Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Both Judge Margaret Palmietto and public defender Patty Poe show an utter lack of class and grace, as Poe rushes out the door to withdraw from Carol's case

Patricia Poe
A Missouri judge this morning approved public defender Patty Poe's motion to withdraw from Carol's "assault case." The good news is that we won't have to deal anymore with Poe -- and her tendency to blow smoke up our rear ends. The bad news is . . . well, I'm not sure there is any bad news. Carol will have to find a private attorney or represent herself, but either option is preferable to being represented by a public defender who would have to improve significantly to be worthless.

Poe was in such a hurry to get away that she scrambled out of the courtroom before Carol's hearing even was finished. Perhaps she wanted to make sure she had no conversation with Carol or me. If so, her quick exit probably was a good idea. I doubt Poe wanted to hear what I think of her, and I really don't think she's worth putting forth the effort to tell her she's a louse -- a louse who lies, a lot.

In a little more than five months of "representing" Carol, Patty Poe accomplished one thing: She got the trespass charge against Carol dismissed. But Carol already had filed a pro se motion that would have accomplished the same thing if Judge Margaret Holden Palmietto had bothered to read it. In the end, Poe wasted five months of our time, on a case that, by law, should have been dismissed back in May or June.

Speaking of Palmietto, the whole public defender fiasco largely was her fault. At a hearing in May, Palmietto essentially forced Carol to fill out an application with the public defender's office, saying Carol would not be allowed to leave the courtroom until the application was finished.

On that day, Palmietto made it clear she knew about Carol's pro se motions -- I think five had been filed, three of them within a few days of that hearing date. In fact, Palmietto said she was not going to read Carol's motions until she had an attorney or waived her right to an attorney. Well, Carol had an attorney for more than five months, and Palmietto still has not heard, or ruled on, any of her motions -- most of which would have kicked out the prosecution's case, as a matter of law.

That Palmietto said she would hear Carol's motions, and then didn't, raises questions about her integrity -- at least with me. In terms of basic courtesy, Palmietto could have said something this morning like, "Mrs. Shuler, I'm the one who sent you to the public defender, so I'm sorry this didn't work out and it has wasted a lot of your time." Better yet, Palmietto could have directed a glare at Poe and said, "Ms. Poe, I sent Mrs. Shuler to you, with the expectation that your office would fulfill it's duty to provide a competent defense. So why are you seeking to withdraw now? What's the problem?"

Palmietto said nothing of the sort. I couldn't tell that she questioned Poe about anything. Poe, on the surface, is withdrawing because Prosecutor Nicholas Jain filed a Notice of Jail Waiver of Jail Time, and Missouri law states as follows (RSMo 600.042. 4(2)):

4. The director and defenders shall provide legal services to an eligible person:

(2) Who is detained or charged with a misdemeanor which will probably result in confinement in the county jail upon conviction, including appeals from a conviction in such a case, unless the prosecuting or circuit attorney has waived a jail sentence;

That seems like a nifty way for a prosecutor and a public defender to conspire to deprive an eligible person of her right to counsel. I'm not sure how that is constitutional, but it probably stands because no one has thought to challenge it. (Poe's Motion to Withdraw and Jain's Notice of Jail Waiver are embedded at the end of this post.)

The dubious nature of that Missouri statute is one reason it's disturbing that Palmietto seemed to approve Poe's motion with a wave of the hand -- without asking a few hard questions. We're only talking about the right to counsel here.

Speaking of the prosecutor, Jain was not present this morning, and we hear he is planning to run for prosecuting attorney in some Missouri county. Hopefully, it's one where the citizens are smart enough to pick someone -- anyone -- other than Jain. I've met billy goats who have more legal talent and integrity than this guy. When I heard of his plans, I could not suppress a guffaw. Not sure I've encountered anyone who has a more inflated assessment of his own abilities than Nicholas Jain.

I'm holding out some hope still for Palmietto -- she has made two or three rulings that actually were correct, under the law -- but she receives a failing grade from me today. This clearly is a case of Poe and Jain colluding to leave Carol without legal representation, and a judge should have enough curiosity to want to get to the bottom of it. The real reason for Poe's withdrawal, in my estimation, is that Carol was not buying her shuck and jive routine. Carol knew Poe repeatedly had made false statements regarding relevant law in the case, and Carol made it clear she wasn't buying Poe's BS. That likely made Poe uncomfortable -- and it might have made her boss uncomfortable, too -- so they bailed out.

In fairness to Palmietto, this was your standard "cattle call" court day, with little time to consider the niceties of any case. But at the very least, Palmietto should have asked Carol, "Mrs. Shuler, why is Ms. Poe withdrawing from this case -- in your view -- and how do you feel about that?" Carol's answer likely would have shined considerable light on the sorry representation she's received.

Given that Poe is a lawyer, this comes as no surprise, but her exit this morning was utterly without class. Carol and Poe were sitting shoulder to shoulder before the judge, and Carol said Poe didn't speak a word to her -- and I didn't notice Poe even glance at Carol. In fact, Carol was speaking to the judge when Poe turned and rushed out of the courtroom. I'm not sure Palmietto had even officially granted her motion yet. Unprofessional? To the max.

Poe has said multiple times that she is convinced Carol is not guilty -- "You don't look like the kind of person who would assault a police officer" -- and admitted the cops' story that Carol broke her own arm by flailing about in the back seat of a patrol car was pure rubbish. You'd think as a small sign of human decency, Poe might have said something like, "Good luck, Carol; I know you're going to have a good outcome with this case, and I'm sorry you've been put through this."

But that apparently is too much to expect of Patty Poe. Instead, she rushed out of the courtroom before the hearing was over, without a word to her "client" -- showing not the slightest concern about issues of justice. Why not give Carol a word of encouragement, especially when Poe knows Carol is innocent, probably one of the few truly innocent people to come through that courtroom -- and Poe knows cops abused Carol to the point that they practically ripped her left arm apart at the elbow?

From my seat, it appeared Poe was too busy covering her own ample ass to worry about Carol. I'm not sure Poe is even 30 years old, but she's already proven to be a heartless, graceless sellout for the legal tribe. She deserves to have her bar card stripped, and I wouldn't mind helping to make that happen.

What a worthless piece of excrement, and my feelings about her exit from Carol's case can be summed up in two words -- good riddance.

If Carol can find a private attorney we can afford, and is worthy of our trust, that would be great. But if Carol has to represent herself, I have no doubt she would do a better job than Patty Poe and Her Traveling Clown Show.


Anonymous said...

Methinks someone is pulling Patty Poe's strings.

Anonymous said...

"I really don't think she's worth putting forth the effort to tell her she's a louse..."

*proceeds to write sixteen more paragraphs*

Anonymous said...

I get two themes from this post:

1. Poe was a bad lawyer; and

2. You're upset that she no longer wanted to represent your wife.

It's like that old joke: "The food here is terrible." "Yes, and such small portions."

