Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Why did cops concoct a bogus 911 story, and why was Missouri Sheriff Jim Arnott present for our eviction? We think we have solved both of those mysteries


Sheriff Jim Arnott
Two mysteries have hung over our unlawful eviction in Springfield, Missouri: (1) Why did law enforcement, apparently with assistance from my lawyer/brother David Shuler, concoct a story about me making a threatening call to 911, when officers' own written statements now show that to be false? (2) Why was Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott on the scene? Everyone with whom we've discussed the case has done a "you must be kidding" double take when informed that the sheriff himself was present for an eviction.

We might be close to resolving both mysteries -- and questions surrounding both of them, it appears, can be resolved with the same set of facts.

What are those facts? Well, we've established that evidence strongly suggests our eviction was conducted without a valid court order. We've seen no sign of a court order that was authorized by a judge, as required by state law. (See here and here.)

How does that solve our mysteries? Let's consider item No. 1 first. What did law enforcement accomplish by creating a bogus story about me calling 911? It gave Arnott an excuse to be present at the eviction. Without that excuse, his own deputies probably would have been thinking, "What in the hell is he doing here?" One can almost imagine Arnott stating something ridiculous, to the effect: "Men, this could be a dangerous mission. Everyone knows Roger Shuler is an anti-government and anti-law enforcement nut job, and worst of all, he's a Democrat. He might have stockpiled weapons, because we all know how much liberals love to shoot cops. So I will be there with you -- and in my magical way -- will make sure all of you are safe."

Now, let's consider item No. 2. With Arnott riding tall in his saddle, he could say to his troops: "We're off, men! I have the court order with me, so let's go make Greene County safe from mentally ill Democrats who threaten our way of life by filling the InterWebs with liberal blogs. If we don't stop this now, next thing you know, blacks and whites soon will be going to school together. So, the court order will be inside my squad car, giving us the authority to make this so-called blogger (did I mention he's a liberal?) and his nutty wife homeless -- and to rough them up a little, if we get the chance -- huh, huh."

One can imagine Arnott making this little speech, too -- ensuring his troops that he has the court order authorizing our eviction, except (oops) there was no court order -- not a real one, anyway.

That's why Arnott had to be present. In a normal eviction, where one deputy sits in a squad car on the street -- scratching his nuts and munching on a donut while the landlord removes the tenant -- the court order is given to the deputy. Under Missouri law, that's how it's supposed to happen -- although the "scratching his nuts and munching on a donut" part is optional.

But in our case, that could not happen because there was no court order; there could not have been a court order because Judge Kelly Halford Rose had issued only an interlocutory judgment in Trent Cowherd v. Roger Shuler. That means the judgment was not final (it would not be final until after a hearing that clearly was scheduled on the docket for 10/1/15), it was not appealable yet, and it could not support execution of the eviction.

That's why the 911 story was concocted, giving Arnott an excuse to be present. And he had to be present so he could con his own troops into believing they were acting under a court order -- when they weren't.

That adds to the evidence suggesting that Arnott was acting in cahoots with landlord Trent Cowherd and Cowherd's lowlife attorney, Craig Lowther -- of the lowlife law firm, Lowther and Johnson.

I have to admit that their con game worked, more or less, for more than a year. I didn't start to put the pieces together until about two months ago, when I finally noticed that Judge Rose's judgment clearly was labeled "interlocutory." Until then, I also thought we had been ordered out of our apartment -- although I knew we had timely filed a Notice of Appeal that put a stay on execution.

As it turns out, there was no court order to stay, and any Notice of Appeal should not have been filed until after 10/1/15.

At least we know that Arnott is an equal-opportunity fraud; he will lie to us and to his own troops. Among those troops is a deputy -- we are not certain of his name yet, although documents make it appear to be Christian Conrad -- who knows he broke Carol's arm. And he soon will learn -- if he doesn't already know -- that he did it without having the authority to even be on our rented property. Such a realization is likely to leave him not feeling so well -- assuming he has a conscience, and that seems to be a big "if" with many cops.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's nice to know that Missouri cops and Alabama cops are cut from the same filthy cloth.

Anonymous said...

Your scenario makes a lot of sense, LS. How can you tell a lowly patrol officer to go watch over an eviction when there is no court order to give him? You can't, so the sheriff has to go.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:34 --

I should point out that they might have had a piece of paper that looked like it was a court order. I've seen such forms at the court house here in Greene County, MO. But if they aren't signed by a judge and stamped with the Greene County court seal, they are invalid. A semi-intelligent and honest patrol officer could have noted that it was invalid and raised questions. With Arnott along on the "mission," that possibility was taken off the table.

Anonymous said...

They are smarter than you think...Just ask them!

/s

Anonymous said...

Didn't you ask the sheriff to see the court order? What did he say?

legalschnauzer said...

@9:01 --

Yes, I asked to see it. Arnott said it was in his vehicle, and he would show it to me before he left. He never showed it to me.

Anonymous said...

Evicting someone without a court order is a serious no-no. If the Sheriff is too stupid to know that, he's too stupid to be sheriff.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:19 --

Yes, and the landlord and his lawyer should have known it, too.

Anonymous said...

>>>Evicting someone without a court order is a serious no-no. If the Sheriff is too stupid to know that, he's too stupid to be sheriff.<<<


I dunno. I'm a little skeptical here. What is the basis for thinking the Sheriff is too stupid to know what he was doing?

Too stupid to think that the LS could actually uncover what he allegedly (according to the LS) did to execute this eviction? That is possibly a different issue :-)

The real question appears to be who was pulling the Sheriff's batchain and if someone was; why, and for who.

Did the sheriff ever wonder (or know) that there might be a Mr (or Mrs) BIG hiding behind the curtain one or two levels above the Sheriff's Peter Principle pulling the Greene County batchains? It could well be that many of the people in Springfield are BIG compared to other places close by in Southern Missery and Darkansas, but did the Sheriff know he might be risking getting tangled up in something a lot bigger than the landlord regaining possession of some Greene County leasehold or the principle of freedum to throw rolls at hungry restaurant diners?

legalschnauzer said...

@9:41 --

You hit the nail on the head with this:


"The real question appears to be who was pulling the Sheriff's batchain and if someone was; why, and for who."


Arnott doesn't know Carol or me, so he has no reason to have a "hard on" for us. Only explanation I can think of is that he was working on someone else's behalf, or at their direction.

Anonymous said...

Let me guess . . . Arnott is a Republican.

legalschnauzer said...

@4:29 --

You got it. You don't win an election by being a Democrat in SW Missouri. Voters are just as racist and right-wing here as are so many in Alabama.

What did the President know and when did he know it said...


>>>"The real question appears to be who was pulling the Sheriff's batchain and if someone was; why, and for who."<<<




What did the sheriff know and when did he know it?

Thomas S. Bean said...

Cops think they can make stuff up and later get civil suits thrown out...and...they don't pay damages or court costs or lawyer's fees.

Cops think anyone asserting right to see a warrant that is legitimate are guilty of "contempt of law enforcement" and or "challenging their dubious chicanery".

This attitude by a mere civilian, usually results in aggression by cops to put you in your place...followed by getting jammed up in the courts with false arrest and malicious-specious prosecution.

One big constitutional pain in the ass........that will jam you up on their lopsided playing field intended to get "guilty pleas" to save money-stress-time.

I know........they did it to me for thirty years.....and FBI-DOJ do not protect any civil rights of any kind with investigations leading to charges. Nope. You've been totally suckered by those bozo selfish rat scum known as the Marsupial Courts with all the usual suspects playing their bogus roles like so many jack asses dedicated to their own self interest.