Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Before bailing out in Carol's case, Missouri public defender Patty Poe told a veritable plethora of lies, including one of the nuttiest whoppers I've ever heard


Patty Poe
Before bailing out on my wife Carol's case, public defender Patty Poe told a lie that was so gargantuan that even Missouri deputies couldn't think of it. Now that's a whopper of a lie.

Poe told us that our eviction -- which was unlawful on at least 10 grounds -- actually was fine and dandy because deputies reasonably believed they were at our duplex apartment to (get this) execute an arrest for trespassing. And we've got Poe's statement in writing.

How mind-blowing is all this? I had to read the sentence about five times before I could believe she actually was stating this. How ironic is it? Poe herself got the trespass count against Carol dismissed because there was not a single word about it in the Probable Cause (PC) Statement. In other words, even the cops who prepared the charging documents in Carol's case did not include one shred of evidence about trespass.

This is at least the third big lie that Poe told us in the weeks and months leading to her ignominious exit from Carol's case last week. And we've got many more to reveal.

The ones we've addressed so far tend to be in the category of "Stuff Lawyers Often Lie About" -- discovery, what the law actually says, etc. But this one about trespass . . . it's as if Poe traveled to the moon and found it hidden amidst the cheese on the surface.

In early August, we sent a series of emails to Poe about issues in Carol's case. She promised to read them and get back to us -- and her response came about three weeks later. It included her take on information we had provided that shows our eviction was unlawful on so many grounds they have reached double figures. (Copies of our emails, plus Poe's responses to them, are embedded at the end of this post.)

One ground was that even if Carol caused physical contact with Officer Jeremy Lynn -- and Lynn's own written statement shows he made physical contact with her, not the other way around -- Carol would have been acting lawfully under Missouri's Castle Doctrine Law.

That can't seriously be disputed, but Poe decided to try it anyway. Here is part of her response:

Castle Doctrine does not apply in Carol's case. Pursuant to RSMo 563.031 law enforcement are exempt from the protections of the castle doctrine. What matters is were the law enforcement officers reasonably believe they are executing an arrest (RSMo 563.046). In Carol's case, based on the execution for possession, the law enforcement officers thought they were reasonably executing an arrest for trespass.

That part in yellow is so nuts that I'm not sure I have enough fingers to count all of the nuttiness. It's not hard to show that Poe is crackers on this one. You can read the PC Statement and see it includes not one word about trespass. You can read written statements from four officers, and not one them states he was there for an arrest, much less an arrest for trespass.

The comminuted fracture in
Carol Shuler's left arm, courtesy of
Missouri deputies.

The idea of arresting Carol never arose until three cops surrounded her as she tried to enter the apartment (as she'd been told she could do) to retrieve our cat's litter box. A male cop in a blue shirt came up from behind her, body slammed her butt-first to the ground, and yanked on her limbs so viciously that her left arm shattered just above the elbow. A split second later, Sheriff Jim Arnott -- quickly realizing his officers had screwed up big time -- pointed at Carol and said, "She assaulted a police officer." Only then was she placed in handcuffs, arrested, and taken to jail -- to be released when X-rays at a nearby emergency room revealed a comminuted fracture in her left arm that would require trauma surgery.


Why were cops, in their own words, on the property we rented from landlord Trent Cowherd? This is what you might call the "mission statement," from Officer Debi Wade:

On September 9, 2015, we responded to 4070 S. Fort to execute a Writ of Execution and Court Order (1531-                                                           ACO4535) to remove lessee Roger Shuler from the                                                             rental.

Cops were there for an eviction, however unlawful it might have been. Wade's "mission statement" makes no mention of trespass, makes no mention of Carol, period. So how did Poe come up with the notion that officers were there to arrest Carol for trespass? If that was the case, why didn't they arrest me for trespass?

I can only assume Poe fell victim to a malady that tends to afflict those who concoct tall tales: At some point, they can't keep their lies straight -- and they wind up tossing out absurdities.

Poe did not only screw up on the trespass issue; she also botched the Castle Doctrine. We will show you how in an upcoming post.








23 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is the kind of representation you get from one of the most underfunded, overwhelmed public defender systems in the country.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Ms. Poe didn't bother to learn even the most basic facts about Carol's case. Sad.

Anonymous said...

You had a commenter here a couple of days ago who said Ms. Poe had political constraints placed on her in representing Carol. Poe probably knew that at the time of this email, so she wasn't going to bother getting her facts straight.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:38 --

Pretty sure that comment was from a Springfield lawyer, and I can make an educated guess about who it was. I believe he was telling the truth, and his message (as I read it) was: You might be upset with Ms. Poe, but it's not all her fault. He said at least three times, "She was doing all she could; she no choice but to act in the way she did."

That might be true, but it doesn't help us much. It means Carol has been the victim of a criminal scheme.

Anonymous said...

I've read a number of surveys that say lawyers are among the most unhappy, miserable people in the world. And as a public defender, Ms. Poe probably sees herself at the bottom of the totem pole. I'm guessing she hates her job and is dying to get another one.

Anonymous said...

As you say: If Carol was trespassing, why wouldn't you have been trespassing? None of this makes sense.

Anonymous said...

