Monday, July 31, 2017

Missouri deputy, in her own mixed-up lingo, admits we had filed a Notice of Appeal, which put a stay on the eviction that led to cops breaking Carol's arm


Debi Wade
A Missouri deputy admits in an investigative report that we had filed a notice of appeal, and under state law, that put a stay on our eviction -- as I've argued all along. That's just one of roughly a half dozen grounds upon which the eviction was unlawful, meaning deputies pointed an assault rifle at my head, caused most of our belongings to be stolen, and shattered Carol's left arm -- all with no grounds to be on our rented property.

Officer Debi Wade apparently was too ignorant of the law to get it correct in her statement. But she essentially admits that I was right -- the eviction was stayed. Here are her words, and we will straighten things out after that:

Mr. Shuler was being very argumentative and was adamant that there was a court ordered stay on the case but otherwise appeared to be following the deputies' directives once outside of the residence.

Although I had checked Case.net for any changes in the case earlier that morning, I told [Mr. Shuler] that I would check on it again to ensure nothing had changed. I looked up the case on Case.net and found no change to the case since I had last looked. Mr. Shuler had made a motion to stay, but the judge had not ruled on it yet. therefore there was no court ordered stay at that time. I called into the office and asked our paralegal to contact our attorney's office to verify that they were not aware of any changes to the case and was told to proceed with the execution. I came back and attempted to tell Mr. Shuler my findings, but he did not want to listen to reason, only to argue with us.

This is a textbook example of police ignorance and incompetence, so let's briefly address each highlighted section above:

(1) Wade confirms what I've reported on this blog multiple times -- that I stated repeatedly the execution was stayed because we had filed a Notice of Appeal;

(2)  Wade must have checked case.net while wearing a blind fold. Anyone can click on case.net, key in my name, and click on case number 1531-AC04535 (Trent Cowherd v. Roger Shuler). There is a docket entry on 9/8/15, the day BEFORE Wade checked, saying "Notice of Appeal Filed." There was an entry on 9/9/15,  "Correspondence Filed" -- stating the Missouri Court of Appeals had filed correspondence to acknowledge receipt of our notice of appeal. Based on Wade's statement and the docket, both of those items were present when she looked, clearly showing there WAS a significant change in the case. Debi Wade either didn't see it, or she never looked and is lying about that.

(3) I don't recall ever exchanging a word with Debi Wade. I communicated about the stay with Sheriff Jim Arnott, who repeatedly turned his palms upward and shrugged his shoulders -- doing a nice imitation of a baboon, although most baboons are smarter and better looking than he is.

(4) Wade says she found no changes when she double checked, but as we show in Item No. 2 above, two key changes were in the record. Jose Feliciano could have seen them.

(5) Wade claims "Mr. Shuler had filed a motion to stay," but that's not what I had done; I had filed a Notice of Appeal, and under Missouri law, such a notice (with a bond) stays execution. In our case, there was no money judgment, so there was no bond. This is a sickening lie on Wade's part, the kind that should put her behind bars. She couched it as a motion, upon which a judge typically must rule. But it was a notice of appeal, requiring no action from a judge. Once it's filed, execution is stayed, and no court order is required. Wade has proven she is a dim bulb, but I doubt this was an innocent mistake. It's an intentional effort to misstate Missouri law.

(6) Wade states she called a paralegal to check with an attorney in the office. No one made me aware of this, and I doubt it is true. All the attorney or paralegal had to do was look up RSMo. 534.350. Anyone who deals with evictions regularly should know that law by heart. Wade's own words indicate no one in the office was smart enough to even look up the correct law. And it's mind blowing that deputies who apparently work evictions regularly had to ask about the relevant law, and I had to make them aware that execution was stayed.

(7) Wade says someone in her office told her to proceed with the execution, even though the record at the time clearly showed we had filed a Notice of Appeal. Not only that, the record showed the Missouri Court of Appeals had received our notice and placed it on the docket. It's going to be fun to find out who instructed Wade to go ahead with the eviction; that person is going to have some splainin' to do.

