Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Documents related to my wife's arrest in Missouri show she was locked up for nothing, based on probable cause statement that presents no evidence of a crime

Carol Shuler
The State of Missouri arrested my wife, Carol, based on a probable cause statement that includes not one sentence of admissible evidence that she committed a crime. Let me repeat: Carol's arrest was based on . . . nothing, no evidence that she committed any crime.

In a sense, that does not surprise us; over several dozen posts I've written about events during our unlawful eviction on Sept. 9, 2015, I've consistently reported that Carol did nothing unlawful, nothing wrong. I've reported that she was the victim of an assault, which left her with a shattered left arm, not the perpetrator of an assault. I witnessed every second of her interactions with Greene County Sheriff deputies that day, except when she was inside the apartment gathering our personal belongings -- and even the cops don't claim there was any physical encounter there.

I've known for more than 16 months that the only criminal actions were by the cops themselves. But even I did not expect their probable cause statement to, in essence, admit that Carol did nothing wrong. So, why was she arrested, finger printed, photographed (as in a mugshot) on Jan. 31? Why does she have a hearing at 9 a.m. today before Judge Margaret Holden Palmietto?

How could this happen? It certainly can't continue for very long, under the law, because Carol clearly was arrested without probable cause. Here's how we know:

A Misdemeanor Information (MI) filed by Greene County prosecuting attorney Dan Patterson reads, in part, as follows:

(Missouri Charge Code: 565.083-002Y20051313.)
The Prosecuting Attorney of the County of Greene, State of Missouri charges that the defendant, in violation of Section 565.083, RSMo, committed the class A misdemeanor of assault of a law enforcement officer in the third degree, punishable upon conviction under Sections 558.011 and 560.016, RSMo, in that on or about September 9, 2015, in the County of Greene, State of Missouri, the defendant knowingly cause physical contact with Jeremy Lynn, a law enforcement officer without the consent of Jeremy Lynn by pushing him.

That's it. That's the only allegation that Carol assaulted anyone. Now, let's look at the Probable Cause (PC) Statement. (The MI and PC Statement are embedded at the end of this post.)

Lt. Debi Wade, the only female officer on the scene that day, is author of the PC Statement. Wade seemed mostly on the periphery of events, and I don't recall her and Carol coming in contact with each other. So why, out of six to eight officers on the scene, was Debi Wade chosen to write the PC Statement? I have no idea, but it certainly wasn't for the sake of accuracy. This is from the PC Statement, beginning with the fourth sentence:

Upon initial contact in the entryway of the residence, Roger's wife Carol T. Shuler physically assaulted Capt. Jeremy Lynn. I was not witness to that assault, however, I was advised that Carol first pushed the door from inside when Capt. Lynn attempted entry with the key, then got physical with him once inside the threshold and pushed him repeatedly.

Those of you who read this closely might already have guffawed loud enough to wake the neighbors. Let's pause to gather ourselves before pondering the absurdity in this statement. Notice the part in yellow; it says Wade did not witness the assault -- someone else told her about it -- but she's swearing about it under oath anyway.

You could drive to downtown Birmingham right now, if you aren't already there, and find a wino under a bridge who would recognize that as hearsay. And the wino probably would know that hearsay generally is not admissible evidence in a court of law. Since that's the only statement about an "assault" on Jeremy Lynn -- and it's hearsay -- there was no probable cause to bring charges against Carol Shuler.

You could print out a copy of the PC Statement and show it to the wino, allowing him to read it thoroughly. And he probably would say, "They call this probable cause? Shiiiiiiii - ittttttttt. How dumb are them hillbillies in Missouri?"

Better yet, imagine this: You are the parent of a third grader at an elementary school in your neck of the woods. You get a call from the school saying you had better come quick, Billy Jones has alleged your child stole his lunch money. You arrive at the school to hear the following conversation:

Principal: "Now, Billy did you see little Johnny steal your money?"
"No sir, Mr. Principal, but someone advised me that he did."
"Who advised you of that?"
"I don't know his name. But he's a tall, green man -- sort of like the Jolly Green Giant. And he has wings, and sprinkles pixie dust everywhere, and then flies off."
"Billy, do your parents have a 'friend' they call 'Mr. LSD'?"
"Oh, yes, Mr. Principal, they talk about him all the time."
"I see. Billy, that explains a lot. Here's some good news: I think you've got a fine career ahead of you as a deputy with the Greene County Sheriff's Department."
"Thanks, Mr. Principal! That sounds like fun!"
"Oh, trust me. You'll have a blast."

