 |
| Carol Shuler |
The motions were filed on Tuesday, and we had a hearing yesterday morning before Greene County Circuit Judge Margaret Holden Palmietto. Neither she, nor assistant prosecuting attorney Nicholas Jain, had been able to review the motions, so not much was accomplished yesterday. A hearing on the motions, and others that might arise in the interim, is set for May 3.
We've seen no evidence so far to suggest Palmietto is anything other than a competent and honest judge -- although given our experiences, we always are on the alert for signs of malfeasance. If she is, in fact, what we hope she is, the decision to dismiss the charges should be an easy one.
Carol's first motion for dismissal is based on a Probable Cause (PC) Statement that was made in bad faith and includes numerous false statements that should put its author, Lt. Debi Wade, at risk of criminal prosecution. Aside from all the nuttiness in Wade's handiwork, this much can't be disputed: A Misdemeanor Information filed by Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson charges Carol with one count of "assault on a law enforcement officer," claiming she pushed a male officer named Jeremy Lynn. Wade admits in her PC Statement that she did not witness Carol push Wade, but some unknown person "advised" her on the matter. It's hard to imagine a more blatant case of inadmissible hearsay -- and that means the charge must be dropped, as a matter of law.
It also calls Wade's credibility, overall, into question. From Carol's Motion to Dismiss:
In the probable cause statement, Debi Wade claims Carol Shuler “assaulted” Capt. Jeremy Lynn in the entryway of the residence. Wade then states: “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.”
Wade admits she did not witness this incident and says an unnamed individual “advised her of what happened.” This is rank hearsay, and it is the only information in the probable cause statement about the alleged assault on Jeremy Lynn. This information is due to be excluded as hearsay, and since it’s the only information regarding the only alleged incident of assault, the charge is due to be dismissed.
A charge that is based on zero probable cause must be dismissed, so that should be a simple matter. But Carol took the extra step of filing a "Motion to Have This Matter Declared a Vindictive Prosecution and to Have it Dismissed As Such." What is a vindictive prosecution? This is from a Missouri case styled State v. Potts (Mo. Ct. of App. 2005), which involved drug charges:
[Potts] alleges that the prosecutor acted vindictively when he raised the charge from possession of a controlled substance to possession with the intent to distribute after the trial court sustained Appellant's motion for a mistrial during voir dire. He also argues that the prosecutor deliberately induced the mistrial in order to file the greater charge and as a result double jeopardy bars further prosecution on either charge. We conclude that the first part of that contention requires reversal . . .
Here is more, from Potts, on the legal concept of vindictive prosecution:
When the State has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, the “decision whether or not to prosecute and what charges to file generally rests entirely within the prosecutor's discretion.” . . . This decision is rarely subject to judicial review. . . . Not all charges that can be, must be filed in the initial indictment. . . . Prosecutors can hold some charges in abeyance for strategic use.
However, when such a decision comes after an accused has exercised a constitutional or statutory right, those principles conflict with the premise that “[t]o punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.” [Potts] relies on Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974), for the proposition that due process bars the State from retrying him on the higher charge.
In Carol's case, she is being punished for three vindictive reasons: (1) Because we exercised our right to challenge, and even file an appeal, of landlord Trent Cowherd's attempt to evict us; (2) Because I have continued to blog about political and legal corruption in Alabama and Missouri -- and the determination to pursue charges against Carol, curiously, came not long after I had published sensitive information about Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who now finds himself at the center of "Kremlingate," which threatens to become perhaps the most outrageous scandal in U.S. history; (3) Because it's clear we have grounds for a civil-rights/police-brutality lawsuit against the sheriff (and others) responsible for Carol's broken arm.
The vindictive prosecution motion should not come into play because the lack of probable cause is enough to doom the prosecution's case. But Carol's motion points to considerable evidence that the charges against her have nothing to do with any alleged crime, but rather are based on notions of intimidation, retaliation, and vindictiveness. In essence, the state is trying to blame her for cops breaking her arm. In sociology classes, that's called "Blaming the Victim." And we are learning that it's very real.
