Monday, August 14, 2017

According to Missouri deputies, I am essentially an "anti-government terrorist," as opposed to the guy who rammed a car into a crowd in Charlottesville, VA

Car crash at Charlottesville, VA, rally, leading to at least one
death and more than a dozen injuries, many of them critical.
(By Ryan M. Kelly, Charlottesville Daily Progress via AP) 
Law-enforcement officials in Missouri seem to have a problem defining the word "terrorist." Perhaps deadly events over the weekend at a white-nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, will help teach them -- that is, if they are capable of learning.

Public records in Greene County, Missouri suggest certain deputies here think a "terrorist" is someone who writes a blog about legal, political, and police-related corruption. In other words, they think I am a terrorist.

Perhaps deputies should take a look at the photo, above right. It shows a driver plowing a vehicle into a crowd of counter-demonstrators -- people who oppose the message of racism, Nazism, and white supremacy at the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville. These are people who take the words of our U.S. Constitution seriously -- especially the 14th Amendment, the one about "equal protection -- and one of them gave her life, and given the number of critically injured, more fatalities might follow.

For you Missouri deputies out there, the guy driving that car . . . he's a domestic terrorist. Even Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions, who has practiced or supported domestic terrorism for years in Alabama, agrees with that. (More about Sessions' ties to domestic terrorism in an upcoming post.)

Why do we need this little lesson? Well, cops seem to have a problem understanding who is, and is not, a domestic terrorist.

For example, if you have been a long-time reader of this blog, I bet you didn't know you were drinking in the words of an "anti-government" terrorist. Just take the word of Missouri deputies who were responsible for the unlawful eviction that left my wife, Carol, with a shattered left arm and bogus criminal charges ("assault on a law enforcement officer") against her.

As we noted in a previous post, Officer Christian Conrad stated in a written report about our eviction that I was "anti-law enforcement." But he wasn't alone. Let's consider these words from Officer Debi Wade, who authored the Probable Cause Statement against Carol:

Recognizing the name and address, Deputy Harrison started looking into Roger Shuler's past; knowing that we would be tasked with the court-ordered eviction if and when it came to that. When [Harrison] 'Googled' his name we found multiple pictures and links to stories about Shuler and learned that he is a very well known anti-government blogger out of the state of Alabama. We also learned that he has been ordered to pay a $3.5 million judgment and was sent to serve time in jail by an Alabama judge for defamation, as well. 

How ignorant is this? Let's count the ways:

(1) Anyone who reads and comprehends this blog knows that I am a Democrat, a progressive, a liberal. (See, I don't even consider "liberal" a dirty word.) I'm a white guy from Alabama who voted twice for Barack Obama. By definition, a liberal is pro-government, supporting reasonable regulation and intervention to level a playing field that can get wildly out of whack under conservatives;

(2) Wade knows about a $3.5-million judgment in the Jessica Medeiros Garrison case, but isn't capable of understanding the judgment is void, as a matter of law, because I never was notified of Garrison's default-judgment application or the hearing on said application. (Isn't it interesting that Missouri cops seem to know about a court case involving Jessica Garrison, in Alabama? Hmmm . . . )

(3) Wade notes that an Alabama judge threw me in jail over a defamation case, but doesn't seem to understand that defamation is a civil matter, where the remedy is a money judgment, not throwing the alleged offender in jail. Wade didn't bother to learn that the preliminary injunction leading to my incarceration has been prohibited by more than 200 years of First Amendment law. Ironically, she cites a classic example of my reporting on corruption . . . but, wait, I'm an "anti-government" blogger. In Wade's world, if you support honest government, you are "against" the government. Don't bother trying to make sense out of that because it's impossible.

Domestic terrorism, of course, did not start over the weekend in Charlottesville. It's been around for quite a while, much of it driven by racism. Let's think about a few legitimate anti-government terrorists over the past couple of decades. There is Timothy McVeigh, who blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and injuring more than 600. There is Randy Weaver, who instigated the Ruby Ridge standoff in Montana that led to the deaths of three people. There is Cliven Bundy, the rancher whose supporters launched a confrontation with law enforcement in Oregon. Then, there is Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, who killed three people and injured 23 others in a nationwide bombing campaign.