(8) This last nugget tells us that many cops not only are stupid, they aren't very good people. Wade resorts to smart-aleck mode, claiming I didn't "want to listen to reason." It wasn't a matter for "reason" or "debate." I just wanted the facts (that we had filed a notice of appeal) and the law (that the notice had put a stay on execution) to be applied correctly. Debi Wade takes her own ignorance and frames it as my unwillingness to reason. Here we are, almost two years later, and Wade's own words prove I was right.

Other documents in the record show that we timely filed a Notice of Appeal, and Missouri deputies had every reason to know the eviction was stayed. We will examine them next.


(To be continued)

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

What's going on with your appeal of the eviction case?

Anonymous said...

Case.net says your appeal was dismissed and that costs of the appeal were taxed against you. What happened? Corrupt appeals court? You should shine light on corruption in Missouri appellate courts.

Anonymous said...

Cops always are trying to place the blame on someone else. Here, the cop blames a paralegal in the sheriff's office. These cops, especially the sheriff himself, should know the law without having to check with a paralegal.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:43 and @8:53 --

The whole point of the state appeal was to show that we were in lawful possession of the premises, and the landlord was breaching the lease. When we were unilaterally and unlawfully removed from the premises by Trent Cowherd and his corrupt lawyer, Craig Lowther -- without a valid court order -- there was no point in pursuing those issues. Their actions, however, raised a whole bunch of federal and constitutional issues, and those will be pursued.

Short answer to your question: The state appeal wasn't heard because we didn't pursue it. The unlawful eviction raised much bigger federal questions, and those will be pursued.

Anonymous said...

If deputies don't know the law regarding evictions, they shouldn't be handling evictions.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:38 --

You nailed it. Sheriff's departments, at least the ones I've seen, have no business being involved with evictions. All such departments I've seen, in multiple states, are too corrupt (or their officers are too stupid) to be handling such complex civil matters. Our case is a classic example of that.

Anonymous said...

It was an interlocutory order, right? If that's the case, there had been no final judgment for eviction. The sheriff and his deputies couldn't figure that out?

Anonymous said...

Yes, the docket at case.net clearly shows it was an interlocutory judgment. We didn't realize it at the time, largely because the judge didn't tell us that in court. It wouldn't have done us any good to realize that then. It would have been part of our state appeal, but the thug cops didn't respect our notice of appeal anyway.

Anonymous said...

I clicked on your link to MO law 534.350, and it's easy to understand. A judge does not have to order a stay, the stay is automatic once the notice of appeal is filed, with bond (if there is a money judgment). With a 10-day window to file the notice of appeal, you obviously don't have time for a judge to schedule a hearing and review it anyway. This is a tight time frame, and you beat the clock to get the Notice of Appeal filed.

Anonymous said...

I would say the person in the legal office who gave the go-ahead for this eviction is going to have some problems on his hands. If there is any doubt, no way an event like this should take place. There was a load of doubt here.

Anonymous said...

Hah, hah! I love how the cop says you didn't want to listen to reason, while they are breaking the law left and right

legalschnauzer said...

@11:13 --

That's even more amusing when you consider she never said a word to me. And I don't believe her story about calling the legal office. They should know the law before they ever arrived.

Anonymous said...

Just more signs that we are entering a brown-shirt stage, where cops feel they can do anything, with a president who encourages them to abuse constitutional rights.

Anonymous said...

I can guarantee they were going to evict you that day, regardless of what the law said. Someone was encouraging them to do this -- probably someone from Alabama -- and they weren't going to let anything stand in their way. It's a miracle you and Carol got out of this alive. This was about intimidation and terrorism. It had nothing to do with a legit eviction.

Anonymous said...

Here is an important technical matter the deputy should have known, but she apparently didn't. Once you filed the Notice of Appeal, that gave jurisdiction to the appellate court and took it away from the trial court. In other words, the trial judge could not issue a "court-ordered stay," even if she had wanted to. It was out of her hands. That's why Missouri law reads the way it does, and it's important for Missouri deputies to know that. Whoever gave the go-ahead for your eviction is a knucklehead.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:41 --

Thanks for an insightful comment.