Anonymous said...

So, let me get this straight:

(a) your wife's former lawyer: "would have to be worthless."

(b) the prosecutor: "billy goats...have more legal talent."

(c) the judge: "receives a failing grade from me today."

Boy, you're awfully unlucky, aren't you, Roger? What are the odds of three terribly unqualified legal professionals all happening to end up in the same courtroom on the same day, all on your wife's case?

Or maybe, just maybe, you and your wife are batshit crazy clients that see conspiracies everywhere?

Perhaps a few more courtroom losses will wisen you up. Then again, probably not. I will take pleasure in seeing your wife jailed.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:07 --

Hate to break it to you, but the possibility of jail is off the table. The post clearly says that, and it includes the embedded motion itself. You can't get that right, but we're supposed to take your other thoughts seriously?

legalschnauzer said...

@10:00 --

I say in the first paragraph and in the next-to-last paragraph that I'm glad Poe is gone. I assume you know what the phrase "good riddance" means? Maybe not.

Also, I make it quite clear that my anger comes from Poe's repeated lies about relevant law in Carol's case, plus the fact she caused us to waste five months.

I wouldn't recommend Patty Poe as a lawyer if she was the only lawyer left on the planet. No talent and no scruples. And did I mention she has a big ass? Bad combination.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:55 --

Are reading comprehension problems at epic proportions today? I said it probably wasn't worth the effort to tell her what I thought of her, right then and there, in a courtroom. But to write a blog post about today's proceedings . . . that's a totally different matter. I think most rational people can grasp that. Why you can't grasp it is your problem, not mine.

Anonymous said...

Now we'll get to see Justice prevail because the judge will have no choice but to consider Carol's well written motions as a matter of law. Carol is an excellent writer. I wish that she had a blog too!

Anonymous said...

My bet is that someone is offering Patty Poe a way to get out of that public defender hell hole by dangling a nice cushy job at a law firm. She'll make twice the money for half the work.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:49 --

Yes, Carol is a good writer, and she called the judge's attention today to the pro se motions that have been sitting on the docket for months. Palmietto seemed to indicate that she now would hear those motions. Poe refused to bring them because she said it was her "opinion" that she didn't agree with some key points in them. Did Poe ever cite any law as the basis for this "opinion"? Of course not. This probably is the No. 1 reason for my anger at Ms. Poe. Carol and I have had lawyers lie to our faces for 17-plus years, and some of those are real veterans, world-class liars. We're used to that. But Poe is a rank amateur, and it truly was insulting to have her lie to us. If I'm going to be lied to, I want to be someone with heft, with the experience and clout to truly deceive. Poe is nowhere near that class, as a lawyer or a liar.

Anonymous said...

What rational lawyer wouldn't run for the hills after experiencing a nutcase like RS? It would be enough to make even a hardened litigator lose his lunch and pray to God for a change of career.

legalschnauzer said...

By my unofficial count, Carol has filed 7 pro se motions that have been sitting for months -- and roughly 4-5 of them could have dispensed with this junkyard case months ago.

But Patty Poe's firmly held "opinions," which she could not back up with a single citation to law, kept that from happening.

And a dumb-ass commenter above wondered why I'm pissed? Try having a bogus criminal charge hanging over your spouse's head for about 10 months, at least five longer than it should have been, and see how much fun that is. Consider that it's really fun when you know the charge is because cops are trying to cover for the fact they shattered your spouse's arm.

Patty Poe should burn in hell, as far as I'm concerned. And I'd be glad to provide the match, the kindling, and the lighter fluid.

Anonymous said...

I don't blame you for being pissed. I'd be outraged, too. If Patty Poe couldn't get this case dismissed short of a trial, she needs to take up another line of work.

legalschnauzer said...

@11:07 --

Your definition of a "nutcase," I presume, is someone who refuses to blindly accept any lie that is sent his way. By your definition, I am a nutcase, and I take that designation as a supreme compliment. Thank you.

I assume you consider me a nutcase because you think some (or all) of what I've written about Carol's case is incorrect, under the law. Why don't you share a few examples -- maybe just two or three, so we can get a sense of what your talking about and see if you can put your bona fides on display.

Anonymous said...

Will be interesting to see if Patty Poe still is in the public defender's office six months from now. I bet the answer is no.

Anonymous said...

Here's one you can take to the bank:

@9:55, @10:00, @10:07, and @11:07 are the same person.

And @11:07 won't even attempt to provide any examples of LS being wrong about Carol's case. Not capable.

Book it.

Anonymous said...

You bemoan this young lady’s “class” and then write some juvenile comment about her body? Grow up.

Anonymous said...

hey LegalSchnauzer, don’t confuse your Google search with someone’s law degree.

Anonymous said...

Stay classy legal schnauzer. Is this how you talked to the police when they showed up?

legalschnauzer said...

@6:38 --

Are you asking if I informed any of the cops that he had a big ass? No, I don't recall making that comment. But then, they were armed with assault weapons and probably half a dozen hand guns.

legalschnauzer said...

@6:33 --

Oh, I won't confuse those two. My Google searchers are way more accurate than anything that comes from many law-school grads. Want to cite an example where my research is inaccurate? Give it a shot, big timer.

legalschnauzer said...

@11:26 AM --

I agree certain comments are juvenile, but they also are true -- Ms. Poe lacks class, treated her client shabbily, and Poe does have a big ass. A giant ass, a "Hugh Jass," as Bart Simpson would say.

I'm not particularly proud of those comments, but sometimes you have to get down in the gutter with those who live there. This is a taxpayer-funded lawyer, a public servant, who had the very simple job of getting the case against my wife dismissed. She failed to do her job, lying to our faces for about 3 months, and then withdrew under about the most tacky circumstances possible.

Keep in mind my wife's freedom was on the line. Her reputation still is on the line. Cops shattered her arm (why don't you view the X-rays on here) and brought criminal charges to cover up their brutality, and Ms. Poe's own words indicate she was aware of all that; she knew Carol was innocent, needed her help, and she walked away like a sulking baby -- with a big ass.

Carol and I bent over backward to treat Patty Poe with respect. I've written several positive posts about her, which probably will be the only ones she gets in her career. I certainly will not be writing anymore. She had a chance to come off as a white knight at one of most widely regarded legal blogs in North America. But Patty Poe blew it because she's more interested in kissing the asses of certain legal tribe members.

I have nothing but contempt for Patty Poe. She's a disgrace to her profession, and she's wasted five months of our time and left Carol in a bad position. I despise Poe, hate her guts, and I think SHE'S GOT A HUGE ASS.

So there. I don't use those kinds of words around here very often. But Patty Poe earned them, and if you want sugar coating on this subject, you won't find it here.

She likely is part of a criminal conspiracy, and if she winds up with no bar card and her big ass in prison, it won't bother me in the least. She deserves it.

Anonymous said...

When someone resorts to ad hominem attacks, especially body shaming of a female, it says a lot about their intellect and character...or lack there of.