As for discovery, Carol's initial motion touched on general matters, with more specifics to follow. From the motion:
As an initial matter, Shuler moves this court to order the state to turn over all documents related to an investigation of a “critical incident” involving use of force, as required by Greene County Sheriff’s Department policy. Shuler notes that policy calls for interviews of all individuals targeted with use of force and all witnesses, but neither Carol Shuler nor her husband, Roger, have been interviewed. That suggests no investigation was done -- or at least, that any such investigation was incomplete.
Regardless, Shuler moves that all documents related to a GCSO investigative report that was supposed to be prepared per departmental policy – including all internal memos, emails, texts or other written or electronic forms of communication – be turned over as soon as possible.
As a matter of law, Carol is entitled to this information, and much more, which should help her mount a serious defense.
Carol's motions are being scanned into a digital format and will be published here shortly. Meanwhile, she has sent the message that screwing around with her is not going to be a joyride for prosecutors -- or the sheriff's office.
55 comments:
What happened that Capt. Jeremy Lynn can't submit what happened but Debi Wade (non-witness) can? Sheesh, these people must go to same 'police jihad' training camp as the Alabama gang!
D.M.
Phenix City, AL
Good for Carol. I hope she kicks their ass.
Having to set through one of those court cattle calls is the worst. I've been through them a time or two. You have my sympathies.
Not sure how these charges can stand when the only evidence is hearsay. I know some people like to claim you are a conspiracy guy, etc., but this clearly was a conspiracy or a sham or something sleazy. It certainly wasn't about Carol committing a crime because these documents show she didn't.
Got to give you credit for running all of those goofy comments on yesterday's post, especially from the guy who does not even try to deny he's Craig Lowther. The funniest thing was his "advice" that you aren't going to get anywhere with the argument that cops had no lawful grounds for being on the rented property on day of eviction. Why does that issue touch home with him? Because he's the one who caused them to be there without legal justification. He's just trying to protect himself. Typical lawyer.
Very astute comment, @9:54. In a lot of ways, Lowther is responsible for the whole thing. He unlawfully set the date for the eviction. He unlawfully started the proceedings when we were only five days behind on rent, not 30 as required by law. He failed to intervene when his client, Cowturd, was trying to evict someone by breaching the lease.
Lowther screwed up from A to Z, and now he is big-time CYA mode. He's exactly the kind of selfish, spineless, dishonest prick who causes people to hate lawyers.
I hearby swear that Donald Trump grabbed Megyn Kelly's pussy on live TV last night. I didn't see it, but someone advised me that it happened.
I had never heard of a vindictive prosecution. Going to learn more about it. Thanks for the education.
Question: Did anyone in the DA's office review this probable cause statement before it was filed. It's a joke, but they let that be posted?
Has Lowther taken you up on your offer to have him pay for the legal services he so badly wants you to obtain?
@10:37 --
Hah! Haven't heard back from Lowther on that. I'm sure the check will be in today's mail.
@8:43 --
Damned good question, DM. I haven't quite figured this all out, but here is an early guess at what might be happening:
(1) Jeremy Lynn knows Carol didn't assault him, and maybe he or someone else even was wearing a body cam that shows that. But they put that out there anyway. Jeremy, however, can't swear to it because something proves it isn't true.
(2) Debi Wade raises the issue, but then admits she didn't actually witness it, so that might provide her cover for lying in a sworn statement.
(3) Wade claims Carol assaulted her, claiming Carol "barreled" into her and "growled like an animal," making Carol sound like Dick Butkus on uppers. But the DA doesn't even include that as a charge, so maybe that protects Wade from a perjury charge.
(4) Somehow, it all ties in to protecting the two criminals on the scene -- Sheriff Arnott, who criminally violated Carol's civil rights under color of law, and the unknown cop who broke Carol's arm. The PC Statement hints that it's a Lt. Conrad, but I'm not sure that's right.
Anyway, it's a massive ass-covering operation. Life is just easier when you tell the truth.
That PC Statement reads like something out of a "Police Academy" movie.
