Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Missouri public defender Patty Poe likely will bail on Carol's case tomorrow, but her exit comes only after she's blown plumes of smoke about relevant law

Patty Poe
(From facebook.com)
Before seeking to withdraw from my wife, Carol's, "assault" case in Missouri, public defender Patty Poe had been blowing smoke up our fannies for months about relevant law in the matter. Poe's Motion for Leave to Withdraw and prosecutor Nicholas Jain's Notice of Jail Waiver will be heard on Wednesday (11/22) at the Greene County Courthouse.

We assume Judge Margaret Holden Palmietto will approve both documents, and we look forward to seeing Poe in the rear-view mirror. It might not, however, be the last she hears from us. The string of lies she told us should be subject to review by the Missouri State Bar, assuming this state has some requirement that lawyers deal with their own clients honestly. Also, more than one reader with experience in the "justice system" has noted that Poe could be called as a witness -- or be deposed -- in any criminal or civil proceeding that is down the road.

Carol and I certainly would like to see Poe forced to answer certain questions under oath. A big question: Who encouraged her to blow copious amounts of smoke up our fannies, and why did she do it? Did she ever take a course on legal ethics at the University of Missouri School of Law -- or did she sleep through that one, as my brother (David Shuler) apparently did 20-some years earlier?

Let's examine two of Poe's biggest whoppers -- and these involve basic matters in Carol's case. If you ever find your own lawyer lying to your face about such fundamental issues, you should know it's time to look for a new lawyer. Here are two key issues: (1) Was the eviction carried out lawfully? (2) Did prosecutors turn over discovery, as required? We'll zoom in for a closer look:

(1) Did deputies have lawful grounds to even be on our rented property?

We have written sporadically about various issues that made the eviction itself unlawful. Just yesterday, we wrote about four more grounds that made the eviction unlawful -- bringing the total to 10. We submitted that it might have been the most screwed up eviction in history; it literally was screwed up 10 ways to Sunday -- and it's possible we haven't caught all the screw-ups yet; I wouldn't be surprised to see the list grow to 12-13 before it's over. (The 10 grounds by which the eviction was unlawful are embedded at the end of this post.)

The "10 Grounds" document includes 19 links to law or evidence that shows deputies had no lawful grounds to be on our rented property -- much less inside our home -- and landlord Trent Cowherd and his lawyer (Craig Lowther) had no grounds to seek our eviction. (We have one piece of evidence that has not been scanned, and when it's in a digital format, will create a 20th link.)

Why do these grounds matter? That question perhaps is best answered by turning to Mapp v. Ohio, one of the seminal U.S. Supreme Court cases from the second half of the 20th Century. Here is the introduction to Mapp:

Appellant [Mapp] stands convicted of knowingly having had in her possession and under her control certain lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs in violation of . . . of Ohio's Revised Code.As officially stated in the syllabus to its opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio found that her conviction was valid though "based primarily upon the introduction in evidence of lewd and lascivious books and pictures unlawfully seized during an unlawful search of defendant's home . . . ."

As noted by the highlighted words above, Mapp was about material that police "unlawfully" seized during an "unlawful" search. Hence, the importance of our "10 grounds" document embedded below, outlining 10 ways our eviction was unlawful.

At the time of Mapp, the legal doctrine that excluded evidence obtained via an unlawful search or seizure, violative of the Fourth Amendment, applied only to federal cases. The Mapp ruling extended the so-called "exclusionary rule" to state cases and threw out the unlawfully obtained evidence against Mapp.

That means any evidence obtained against Carol, such as the Probable Cause Statement where an unnamed individual advised that Carol had pushed Officer Jeremy Lynn  (although Lynn's own words show he caused physical contact with her), must be excluded by law, as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. That leaves the prosecution with no case.

(2) What about discovery?

No progress has been made on this issue, and Poe made it clear (before seeking to withdraw) that she had no intention of trying to make progress.

The issue should not be controversial. At a hearing on Sept. 20, the sides agreed the prosecution would turn over the following:

(a) Various forms of media related to our eviction, including CAD logs and recordings (computer aided dispatch), 911 calls, dash camera recordings, and photos;

(b) Copies of all communications between or among sheriff's office personnel regarding the Sept. 9, 2015, eviction;

(c) Notes for reports from deputy Scott Harrison regarding Carol's injuries, which included a shattered left arm requiring trauma surgery;

(d) Statements of any officer present at the scene for the eviction;

(e) Citizen complaints or allegations of excessive violence against any officers on the scene from the past five years.