Anonymous said...

Can a women “earn” the mysognanistic comments you’re making? Or is it that you have no actual basis for your remarks so you have to resort to the lowest form of attacks possible (which you even acknowledge as “gutter” worthy).

legalschnauzer said...

@9:04 --

You think Patty Poe is a representative of noble womanhood? You must be joking. Ms. Poe had a female client (my wife, Carol), who had male cops unlawfully break into her home, beat her up, break her arm, and (with the help of male prosecutors) bring bogus "cover your ass" criminal charges against her. What did Patty Poe do? She side with the "Old Boys Network," lied repeatedly to her female client, and bailed out on her without even a simple "good luck."

Patty Poe has demonstrated her willingness to cheat and betray a female client. She's a terrible lawyer and an even worse human being. She has no courage, simply goes along with the corrupt crowd (mostly men) who surround her every day.

If you want to dispute the basis for my remarks, give it a shot. Let's see what you know about the facts and law relevant to this case. My guess is you don't know crap.

Anonymous said...

Roger, you are the perfect example of a liberal. Guilty of the very things you hate in others.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:50 --

I don't think you even know the meaning of the term ad hominem. Here is one definition:

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

For one thing, Patty Poe hasn't really made much of an argument, just bailing on her client without cause. But what little argument she has made, I've already attacked it, as you can see at this post:

We will be attacking her pitiful excuses for arguments in much more detail soon.

If anyone's making an ad hominem attack here, it's you -- with your statements about me. You don't even begin to address my arguments, and that's probably because you either are too lazy or too inept to do so. It's easy to make blanket character assessments. It's a little more difficult to attack my argument re: Carol's case. Feel free to give it a shot, but I bet you can't do it, not even close.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:49 --

Why thank you. When someone says I'm a perfect example of a liberal, I take that as a compliment.

As for your second sentence, I have no clue what you are talking about. Care to elaborate, to provide examples?

Anonymous said...

You have yet to explain HOW she was supposed to get the case dismissed. Disputes as to what occurred are resolved at trial. What dismissal argument did Ms Poe fail to raise?

legalschnauzer said...

@10:03 --

I haven't "explained HOW"? Where have you been out to lunch? Here is just one post that explains 10 ways the eviction itself was unlawful -- meaning all evidence gathered as part of a seizure/search that violates the Fourth Amendment must be suppressed. It's called the exclusionary rule, and it must be brought by motion before trial which Poe refused to do. Here is link to post:

This doesn't even include violations of the Sixth Amendment, the "victim's" admission that Carol did not assault him, and Poe's refusal to conduct any substantive discovery that would prove Carol was the victim of an eviction that cops knew was unlawful, and they intended to rough one or both of us up.

The prosecution has turned over almost zero discovery, and Poe told us in a meeting that she wasn't going to make them turn over anything else -- including CAD logs, emails, texts, previous reports of excessive force, even the names of all officers on the scene. Why do you think prosecutors don't want to turn that over -- even though they've agreed to produce it or the court has ordered it produced? Why is that, you think?

You don't necessarily wait til trial for factual disputes to be determined. You conduct discovery that will show there cannot be a trial, as a matter of law. But Poe refused to conduct discovery or file the proper motions.

I will be explaining this in more detail in future posts. But the one post already cited, shows Poe's incompetence on the Fourth Amendment issue alone.

BTW, there are no disputed facts here. Read the narrative of the "victim," Jeremy Lynn. He admits he assaulted Carol, not the other way around.

Anonymous said...

Sir, it is very difficult to respond to arguments that are completely filled with nothing but vitriol. Surely a journalist of caliber and credentials can rise above that type of behavior?

legalschnauzer said...

@10:22 --

One, there is plenty of argument in there. You just choose to ignore it, perhaps because it doesn't fit your agenda. As for vitriol, have you ever been in my shoes -- ever seen cops brutalize your wife, break her arm, file bogus criminal charges in an attempt to cover their asses, then have a public defender bail out on your wife, without cause?

Ever been thrown in jail because of your journalism, had your house stolen via wrongful foreclosure, been cheated out of your job and career?

Ever been through anything remotely like all of that? I think the New Testament says something about trying to look at things through the eyes of others, doing unto others, etc. You might try that sometime, see what it's like.

As a final word, I don't recall anyone asking you to respond. You are welcome to do so, but I'd suggest you spend a little time in front of the mirror before you start making judgments about me.

Anonymous said...

After the things you have said about Ms Poe, Mr Jain and Judge Palmietto, not sure quoting the Bible is such a good look. Just sayin.

Anonymous said...

Mr Shuler, you posted this on a blog with a comment’s section...I think you asked everyone in the world to respond.

Anonymous said...

Didn't you lose your job for running your blog while on the clock for your employer?

Anonymous said...

Good evening Roger. I am a new follower and have frankly been impressed by your tenacity and fight. I suspect there's alot more to the stories here going on behind the scenes. I googled your name looking for news articles about some of the big political stories you broke, and I came across this blog post:

I don't buy this writer's characterizations of you. Do you know who wrote this, and is this someone to be concerned about who may be behind some of the actions being taken against you now?

legalschnauzer said...

@10:50 --

Are you saying The Bible is silent on matters of injustice, and it encourages Christians to be silent on injustice, as well?

You might want to reread your Bible.

Just sayin'.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:52 --

Yes, I have a comment section, but I doubt you can point to a place where I've ever asked for your input on anything. I don't even know your name, so why should I care what you write. If you ID yourself and show you have some clue what you are talking about, I'd be more than happy to take you seriously. So far, you've done neither one -- and you also haven't responded to the issues I raised about your comment. Don't blame you there.

Sorry, but you are kind of an empty vessel at the moment.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:53 --

Nope, I lost my job at UAB because of political forces who did not like my coverage of the Don Siegelman case, and they got me fired. Bob Riley, Rob Riley, and Doug Jones are three of the prime suspect. BTW, I'm not just guessing on why I was fired. A UAB HR director admitted I was fired because of Siegelman coverage, which was done on my own time, with my own resources, and I tape recorded the conversation. I've included it in many posts. Here is one of many. Glad I can put the kibosh on your "old wives' tale."

legalschnauzer said...

@11:26 --

Thanks for writing. You are very observant. That blog was written by a disturbed Virginia lawyer named Aaron Walker (also known as Aaron Worthing). He was part of a band of disturbed right-wing bloggers, including the uber sleazy Ali Akbar, Stacy McCain, and others. (A lot of these folks have ties to the dubious Daily Caller, once run by Tucker Carlson; he might still be involved with it; not sure.)

Yes, it's certainly possibly that any or all of these folks may be behind some of the actions taken against me. In fact, these bloggers were in a state of hysteria at about the time I was arrested in Oct. 2013, thinking I was a commenter named "Roger S" who commented frequently on legal issues at Breitbart Unmasked. (I was not Roger S, but it's possible I was arrested partially because these loons thought I was Roger S, who encouraged the filing of a RICO lawsuit against the tighty righties.)