Very odd that this sheriff's department would require an extensive investigation of any use-of-force incident, but they have not interview you or Carol. That tells me they've done no investigation at all, and probably have done nothing other than to cover up.
Odd indeed, @11:33. The manual specifically says that subjects (Carol) and witnesses (me) will be interviewed, and we weren't. I think it's a whitewash, and we intend to find out for sure soon.
BTW, since I wrote about the manual, it no longer appears on the Web. Here's the page you land on when you try to find it:
https://greenecountymo.gov/file/PDF/document.pdf?id=173
I think you are missing a key part of Wades statement, where she avers she herself was assaulted by Carol.If the posecutor develops a case on these or different facts, the sworn statement, on its face is enough to bring charges and effect an arrest.
12:38 --
I think you are full of moose mucus, Mr. Lowther. He already has all the "facts" Debi Wade has -- and they are false, by the way -- and he's determined there was nothing that could support a criminal charge. I'm not missing a thing; I will write about this in future post. But Debi Wade put her bogus case out there, and even Dan Patterson found it lacking. What additional "facts" is Debi Wade going to come up with? You're saying she hasn't had enough time to make everything up?
I think Wade and Patterson and Arnott and others might be at risk of being arrested by federal authorities. They already have committed criminal violations of Carol's civil rights once. If they are stupid enough to do it again, they deserve what is coming their way.
Mr. Lowther --
You have claimed to be concerned about Mrs. Schnauzer's well being and yet you suggest she should be arrested again -- when she's already been arrested twice, and the DA still can't bring a decent case? I would say you are a sick fuck. I'd enjoy tracking you down and kicking your ass.
I say, you will need evidence that absolutely and objectively controverts her statement to discredit it, beyond your testimony or Carol's. I do think it's plausible that Carol had immense difficulty keeping her emotions in check in the crisis your eviction.
THis is you yourself have written about Carol having intense, even catastrophic reactions under stress, and others have described them from their own point of view in terms in enough agreement to believe she could have acted as Wade recounts she did.
This doesn't make Carol a bad person, and I think many would have sympathy for her, but i tend to believe Carol is capable of the outbursts and actions described.
Is it your contention that Carol was always calm, never aggressive, never ran and never turned sharply when walking to the house while an officer was trying to communicate with her? That you saw all that took place in the house and garage? That Carol never acted bizarrely or needed help calming down? That she agreed to let the officer go in and get the cat's box for her? What evidence are you counting on, besides you own account, to prove this report false? I imagine if there are any cameras they could support you, but what if they don't? WHat if Carol is behaving just as described? What if the officers swoop in because the saw their fellow officer in a defensive position?
@3:17 --
Two words for you, Mr. Lowther -- "Buffalo Bagels"!
1. You are a lawyer, and you don't know the burden of proof rests with the prosecution? Criminal defendants often don't even take the stand if the prosecution hasn't met that burden. This prosecution doesn't even have probable cause at the moment, and they've had two chances to arrest Carol already.
2. I'd say Carol kept her emotions pretty well in check considering thugs had unlawfully broken into her home, pointed high-powered weaponry at her and her husband, and were in the process of ransacking their belongs -- or preparing to have their possessions ransacked by the criminals who work for Trent Cowherd.
3. If you want to talk emotions, check into the guy who broke Carol's arm. He was a wild man. We call him "Mr. Blue Shirt" because he was wearing a light blue shirt while other deputies were in black. The PC Statement suggests a Lt. Conrad broke Carol's arm, and that might be right. But they also might be covering for someone, perhaps a Maj. Corcoran. This guy was dressed differently some reason, and Corcoran is No. 2 in the department. That will all come out in discovery, to which we look forward. We look forward to checking into the history of every single officer on the scene. But "Blue Shirt" instigated the whole thing, and was far more emotional than Carol.
3. Carol is charged with assaulting a law enforcement officer and trespass. There is no mention of trespass in the PC Statement, so that's out. There is no mention of the Wade "assault" in the MI, so that's out -- Carol isn't even charged with it. Wade admits she didn't see any "assault" on Jeremy Wade, so that's hearsay and it's out. Case closed. That's the sad state of this "case." There is no there there, no matter how much you try to claim otherwise.