What about the trespass charge against Carol? The MI says the "facts" that form the basis for the charge are contained in the PC Statement. When you read the PC Statement, you see that it says not one word about trespass, not one word about actions that even conceivably amount to trespass.

You've heard the phrase, "You can't make this stuff up," usually accompanied by a shake of the head? Well, the criminal charges against Carol certainly fit in that category. More on this subject in upcoming posts.


Anonymous said...

Just when you think corruption can't get any worse . . .

Anonymous said...

The female officer put information in the probable cause statement that she admits she didn't witness? What kind of joke is this sheriff's department?

legalschnauzer said...

Yes, @7:54, but it wasn't just information. It was THE information, the basis of their whole case. And the woman didn't see it, admits she didn't see it, and claims someone "advised" her of what happened. It's like something out of a bad SNL skit.

Anonymous said...

I have one word -- insane.

Anonymous said...

Are they saying Carol pushed the guy who broke her arm?

legalschnauzer said...

No, they don't even mention that her arm was broken. They claim she pushed a guy when he first broke in the door and entered the apartment. Funny, because the door was thrown open so hard that it threw Carol face first up against a wall, and she immediately was handcuffed. Not sure how she pushed that guy. They make a possible reference to the guy who broke her arm near the very end, but we aren't sure it's accurate. More on that coming up.

Anonymous said...

It's not the basis of the whole case, as the officer reports she was herself assaulted. She witnesses repeated outbursts and aggression from Carol, and she reports Carol turned around and slammed into her. The kind of behavior she reports as this unfoldedis irrational and dangerous to both the officers and Carol This is not a calm procession to retrieve items described here.

It's not funny and I'm not guffawing. The situation was unstable and the officers had little choice to put here in handcuffs in that scenario.

I hope she has a lawyer. Mercy to Carol is likely given all factors, but belligerence in court won't help. She really needs a lawyer. My hope Is she will be offered a chance to have the charges dismissed or conviction vacated after after some community service or other diversion program.

Anonymous said...

Just out of curiousity, what about the incident described in the second paragraph where Debi claims Carol turned and "barreled" into Debi?

I do find it odd that Carol could take off in a "dead run" and that Debi's jog was fast enough to catch up to her.

Anonymous said...

The above is not consistent with earlier statements about Carol at the door - you said she was looking through the peephole when the door was opened forcefully. My recollection is that you said she was thrown back. How could she have been thrown face first against the wall if she was facing the door?

e.a.f. said...

she didn't se it but she is swearing to it. Not the brightest move I've ever heard of.

if some one "advised her of it" then why don't they have that someone put it in writing? Oh, there isn't any one. got it. Must have gone to the jeff sessions school of law or some such thing.

Good luck with the court business.

legalschnauzer said...

You nailed it, e.a.f. Why can people see things so clearly in Canada? I love it.

My mouth fell open when I read that PC statement. "I'm swearing that this subject assaulted a police officer, but I didn't see it. Someone told me about it, though, so that must be good enough -- even though I'm not going to state who told me."

It's like a scene out of a cop spoof movie. Sort of like "Airplane!" for cops.

legalschnauzer said...

@1:03 -- Well, looks like Mr. Lowther has joined us today. What a surprise. A point or two:

It's perfectly consistent. Carol was standing sideways to the door, trying to get the best view through a tiny peephole. When the door was thrown open, she was thrown back toward the wall, where the side of her face hit first. I never said she hit nose first. But she hit face first, with the side of her head and face making violent contact with a wall that was right next to the door.

I know you are trying to protect the cops because Arnott has been a client of your firm -- and you are trying to protect Cowherd because your firm represents him, too. But you are just making yourself look stupid. You also are confirming the notion that lawyers are callous, thoughtless leeches. You know who the victim is here, but you make every excuse under the son for the abusers. Must be a terrible way to go through life -- sad, as Trump would say.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:03 --

The incident where Carol allegedly "barreled" into Debi Wade is pure fantasy. I've known Carol for almost 30 years, and I've never seen her "barrel" into anybody. Carol wears glasses, and we have no money to replace broken glasses. Carol also has scoliosis, which causes her periodic back and neck pain. The last thing Carol is likely to do is to "barrel" into anybody. I never saw Carol and Debi Wade make contact with each other, unless Wade helped Carol up after she had been slammed to the ground and had her arm broken. At that point, officers were surrounding Carol, and I couldn't tell who was touching who. But Carol, for sure, was not initiating contact with anybody, and I never saw her initiate contact with anybody during the entire incident.