Item No. e was ordered produced by the court. Prosecutor Nicholas Jain had agreed that he would produce items a-d. In an e-mail, Poe asked for a copy of the Greene County Sheriff's Office (GCSO) Policies and Procedures Manual, and Jain indicated he would produce that only via a court order -- although one has not been filed. This is the same manual that had been available online to anyone in the world with an Internet connection, but it disappeared not long after it became clear cops had broken Carol's arm.

We scheduled a meeting with Poe on Oct. 30, mainly to learn about any progress on discovery -- and to press her on numerous dubious statements she had made about relevant law in Carol's case.

As for discovery, we learned zero progress had been made. Poe informed us that the prosecution claimed it did not have copies of any citizen complaints made against officers involved in our eviction -- and the prosecution apparently also claimed it had no relevant media and no communications (emails, texts, etc.)  When asked what she intended to do to make sure the discovery was produced, Poe said she would do nothing. "I can't prove that they don't have it," she said.

Let that sink in for a moment: The GCSO has a special page on its Web site for citizens to file complaints, but we are to believe none have been filed against the 6-8 officers present for our eviction? We're supposed to believe there were no CAD logs, dash-cam recordings or any other form of media -- not to mention no communications between or among officers, in any format (digital or analog)? Perhaps Poe noticed the looks on our faces that probably seemed to say, "You expect us to believe this heaping helping of cow feces?"

So what discovery do we have? We have photos that Deputy Harrison took of Carol's injuries, and a copy of a 911 call, which I supposedly made, but we now know came from an employee at Burrell Behavioral Health. And we've had those two items for months, even before Poe filed a Motion to Compel, if my memory is correct.

Poe also mentioned photos that cops had taken of the back seat of the patrol car where Carol was placed after they had broken her arm. We assume this includes a photo of the safety harness that restrained Carol's movement (not to mention her handcuffs) and would have made it impossible for her to break her own arm by flailing around in the back seat, as officers had suggested. But that's it for discovery -- photos of Carol's injuries, the 911 call from Burrell, photos of a patrol car's back seat.

Under Patty Poe's "I can't prove they don't have it" standard, no one ever would turn over discovery. I don't pretend to be an expert on all the steps a lawyer can take in response to such stonewalling, but I'm pretty sure they include seeking a court order or subpoena, asking to have the stonewaller held in contempt of court, asking to have the charges dismissed for failure to obey court orders and discovery rules.

These are just two of many examples where Poe has blown plumes of smoke up our fannies. It's a wonder the local fire marshal hasn't responded to our residence.

You can see why we will be glad to see Poe in the rear-view mirror, although she might have cause to deal with us in the future -- and it might come with her bar card, or even her freedom, on the line.

(To be continued)


Anonymous said...

Here's what is really disgusting about Ms. Poe's actions: She is paid by Missouri taxpayers to do a job, to provide a criminal defense for those citizens who can't afford one. She has an obligation to taxpayers and to her clients to do her job at least with honesty and a minimal level of technical skill. She's failed all the way around.

Anonymous said...

I think you said Poe graduated from law school in the past year or two. That, plus her photo, make me think she is under age 30, and yet she already has proven to be a sell-out to the corrupt interests in her legal tribe. Sad!

Anonymous said...

The other side is withholding evidence that it has agreed to turn over -- or the court has ordered it to turn over -- and Carol's lawyer can't figure out what to do about it? Jeebus, that's pathetic, worse than pathetic.

Anonymous said...

I was so hoping Ms. Poe would prove to be the kind of intelligent, trustworthy lawyer that Carol needs. Sorry to see her turn out to be such a disappointed.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:35 --

We were hoping for the same thing, and we gave her every benefit of the doubt. She joined the case in mid May and got the trespassing count dismissed on or about June 7. I would say her actions were honorable for maybe 4-6 weeks. She had talked about deposing officers and Sheriff Arnott --and she advised against accepting the SIS (plea deal) that was offered, and told Carol, "You don't look like the kind of person who would assault a police officer," and she admitted the cops' story of Carol breaking her own arm in the back seat of the patrol car was a joke. We felt all of that was proper and accurate (and encouraging) and the right way to go. But somewhere around early or mid July, she started claiming the case was going to go to trial -- when it was clear that, by law, it couldn't go to trial. Much of that law is cited word for word in the "10 Grounds" document embedded at the end of this post. Over the past two months or so, Poe's lies about relevant law have become too voluminous and outrageous to ignore. We've lost all respect for her and don't want her on Carol's case for one more second.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what Ms Poe thinks of her client's husband's blog.