4. Carol isn't charged with being emotional or hysterical or whatever sexist term you want to apply. She is charged with assault on LE officer. There isn't even probable cause of that, much less evidence that would stand up at trial. With an honest judge, the case can't go to trial. That you are swooping in here and trying to support such a hole-filled case suggests you are a dreadful human being and a piss-poor lawyer.
5. I've already said I saw everything except what took place inside the house when Carol went back in to retrieve items, and the PC Statement makes no claim against Carol during that period. There was nothing unusual in the garage, other than Carol carrying items to our car. I think you are munching on the wrong bone there.
6. Again, you seem to be preparing a defense for misconduct in the civil case we will bring, in which you and your firm will be a defendant. This is a criminal case, where baseless charges have been brought against Carol. Your scenario about officers swooping in helps her case. It shows she had reason to be frightened, and therefore, did not knowingly make contact with anyone.
7. Your last paragraph is pure excrement. It's all related to Debi Wade's claims, and Carol isn't charged with that.
You truly are a sad, desperate, and pathetic man, who has zero interest in justice and is totally interested in covering his own ass and the asses of his clients -- Arnott and Cowturd. No wonder you went into law.
It must be awful to go through life with the creepy mindset you have. You and your firm are in trouble civilly, maybe criminally. Why, don't try taking accountability for your actions instead of trying to blame Carol. Are you even capable of that, taking responsibility, manning up, and saying, "Hey, I screwed up, my firm screwed up, my clients screwed up. This rests on our shoulders."
As a Springfield lawyer, I've heard Mr. Lowther pull this kind of "soft shoe" routine several times. And he usually gets away with it. You are the rare layperson who is smart enough to catch on to his act. He really is an embarrassment to the rest of us in the legal profession. To claim Carol has to prove these charges false, is bunk. She doesn't have to do a thing if the prosecution can't make a prima facie case, and given that they don't have probable cause at the moment, I would say the prima facie standard is going to be tough to reach.
Dan Patterson never should have brought such a weak case. That he did suggests he is a political animal and nothing else.
I'd say Carol has the most important thing in this matter -- the "X-ray" card. That can't be explained away. Pictures of those bones snapped in two -- that's always in her back pocket. She also has the "Doctor Testimony" card, the "physical therapist testimony" card, and the "medical records" card. None of those can be explained away, and that's why Lowther knows he has problems.
If Lowther and his firms are defendants in a civil case, that means they can't represent Arnott or Cowherd or any of the deputy thugs, right?
Maybe that's why Arnott pushed the PA for the criminal case.
@4:13 --
You are right, and you make a very interesting point, for sure.
Roger, you shouldn't write comments like that to anyone. Making threats to hurt people might give relief to your emotions but it works to your disadvantage.
You don't seem to understand that Wades allegation was enough to arrest. The case actually brought may differ based on the facts the prosecutor thinks justify pursuit of conviction.
The cop says Carol assaulted her, and believes Carol pushed another officer. ( I think it likely that Carol pushed reflexively on the door, if only to keep it from striking her.). Carol has defenses, but she is a weak position. Please follow through with getting a public defender.
@4:17 --
Mr. Lowther, are you hallucinating? Where did I threaten to hurt anybody?
A person can only be arrested on probable cause, and there is no probable cause on the two counts against Carol -- for the alleged assault on Officer Lynn and the alleged trespass. The prosecutor already has decided Wade's claims of an assault on her don't justify pursuit of conviction. It's a matter of public record that the PA isn't pursuing them.
Probable cause isn't based on things an officer believes, with nothing to support it. Wade admits she saw no push on Officer Lynn, and she doesn't even say who "advised" that such an event occurred. Surely, even you recognize the hearsay here.
It's hard to imagine a criminal defendant having a stronger position than Carol's. The only concern for her is this: Is the judge honest and competent. So far, we've no sign that she isn't.