On the Aaron Walker post you mention, I would encourage you take a look at the URL. It shows that, in the original headline, Walker referred to me as "David" Shuler. I have a brother, a lawyer in Missouri who has repeatedly stabbed Carol and me in the back, by the name of David Shuler. Kind of makes me wonder if Mr. Walker and David Shuler have communicated.

I've written several posts about these right-wing blogging loons -- who used to write under the National Bloggers Club umbrella, but I think that has closed up shop -- and one of them includes thoughts about Aaron Walker, David Shuler, etc. Here is that post, with the Walker/Shuler stuff in a note near the end.

Would be interested in hearing any thoughts you might have after reading some more of this. As I recall, Walker wrote five blog posts about me around the time of my incarceration. If interested, you probably can do a "Roger Shuler" search on his blog and find the other ones.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to @2:54 --

If you are so confident in your knowledge about the facts and policy surrounding my termination at UAB, contact me via email or phone, and I would be glad to discuss. Sorry to break this news, but you are woefully ill-informed. UAB's own actions show that I was not violating any computer- or work-related policy at work. The following two posts make that abundantly clear for reasonable people, which might not include you. But in the spirit of the season, I'm offering information that, if read and comprehended by a semi-healthy mind (big ifs), will give you knowledge on the subject:

Anonymous said...

Roger --

Your response at 10:33 is brilliant, one of the best things you've written -- or that I've read anywhere recently. It's short, but includes powerful insights on theology, journalism, injustice, and more.

You've obviously struck a nerve with a band of trolls, but you can more than handle your own. Keep up the great work.

Anonymous said...

Why not approve 2:54's comment? It's damn irritating when you reply to a comment that you refuse to approve. Why hide it? The rest of us would like to follow along.

Anonymous said...

@10:53 --
I've listened to that audio, and the UAB HR person clearly states that Mr. Shuler was targeted because of his blog posts about the Siegelman case. That's about as clear a violation of the First Amendment as one can imagine. And as a state/government employee, Mr. Shuler was protected by the First Amendment.

Also, I've read UAB's Progressive Discipline and Acceptable Use Policies, and they require an oral warning if the university suspects any employee is violating policy computer- or work-related policy. Mr. Shuler stated no such warning was given, and his supervisor could provide no such warning when asked to produce one at Mr. Shuler's grievance hearing.

UAB's actions in this case are shameful, as anyone who has worked in the higher ed or HR environments would know. Your inability to grasp the seriousness of the university's abuse is shameful, as well.

This was a career assassination, one of the worst I've ever read about.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:56 --

Because I value accuracy. If someone posts a comment that I know contains false information, it's not being published here. If you want to follow along on a comment by a person who has no concept of (or respect for) the truth, you've come to the wrong place.

Anonymous said...

I think Ms. Poe's actions are easily explained. She wanted to avoid a conversation with Carol or you at all costs. By leaving while Carol still was talking to the judge, she escaped having to explain anything. I assume you were in the peanut gallery and weren't about to get up and move around while the hearing still was going on. These are the actions of someone who knows she is doing wrong. Incredibly rude, too. A judge with control of her courtroom would have told Poe to sit tight until the hearing was over.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:13 --

You nailed it. What was that great line from George Michael: "Guilty feet have got no rhythm." That describes Ms. Poe to a "T."

For the record, I wasn't about to confront Ms. Poe in the courtroom or in the courthouse. I had already heard her tired act behind closed doors, and I had zero interest in anything she might say. I know she's a liar and a con artist -- and I know that she knows it, too -- so I'll just let her carry that weight around.

Anonymous said...

Oh, wow! The Schnauzer references George Michael to make a legal point. Who saw that coming? Too cool. I miss George M terribly. Here are the full lyrics to "Careless Whisper," by one of the great artists of our times:

I feel so unsure
As I take your hand and lead you to the dance floor
As the music dies, something in your eyes
Calls to mind the silver screen
And all its sad good-byes

I'm never gonna dance again
Guilty feet have got no rhythm
Though it's easy to pretend
I know you're not a fool
Should've known better than to cheat a friend
And waste the chance that I've been given
So I'm never gonna dance again
The way I danced with you

Time can never mend
The careless whispers of a good friend
To the heart and mind
Ignorance is kind
There's no comfort in the truth
Pain is all you'll find

I'm never gonna dance again
Guilty feet have got no rhythm
Though it's easy to pretend
I know you're not a fool
I should've known better than to cheat a friend
And waste the chance that I've been given
So I'm never gonna dance again
The way I danced with you

Never without your love
Tonight the music seems so loud
I wish that we could lose this crowd
Maybe it's better this way
We'd hurt each other with the things we'd want to say

We could have been so good together
We could have lived this dance forever
But no one's gonna dance with me
Please stay

And I'm never gonna dance again
Guilty feet have got no rhythm
Though it's easy to pretend
I know you're not a fool
Should've known better than to cheat a friend
And waste the chance that I've been given
So I'm never gonna dance again
The way I danced with you

Now that you're gone
(Now that you're gone) What I did's so wrong, so wrong
That you had to leave me alone

Songwriters: Andrew J. Ridgeley / George Michael
Careless Whisper lyrics © Warner/Chappell Music, Inc

Anonymous said...

You filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in that UAB case, didn't you? What was the result of that?

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to @10:17 --

I gave @2:54 an opportunity to contact me directly and discuss, to prove he had a clue. He hasn't done that, so it appears he has no clue or he simply is a coward (or both). I'll make you the same offer. But we both know you don't have the balls to take me up on it. You're a childish spitball thrower, who can't handle being confronted and can't articulate a coherent or accurate thought. Sad.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:33 --

Look it up yourself. Are you both stupid and lazy? No way to go through life, son.

BTW, I assume you realize this blog largely is about judicial corruption, about judges acting contrary to black-letter law. With that in mind, what is the point of your question?

If you believe judges always get it right, why are you here? This blog is for people who are capable of independent and critical thought. Clearly, it's way over your head.

Anonymous said...

Boy, based on this comment section, your reporting on Patty Poe's exit from Carol's case has really upset the trolls. I wonder why. Many of these comments sound like the voice of someone who feels threatened.

Some goof is so desperate that he brings up your termination at UAB, which has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. As another commenter said above, UAB's actions in that matter were about as obvious as a First Amendment violation can get. If the commenter is trying to make some negative point about you, he'd be wise to try something else. That employment case -- with a federal judge allowing no discovery -- was a joke.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to @11:09 --

Are you trying to argue my employment case was decided correctly, under the law? How so? Try citing one issue that was correctly decided in that case. Give it a shot; let's see how bright you are. My guess is "not very."

Anonymous said...

Here we go again? How can we know what 11:09 is arguing? Or did the post contain "inaccurate information?"

