Leaderboard 728 X 90

Monday, September 18, 2017

Bogus 911 call related to our eviction case came from Burrell Behavioral Health -- with help from my brothers -- and it damned near got Carol and me killed


Burrell Behavioral Health
(From psychologyinterns.org)
If I didn't make a 911 call or communicate a threat to law-enforcement officials -- and their written statements via discovery in my wife, Carol's "assault" case indicate that I didn't -- then who did?  The discovery documents present so many varieties of the story that it's hard to nail down the answer. But it appears the 911 call and information about an alleged threat came from: (A) My health-care provider; and (B) My brothers.

Do the documents provide any evidence that I actually communicated an unlawful threat to anyone? Nope. But officers used information based on fourth- or fifth-hand hearsay to justify barging into our home and pointing assault rifles and pistols at us. (Documents are embedded at the end of this post.)

In other words, an individual from Burrell Behavioral Health and my brothers (Paul and David) damned near got us killed.

Records show that the 911 call came at about 10:22 a.m. on Aug. 12, 2015, from a Burrell Health case manager named Joshua Davis. Here is the key note regarding the call:

CLR (caller) is a Burrell case manager. SUS (suspect) threatened to shoot anyone who came to evict them. There is an eviction notice on the door.

SUS: DOB 1956. MW, 55-60, gray hair, he owns a gun, prescription medication for PTSD and depression. Last spoke to Roger on 8/4/15. Roger's relatives called Josh with Burrell to report threats. Burrell made a Dept. of Health and Senior Services on (sic) 8/7/15

Roger's phone number is 205-381-5673.

What do we learn here:

(1) I (the "suspect") supposedly threatened to shoot anyone who came to evict us, but there is zero information about how Burrell would know that. There also is no evidence;

(2) I supposedly own a gun. The truth: I've never owned a gun in my life, unless you count the B-B gun I got as a Christmas gift when I was about 12 years old. I didn't own a gun at the time of the call, and I don't own a gun now.

(3) I've taken prescription medication for PTSD and depression. That medication was prescribed via Burrell. Millions of America's take medication for those conditions. Does that mean we all are "armed and dangerous"?

(4) My relatives (likely my brothers) called Josh Davis to report threats. This indicates no one at Burrell reported hearing such a threat from me. They heard something third- or fourth-hand and decided to call 911 based on their "duty to warn" protocol. Do they have a "duty to get the truth" protocol? Apparently not.

(5) Burrell had my phone number and could have called me to ask about this. Instead, they put my life (and Carol's life) at risk by calling 911 when they had no remotely direct evidence for doing so.


Let's establish a couple of key facts here:

(1) I've spoken with Josh Davis one time in my life, and it was via phone about an issue related to Carol's social worker. It was long before the eviction issue ever arose, and it had nothing to do with guns, threats, medication, or anything related to that. Our understanding is that Josh Davis has left Burrell, and that probably is a good thing. One wonders if he left of his own accord.

(2) I've never communicated with my brothers, or any other family member, about a threat or any other possible response to an eviction.

(3) I'm pretty sure Burrell had no release from us to talk to any member of my family. When we first became engaged with Burrell, we left it open for them to speak with family members. But we got a report that my lawyer/brother, David, called a caseworker and said I had asked him to call her. That was a lie, and we then signed papers instructing Burrell not to discuss our care with family members or anyone else. At the time Josh Davis took the call from my "relatives," I'm pretty sure we had withdrawn approval for such communications. But Davis went ahead and not only talked to them -- against our instructions -- but called 911 about us, with zero evidence of a "threat." That might help explain why Davis no longer is at Burrell.

What would make my brothers think Carol and I were a threat to anyone? I don't know, but it seems to be a notion they simply pulled out of their asses. Documents suggest my brothers certainly tried to portray us as threats -- even though they had zero evidence to support it.

The 911 records conclude with this notation: "No significant call history of Roger Shuler, senior services and county already notified. No other police action to be taken at this time."

That, however, does not mean my brothers were finished trying to incite violence against Carol and me. It makes you wonder if they wanted to get us killed.


(To be continued)


22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not sure of the law on this, but Burrell should have had direct evidence of a threat before making any call to law enforcement. If they did it only on the word of your brothers, that's a problem, in my view.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:25 --

That is especially the case when I never discussed such matters with my brothers or anyone else in my family.