As for the door, are you alleging Carol assaulted a door? That's a crime?
You become a bigger joke with each passing comment. I understand you are in self-protection mode, but you are making yourself and your profession look bad.
Mr. Lowther --
I wrote the comment at @3:12, and I'm disappointed you didn't recognize my style. In fact, I take that as an insult, which means I would like to kick your ass even more than I did before. Mr. Schnauzer had nothing to do with it. I will write under my real name when you start writing under yours. Meanwhile, I might just come upon you somewhere -- outside your office in Hammons Tower, heading to the courtroom, near one of your rental properties -- and I might get an uncontrollable urge to kick your ass for making light of what cop-thugs have done to Mrs. Schnauzer. I don't like cops who beat up women, and I like lawyers who defend such cops even less. You and I might meet someday, and I promise you won't find it terribly enjoyable.
Hah! Lowther thinks Carol assaulted a door.
im trying to explain to,you that on the face of that statement you published was sufficient basis for arrest. You don't want to accept it, it seems a hopeless business. This, however, is the point...Carol needs your protection now, and that means obtaining qualified counsel.
Your reaction re Carols emotional state seems to ine ate that the officers statements about it got pretty much near the truth. The situation was highly charged and unstable. If anything, I agree the officers should not have been so unguarded about the potential for further outburst or unexpected behavior. It certainly led to compounded disaster for Carol.
You misunderstand a defense for Carol as an accusation. She was standing by the the door,nthe door was pushed in abruptly and as you say with enough force to knock Carol into the wall.
It's a natural reflex to push back against a door like that to keep from being hit by said door...reflex,as opposed to willful intent to impede entry by the officer.
THis is a defense, That you are having trouble distinguishing a defense from an accusation is another reasonnCarol need qualified counsel.
@8:25 --
I asked last night if you are going to pay for our "qualified counsel." Well?
@8:25 --
You're saying hearsay is sufficient basis to arrest someone? Gotcha.
I'm supposed to take your legal "advice," but you don't know who has the burden of proof in a criminal prosecution? I think I'll go talk to a street bum if I want legal advice.
Plus, you are hopelessly compromised, and you won't accept that. You represent Arnott and Cowturd, and you and your firm are in doo-doo, too. But we are supposed to believe you have OUR interests at heart? You think all people are stupid enough to buy your spin?
You take arrogance to incredibly high levels. Got news for you: You ain't that good; you might be corrupt enough to buy off judges, but you ain't worth a cow pile as a lawyer.
Why do you think Lowther wants you to have an attorney so bad? My God, he was almost pleading in comments last night -- PLEASE, PLEASE!
@10:22 --
Great question, and I know exactly why Lowther wants us to have a lawyer. It's so he can pressure or intimidate our lawyer into controlling us or screwing us over. We've had that happen to us before, multiple times, so it's not a guess on my part. This kind of thing could even involve under-the-table payments. I'm convinced that happens all the time in the legal world. In fact, I'm quite certain some lawyers make pretty nice livings largely by selling out their own clients to lawyers or entities who have the financial base to buy them off.
I think there are lawyers who are above that, and the key is to find one. But Lowther probably is convinced he can intimidate or buy off any lawyer we can find. You might be saying, "My God, that's criminal, insanely corrupt." You are right, but there is no doubt in my mind it happens all the time. I've said for years that the legal profession is just a snazzy form of organized crime. And they are worse than the Sicilian mob, etc. The lawyers' crime sprees are subsidized by taxpayers. They use your tax dollars to turn around and screw you over. At least the Italian mobs etc. have the decency to use their own funds to engage in criminality.
You blew off the opportunity for a public defender. Its not too late for Carol to obtain counsel in that manner. Why should you not put what resources you may have remaining into Carol's defense?
And your paranoia is going to harm your wife's best chance of eventually having a verdict taken under advisement and dismissed, or having a guilty verdict vacated after a period of time. Is money what your foolish refusal to take legal advice? Or because that advice might contradict your ideas about what her defense should be?
