Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Curious statement from anonymous commenter suggests "justice" should involve pressuring innocent people to plead guilty because it's good for prosecutors

Carol Tovich Shuler
A reader recently took me to task for stating in a comment that my wife, Carol, will not be pleading guilty to the bogus "assault" charge brought against her in Greene County, Missouri. In the process, I think the reader revealed that the case against Carol is nonexistent, but in the "prosecutorial mindset," someone should plead guilty to something she didn't do -- even if the state can't remotely prove its case.

In my view, the comment reflects several inconvenient truths about prosecutors: (1) Many of them are lazy and want a plea, any plea, to keep real work at bay; (2) Many of them are about scoring a "win," even if it means an innocent person is pressured into admitting guilt; (3) Many of them don't care one iota about justice, and they often do their best to obscure facts that don't play into their desired outcome.

The comments become particularly curious in the wake of public defender Patty Poe's efforts to withdraw from Carol's case and prosecutor Nicholas Jain's notice that he will not seek jail time in the matter.

We have come to say the missives are the "work product" of one or more "clown commenters" -- frauds who have tried to twist facts and law to sow confusion about Carol's case. These legal giants seem obsessed with the notion that the term "caused contact" in the relevant Missouri statute does not mean "initiate contact," even though we've found case law that shows the two terms mean the same thing.

We also have seen signs that these commenters have a horse in the race, suggesting they are in, or have ties to, the office of Greene County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson. Did these comments foretell Poe's efforts to exit the case, and Jain's Waiver of Jail Time Notice? Very likely.

The guilty-plea issue arose in an Oct. 23 post about the Greene County Public Defender's Office, which represents Carol, being so overwhelmed with work that it had to decline representation in a recent first-degree murder case. A commenter noted that in such a slammed "justice system," Carol likely will receive pressure to plead guilty. I don't disagree with the commenter on that, but my response indicated Carol isn't prone to cave in to such pressure:

They've already offered a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS), which was rejected in about .00001 seconds. If they think Carol will plead guilty to something she didn't do -- which their own "victim" says she didn't do -- they are out of their minds. Why?

(1) Carol is not prone to taking the blame for something she didn't do; neither am I;

(2) If Carol were prone to plead guilty, she would have to climb over my dead body to do it;

(3) This is Roger talking -- not Carol -- but Carol will go to jail before she cops a plea in this case. (We now know that jail is off the table, so Carol doesn't have to worry about that.)

(4) Neither of us is prone to letting bad actors get away with abusing us. We soon will be filing a federal lawsuit for the wrongs Missouri cops, lawyers, and a landlord have committed against us.

This must have offended someone's sensibilities because the following anonymous comment soon appeared:

Your insistence that Carol go to jail before working out a deal where she will not only not be incarcerated but the verdict eventually vacated is the most supremely selfish thing I have ever heard you say. She has been martyr enough to your delusions. You have remarked on her occasional confusion and inabilitynt to make herself understood. I think the attorney and judge need to know about the pressure you intend to put on your wife if she should ever disagree with you, and appoint a guardian for her as well as a lawyer.

Note the curious language highlighted above. First, the commenter seems to know the kind of plea Carol might be offered and provides specifics about it. What kind of individual, other than a prosecutor or a member of a prosecutor's staff, thinks that way? Then, the reader comes up with the loony idea that Carol needs a guardian to protect her from my "selfish interest" in making sure she doesn't plead guilty to something to she didn't do. After all, I was present for the event in question -- saw the whole thing -- and I know she didn't assault a law enforcement officer. What kind of husband (or citizen) would I be if I encouraged her to plead guilty anyway -- just so the system can chalk up another win, at her expense? Basically, I would be encouraging her to be dishonest, and I'm not going to do that.

We know that lawyers seem to love the notion of guardians, so that suggests (at least to me) this commenter has a legal education of some sort. It must not be a very good one because the husband-wife privilege likely would prevent any court from interfering with communications between Carol and me.

Now that we've established part of the commenter's likely identity, let's look at my response:

You're the same clown who claims to know what "caused contact" means? Don't think I'll be taking advice from you, legal or otherwise.