Anonymous said...

Maybe this explains why Missouri's Public Defender System is so poorly funded and overwhelmed with work. It's lawyers aren't worth a crap. Poe's actions suggest to me that the PD system doesn't deserve the money it gets.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:54 --

You nailed it. Our experience tells me the PD lawyers don't give a crap if innocent clients go to jail. And they don't care if their clients have been abused by cops and prosecutors. They aren't going to press for discovery that will prove the abuse. Missouri needs to blow up its system and start from scratch. And Patty Poe needs to go work at Home Depot, although she's probably not qualified for that, either.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:53 --

I don't know, what do you think Poe thinks about Legal Schnauzer? The blog has shown over and over again that, as a matter of fact and law, Carol is not guilty -- and the case cannot go to trial. That should chalk up a win for Ms. Poe, and it should save her the time and effort of going to trial, so I'm not sure why she would have a problem with it.

Also, the blog has included a number of favorable posts about Ms. Poe's work -- until she proved she no longer deserved such praise -- and I doubt she will get such positive notices again the rest of her career. She should like it, but I really don't care what she thinks. As noted earlier, her respect level has dipped to zero with us. I do know she's never mentioned Legal Schnauzer, one way or another, to Carol and me. And she's never given any indication that she sees it as a negative for Carol's case. She's never even hinted that anything I've written was inaccurate or inappropriate. She has said multiple times that it's clear Carol is innocent, and that is in line with my reporting.

Anonymous said...

As a matter of law - As a matter of law - flapping arms - As a matter of law - As a matter of law -stomping feet - As a matter of law - As a matter of law - County Seal - As a matter of law - As a matter of law

Hahahaha. Roger you should take your case all the way to the US Supreme Court! You'll win for sure. As a matter of law! LOL

Anonymous said...

If Poe is blowing off discovery, that tells me two things:

(1) She has seen the discovery -- dash-cam videos, CAD logs, emails, texts, etc. -- and knows it looks bad for her "home team," which is the cops and prosecutors.

(2) She's engaging in a cover up, probably at the direction of her bosses.

Real dumb move by a young attorney; it could cost her a career.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:13 --

You probably aren't smart enough to grasp this, but for the many intelligent readers we have, here is what "matter of law" means:

"In legal actions the term matter of law is used to define a particular area that is the responsibility of the court. Matter of law is distinguished from matter of fact. All questions concerning the determination of fact are for the jury, though a judge may determine the facts if a jury trial is waived or is not permitted under the law."

This is important stuff. A matter of law is to be decided by the court. A matter of fact is for the jury. In many cases, a determination re: a matter of law is not up to a judge's discretion. He's not free to pull law out of his fanny, but has an obligation to follow the written law (and he takes an oath to uphold it). If he fails to do so, his findings can (and should) be overturned on appeal as an abuse of discretion.

Again, this is beyond the limited grasp of a troll commenter, who is a cheap wise-ass. But for those who care about matters of justice, it's an extremely important concept. The "10 Grounds" document embedded at the end of this post includes 19 links, and anyone who is interested can scroll through and read the actual law -- and it's controlling law on certain issues related to Carol's case.

@10:13 obviously is a worthless immature sack of feces, but here he actually does have a little bit of worth. By bringing up the "matter of law" issue, he gives me a chance to educate those who are capable of being educated.

Trust me on this: If you live long enough, you almost certainly will be involved in a court case. And when that day comes, you will be glad you read Legal Schnauzer because you will know what "matter of law" means -- and you will know how to check it for yourself, so you won't have to rely on the word of someone who might not have your best interests at heart.

Anonymous said...