It's pretty clear you have self-defeating problems with paranoia. I've already stated I have zero personal, professional or political connection to any of these problems or circumstances. The fact that you cannot imagine that anyone outside of people "after you" would comment here is a symptom of that paranois. My motivation is only to encourage you to understand that Carol is vulnerable and that she needs a qualified advocate who doesn't have the same blinkers on that you do, that get in the way of the best outcome for her.
Stop being so incredibly selfish.
Why do you keep dodging this question: Are you going to pay for Carol's defense? You claim you have no interest in the matter, so there is nothing keeping you from paying for it. Put your money where your mouth is.
Let me know of the time, date, and place, and Carol will be glad to meet you to pick up the check. We thank you in advance.
Memo to @2:09 --
Provide the following information, and we will consider answering your personal financial/legal questions that are none of your business:
(1) Your real name and firm. (I know your real name and firm, but let's see if you have the stones to put it out there. You are cocky enough to think you can run our business, let's see if you will put your own ID and business out there.)
(2) What do you know about Sh. Arnott, Maj. Corcoran, and Lt. Conrad? How many times has your firm represented Arnott, not to mention landlord Trent Cowherd. Provide case stylings, years, key issues, outcomes.
(3) Your net annual income, reflecting your ability to pay for Carol's defense. Carol and I are responsible for her business, and we are dealing with it in our own way, but you keep interjecting this hiring-a-lawyer notion. You brought that issue up so, are you willing to pay for it? Are you all hat and no cattle?
(4) Disclose ties you might have to my lawyer brother, David Shuler. He now is on Planning & Zoning Commission, where you once served. Did you help him get that position? Have the two of you worked on that committee mainly to serve your selfish interests as landlords? Did the two of you work together in launching an unlawful eviction against Carol and me, on behalf of your landlord pal, Trent Cowherd?
(5) You want us to hire a lawyer so that you can control our lawyer, while you can't control us. True or false?
(6) Answer these questions in a satisfactory way or quit sending emails. If you continue to send emails after I've told you to stop, I will consider filing a criminal complaint against you. Your emails already have no purpose other than to harass. That certainly will be the case after you duck the issues noted above.
Memo to @7:04 --
As expected, you didn't answer any of my questions, so "you're done." BTW, that's a pet phrase for the guy who broke Carol's arm. You familiar with that? Does Corcoran say it a lot, how about Conrad?
Official notice: Do not send me any more emails/comments. (Note: The comments come into my email account, so they are emails.) Do not communicate with Carol or me in any form, unless you have official business. I'm not familiar with Missouri's harassing communications law, but I know the one in Alabama, and you have crossed that line already. Don't think I'm bluffing because I will take action against you. You've repeatedly harassed and insulted both of us, and I've given you more rope than I should have. Fortunately, you used the rope to strangle yourself, but the "game" is stopping right here, right now.
You're done.
I am very sorry your wife has sustained injuries and been put through the criminal proceedings. She is clearly very loyal to you, which is an admirable trait in any person. Unfortunately, her loyalty to you has brought about her misery. You continually engage others in fights and lose. Whether your complaints about law enforcement, conspiracies amongst government agencies and actors, and people out simply to screw you over because of your blog are true or not, the fact of the matter is that you have put a target on your back and your wife's back. I hope she is exonerated from all charges, and is able to recover from her injuries, for her sake. And for her sake, you should consider toning down your rhetoric and vitriol against others. Maybe your targets will leave her alone. But then, that isn't your nature to back down, even if it results in her continued wrongful prosection and abuse by law enforcement.
@10:18 --
Let me see if I have this straight: You admit that law enforcement is engaging in abuse, and yet you claim that is somehow my fault. You also suggest that the way to deal with abusive individuals and entities is to just act like their lap dog? You really think the civil-rights movement would have made progress by staying quiet and letting the racists have their way? Maybe you are a racist and sexists who wants things to return to the "good old days"? I guess Martin Luther King put a target on his back by complaining about injustice. I guess it was his fault he was assassinated.