As for the "sprinting" business, Carol is not the sprinting type. I've never seen her sprint after anything. That whole thing sounds odd to you because it didn't happen.

Someone probably concocted that scenario to make it sound like Carol and a female officer got tangled up -- as opposed to what really happened: A male officer brutalized Carol and broke her arm.

Anonymous said...

What happened at the hearing?

legalschnauzer said...

@8:31 -- A few points:

(1) You seem to be a selective reader. If you read the Misdemeanor Information, it brings one count of alleged assault, against a male officer, Jeremy Lynn. It does not bring any count regarding alleged assault of Debi Wade.

(2) The Lynn count is the entire case, and Wade admits in the PC statement she didn't she it. Even you seem to acknowledge that is hearsay and can't stand. Therefore, the whole case, by law, is toast.

(3) Carol never slammed into Ms. Wade. Carol was approaching Wade and Harrison near the porch when a male officer came from behind, slammed her to the ground and yanked on her arms viciously enough to break one of them. Wade is lying here and throughout the PC statement and should be prosecuted. There is a deliberate attempt to cover for the male officer who broke Carol's arm. More on that in upcoming post.

(4) You call it an unstable situation. I agree with you there. You seem to put the burden for that on Carol. But she and I weren't the ones who brought multiple assault weapons, pointing one at my head, and waving pistols all around.

(5) Notice what Wade doesn't mention: (a) That cops brought all kinds of weaponry; (b) That 6-8 cops were present for a frickin eviction that was unlawfully scheduled and conducted anyway; (c) That Sheriff Arnott was there; (d) That Carol's arm was broken; (e) That Cowherd's personnel stole a bunch of our stuff, including Carol's jewelry that probably has been pawned or rests on the finger of some punk's girlfriend. Why does Wade leave all this out? Because she's dishonest, and she has to be to survive in a dishonest department, working for a dishonest sheriff, who is a client of the Lowther/Johnson law firm.

(6) Why would Carol, the victim of an assault that cops have tried to cover up, need to do community service or some diversion program? Can you explain that one? Just how warped are you? In your world, everyone that is abused by cops is guilty of something?

Bottom line: At least two cops -- Arnott and the unknown arm breaker -- committed crimes. Debi Wade's bogus PC statement is carefully crafted to take attention away from the real criminals here.

Anonymous said...

First time I've ever seen a probable cause statement. Very interesting and educational. Thanks for writing a post that should be widely read.

Anonymous said...

I have no business or professional, nor political interest in the outcome of any of these cases.

I realize you could not possibly have witnessed Carol's alleged meltdown in the garage, but I think you must have been actively minimizing just how unstable the situation was for a long time.

Carol does unfortunately have a public history - documented in court records and even some of your posts on this blog, of reacting in an extreme, even hysterical way in high stress situations, including at least one encounter with the police (during the traffic stop you have written about on several occasions, and a hysterical reaction to a debt collector. Theses reports are from your point of view and that of others. These reactions included behaviours described in this report, which to me, makes the report plausible despite your protestations on other occassions that it is all made up.

You have expressed skepticism at there being any law against improper litter-box retrieval, and I would have shared it, however the officer's statement above puts a very different spin on a situation that one where all is proceeding in a calm and orderly way, and Carol is quietly walking to the duplex under the impression there is no problem with an unaccompanied return for another item. Her behavior had alarmed the officers and she had been acting aggressively and even felt so much despair she asked the officers to shoot her. The officer reports chasing after Carol who is unexpectedly running from the car to the house despite pleas from the officer, who was willing to go in and get the litter box. By intention or accident, and it is hard to tell which, Carol turned and head butted the officer and she had to struggle to keep her footing and threw her arm up in a protective gesture. No reasonable person could blame nearby officers from approaching Carol from either side and restraining her.