I try to follow this blog and the comments with an open mind. But something seems strange about the gaps here, to be honest.

legalschnauzer said...

@11:09 isn't making an argument. I've given him a chance to make an argument, he has failed to make one so far. I doubt he will pull it off. Again, if you want to follow along on comments that are pure horse manure, not remotely based on fact or law, you are at the wrong place. A lot of blogs engage in spreading mindless horse shit. This is not one of them.

If you are so frustrated, just leave. No one is asking you to stay. I told you the rules, so you know what they are. It's going to be "here we go again" again, unless @11:09 has the intelligence to make a real argument. I'm betting he won't come close.

Anonymous said...

Well, it's your blog, so certainly do as you see fit. But I think it's wrong for you to assume that your Readers are not capable of discerning the difference between critical comments and horse manure. Which of us would have been offended by the horse manure? If it is as you say, it would be obvious, and you really wouldn't even have to waste your time responding. As it is, you just want us to take your word for it. And I think alot of people may be starting to question that.

legalschnauzer said...

I put a lot of effort into producing posts that are factually accurate and include correct analysis of the law. I'm not going to allow someone hiding under the cover of anonymity to throw spitballs, while doing no work, and putting a stain on my work. It's not going to happen, ever.

I'll give spit ballers a chance to make a real argument, or to ID themselves and discuss with me directly. But they never take up that challenge because they are trolls. They aren't interested in truth or justice. I doubt you are either.

If you don't like my judgment calls, bail out -- like Patty Poe. You won't be missed, and neither will she.

Anonymous said...

Ok. Will do.

legalschnauzer said...

Good. Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

Anonymous said...

Aboard the Eliza Battle Coach and the General were sleeping like driftwood while John and Thomas Yancey built a stage to showcase their Pinocchio and Howdy Doody puppets to a captive audience in the Sickbay. Upon awakening, Coach exclaimed,"General! wake up! you are the father of twins." The General upon awakening replied," The one with the long nose is surely the son of a politician but the other one looks like Roy Moore." Coach added that Ole Roy is a politician and likes firm flesh. The General replied that Nannie Dee had the firmest flesh he had ever encountered but Nannie Dee was faithful. Meanwhile in the pilothouse the Captain and Admiral Tyron were discussing Roger's eviction. The Admiral said that it was his opinion that the eviction was triggered by Roger's posts on the Bingo Trials in July 2015. The Captain responded that the eviction process began on August 5, therefore we must look for what event happened on August 5. A review of posts do not reveal a reason but a review of the Comments of the July 30 2015 posts show a clue. On Aug 5 2015 , Roger and John Caylor were commenting. Caylor wrote a comment saying that the Bingo Trial transcripts will reveal that Baker was investigating the Russian Mafia. Roger Replied with a long comment but one sentence from that comment has been removed from his blog. Admiral Tyron asked what the sentence said. The Captain replied that all of Roger's posts about the Bingo Trial transcripts were quotes from Josh Moon's copy of the transcript. The line that was removed read" I have a copy of the transcripts but have not had time to review them." The eviction of Roger was a error filled rushed attempt to acquire Roger's copy of the transcripts. The people who removed Roger's belongings were searching his possessions, looking for the transcripts. Carol was apprehended before she could get inside and view them searching their belongings.

legalschnauzer said...

Eliza B --

Another date that might have significance re: our eviction. Our Notice to Vacate from landlord was dated July 2, 2015. Our rent had always been paid on time, and we never caused any problems, so there was no reason to have us vacate. We were due to go month to month on Aug. 1, 2015, but as you note, landlord started eviction proceedings on Aug. 5.

You could say that whole process to force us out started with the Notice to Vacate on July 2. BTW, under Missouri law and the terms of our lease, we had to be given one month's notice to vacate, and it had to be received by a payment date (first of month), which would have been July 1. We got the notice, and it was dated, one day too late. By law, the landlord had to wait until the next first of the month (Aug. 1) to give notice to vacate. But they didn't do that.

Any idea how a line from my comment was removed and why?

Anonymous said...

The editor of Breitbart unmasked mistook the rogerS that commented there for you. This is why others tho ur you might ...might one and the same. Thet editor referred your domicile in Alabama and blogging you've done in a comment section post letting others know he knew Roger S. He had access to emails and IPs so there was reason think he might have more than a commenter name to go on, but it appears he just made an erroneous assumption.

Anonymous said...

lesson to be learned, when you're living in someone else's house, might want to pay the rent more timely and stay in good terms. Otherwise, you might get thrown out on your ass, legal or not.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:34 --

My memory is that right-wing bloggers (Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar) made the assumption I was RogerS. My recollection is that Matt Osborne was editor of Breitbart Unmasked at the time. He and I know each other a bit (social media, etc.), but my understanding is that he knew all along I was not RogerS. My memory on all of this might be a little fuzzy, but just thought I would throw this out there. Here is a post from Legal Schnauzer about the possibility the RW bloggers were behind (at least in part) my kidnapping and jailing:

legalschnauzer said...

@10:34 --

This could be a possibility: Someone at (or connected to) Breitbart Unmasked could have created this "RogerS" character, knowing right wingers would think it was me. That, perhaps, put me in the cross hairs and caused my arrest, etc. Are you thinking along these lines?

A lot of this still is a mystery to me, but I hope it won't be for much longer.

FWIW, Matt Osborne visited my home, just a day or two after I was arrested and thrown in jail. He visited in his apparent role as a journalist, interviewing my wife Carol, taking pictures of her in our basement where I was beaten up, and I think he wrote a story or two about it for some publication. I've generally assumed Osborne's interests involved legit journalism. Could he have had some other motive in mind? Could his interest have something to do with the "RogerS" angle? I don't know, but I wouldn't rule it out.

Anonymous said...

Eliza Battle here
The July 2 date; You wrote a article about Victoryland on June 30, 2015 saying how McGregor could learn the identity of his enemies[people who shut him down]. You wrote to be continued. The plan to search your possessions was hatched but July 2 was the earliest that the notice to vacate could be time stamped. They knew they would have to wait an additional month to legally evict you, but when you told Caylor that you had the Bingo Trial transcripts on August 5 , they needed to search your possessions as soon as possible. Josh Moon lost access to the transcripts when his column was taken away from him. Now who erased the sentence from your comment. As I said before, I requested by FOIA information about the land thieves from Auburn. I waited over 3 years to receive the documents before I called and talked to you. 5 days later I received the documents. I suspected the Obama Justice Dept was monitoring your phone. In March 2016, I make a comment about the Bingo Trial transcripts and some=one posts a comment about snakes in Alabama. They had to have hacked your computer to know I was in Alabama. Recently the Eliza Battle comment containing Young Jessica and the cat in a box, suggested that Roy Moore had leaked the story to the news to get ahead of bad news. No one had commented on your blog for 24 hours but two minutes after my comment and one-half hour before before you post my comment , some-one comments "I knew you would " The only way they could have known what I wrote was to have hacked your computer.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:47 --

Lesson to be learned: When commenting on someone else's blog, one that has a wide national and international audience, you might want to educate yourself about the facts so you and Trent Cowherd and Craig Lowther won't look so stupid to people around the world.

legalschnauzer said...