What do all of these domestic terrorists have in common. They all are, or were, right-wing loons. In other words, "anti-government" types are far more likely to be conservatives than liberals -- and no one has accused me of being a conservative in a long time, if ever. Conservatives are the ones always babbling about "keeping the government out of our lives." Liberals tend to welcome government in our lives.

Are these Missouri cops disingenuous, retarded (apologies for using a politically incorrect term), or both. My answer is "both." In their shallow world, standing up to corruption is the equivalent of being anti-government; unmasking the corrupt actions of rogue cops is being anti-law enforcement.

I know there must be intelligent cops out there, but I don't recall meeting one. In my experience, they consistently have been among the most stupid and useless people I've ever met. These statements from Missouri cops drive that point home -- especially in light of the disturbing and very real terrorism in Charlottesville, VA.


Anonymous said...

Missouri sheriffs apparently don't even try to hire "the best and the brightest."

Anonymous said...

On the day of your eviction, it seems pretty clear these cops had a mindset of treating you and Carol like criminals.

Anonymous said...

Thank God all that stuff in Charlottesville didn't happen in Alabama.

Anonymous said...

These cops weren't trying to evict you, they were trying to terrorize you. They had no grounds to evict you, but they went out of their way to portray YOU as a "terrorist." A pretty sick way of thinking.

Anonymous said...

@9:40 --

When you are about to commit a criminal act, and portray the the victims as criminals . . . I think that's what shrinks call "projection." If I'm right about that, this is a classic example of projection.

Anonymous said...

>>>Deputy Harrison started looking into Roger Shuler's past; knowing that we would be tasked with the court-ordered eviction if and when it came to that.<<<

"if and when it came to that"

Came to what? A "court-ordered eviction" the GCSO maybe usually does?

Or a "court-ordered eviction" without a court order?...Like the GCSO maybe usually does?

Or maybe like the GCSO usually doesn't, but maybe this time something was different...

legalschnauzer said...

@10:35 --

You've got good eyes, and you make an interesting point. I suspect Carol and I are far from the first (or only) victims of bogus evictions in Greene County. My guess is that they are rather common among folks like landlord Trent Cowherd and his lawyer, Craig Lowther (who also is a landlord).

Anonymous said...

>>> I suspect Carol and I are far from the first (or only) victims of bogus evictions in Greene County. My guess is that they are rather common among folks like landlord Trent Cowherd and his lawyer, Craig Lowther (who also is a landlord).<<<

How difficult would it be for a person not a party to an eviction (like some blogger "out of the state of Alabama") to determine if there had been any previous occurrences in any way similar to what you allege happened in your "court ordered eviction" without (allegedly) a court order? Leaving out the question of whether any action in any of these cases should have been stayed as you allege in your case.

>>>"out of Alabama"<<<


Anonymous said...

Article in the Springfield News Leader about Greene County evictions dating from 2008 and a reference to a 2006 Greene County court decision about scheduling eviction hearings:

Anonymous said...

Who delivered the Writ of Execution on Sunday, August 30?

legalschnauzer said...

@11:26 --

My memory on that is cloudy, but I believe it was taped to our door. I don't recall any person delivering eviction-related documents, at least not that I saw. You will note that the writ of execution isn't signed by a judge, and it couldn't be because she had issued only an interlocutory judgment, with a hearing set for additional issues on 10/1/15.

legalschnauzer said...

@11:23 --

Thanks for sharing the article. Look forward to checking that out.

legalschnauzer said...

@11:13 -

One way is to ask for that information in discovery, which we are doing in defense of the bogus criminal case against Carol -- and as we will do in our federal lawsuit over the bogus eviction and related matters, to be filed soon.

You might be able to do it via search on, but I'm not sure about the various search functions available on that site. For example, I'm not sure if you can search just for eviction cases, but if that is possible, it would be an option for finding such information.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to @11:38 --

Dude, is that the best you can do? Not a single sign of creativity in your comment. So shallow, so lame, so borrowed from other knuckle-draggers. Come on, man, are you both stupid and lazy (maybe ugly and fat, too?)? Put a little effort into it and maybe your "brilliant" observations will be published. Until then, you are a joke. And if I wanted a joke, I'd go into the men's room and watch you take a leak.

Anonymous said...


Is there something wrong with knowing the answers to your discovery before you get (or don't get) it? shows the case type and location.

You (or anyone interested) could do one or two searches for a plaintiff or two of interest and restrict the search to a one or two year time period (for example 2015). The circuit for your case was Circuit 31 and the county was Greene; the type of case filed against you shows on as "AC Rent and Possession."

Then take a look at a relatively small number of possibly interesting dockets to see what you see. Or don't see. As the case may be.

legalschnauzer said...

@12:44 --

Not sure I understand the point of the material in all caps in your comment. I published your comment, didn't I? If that's the case, what point are you trying to make?

As for your question, no, there is nothing wrong with knowing the answers to discovery before you get it. But I'm patient enough to wait for what comes in discovery. I could do this kind of research on Alabama court records because I had a lot of experience figuring out how that system works. I don't have nearly the same experience with the Missouri system. To find the answer to the question Carol sought in discovery, I think, would take way more time and effort than you might realize. And I'm still not sure it would provide the answers we are seeking.

As I understood your question, I thought you were thinking of looking for your own reasons -- and, of course, you are welcome to do that. I don't see any reason, for now, to do such a search for us.

e.a.f. said...

OMG where do they get their police officers from? Really do these "police officers" not know how to read or write, study history, know that the Constitution has a First Amendment and what that First Amendment says?

Oh, well such is life. dumb, dumb, dumb.

When I first read your post and the comments made by the police officers I burst out laughing. Then I realized it was all very serious and those police officers did write that. on the one hand how dumb can these people be. then on the other hand, how could they be policing in an American city. Then I realized I'd answered my own question. these nut bars who pose as police officers might feel better if they lived in Turkey, North Korea, Russia, etc. where any one who has an opinion different from "dear leader" is an enemy of the state and by extension a terrorist. Perhaps the boys could pick up a dictionary to find out what the definition of a terrorist is.

Anti government isn't the same as having a difference of opinion. Didn't these guys finish grade school and take a civics class?
There really is a problem in the U.S.A.

Anonymous said...

People here in Charlottesville would prefer you did not exploit our tragedy for your own narrow purposes. You have no connection to what happened here, and it has nothing to do with you. And you didn't even have the decency to say the name of the hero who gave her life.

Her name was Heather Heyer.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:54 --

You speak for all of the people of Charlottesville? If that's the case, I would prefer that you provide your name. With all of the professors, researchers, and bright students at UVA, that's probably one of the most intelligent communities in the U.S. But you -- of all people -- were appointed to speak for the entire city? Gee, what are the qualifications that earned you such a position? Please share.

proud sjw said...

Thank you! I just won 20 bucks.

legalschnauzer said...

proud sjw --

Congrats. Is there some reason my audience and I should care?

Anonymous said...

Looks like you may have checked out and found something of interest.

Either due to the locality or the names.

Or both.

That seems like it could be a possibility after reading your latest post.


legalschnauzer said...

@6:47 --

Can you help me out a little here? I'm not at all sure what you are talking about.

Anonymous said...

I supposed that you found the case mentioned (and 3 pages posted on google drive) in this post: Newly discovered court document indicates that David Shuler, my attorney/brother in Missouri, has decent knowledge of the law, but sadly, he's an evil prick by searching for any local eviction cases (or perhaps other cases of interest)and/or any local cases filed by anyone with the last name of Schuler.

Maybe you didn't.

Maybe you should?

legalschnauzer said...

@11:14 --

OK, I think I understand now. Yes, I came across David Shuler's rent-and-possession case by doing a search on I'm not sure if that case resulted in an eviction or not; haven't checked the docket in a while.