I don't think it was a very good idea to file the motions you have filed or to do away with her public defender in favor of pro-se representation. For one thing, you have no right to represent your wife or draft legal arguments in motions for her. The more important reason is that it would be far better for a lawyer to emphasize the accidental nature of the final collision with the female officer, the stressful circumstances and worry for the pet, and Carol's compromised decision making ability in the situation. I have said repeatedly I think Carol might be convicted but a PD could probably work a deal where the conviction could be vacated after 6 mos to year (as if she had been found not guilty) after either some psychiatric treatment or community service.

I think your civil suit for excessive force, is doomed, frankly, and I think even you must understand that there is not much chance of success, despite the devastating injuries to Carol's arm. Barring the development of some objective evidence the officer's have concocted all these circumstances and events described about, such a camera footage showing no collision and no running, it's highly improbable Carol will get charges dismissed outright.

I'm just pleading that you allow her to have independent counsel and that you don't try to pressure her into a situation that has bad consequences for her.

Anonymous said...

The officer claims you threatened to shoot officers who evicted you. How does she know that? Did you say it to her? Did she hear a 911 call?

legalschnauzer said...

No, I didn't say that to her, and I didn't make a 911 call. I'm not sure there is a true sentence in the entire PC statement, at least on a substantive matter.

Carol was trying to retrieve our cat's litter box, that is true.

Anonymous said...

It is far preferable that Carol, have the judge take the case under advisement and dismiss it if Carol takes certain actions (possibly community service) that that she go to jail or be fined.

You did not see Carol's behaviour in the garage. Carol has a history of hysterical behaviour under high-stress conditions. There will be more than one officer testifying to Carol's demeanor. The risk of conviction is high.

Please protect your wife, get a lawyer.

Anonymous said...

Here is another situation for which there is some historical basis for forming an opinion as to *plausibility* - more than one person has accused Roger of making violent threats, (that he says are mischaracterized, but which many reasonable people would view as a threat.) For example, announcing he would now be perfectly capable of killing his antagonists (such as McGarity) and talking about shooting people who invade his property.

I admit I believe the officer's had a good reason to believe there was risk in this situation, that Roger had made some similar not-so veiled threat to resist anyone who came to evict him while he believed it improper to evict him. It might have been a friend who reported him, a relative, or someone he spoke to directly on the phone. Roger may never ever have had any intention of any form of violent resistance, but his statements may well have created an opposite impression.
There was an elevated threat level during this eviction, obviously, by the way it was treated. The first officer to bring it up, says he was informed of this threat by his dispatcher. I don't really doubt that is true. How the dispatcher was made aware of any statements by Roger (directly from Roger, indirectly by report, etc) is unknown. But I do believe this is why officers appeared in unusual number and with some apprehension about the eviction.

legalschnauzer said...

@3:05 --

I hope readers understand that you are Craig Lowther, whose clients include Sheriff Arnott and landlord Trent Cowherd. You are trying to protect them, and you have no interest in the truth or justice. You keep commenting, trying to create a false narrative, because you know your buddies are in trouble. And you are in trouble, too, because you let an eviction move forward when it was stayed and unlawfully scheduled and untimely sought. You screwed up big time, Craig ole boy, and now you are in cover up mode -- have been for a long time.

(A) Carol was arrested without probable cause, the PC statement makes that clear, so there is no reason to dismiss the case with certain provisions. If the judge is honest and competent -- and so far, we have no reason to believe she isn't -- that's what will happen. Under the law, if the system is honest (a big "if"), there is zero chance of Carol being convicted or fined. There is zero chance of the case going to trial.

(B) I was sitting in the front seat of our car in the driveway, looking directly into the garage as Carol came out. She didn't act hysterical in any way. Are you trying to encourage Arnott & Co. to play the "hysterical woman" card. Good luck with that?

(C) Good, I would love to have a bunch of officers testifying, about how they had no lawful grounds to be there that day, about how one officer broke Carol's arm and another pointed a gun at my head, and we were not close to being one month behind on rent, as law requires. They've already lied their asses off in PC Statement, so you are saying they are prepared to lie under oath in court. Tell me something surprising.

(D) You saw Carol's behavior in the garage? You were there that day, or did someone "advise" you of this?

legalschnauzer said...