I've said multiple times here that this case can't go to trial, by law, so going to jail cannot be an issue. Of course, I know courts can be corrupt, and if someone thinks they can get away with corrupt actions by threatening Carol with jail time . . . my view is that's not going to work, and they had best rethink it. If you want to know Carol's thoughts, you can ask her; she has the same contact info as I do.

You seem to have no concern that the system in Greene County might be corrupt, which suggests to me that you are part of it.

I don't recall remarking on Carol having confusion or inability to make herself understood, but if I did, it probably was in the context of GCSO deputies giving her a concussion that has gone untreated. But I guess she is supposed to say it was her fault that her head was banged against a wall?

As for your last sentence, that is so laughable to almost be off the charts. No. 1, you are putting words in my mouth I didn't say. No. 2, I think maybe the judge and attorney need to be a bit more concerned with corrupt sheriffs and prosecutors who bring bogus charges to protect their own asses. No. 3, Carol has a mind of her own, and she isn't a martyr for me or anyone else. Again, if you want to know what she thinks, you are welcome to contact her.

Did the reader take my advice and contact Carol to see what she thinks? Of course not. That would involve courage and integrity, which the reader apparently does not have.

He does, however, reveal a lot about his own badly broken moral compass. This is someone who apparently went to law school, we assume because he had an interest in the administration of justice. And yet, he thinks "justice" should include pressuring innocent people into pleading guilty because . . . well, that's convenient for prosecutors.

Is it any wonder our courtrooms are dens of utter decay?


Anonymous said...

I wouldn't be surprised if the PD or prosecutor left goofy comments on your blog. It furthers their agenda.

Anonymous said...

More and more evidence is coming that Carol has been on the right side of justice all along. That's got to make the rats nervous.

Anonymous said...

I'm guessing a few bad guys have decided that arresting Carol and throwing baseless criminal charges against her was not such a good idea.

Anonymous said...

So many criminal cases wind up with pleas or charges dropped that many prosecutors rarely use whatever legal skills they might have. As a group, they tend to be not so smart and not so skilled.

Anonymous said...

sad that Carol is gonna have a criminal record because her loony husband won’t let her deal.

Anonymous said...

Totally sickening. Time will tell. It will show Mrs. Shuler to be on the right side of history. God Bless.

Anonymous said...


"The case of Renata Singleton is one example of how the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s office used the false subpoenas.

Singleton was the victim in a criminal case who was imprisoned for five days.

The DA’s office issued a fake subpoena after she had resolved a domestic violence incident with her ex-boyfriend, wanting only to move on.

Cannizzaro’s office jailed the victim as a material witness.

“It did not tell the court that the subpoenas were illegal. It obtained an arrest warrant and a $100,000 bond against her. By comparison, the judge ultimately gave her boyfriend a $3,500 bond,” the Louisiana ACLU explained.

The victim not only had excessive bond, but ended up serving more time than her assailant, the organization said."

Anonymous said...

I grew up watching Perry Mason, a tv show where both sides worked for justice. Back then the gov't would back down and admit they were wrong when Perry & Paul discover the truth. Fast forward a few years to 1983 when I had to testify on a case in federal court and had a rude awaking to what went on in the real world. In the real world court rooms truth holds little value. It's all about one side, the prosecutor winning over the other side, the defense. It was a lot like the Ala vs Auburn football game. Each side had it's own witnesses who were schooled on what to say and how to say it. It seemed to me that no one cared about what led us to that federal courtroom on that day, it was just one side beating the other. The gov't won but only after a hung jury the first go round. The crime destroyed several families and left me with nothing but contempt for the whole system. The truth has no room in our current courtrooms, it's just a game between two teams. I miss the days of believe in Perry Mason. I don't believe in anything anymore.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:22 --

You must be a pretty dim bulb. A deal means a plea deal, which means Carol pleading guilty (to something she didn't do), which means she has a criminal record. Can you grasp that?

I bet you have no clue what the statute in question says, so you don't even know what she would be pleading to.

Glad your advice is free because it's not worth a cup of warm spit.

Anonymous said...

The way I see it, taking jail time off the table removes any incentive Carol might have had to reach a plea deal. With no jail to worry about, she might as well go to trial and make them prove a case they don't have.

legalschnauzer said...

