negotiated another month, probably, if you had been polite and timely paid. You picked the way least likely to get you anything but evicted by force.
Why didn't you take your brother's offer? Why not get a month to month with him, so you are free to take something better? Why didn't you immediately begin searching for a new situation? Your family says you didn't live up to whatever end of the bargain they had with you. Your mother gave you 12 months safe harbor and you screwed her over too.
What breach? All they have to do is give you 30 days notice. That's all they have to do.
ReplyDeleteWHo cares if you got a stay! It was stupid to ask for one. THe proper course of action was to prepare to move, since even under your own invented theory of how month to month conversions work, you had been qiven more than 30 days notice to quit the premises.
ReplyDeleteIf you had an "automatic month" as you insist, you still stayed more than a month after that, and without paying rent or even putting rent in escrow.
It's nonsensical to believe you weren't going to have to leave. Why wouldn't you just move and sue for damages afterward?
Yes, the matter is over and done, and maybe you can get Carol's lawyer to explain it to you. She has one by now I hope.
ReplyDelete@8:15 to @8:29 --
ReplyDeleteDo you think sending multiple ill-informed comments makes your position stronger? It only makes you look even more like a fool:
* We overstayed by 60 days? You are out of your mind. We didn't overstay by one day. We were told that we were going to be booted whether we paid rent or not for August, and the reason given represented breach of contract, and Cowherd's rep admitted under oath to that. Can you cite any law that shows the trial judge's ruling was correct? Give it a shot.
* We absolutely lived up to the agreement with my family. My mother paid for the period she agreed to, and we were prepared to take up payments when lease went month to month, as we had agreed to. It only became a problem when Cowherd attempted to boot us under grounds that were not present in the lease. That's a matter of record in court, regardless of what you think. We didn't take my brother's offer because we didn't want to be connected to him in any way. He's untrustworthy, and he's gone out of his way to hurt us. Again, that's in the court files. Also, he allowed Cowherd to file a baseless lawsuit against my mother and did nothing about it. I wanted no part of being connected to someone who would let that happen.
* I've reported at length on the breach. See this post: http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/search?q=cowherd+and+qualify+on+our+own
* You don't ask for a stay. You receive one when you timely file a notice of appeal. That's a key component of Missouri tenant/landlord law. Look it up.
* It's not over, as several relevant parties will be learning shortly.
* A final note that you apparently cannot grasp: An eviction is a legal proceeding. A landlord cannot evict someone unilaterally; the tenant can challenge it, and if the trial court rules against him, the tenant can appeal it and put a stay on execution. That is exactly what we did. I don't care how many comments you write, or how many incorrect points you make, or how emotional you want to become . . . we followed the law 100 percent. We were the only ones in the whole process who did so. We proved breach of contract, as admitted under oath by Cowherd rep, so we won the case under the law. Just because the judge is too stupid or crooked to fulfill her oath . . . well, we can't do anything about that. (And she's ugly, too!) Under the law, we won the case, and Cowherd's own rep knows it.
If you don't like it, stuff it and go read some other blog. You are welcome to contact me and I will explain to you in clear, succinct sentences, but we all know you are too big a coward and con man to do that. You clearly have some dog in the hunt, but you aren't getting anywhere with all of your ignorant comments. I know a fraud when I see one, and you are a fraud.
Hey, Dumb shit, at 8:15 etc. ---
ReplyDeleteIf this is really over, why did you write 7 comments about it today?
If you know what you are talking about, why does it take you 7 comments to make your point--assuming you have a point?
Why are you such a dumb shit?