Poor Carol.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:54 --

This is actually a good thing. Carol is better off without Patty Poe. It's just sad that one woman would sell another down the river, or that a public defender (paid with taxpayer dollars) would sell out any client, of either gender. Plus it's irritating to have wasted five months on Ms. Poe and to know she had lied over and over.

Carol will be fine. She either will find a private attorney or represent herself, and either option is better than Patty Poe. We never wanted a public defender in the first place because we knew they were sorry. You only have to read Missouri newspapers to know that.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to @8:59 --

Write a semi-coherent critical comment -- one based on a minimal knowledge of facts and law -- and it will be published. Attach your real name and contact information, and your critical comment almost certainly will be published. You apparently have neither the ability nor the courage to do either. Much of what I see from you and a few others doesn't even rise to the level of bathroom humor.

Grow up and quit whining. Have you not had your formula this morning?

Anonymous said...

The trolls come out in mass when Patty Poe gets unmasked. Interesting. Revealing.

Anonymous said...

You should definitely represent yourself and see how that goes.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:12 --

It's not a matter of me representing myself. I'm not a party to the case, so I can't get involved other than trying to be a supportive husband. Carol might wind up representing herself, and she will be better off than with Patty Poe.

If the judge is honest, this case will easily be dismissed, well short of trial. If the judge isn't honest . . . well, we know from experience that you can pay a lawyer $300 an hour, and it makes no difference in such cases. We've been there and seen the money go flying out the window -- for nothing.

Anonymous said...

This is not complicated stuff. Checking the docket on your eviction case, it shows the judgment on possession (Aug. 27) was an interlocutory order, with a followup hearing on other issues set for Oct. 1. That means your 10-day window for filing a notice of appeal would not have started until some time after Oct. 1, when a final order would have been entered. Not only was the eviction on Sept. 9 out of time, by a wide margin, but there is no way Carol could have been construed to be trespassing on that date -- and it's not a close call.

Carol was lawfully in her residence on Sept. 9, 2015, and no semi-knowledgeable person can claim otherwise. Very, very simple. If Ms. Poe can't figure out this kind of stuff, she needs to start selling cosmetics at Battlefield Mall.

Anonymous said...

Everytime you lose, it's a dishonest judge's fault isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Poe is like a lot of lawyers. She is used to telling clients anything, and they never question it. You and Carol are the rare birds who do question what lawyers say. And Poe, like many others in her field, doesn't know how to handle that.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:34 --

I don't know. If you're so smart, you tell me. Cite a case we lost where the judge acting honestly, ruled according to law. Look forward to seeing what you come up with. I'm betting your response will be "crickets."

Anonymous said...

That's what I thought. Your answer indicates you believe they were all dishonest. What an amazing coincidence.

Anonymous said...

Can't believe Poe was dumb enough to put this in writing. It's clear the cops weren't there to make an arrest. No one had done anything to be arrested for. Hell, the cops weren't even there to make a timely eviction.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:51 --

Your answer indicates you have no clue whether they were honest or dishonest. What an amazing coincidence.

BTW, I don't believe the judges were dishonest; I know they were dishonest -- and I've proven it, with citations to law, over and over again on this blog. It's not a matter of what I believe; it's what I know and what I've been able to prove.

You, on the other hand, appear to know nothing. No surprise there.

The objective reader should ask this question: Why is this anonymous commenter so invested in protecting corrupt judges? Perhaps he's part of the system and is protecting his own turf? Perhaps he's a few bills short in the scruples department?

Anonymous said...

As a legal assistant, I'm sickened by Ms. Poe's behavior. She makes the whole profession look bad. I take my job seriously, and the lawyers I work for do likewise. Ms. Poe gives the public more reasons to distrust lawyers, and I resent it.

Anonymous said...

Here's what one of those judges said (it's a fact that the judgement said it. nothing inaccurate about that fact), but I bet this comment won't be approved because it makes you look bad. You are more concerned with how you look than the truth.

"The court has attempted to conduct civil conversation with Shuler as a pro se litigant. Shuler is his own worst enemy. He is almost as aggravating to the court as the court is to him. It has been impossible for the court to communicate to him the impossibility of his position, much less to get him to accept it. If Shuler had a good lawyer, the lawyer might get through to him. But, Shuler obviously does not trust lawyers any more than he trusts courts. He seems to enjoy being his own lawyer. He has given his only client some bad advice."

legalschnauzer said...

@11:56 --

You don't know enough to even be ashamed of your own stupidity. You act like that comment from Bill Acker is news to me. Hell, I've run it on this blog. That's probably where you found it. Acker's words are a classic example of what lawyers call an "ad hominem" attack. He's attacking me, the person, without even addressing the argument at hand. That a judge would stoop to such behavior should get him kicked off the bench. Acker is an almost 90 year old racist, who should have been off the bench 20 years ago. In fact, he never should have been on the bench.

That you are quoting him shows you support not only corruption, but racism as well. BTW, Acker was a Dixiecrat in the late 40s, part of the convention in Birmingham. Look it up. He supported Strom Thurmond for president. You might as well quote a Klan leader.

Finally, neither you nor Acker address the facts or law of the case. You're not capable of it, and he's too corrupt to do it. If you can't do any better than to quote Bill Acker, you really need to give it up.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to 12:56 --

If it doesn't matter, why are you still whining about it?

It obviously still matters to you.

You can't even be honest with yourself, much less me.