@2:45 --

Not much happened at the hearing. Yesterday, we filed two motions to dismiss -- one based on a bad-faith and false probable cause statement and one based on vindictive prosecution -- and we filed a motion for discovery, particularly asking to see the investigative file the sheriff's office is required to conduct on any "critical incident" involving use of force. We will be filing another document seeking discovery on a whole host of matters, but we want to get the investigative file first.

The judge and asst. PA had not been able to read our documents, so a hearing was set on them for May 3. That was it. It was one of those court cattle-call days, so not much chance to accomplish a lot.

legalschnauzer said...

@3:01 --

(1) You lie right out of the box. You are Craig Lowther, your firm represents Sheriff Arnott and landlord Cowherd. This lie means nothing you say has credbility, but I will address some of it anyway because it's fun to tear your statements to shreds.

(2) Carol didn't have a meltdown in the garage. I was sitting in the car, looking directly at her as she came out to put stuff in trunk. If you are so disinterested how would you know about any "meltdown" in the garage, even though there wasn't one. A lying cop told you this, Arnott told you this?

(3) I see you are going to play the "hysterical woman" card. That's the best you can do, especially since it isn't true. You admit these were high-stress situations, so what's wrong with having a high-stress reaction? That's how most people would react to having their home ransacked by thugs they knew could not be there.

(4) Craig, you actually believe Carol "head butted" an officer? You really are looking like a fool. Shameless, I see.

(5) We haven't said we were going to forego a public defender. That decision hasn't been made. As for your other stuff here, can you point to a single fact in the PC statement that indicates there was probable cause Carol committed the crimes charged? Let's see what you come up with.

(6) Got to be honest and blunt here: You are full of shit, you are dishonest, and you have a vested interest in the outcome of the case because you and two of your clients are in big trouble. I don't care one iota about your opinion on a civil case that hasn't been filed yet. Carol obviously was arrested to discourage a civil case; the PC statement shows she committed no crime, wasn't even probable cause of a crime. So the whole criminal charge was concocted as a scam, and it's probably a crime for some of your buddies (maybe you).

Again, no matter how hard you try, you aren't fooling anyone.

legalschnauzer said...

@3:16 --

As Col. Sherman Potter used to say, "Buffalo Bagels"!

(1) Saying one is capable of killing someone is a long way from threatening to kill someone or actually shooting someone. Judging from all of the guns in our society, it would be the rare American who is not capable of shooting someone. You can't point to any actual statements I've made to support your claims, so you twist things to suit your purposes. Classy. Also dishonest.

(2) Why would cops have reason to believe there was risk in the situation? They weren't talking about some generalized threat. They said I had called 911 and made a threat. My lawyer brother put that in writing. Scott Harrison told Carol he had heard the call and it had been traced to our phone and our home. Debi Wade put it, unattributed, in the PC Statement. How could that be when I made no such call? How could an officer have been informed by his dispatcher if I made no such call?

If someone else made such a call, that's a crime. I assume you realize that. Are you in CYA mode? Should you be?

Anonymous said...

At face value just assuming that is a truthful narrative, as the magistrate would- there was probable cause, because the officer says she was assaulted, put into context of her understanding that Carol had already assaulted a different officer. Proving the statement false is a different ball of wax. I understand you believe you can do this, but the outlook does not look favorable. First, there will be corroborating testimony. Carol won't be able to bring up stuff about them being there unlawfully, so please don't hang your hat on that. You will need direct and objective evidence of lying, and you will not have that. And while Carol can testify to the way she behaved, that testimony is going to contradicted by officers, and possibly other witnesses, and you will not be able to testify any meltdown in the garage that may have occurred. Worse, Carol's history shows she has shown extreme reactions when under stress, and if you say it is unlike her to do that, that will open the door to evidence it is not unlike her to do that.

Wade says your wife assaulted her, pivoting and running headlong into her, after your wife ran (unexpectedly, after demonstrating unstable behaviours, requiring Carol to be talked down off the proverbial ledge more than once) to go get something in the house without asking permission again. This is put into context that She was not, according to the officer, acting reasonably throughout the eviction process, and in fact was aggressive and unstable.

You have time to get a lawyer. Please get a lawyer. PLEASE.

Anonymous said...


I understand there is a distinction between saying one is capable of killing and threatening to kill a person, but it 's not like context doesn't matter. When you bring up a specific person you are hostile to, by name, and talk about their splattered brains, in the context of your great anxiety anger and upset, the salience of the words is altered somewhat. You have made other comments that are very concerning along those lines on other occasions, how you might you'd be in your rights to shoot officers coming onto your property.