By the way, we've tried your advice long ago -- staying quiet and hoping "they" would leave us alone. It didn't work. They would not leave us alone, and that's why this blog was born. Just shows there is a lot of background on this blog that you don't know about it. But you are arrogant enough to offer your self-serving advice anyway.
10:18 here - I wasn't admitting anything of the sort. I said "whether true or not." Typical of how you twist any comment or criticism that does not support your view of things. II was lamenting that your wife is caught in the middle of your continuous fights with everybody and she has clearly suffered as a consequence. You call me arrogant, yet you compare your blog to the civil rights movement and compare yourself to MLK? Sheesh.
A husband's duty to his wife is to protect her from harm and rescue her when she is in peril. You have failed her, no matter whose fault it may be.
@7:57 --
That's exactly what you were admitting. Just read your last sentence: ". . . even if it results in her continued wrongful prosecution and abuse by law enforcement." There is only one way to interpret those words: She has been the victim of a wrongful prosecution and abuse by law enforcement, and it's likely to continue. Those are your words, not mine.
You are so predictable. I knew you would come back with the old "he's comparing himself to MLK" bit. Your act really is getting tired when I can accurately predict what you are going to say before you say it.
Let's see, where are we: Lowther has played the "Carol is hysterical card," the "Carol is a weak woman who can't think for herself card," the "Roger is mentally ill card," and now "the everything is Roger's fault card."
Notice how nothing ever is Lowther's fault, even though he unlawfully scheduled the eviction, without a judge's signature; or nothing ever is Cowherd's fault, even though he started eviction proceedings long before rent was late by one month, as required by law; and nothing ever is Arnott's fault, even though he personally was on hand and let his "troops" mishandle the situation and get so out of control that they broke Carol's arm -- and he's caused her to be falsely arrested and imprisoned twice (twice, I tell ya!).
Here is a suggestion: Go to Burrell Health and have yourself checked for Antisocial Personality Disorder, also known as sociopathy. I'm not qualified to make a diagnosis, but you show clear signs of it, bro. Maybe you were born without a conscience, or maybe yours rotted away after years in the legal "profession." Either way, I see little sign that you have a conscience, and that means you are real close to being a sociopath.
If you have a wife, I pity her -- and anyone else who is around you on a reglular basis. Think I will take my marital advice from someone who doesn't show signs of having a character disorder.
News flash... @7:57 is not Lowther. Don't even know who he is. If you want to look up mental disorders, try narcissism. Fits you to a T. And don't pity my wife. 36 years with me and she has never been evicted, assaulted, thrown in jail or or been sued.
There are lots of things in life worse than being evicted, assaulted, etc. One would be spending 36 years with an arrogant blockhead like you.
8:26 -- You actually admit to that "you've got to protect the little woman" BS. You sound like a sexist, ignorant pig to me. I do pity your wife if she couldn't do better than you.
Yes, there are worse things than being subjected to the stress of eviction, assault, etc. My wife and my children have been subjected to none of this. Hope your wife is content with her marriage to you and the consequences. I doubt it. You have no basis for calling me an arrogagant blockhead other than the fact I disagree with you. Enjoy your miserable life,
8:26 . . . When you consider the historical figures who have been incarcerated -- MLK, Jesus Christ, Apostle Paul, Nelson Mandela, Henry David Thoreau, and on and on -- I'd say Mr. and Mrs. Schnauzer are in good company. Maybe you and your wife have been cozy because you've never stood for anything.
8:26, Are you saying it was Carol's fault that cops beat her up? Do you realize how sick that makes you sound?
9:51 -- Thanks for making my point. Yes, there are worse things than being subjected to arrest, etc. Being subjected to you, for even a few minutes, is one of them. Can't imagine the misery of being around you for 36 years. Your wife must have major self-esteem issues.
If you are so proud of yourself, why don't you tell us who you are, ID your wife and kids, etc.? I think it's because the whole tale is a hoax. I doubt you have any kids and maybe not even a wife.