Eliza B --

Thanks for sharing your insights. As you note, I had just posted some bingo/McGregor-related stuff prior to July 2, too, so I guess that adds another clue. You think they still are checking up on you and what you write here?

In addition to the deleted line in my comment about having the transcripts, I also quoted directly from them in July 30 post, so it was pretty obvious I had them. Are you thinking they thought I had them in paper form, printed out or were they looking for something in digital format? Who do you think wanted the transcripts so badly and launched this eviction fiasco? Bob Riley & Co.? DOJ via Rob Riley and Doug Jones? (Jill Simpson says RR and DJ were feeding info to feds during bingo case.) What do you think they thought was in the transcripts? Something that could be damaging to them, I presume? Here is URL to post on July 28 about Keith Baker plan to share grand jury info with Bob Riley. Maybe that triggered certain events?

(Just to clarify: I think my comments with Caylor were on July 30, and the eviction proceedings began on Aug. 5, via the filing of a rent and possession case. Here is URL to July 30 post with Caylor comments, and I don't see any Caylor stuff on Aug. 5.


Anonymous said...

Eliza Battle here
My knowledge about the Bingo Trials begins from day one. My neighbor of 30 years was the county commissioner during the attempted thief by the Tax increment district. He was promised my property as a reward. He even sent his wife to view my house because he had told people that he was going to make my house into a restaurant to cater to the people in his RV park. It took a lot of maneuvering but I got the Thief stopped. Later I was talking to my neighbor and asked how he could be so stupid to get involved with those people. He asked me how I knew Milton McGregor. I replied that your "friends" were also trying to steal my sister-in laws property . I said that her Mother is McGregor's sister. I said not only do you try to steal her property but you also try to throw her Uncle in jail to get the DOJ off your ass. The Riley Clan did not start the investigation of McGregor. His Civil Suit has gone thru discovery on the local people but the Mike Hubbard "investigation" and the ongoing special grand jury in Lee County prevents any discovery against Luther Stranges's handlers in Washington DC. As Mike's appeals wind down ,the side items like the Judge holding the Siegelman documents will become clear. I write these Bingo Trial comments and the ones about my fellow Marine Lt McDonald to leave guidance for Future historians to record the Truth.

Anonymous said...

EB here
The Caylor comments were on the July 30 post but the comment was dated August 5 on that July 30 post.

Anonymous said...

The Obama Justice Dept wanted those transcripts. I bet you lunch [when you get back home here in Alabama] That the Judge in Siegelman's lawsuit had the documents before Obama left office. The sentence was removed to keep readers from seeing it and connecting it to your eviction.

legalschnauzer said...

EB @1:17 --

That seems to point to Eric Holder, who helped defend Karl Rove before joining Obama admin. Jill Simpson sez Doug Jones and Rob Riley were feeding stuff to Holder DOJ. Makes me think Jones and RR were involved in our eviction, which would be no surprise at all. I've long felt there was an Alabama-Missouri connection, with my brother-lawyer being the likely conduit. I'm betting my brother has had conversations with Jones, Riley, Jessica Garrison, Bill Swatek -- or some combination thereof. A "friend" named Don Schlueter probably has been part of the conduit, too.

legalschnauzer said...

EB @1:05 --

Ah, OK, I understand now about date of Caylor comments.

legalschnauzer said...

EB @1:02 --

Has anything been reported in the press about McGregor civil case? Who are the defendants? Is it in federal court? I know very little about it.

Would be surprised if McGregor did anything in state court, since he has to know the AL Supreme Court is is a den of thieves for the Rileys. Do you see McGregor as a good guy or bad guy in all of this? Was he part of the land thieves? I don't know what to make of McGregor at this point. I've written tons of stuff favorable toward him, because I know the courts have ruled unlawfully on VictoryLand, but I don't know what to make of him now. Can't believe he ever was stupid enough to give millions to Rob Riley for a Russian Lottery.

Anonymous said...

Eliza B here
Two weeks after McGregor was indicted , I went to his attorney's office and informed his secretary[ Espy ] of the DOJ investigating the people in Auburn. Two weeks later I went and informed Ronnie Gilley's attorney {Jones} of the DOJ investigation in Auburn. Just my gut feeling but I believe Jones was helping his friend Biden by feeding information to the DOJ Officials in Washington DC.

Anonymous said...

Eliza B here
I have met McGregor several times since the trial . He was a victim of the land thieves. I like the guy . He arrives at my nephew's wedding driving a 4 cylinder car with no security . Just him and his wife drive to a venue way out in the country. By throwing side-ways questions to him ,I believe his attorneys do not tell him everything . As for him not winning a civil suit in state court, winning is not the issue. He wants the truth exposed.

legalschnauzer said...

EB @3:52 --

Glad to hear you like McGregor. I've met him a few times and generally came away with a favorable impression. Here recently, he's kind of gone underground, which I don't understand since I've gone to bat for him more than anyone else in the media. It's really not so much of going to bat for him, it's just writing accurately about the law related to bingo raids, etc. I've made it clear to anyone who reads and tries to understand that McGregor and folks in Dothan, etc. have been in the right, and Strange/Riley have been in the wrong on bingo issues.

Caylor seems to view McGregor negatively, but I'm not sure where Caylor's knowledge begins and where it ends. I've given Caylor credit for being knowledgeable about corruption in that AL, GA, FL Bermuda Triangle. But then, he ripped me on FB while I was in jail. Strange. I did have phone convo with Caylor, and he shared some very interesting information about Bill Baxley. I think he said the two of them were related somehow.

Anonymous said...

10:52. The switchover in editors (or claimed switchover) occurred shortly after those BU comments. One reason was the first editor said he was making errors or unreliable and his mixing up Roger S and you was implied by the timing to be one of them. I believe it was just an error, but don't know for sure.

legalschnauzer said...

@6:00 --

Thanks for sharing. A few questions/comments:

(1) By "claimed switchover," do you mean a switchover never actually happened? I'm not an expert on BU, but my impression is that Matt Osborne was the editor, followed by Bill Schmalfeldt. Am I missing anyone in there?

(2) I like Bill S and consider him an upright guy. I thought I liked Osborne, but I'm starting to wonder about that. First, I recently learned that he is tight with U.S. Senate candidate Doug Jones, who is one of the biggest rat turds on the face of the planet. Jones is in cahoots with Rob Riley, and together, they have left knife wounds in the shoulder blades of many people -- including Don Siegelman, Ronnie Gilley, Milton McGregor, and yours truly.

(3) Are you saying Matt Osborne admitted that he had become unreliable and was making errors -- and the Roger S fiasco was one of them? I'm starting to wonder if Osborne intentionally created Roger S to cause right-wing bloggers to target me and cause me to be kidnapped and jail. I also wonder if Rob Riley and Doug Jones helped concoct this scheme.