@6:04 --

I see your point, but the first order of business is to file motions -- the ones Patty Poe refused to file -- that show the constitutional violations (4th and 6th amendments) and probable cause/indictment deficiencies that show all evidence must be excluded and the case dropped. It cannot, as a matter of law, go to trial -- and again, Patty Poe lied over and over to us about that.

On top of that, written statements already show the "victim" Jeremy Lynn admitting he "caused physical contact" with Carol, not the other way around -- and that means she could not have assaulted them.

legalschnauzer said...

One other point -- Folks like @2:22 make stupid comments because they have an agenda. But someone with no agenda might make a similar point, while perhaps not understanding the following: I saw everything that went on in this eviction incident, I saw Carol brutalized twice -- first, after opening the door, only to have her head slammed up against the wall, intentionally, multiple times; second, when she was body slammed to the ground and had yanking on her limbs that was so severe it shattered her left arm.

If I hadn't been there, or I hadn't seen what happened, my feelings might be different. But I saw it. I've seen the X-rays of Carol's arm. I've seen that her right arm (the non-broken one) was purple with bruising from one end to the other. I've been with her to dozens of therapy sessions. I know the pain she went through to rehab. I've heard the doc and nurses tell her that her left arm will never be the same. I know what happened, and I know the criminal charges were brought because Jim Arnott stood and watched his thugs beat up Carol and he wanted a "cover charge" to protect against civil liability.

Well, it's not going to work, and there is no way in hell Carol makes any kind of plea deal that involves her taking responsibility for something she did not do.

People like 2:22 can go straight to hell and jump off a cliff on the way there.

Anonymous said...

It's going to be soooo hilarious when she's found guilty and you come on here spewing your "as a matter of law" shit.

legalschnauzer said...

8:07 --

You think it's funny to see an innocent person convicted of a crime she didn't commit? You thought it was funny when Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy were convicted? You realize that you sound like a supreme sicko. Maybe that's because you are a sicko. You sound like the type who enjoys watching a kitten tortured or a child being sexually molested. You enjoy that stuff, too, don't you?

In that spirit, maybe it will be soooo funny when you are diagnosed with a tumor, a big one in your ass that will spread quickly to your lungs and almost choke you to death in your own vomit. But first, it will go to your brain and cause tumors that give you such blinding and searing headaches that you call out for Jeebus to take you from your agony. Now, THAT would be funny.

It will be particularly funny, given your demonstrated tendency to find humor in the suffering of others.

Anonymous said...

no, not funny that Carol suffers in any way. It's actually quite sad to think that she's trapped in a marriage with you and all that encompasses. What'll be funny though is how you'll jump up and down, stomping your feet and flailing your arms "as a matter of law." LOL. Yeah, that'll be a funny scene for sure.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:53 --

Aw, interesting that even you realize you sound like a sicko and try to change course. Too late for that. You're a sicko, and nothing is changing that.

Anonymous said...

According to the other side, Carol did not "open the door" for the officer; as they attempted entry she used all her force and body weight repeatedly to shut the door on them. She struck at least one officer with the door. Then, when they attempted to restrain her and limit her ability to lash out, instead of passively complying when grabbed, she hit and pushed the officer using both hands and her body weight.

That's enough to convict her unless you can convince the judge this is a total fabrication, e.g, she was sitting peacefully on a couch across the room, or simply stood there without attempting to block the officers by hitting them with an object or her body.

You have some kind of monomania, fixated on the idea that if the officer touched her first, any hitting, pushing, kicking that she does afterward doesn't count. I assure you it does count as causing contact. Each time she makes contact herself, she has caused contact.

Carol is assured she won't go to jail and that's great news. I expect that the judge might delay a final verdict or vacate a guilty finding, that is, charges will eventually be dismissed if she complies with any ordered community service, fine, or period of good behavior.

legalschnauzer said...

A couple of points/questions:

(1) What's the name of any witness that claims Carol hit, pushed, or kicked anyone or struck on officer with a door?

(2) So you admit the officer grabbed her first. The officer admits he grabbed her first. The officer said she simply tried to pull away, nothing more. Under Missouri law (see below), the officer "initiated contact," so Carol could not have assaulted him, per the relevant statute and case law.

(3) Why should I care about your assurances? You've never made a citation to law yet. You have an agenda, and everything you say plays to your bias.

(4) Try reading my post of 11/9, the day after this one, and it proves you are full of feces: