Leaderboard 728 X 90

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Court docket shows that multiple documents were on file to stay our eviction, but dumb-ass Missouri cops went ahead with it anyway, breaking Carol's arm


Debi Wade
A Missouri deputy claims in an investigative report that, on the day of our eviction, she could find no changes in the record that would stay execution. Officer Debi Wade even claims to have spoken to individuals in the sheriff's legal office, and they told her to proceed with the eviction. But a simple check of the docket reveals at least three documents were filed, all dated Sept. 8 or 9, 2015, and all proving that we timely filed a notice of appeal that put a stay on the eviction.

All three documents are embedded at the end of this post, and we also link to them in the text of this post. Let's briefly examine each one, knowing that together, they provide a mountain of evidence that the eviction leading to Carol's broken arm was unlawful:

(1) Notice of Appeal -- This shows that we timely filed the Notice of Appeal, inside the 10-day window allowed by Missouri law. It was filed at 11:56 a.m. on Sept. 8, 2015, roughly 27 hours before cops arrived to evict us. It also shows we paid the $70 filing fee -- and a copy of the court order we were appealing shows there was no money judgment, so no bond was required. This one document shows the eviction was unlawful, and Wade admits she saw it. So how did we get thrown out of our home? I can think of only one explanation -- cops are stupid, incompetent, and dishonest.

(2) Case.net Retrieval Notice -- The date on this document is not clear, but it apparently was filed on Sept. 8, 2015. The notice states: "Notice of Appeal saved and attached in PDF format for Attorney(s) to retrieve from secure case.net. Notice of Appeal sent electronically to Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District." I sent notice via e-mail to all lawyers involved in the eviction case -- Gregory Lulich, of Johnson Lowther firm, and my own corrupt brother, David Shuler. So they had two forms of notice -- the one I sent, and the one noted in this document via secure case.net. Is there any excuse for two attorneys to allow a clearly unlawful eviction to proceed? I can't think of one.

(3) Missouri Court of Appeals Correspondence -- This document, dated Sept. 9, 2015, shows that not only had we filed a Notice of Appeal, but the Missouri Court of Appeals had received it.

Debi Wade stated that she could find nothing that stayed our eviction, and no one in the sheriff's legal office could find it either. These documents show she was lying or was blazingly incompetent.









18 comments:

Anonymous said...

How in the world could they miss these documents? The file on case.net shows these documents were right there for the viewing on the days in question. Are these people blind?

legalschnauzer said...

@2:49 --

No, they aren't blind. But they are dishonest. I think they are lying about checking the court file. I don't think they did that.

Anonymous said...

My God, there's a letter from the Missouri Court of Appeals, saying they had the notice of appeal -- and the cops busted down your door anyway. Unreal!

legalschnauzer said...

Yep, it blew my mind when I first saw these docs. And I hadn't seen them until fairly recently. I saw the notations in the docket, but you can't always call up the docs themselves on case.net. It depends on how you are signed in. I finally was signed in the right way recently and was able to call up these docs, and my jaw hit the floor. Couldn't believe it, and the cops still broke in and wound up breaking Carol's arm.

legalschnauzer said...

As I understand it, it's important to note that the appellate court's receipt of our notice of appeal indicates we had paid the proper fees and/or bond. If we hadn't, I'm pretty sure they would not have accepted it. I know we paid the filing fee, and the judgment shows there was no money judgment upon which a bond could be based.

You can see in the file that there never is a notice that we owed more money to the appellate court. Again, these cops were determined to evict us, no matter what the law said, no matter what the docket showed. And they conducted a bogus arrest of Carol in an effort to cover up their crimes. Ugly, ugly stuff.

Anonymous said...

>>>This one document shows the eviction was unlawful, and Wade admits she saw it. So how did we get thrown out of our home? I can think of only one explanation -- cops are stupid, incompetent, and dishonest.<<<


Alternate possibility? Cops follow orders.

Either this eviction rolled downhill on it's own momentum, or possibly someone (or more than one someone) at a higher level of command was repeatedly giving the eviction a helping push.

legalschnauzer said...

@3:30 --

Yes, cops follow orders, and yes, that could have been a big part of the problem here. The sheriff himself was on hand, so he probably ordered the eviction to go forward, no matter what the law said, etc. And I agree that someone at a higher level of command gave it a "helping push." Was that someone in Alabama? That's a big question, but I think you are on the right track.

Anonymous said...

I believe you will find that once you filed the Notice of Appeal, that took jurisdiction away from the trial court and gave it to the Court of Appeals. If the cops were checking on rulings of the trial court, and their words indicate they were, they were checking with a court that no longer had jurisdiction in the case.

That's why action in the trial court was stayed. The trial court no longer had jurisdiction. Pretty serious error by the cops, probably by the sheriff, Mr. Arnott.

legalschnauzer said...

@4:41 --

Thanks for raising that point. I'm doing research on that now, but I believe you are correct. I believe the point of the Court of Appeals' letter is to acknowledge receipt and show it has jurisdiction. Hope to do a followup post on this.

Anonymous said...

You're not an attorney. You don't know the law, quit pretending you do. You're in no position to say that the entire process wasn't according to procedure when you don't have a license to practice.

legalschnauzer said...

@5:02 --

I've cited the correct Missouri law on every aspect of this eviction case. You can look it up. See if you can find a specific element of law in the eviction matter that I have gotten wrong. Please let me know what you find. I'll be happy to wait for your reply. It might take a while.

You really think attorneys know the law? You must not have talked to an attorney in years. Many don't know the law, and even if they do, they'll lie about it to your face.

Again, please let me know of any specific issue related to the eviction that I've gotten wrong. I can't wait to hear it.

Anonymous said...

LS --

It's been almost 3 hours since @5:02 alleged you couldn't know what you are talking re: your eviction case because you aren't an attorney, and you challenged him/her to cite a single legal element of the case that you've gotten wrong.

Have you heard back from them? Have they cited anything you got wrong? If so, what?

legalschnauzer said...

@7:46 --

No, I haven't heard back from @5:02. My guess is that pigs will fly before I hear from 5:02 with a substantive response to my questions. Elephants probably will fly before 5:02 is able to make any citation to law that proves I got something wrong in my reporting on the eviction case.

That "you're not an attorney" business is the standard lazy man's way to deal with issues that make him uncomfortable -- a nice way to avoid the truth and actually engaging in thought. It also implies that the law is the personal province of lawyers, an area where only they can enter. That should be an insult to all thinking Americans. It's an argument that certainly is not going to fly here.

Anonymous said...

502PM critic might have posted on the way out the door to Happy Hour at the Cracker Barrel. So it might take until after they clock in at work tomorrow to get a response to your question. Unless they have some beginning of the month evictions to git dun before the holiday If that's the case you might get a response before Tuesday. Unless they have of of those lap band procedures scheduled. Don't they do a lot of those to minimize the side effects of eating too much Cracker Barrel and fried pork rinds?

legalschnauzer said...

@8:22 --

Oh God, one of the best comments ever. Any comment that combines Cracker Barrel with pork rinds has got to be good. Thanks for the belly laugh!

Anonymous said...

8:22PM I also think you need to consider having the original court documents concerning this eviction forensically analyzed. (Hint-DNA, pork rind residue, possible Maple Pecan Chicken grease, maybe you get lucky and there are greasy fingerprints found when analyzed by a professional!)

legalschnauzer said...

@10:39 --

Great idea! Maybe we need to check for donut residue, too -- like the kind with chocolate icing from Krispy Kreme.

Anonymous said...

Is there a test for DOH!nut residue?