Anonymous said...

Horrendous. Very sorry you've had to go through this.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:29 --

Thanks for your kind thoughts. It's particularly troubling when you consider that cops apparently used this call as an excuse to bring 6-8 officers, 1-2 assault rifles, and probably a half dozen pistols to an eviction, which could not happen, by law.

Anonymous said...

Maybe your brothers are the ones who need mental health services.

Anonymous said...

The officer who broke Carol's arm probably wouldn't have been there at a normal eviction, without this 911 call.

legalschnauzer said...

Yes, and without the interference from my brothers, which apparently led to the 911 call.

Anonymous said...

The document at the end of the post indicates Burrell placed the call because it had a "duty to warn" protocol. I wonder how that protocol is actually worded.

Anonymous said...

I don't know except what you've said yourself about communications with others about your pending (potential) eviction, however around this time you did write in your blog (not sure if you deleted the posts/comments) or if they are still there that could have led other's to reasonably fear your using violence to repel an attempt to evict you.
You posted around that time,with the gist and sting of your remarks basically that trespassers could be shot. Your exact words were not a direct threat iirc, but you did telegraph your potential for violent reaction by saying that persons attempting unlawful entry could be shot.

It appears a literal game of telephone ensued, and I think you are going to have to come to grips with the fact that not only your family but health care professionals (and a number of laypeople who observe your actions and posts) think you are mentally ill, a paranoid; they are going to be extremely sensitive to an elevated threat level due to your irrationality and threats, however veiled you might make them. I've seen you express violent fantasies on this blog (which you then deleted) about beating someone's head into a pulp, and dancing around the idea that you would be in your rights to shoot people who did not respect your idea of your property rights.

I think you do have mental problems that you have zero insight about.

It's clear the cops did get notice from a health care professional that raised the typical threat level of the eviction they planned to effect.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:05 --

That's a good point, and I wonder the same thing. I should point out that I saw a nurse practitioner named Matt Charles during that time. I think Josh Davis had some kind of administrative role. I might have laid eyes on him one time, but I'm not certain about that.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:06 --

I notice you don't cite any examples of such writings here, and that's because they don't exist. They haven't been deleted because they never existed. You say I claimed that "trespassers could be shot"? Let's see that. Pretty sure it doesn't exist.

As for people attempting unlawful entry, aren't they always at risk of being shot? I didn't say here that I was going to shoot anyone, but there's a good reason most of us don't attempt unlawful entry into others' homes. I've never fantasized about beating someone's head to a pulp or shooting someone over property rights. If I had those thoughts, our criminal neighbor in Alabama wouldn't be alive right now.

If you can find any examples of such writings on this blog, feel free to send them, and I will stand corrected. But I have a pretty good memory of what I've written here -- after all, I wrote it -- and I'm pretty sure you are full of cow manure. Funny that you claim to have "memories" of these things, but you can offer zero specifics.

Why should I care what you -- someone who is afraid to give his name -- say re: my mental health? You probably don't know me, and you likely have no expertise in the field. Also, you likely have an agenda regarding these issues. Otherwise, give me a call, and I'll be glad to talk. My contact information has been published here, so you should remember it.

I wouldn't normally run a nonsensical comment such as yours, but I think it might be instructive for others to read. As for irrational thoughts, if you want to learn more on that subject, try taking a deep look into the mirror.

Anonymous said...

@10:06 . . .

Your last paragraph tells me that you don't understand the issue. Any health-care provider can call the cops -- that's not the issue. The issue is whether the health-care provider had legitimate grounds for making the call, and whether he followed procedure in making the call.

If the threat didn't come directly from Mr. Shuler, why is the provider relying on the word of his brothers, who might not know what they are talking about.

Anonymous said...

Does patient privacy not exist in Missouri, even a shred of it? Good God, someone calls with third and fourth-hand information, and the PCP calls the cops? Did it ever occur to Burrell and Mr. Davis that perhaps your brothers have agendas that have nothing to do with your well-being? Those kinds of things happen in families all the time.

Anonymous said...

Do I have this straight? Your brother, the lawyer, e-mailed you not long before the eviction and claimed YOU had called 911 and threatened to shoot someone. It turns out now that HE was calling your health-care provider and encouraging them to call 911.

If I have that straight, how big a liar is this guy?

legalschnauzer said...