If a life well lived means simply avoiding problems and injustice, then you are about as shallow as they come. You've lived an empty life, and you know it, but you come here in an Anonymous fashion to toot a horn that no one else wants to toot. As Trump would say, "Sad."
I see no reason to believe a word @9:51 says. It's real easy to toot your own horn while never telling anyone who you are. Even the lowest of simpletons can do that.
9;51 here. I am not going to tell you who I am because I do not care for you to try to go out and dig up dirt on me. There is none, but I choose not to have my name and the names of my family posted on your blog. I have seen how you twist facts to suit your end game. I and my wife are private people. I would do a great disservice to her by allowing you to post her name and photo on your muckraking blog. You allow anonymous comments and that is what I choose to do - like 90% of the responders here, including the ones that slob your knob without revealing their identities.
Typical of your wild assed, baseless accusations, you have no basis other than the fact that you are a pitiful and mean spirited person. I do have children. 3, in fact. And a wife, to whom I have been married for 36 years. All of whom I have fought to protect from injustices and maltreatment. If living within the law constitutes "avoiding problems and injustice" I will take it. I have lived my life "between the lines". The fact that you have chosen to pick fights that you have ultimately lost (repeatedly, it seems) does not give you the martyr status you seek.
@9:44 --
That's a long way of saying, "I'm a puss and a fraud," which is exactly what I figured you were. Why would I waste my time looking up stuff or writing about a nobody like you? Hell, you can't even come up with a creative excuse for being a puss; you drag out the same old tired tune I've heard dozens of times -- even though no one can point to a single example of me digging up dirt on a commenter. Here's a shocker: I've got better things to do. But if someone is going to come here and attack my work, I want to know who it is, what gives you any credentials for challenging posts I've worked hours, days, even months to prepare. None of that should surprise a reasonably well-balanced person -- which you obviously are not.
You claim that I've "chosen to pick fights" shows you are an ignoramus. Our legal woes started from a neighbor (with a major criminal record) moving next door to us -- and he sued us. In other words, he started trespassing on our property, and he started the fight. The rest of it has been driven by judges making unlawful rulings, and you can't point to single lawful judgment in the whole saga. Give it a try; you can't do it.
The neigbhor scenario is the very thing that could happen to you, your kids, anyone. You aren't as above it all as you think. Why don't you come down here and live with the rest of us. Get off your f----g cloud, you arrogant prick.
Let's see . . . you're an unctious, self-righteous puss, with a God complex, who falsely stands in judgment of others. Gee, you're a helluva guy!
You've lived your life "between the lines"? Bullshit. You've lived your life behind the couch.
You are the one living in a shithole and your wife has been assaulted and broken because of you and your actions. Not me.
You accusing me of being a "self-righteous puss, with a God complex who falsely stands in judgment of others" is the funniest thing you have ever written. Have your read your own posts and comments? You are the most judgmental, self righteous person around. You hide behind being a journalist. Journalists are not supposed to have agendas (columnists can). You clearly have an agenda which centers on how badly you get screwed over at every turn. The only one responsible for where you are in life is the person staring back at you in the mirror. Nobody else.
You are a loser. Plain and simple.
How do you know where we're living? Answer: You don't. Just like everything you say, it's based on "alternative facts."
Provide us with an example where I have incorrectly or inappropriately judged someone. You seem to admit that we've been screwed over at every turn, so what's your problem? People are supposed to take abuse, without fighting back? Have you or your wife ever filed a lawsuit or met with a lawyer to discuss a lawsuit? It's OK for your, but not for others.
Is that what it means to "live between the lines." Name one thing that I've done that makes me responsible for being abused. Go ahead, take your time.
I put my real name behind everything I write and do. Hell, you can't even come up with a fake name to support your line of BS. I would say you live between the lines of cowardice and meaninglessness.
I know this for sure: My wife never has come home to find me with my wrists slit and my stomach pumped full of pills, in a failed effort to off myself. You're such a screw up you couldn't even get that right. And you call anyone else a loser? Hah!
Why don't you try killing yourself again. Maybe you'll do us all a favor and get it right this time.
Post a Comment