(4) If Matt Osborne knows who caused my incarceration, or if he was directly involved, he had better contact me and come clean real fast. Otherwise, he's going to find all his wordly possession heading elsewhere, and Doug Jones/RR probably will wind up selling him out.

Anonymous said...

1. No, just that I am not in a position to know if that was a genuine change or not.
3., no p, it was the other guy who wrote a little " I'm stepping down because I can't make good judgements anymore" note.
I hadn't considered whether the commenter "RogerS" was created by anyone directly connected with running that blog, but now that you mention the possibility, it does seem possible that "RogerS" was a sock created to make people think it was you. Around that time the the fact that you had a legal blog might have made some people think you would speak on legal issues surrounding the Kimberlin lawsuits bU was blogging about, and used you name in vain. Anyway, that other guy had taken "RogerS" to be you. I think that was just a mistake.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Dumb ass at 10:47 . . .

Lesson learned: When you are renting your "house" to someone, you might want to learn tenant/landlord law in your state and the terms of the lease you created. You might want to follow both the law and the terms of the lease. Otherwise, you are liable to get your stupid ass sued, and your "house" might soon become the tenant's house, and your business might be headed for implosion.

Anonymous said...

Legal Schnauzer: Hello, I'm one of the hated attorneys out there. You have previously stated you don't like me -- which is fine, cool, whatever.

I'm writing you because I want to suggest that Ms. Poe, your prior lawyer, actually may not have had any choice to do exactly what she did, and that she has left Carol is a substantially better place than where Carol started. Please, at least consider hearing me out, and then you can tell me I'm a dumbass.

When Poe started her representation, Carol faced jail time -- and so, the goal was to keep her out of jail. Poe put up a good enough defense that the County Prosecutor decided to drop the jail time charges against Carol -- leaving him with a meaningless victory. Poe, if I remember my state law correctly, then no longer has authority to represent you -- she can only represent people who are facing jail time.

At this point, the prosecutor has a real problem -- he has an absolutely shitty case against Carol, and he needs to win it in order to prevent you from prevailing on a Section 1983 lawsuit. He's scared, and he decided that the best thing to do was to get Poe off the suit and then, presumably, drag this thing out so that you might .... just might ... blow your limitation date on the federal civil suit.

Poe is stuck. She may love you, she may hate you, she may think you are loony, she may think you are a genius, but at this point, she can't represent you -- and she won, in a sense, because Carol is not facing jail time. So: stop calling for Poe's head, and focus on what you need at this point.

It seems to me -- and I'm not representing you -- that your best case is to focus on discovery abuses and to try to get the remaining claims against Carol dismissed, while also making sure you get your federal lawsuit on file (if its not already). The best way to get it dismissed would be to prove discovery abuse by the Prosecution, because then you can tie your 1983 action directly to the prosecution, and actually prevail on this case.

Yes, you got screwed by the Prosecutor, who is desperate to take away your lawyer and had to give up the greatest piece of leverage he has, the threat of incarceration, to take Poe off the board. It seems like you are in a better place than where you were before Poe was on your case -- and, let me just say, if the Prosecutor really was in cahoots with Poe, or thought Poe was secretly undermining you, or thought Poe wasn't doing a good job, he never would have given up the threat of incarceration.

Yeah, I get it, I'm a lawyer and you may not like my opinion, but if Poe didn't have a choice and got the Prosecution to drop its threat of incarceration, then it seems like you have come out the winner at this point. Just sayin: maybe Poe isn't evil; maybe she did a lot of good and then had no way to do any more. Kicking her doesn't do much good.

Anyway, good luck and carry on. Sorry to disagree with you, just trying to offer another perspective.

Anonymous said...

8:04, you are a total idiot if you think you're going to cause Roger to have any sympathy for the people who've done this to his beautiful wife. Poe, by law, should have had this case dismissed 5 months ago and refused to do the work. And who cares if you're a lawyer and come in here trying to reason away the actions of one of your colleagues. Roger has already proven that you attorneys are all worthless. Or maybe you want to put your money where your mouth is a represent Roger and Carol. I'm sure the case will be worth millions.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:04 --

Thanks for a thoughtful, well-presented comment. You say that we've met, and I apparently said I didn't like you. I don't recall ever telling a lawyer I didn't like him. I've had a number of lawyers that I felt weren't telling Carol and me the truth -- or at least not the whole truth -- and I don't like that. But it usually isn't a matter of not liking the person. You come across as a pretty likable person here, and I certainly don't think you are a dumbass, so perhaps we could talk again and better understand one another. Of course, that might not be comfortable for you, and that's fine.

One question: You say Ms. Poe might not have had any choice but to do what she did, but I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying she had political constraints on what she could do, that she could not fully represent Carol? If that's the case, I think you can understand why that would trouble us. That also seems to be a violation of Carol's rights as a client.

I think I get your main point: Carol faced two counts and possible jail time, and during Poe's time on the scene, that was reduced to one count and no jail time. I see what you are saying.

You and I agree that the prosecution has an "absolutely shitty" case against Carol. Where perhaps we differ is that I think (I know) the case is worse than "absolutely shitty." It's a true "cover charge," concocted out of thin air because the bastard cops broke Carol's arm and they want to cover their asses in the civil arena. That's wildly unethical, and maybe even criminal, so I think it's way worse than merely having a shitty case.

Yes, Poe helped make progress on a couple of fronts. But Carol filed pro se motions to have the trespass case dismissed, and she's filed motions that should have the "assault" charge dismissed, too. The judge has never considered those, I guess because Poe has refused to bring them. Poe argued over and over with us about the grounds cited in Carol's pro se motions, but those motions are on point, and Poe never has come close to citing any law that proves otherwise. In many ways, Poe has been Carol's enemy, and not her advocate. If Poe had spent less time arguing with us and more time arguing before the judge, this whole thing would have been dismissed probably back in June. (That's assuming Palmietto is an honest judge, and we're holding out hope that she is.)

Also, Poe told us in our last meeting that the eviction itself was lawful, based on the word of some lawyer friend of hers who supposedly practices tenant/landlord law. What kind of lawyer makes determinations about a client's case based on the word of some unknown "friend." Hell, we have no idea who this person is, whether he's really a competent lawyer, or whether he might have all kinds of conflicts and self interests. Carol and I know the eviction was unlawful on at least 10 grounds, so we don't appreciate hearing otherwise based on the words of a ghost/friend. Carol has a right to have her case determined by the real law, not the word of a mystery guest.

In the end, I appreciate your perspective. You've explained yourself well.


legalschnauzer said...

A final point: I think you've made references three times to the notion that Poe was limited in her choices of how to represent Carol. If you feel comfortable elaborating on that, I would like to hear your thoughts. From where I sit, it seems Poe should have had no restrictions on her, and if she did, she should have told us about them.