The report I read here was through your brother and second hand. The letter from your brother said a specific officer told him that the Dispatcher had warned him of a 911 call about your threats. Your brother didn't assert that it actually happened, he only hoped it wasn't true, but that an officer told him that it had happened. Maybe he misunderstood or the officer did or the dispatcher did. You understand there might have been someone you made a veiled threat to, who reported it via 911- and that wouldn't be a false report if they truly believed you said those things.

There probably was some kind of call related to the threat. Trying to make you a truth-teller, I'm wondering if someone else made a 911 call, or if they were referring to some call you have made in the past. You expressed an opinion that you might know the generation of the story as a friend who misconstrued something you said about resisting police who came to evict you. I can't know the real situation. But I think the officers understood their reason for being there in number is that your eviction carried a higher threat level because of reported threats.

legalschnauzer said...

Craig, you might be more full of feces than anyone I've ever come across.

(1) Show me one document that says Carol assaulted Debi Wade. I'll save you the trouble. There isn't one. Someone gave Wade's stuff to PA Dan Patterson, and even he didn't bring a case. Sorry, but you can't get around that, even in the Trumpian world of "alternative facts."

(2) Carol has no "history," but even if she did, it would be inadmissible. Again, you are just lying. Sad.

(3) Carol didn't run headlong into Wade or anyone else. But even if she did, there is the little word "knowingly" in the law. In your own version (which isn't true), Carol was "unstable," "not acting reasonably," "having a meltdown." Considering that guns had been pointed at her and her husband, such behavior should be expected (even though it didn't happen). You say yourself that Carol wasn't acting with a knowing mindset. You say she was upset, highly stressed, etc., and that goes in the opposite direction of knowing behavior. So you prove her case, even though she didn't initiate any contact with Debi Wade and didn't need your "help."

You and your clients are in a hole, so I would suggest you quit digging.

legalschnauzer said...

@4:14 --

You admit I didn't say what you wish I'd said, so there really isn't much to discuss here. You are in the wrong, and you know it. You talk about other "concerning" comments I've made, but you don't point to any. I've not heard from anyone else who is concerned about any such comments, so perhaps you have hyper sensitivities that cause you to hear things that weren't said, read things that weren't written. How do you know about these "concerning" comments anyway? Are you the Amazing Kreskin? Have you invaded our lives in some way, with ill intent? Maybe you are regretting that now? Maybe you should be.

You also are mistaken about my brother. He didn't say anything about the alleged 911 call in the letter to the judge. He said it in an email, and he gave no indication that he didn't believe it happened.

Again, you seem to be changing your story. The cops said, and David said, that I called 911 and made a threat. They didn't say someone else called, they said it was me. And I made no such call. If someone else did call, based on their statements, the person apparently claimed to be me and somehow made the call appear to come from our apartment. In other words, it apparently was someone who had been in our apartment.

If such a call was made, claiming to be me when it wasn't, that's a crime. That you are trying to change the narrative indicates you know it's a crime, and you are concerned about it. I suspect you should be because the truth on that is coming out.

Someone might get to find out how much fun it is to spend time behind bars. Someone might regret not handling this situation with a whole lot more intelligence and respect for victims. Someone might regret siding with abusers and not with victims. Someone might regret being a greedy SOB who thought he could take advantage of vulnerable people.

Anonymous said...

Like your scenario with Johnny and Billy. Made me laugh.

Anonymous said...

From what you have posted on your blog -there might be some statement I don't know about - you brother didn't say there had been and 911 call, but said he had been told by a specific officer that said officer's dispatch had told him about the threats.

Your brother said he hoped that it was not really true that you had made those threats. (He had been asked to contact you by the officer)
I also hope it's not true, but I think this much probably is true, that you made "threats" of similar character to the ones I've seen on this blog, and somehow authorities became aware of them.

I can only speculate about it, but you said a friend probably misunderstood you and reported you. Perhaps you did make some kind of call, if not a 911 call. From things you have said, I got the impression that a health care provider might have been involved (the privacy concerns you mentioned)

Anonymous said...

I don't "wish" you to have said anything. I have opinions about what a reasonable person would make of things you have said, and that in context they are very concerning,

legalschnauzer said...