@11:47 --

Yes, you have it straight. And the answer is, "He's a real big liar," based on the e-mail he sent me, and the documents we run today.

Anonymous said...

Your brothers sound like a couple of world-class SOBs.

legalschnauzer said...

They haven't always been that way, but I suspect they have sold out to somebody. Specifically, I suspect lawyer David has sold out to somebody, and Paul goes along with whatever he's told.

Anonymous said...

Has there been a violation of HIPAA law here? I am no expert but I think it's possible.

legalschnauzer said...

@12:41 --

Darned good question, and we intend to find out. Carol and I are quite sure Burrell had no release from us to talk to any members of my family.

We had OK'd a release at one point, but a caseworker told us my brother, David, had said I asked him to call her, which wasn't true. We revoked the release after that.

Anonymous said...

" Carol's caregiver."??? Since when did Carol require a "caregiver"?

legalschnauzer said...

By caregiver, I meant a nurse practitioner, like the one I saw every 2-3 months. The conversation with Josh Davis actually was about a social worker. I probably should have used the term health-care provider, since caregiver apparently is used most often for someone who provides direct care in the home, perhaps to a disabled or elderly person. Think I will change the wording to clarify, so I'm glad you asked the question.

This all gets a little tricky when you are inclined to refer to Carol's "doctor," but the people we've seen generally have not been MDs. It's usually a nurse practitioner or social worker. Looks like caregiver is not the right word to use for those folks. Glad you helped educate me on the proper use of that term.

legalschnauzer said...

We just received the latest bulletin from the deck of the Eliza Battle. It is on our post of 9/11/17, so I was afraid some folks might miss it. Will post here, along with my comment, for readers of a seafaring nature can keep up with the latest:

Anonymous said...
Aboard the Eliza Battle Captain Marshall was receiving the Battle Report from the crew. Bob Yancey reported that he had bad news and some good news. The bad news was that the Dummy Warship was found drift. The good news was that Nannie Dee was still aboard the vessel. The Captain inquired as to how Nannie Dee was holding up after spending 6 months unchaperoned with the General. Bob Yancey replied that she had been taken to sick bay and with the help of DR.Foreman, John and Thomas Yancey were restoring her to mint condition. Admiral Tyron added that the Hibernia, with the Justice Dept, onboard has engaged in a Naval Maneuver that endangers Mike's safety if he continues with his plan "C" to clear his name. Mary Mac asked Admiral Tyron to please tell her that Mike was not in danger. The Admiral replied that Mike was in extreme danger because the Hibernia has threatened to sink the Victoria with the Riley Machine onboard if Mike exposes the Justice Dept corruption that occurred during McGregor's trial. Sheldon inquired as to what the Justice Dept. has done to convey this message. Admiral Tyron replied that one month before Mike's appeal was due, the Justice Dept. gave the Judge hearing Don Siegelman's lawsuit all the material needed to sink the Victoria. Mike was forced to withhold the corruption in his written appeal, but he has another chance to expose the corruption in oral arguments. Bob Yancey added that his opinion was that the Justice Dept. was bluffing. The documents showing the corruption of the Siegelman Trial will never be made public. Captain Marshall said that the Eliza Battle needed a plan to get Mike off the Victoria and back upon the Eliza Battle.

September 18, 2017 at 6:43 PM


Blogger legalschnauzer said...
@6:43 --

Always good to receive a report from the deck of the Eliza Battle. The following in your communique jumps out at this landlubber:

"The Admiral replied that Mike was in extreme danger because the Hibernia ("Justice Dept") has threatened to sink the Victoria with the Riley Machine onboard if Mike exposes the Justice Dept corruption that occurred during McGregor's trial. Sheldon inquired as to what the Justice Dept. has done to convey this message. Admiral Tyron replied that one month before Mike's appeal was due, the Justice Dept. gave the Judge hearing Don Siegelman's lawsuit all the material needed to sink the Victoria. Mike was forced to withhold the corruption in his written appeal, but he has another chance to expose the corruption in oral arguments. Bob Yancey added that his opinion was that the Justice Dept. was bluffing. The documents showing the corruption of the Siegelman Trial will never be made public. Captain Marshall said that the Eliza Battle needed a plan to get Mike off the Victoria and back upon the Eliza Battle."

September 18, 2017 at 7:08 PM