It's disconcerting to have Carol's freedom and reputation on the line, but it seems like her advocate is playing games with her -- or is forced to play games with her. I'm pretty sure you would agree that's not how our system is supposed to work. You seem to be suggesting that Poe was instructed to limit Carol's representation in order to protect someone (or several someones).

These people who are seeking protection need to "cowboy up," admit their mistakes and the damages they've caused, and pay for them. They aren't fooling anybody, least of all Carol or me.

Anonymous said...

The notice didn't have the county seal. That right there alone is cause for dismissal, by law, and no one can prove otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Yes, political constraints.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:46 --

OK, we've established Poe was limited by political constraints. But doesn't that mean Carol's due process rights are being trampled? Does that matter to anyone in SW Missouri or has then become a constitution-free zone, like many areas of the South?

You stated earlier that you are one of the "hated attorneys" out there. Well, isn't it this kind of stuff being done to Carol that causes the public to hold disdain for lawyers? Lawyers have a duty to report misconduct in their own profession to the "proper tribunal." (That's the language in Alabama.) How many lawyers know about the political constraints present in this case? 5? 10? 15? More? Have any of them reported it? Shouldn't Patty Poe report it, rather than bailing on Carol and rushing out of the courtroom?

I appreciate you communicating via the comment section here, so I don't mean to get on your case. But I hope you can understand why we might be angry about how this case has been handled. I assume you've sees the X-rays of Carol's broken arm. I still get sick to my stomach looking at it -- and the blood loss, risk of shock, and other factors put her life at risk. This is NOT a game.

Every knowledgeable person who has looked at the facts and law knows the following about this case:

(1) The eviction was grossly unlawful, in almost every way imaginable. Trent Cowherd and Craig Lowther treated tenant/landlord law with absolute disdain;

(2) Carol did not "assault" Jeremy Lynn or anyone else. Lynn admits he caused contact with her;

(3) Several cops surrounded Carol and one particularly whacked out guy body slammed her to the ground, and yanked on her limbs so viciously that her left arm was shattered;

(4) Within seconds after that happened, Sheriff Jim Arnott concocted a bogus story of Carol "assaulting" a cop, when he knew it wasn't true -- and all the other cops present knew it wasn't true;

(5) Carol twice has been arrested and taken to jail, when she was the victim of an assault, not the perpetrator;

(6) X-rays of the comminuted fracture of Carol's arm prove it was the result of human-induced trauma, not from flailing around in a patrol car while handcuffed and seat belted;

Patty Poe knows all of that, and yet she's been playing games with us for months. It's way past time that somebody "cowboy up" and take responsibility for the outrageous damages we've incurred.

I almost lost my wife because of these thug cops, and God only knows how many problems she will have later on with an arm that never will be back to 100 percent -- not even close.

And that doesn't count the cop who pointed an assault rifle at my head and was one hair trigger away from blowing my brains out -- all over an alleged phone call/threat that we now know I never made.

Somebody needs to realize -- and they need to do it soon -- that this is not a game. And playing games with us is not a good idea.

Anonymous said...

Lynn alleges carol,hit and pushed him. It does not signify under the statute if he grabbed her first. Any striking or pushing or grabbing done by Carol is criminal contact under the statute.

Anonymous said...

The type of injury Carol suffered is not cause by the handcuffing actions you describe. When that force ismexcessive, breaks occur higher in the arm. The type of fracture Carol suffered is caused by bones being driven into the upper arm bones, as the result of collision or fall. Depending in the subject it can take greater or lesser force. The mechanism is not well understood, but hypothyroid persons are more susceptible, at least statistically so, to fractures than non hypothyroid persons when a fall or collision occurs.

CArol was probably hurt bracing herself when she was tackled to the ground.

Anonymous said...

Your lease did not continue month to month because a party to the lease gave notice to the landlord they would not convert to month to month after the year lease terminated. This was the right of every party to the lease, including the landlord. she did not wish to be stuck to any further obligation.

You got a notice to vacate July 2, but you had the option, as explained by your mother, to get your own lease that did not include her. You didn't want that. You wanted the lease to convert to moth to month. She didn't. The lease didn't convert under the same terms because your mother, a party, gave notice she did not want the lease to convert and continue as was an option in the original lease. THis was her right under the terms of the lease.

This out you in a spot where you had to get your own lease or leave or convince the landlord to extend some kind of month to month arrangement with you without your mother as co-signor. But your adversarial tone and stubbornness quickly convinced the landlords agent that no such arrangement should be eneteretered into. The notice to vacate stood. You did not even attempt to pay and also didn't leave. The landlord found it necessary to reclaim the property through eviction proceedings, You also got an eviction notice. You made no plans to leave and you made no plans to pay. Your mother ended up paying all the arrearages and court costs. You got evicted. Even if you had been in the right, which you were not, you should have made a plan b for living arrangements as the landlord wanted you out. Would rather be right or would you rather avoid subjecting your loved one to the risk of forcible ejection? It's obvious which oath you took.

legalschnauzer said...

Nice to know your head still is filled with concrete. We will call you now, Mr. Blockhead. A few brief responses, then you need to get lost:

(1) Lynn does not allege Carol hit or pushed him. He says he grabbed her, and she tried to pull away. The statute and case law are clear, as I've reported here, that this is about who initiated contact. Lynn admits he initiated contact. (BTW, Lynn doesn't say anything in the PC Statement, which is the only evidence prosecution has. He does not say one word -- and neither does anyone else who is named and claims to have witnessed it -- so there is no evidence against Carol on the assault charge, no basis for it ever being brought.)

(2) You have no clue what caused Carol's injuries. She wasn't tackled to the ground, she was body slammed to the ground and landed on her butt, not her arm. Her armed was broken when cops yanked viciously on both arms in an upward and backward position.

(3) Jeez, I don't know why I'm responding again to your lease garbage. One final time: The lease was between the tenants (Carol and me) and the landlord. My mother had no authority under the lease or state law to terminate. She explained nothing to me because there was nothing to explain. I had a contract with the landlord, and it said nothing about a co-signer having any rights, much less to terminate. There is no excuse for your stupidity here. I've posted the lease any number of times. BTW, you claimed other day that Cowherd explained (blah, blah) in Notice to Vacate, and that clearly isn't true, so you are changing your story. Pitiful.

(4) We finally get to the truth in your next-to-last sentence. You essentially admit I was right, and Cowherd and the cops acted unlawfully. Carol was not subject, under the law, to a forcible ejection because we had filed a notice of appeal that put a stay on execution.

You admit I was right, so why are you still shoveling horse manure? I know. You are a despicable bastard, trying to blame first Carol, and then me, for the facts cops beat her up and broke her arm -- and Cowherd/Lowther created an eviction that was unlawful on 10 or more grounds. You, sir, are an evil prick -- and I hope you choke someday on your own vomit. Get lost and shove a corn cob up your ass, which you will probably enjoy.