@6:44 --

You clearly are in the minority as seeing any comments as "concerning." I've not had anyone willing to attach their names to any claim that I've said or written anything "concerning"; in fact, you haven't attached your name to any such claim either, so even you don't seem to be all that concerned. Also, law enforcement didn't contact me when someone else apparently made a call. As I understand it, 911 is designed for emergencies. Well, someone in a position of authority must not have seen it as an emergency because there was no reaction to it.

Seems like we pretty much agree that a so-called friend made the call, or caused it to be made. Again, if the content of the call was false or he claimed to be me when he wasn't, the so-called friend (who long ago ceased being a "friend) is going to be dealing with criminal issues soon. It would serve him right, in my view, and I intend to pursue this matter to the fullest, both criminally and civilly.

Anonymous said...

Please don't gamble with your wife's freedom. You have utterly failed every time you've played lawyer. Please get her an attorney. She's your wife. This isn't some pretend David Goliath showdown. This is your wife's freedom. Do the right thing and get her a lawyer.

legalschnauzer said...

@6:42 --

(1) My brother said, regarding his call from Deputy Harrison, "I certainly hope that you did not really do that, but he asked me to make you aware that they take such threats seriously and that you are setting up a potentially dangerous situation." The language hints at some of what you claim, but it also points to my contention -- that David considered the "threat" real. Why else would he say "they take such threats seriously"? David's e-mail was dated 9/2/15, exactly one week prior to our eviction. Cops are going to let a real threat, called in via 911, slide for a week? Makes no sense to me, and it certainly runs contrary to the purpose of 911. David asked me not to respond to that e-mail, for some peculiar reason, but did respond, and I made it clear I had done nothing to set up a "potentially dangerous situation." The "dangerous situation" easily could have cost Carol and me our lives -- and it cost her full use of her left arm. You think we are going to set up a situation to put ourselves in harm's way? I guarantee not a single officer left that day with so much as a scratch on them. The same can't be said for Carol and me.

(2) I've never made "threats" on this blog. Just because you read something a certain way doesn't make it so. I take great care in stating things accurately and precisely -- both in regards to things other people say or do, and with regards to my own thoughts and feelings. I've never threatened anyone, including Mike McGarity, who, along with his lawyer (Bill Swatek), I consider to be among the two worst humans to ever walk the planet. Not even those two scumbags can claim I've threatened them because I haven't. Not sure why you see a threat where even McGarity and Swatek don't. You can't point to a single threat of harm that ever has been made on this blog -- toward anyone, including the two pieces of scum I hate most in this world. You either have heightened sensitivities or a vested interest in portraying me as someone who makes unlawful threats, here or in other settings. But I don't make such threats, so I guess that causes you angst, or something like angst.

(3) I've never said a friend "probably" misunderstood me. If the events went as I suspect, he definitely misunderstood me. And I have doubts that he's ever been a genuine "friend." I didn't own a gun then, and I don't own one now, so the whole argument is nonsensical. Kind of hard to shoot anyone without a gun.

(4) Don't know how much more clear I can make this: I did not place a call of any kind threatening anyone, and an investigation will prove that to be true. If someone else placed such a call, they had better prepare to deal with some legal issues because they are on the horizon, and the train will be rolling into town soon.

legalschnauzer said...

@7:19 --

You seem to make a couple of faulty assumptions. I don't lead my wife along by the nose; she is perfectly capable of making her own decisions, and she will make her decisions in this matter.

Second, you act like hiring a lawyer is as easy as sticking a piece of gum in your mouth. Lawyers cost money, a lot of money, and they very often are an extremely poor investment. I've learned that lesson the hard way.

If you care so much, why don't you put up your own damned money for Carol's defense. We've got multiple ways -- PayPal, GoFundMe, that people can contribute. Put your money where your mouth is, bub. If you aren't willing to do that, you obviously don't care as much as you claim, and I'd suggest you keep your mouth shut -- especially since you are Craig Lowther, and your only interest in Carol and me is to cause us harm.

Anonymous said...

LS: Have been meaning to mention SLAPP and anti-SLAPP suits for eons now, specifically with regard to Ms. Garrison. Don't know what their status is in AL or MO but thought the info might be of interest to you.

legalschnauzer said...

Thanks for sharing, @11:43. That's definitely part of what we are dealing with here.