10:13 obviously isn't burdened with heavy thinking, but I think there is more than just stupidity at play with him. I think he has a horse in this race, and he's concerned that the PD's exit in Carol's case could spell trouble for him. I hope he's right. His weak attempts at comedy come across as "laughing in the dark." You can sense his worry, even fear, about what might be around the next corner. I suspect he has reason to be fearful.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:46 --

You are right on target. @10:13 has left a very clear digital "paper trail" here, to the point that I know exactly who he is and where he lives. Yes, he is a player in Carol's case, and he's made some huge mistakes in dealing with us -- and he's fearful that they are going to come back and bite him in the butt. And he's right about that. He's going to have a frightful bill to pay, and he's worried shitless about that. He's had multiple opportunities to come down on the side of justice, but he's refused to do it, so he's made his own bed -- and it's about to get damned uncomfortable.

Anonymous said...

Glad that you and Carol pressed Poe on some of these issues. That caused her mask to fall off. She probably is withdrawing because she knows her con game doesn't work on you guys.

Anonymous said...

I can’t wait for you to expose @10:13

Anonymous said...

Maybe Patty Poe does read your Blog. Maybe she read your post about the female lawyer going against the good-ole- boys in Alabama when she represented her parents during a dispute concerning a condominium at the beach. She ended up dead.

Ann Hebney said...

Why was Cowherd seeking to have you removed in the first place? What prompted him to initially seek the original eviction notice? Maybe you've discussed it but I spent 10 minutes trying to go back and couldn't easily find anything---figured it might be easier to just ask.

legalschnauzer said...

@12:28 --

You are talking about the case of Jennifer Paige Clark in Mobile. That goes back to the 2012 time frame, so Patty Poe would have to do some digging to find it. I think I see the point you're making, but I doubt Ms. Poe would go to the trouble to find my reporting on that. The Jennifer Paige Clark story is a sad and deeply disturbing case. I got to know Jennifer's mother fairly well, via e-mails and phone conversations, because I think I was the only journalist who wrote in any depth and detail about what happened. From everything I could tell, Jennifer Paige Clark was a talented, genuine, committed person who took her obligations as a lawyer seriously. She not only represented her parents in the condo case in Alabama, but also in a property matter in Georgia, where they lived full-time. I've never been able to determine an exact cause of Jennifer's death. As I recall, I think medical examiner's pointed to a possible heart condition, and the stress of having her bar card suspended might have caused her to die from harassment. I don't think anyone ever has been able to point to signs of murder, but I'm not sure Jennifer's parents ever have ruled that out, in their minds.

Here is URL to stories I wrote on the subject:


I have no idea what is going through Patty Poe's mind, but I doubt anyone will ever describe her as a "talented," "genuine," "committed" human being, who takes her obligations as a lawyer seriously. From what I've seen, Poe would not be worthy to carry Jennifer Paige Clark's brief case. Clark clearly looked out for others; Poe seems to look out for Poe -- and that's about it.

legalschnauzer said...

Ann Hebney --

We don't know why Cowherd wanted to evict us. Our rent had always been timely paid, we never caused a problem, got along with our neighbors, and made the apartment cleaner than it was when we moved in. Our rent was paid through the end of July 2015, which was the final month on our one-year lease -- and it then was to go month to month. When I called a woman in Cowherd's office about the Notice to Vacate, she said two things: (1) That our co-signer (my mother) wanted out of the lease, and we would need to sign a new one to qualify on our own. When I told her the lease we already had included no such requirement, she changed her tone; (2) At that point, she said, "Well, we don't have to rent to you, and we're choosing not to rent with you."

I think any reasonable mind would see all of that as BS. The post at the following URL probably provides some insight on the real reasons behind the eviction. My brother, lawyer David Shuler, was in the middle of all of it. Notice the vitriol in the letter David wrote to the judge in our eviction case. It's embedded at the end of the post. Nasty stuff, and he's a nasty individual. He played a big role in the eviction and in having Carol's arm broken.


Anonymous said...

Here's the thing, she was right. They didn't have to rent to you. They didn't have to go month to month after your lease ended because they already gave notice your lease was terminated. Exercising that month to month clause was optional on both sides. You didn't have to stay an extra month or months, and they didn't have to let you have any.

They said, if you want to stay, you have to get a lease. They already sent a notice to vacate. If you had sent a rent check that was refused (if you claimed improper notice, etc) your hands would be clean, but you didn't send rent AND you didn't leave. The one thing you absolutely couldn't do was stay there and not pay rent.

Anonymous said...

Also your mother terminated the lease, not Cowherd. When one party to a lease decides to terminate instead of go month to month (she excercised her right to get off the lease) the original lease ended. There was no lease after the termination date to even go month to month. NO LEASE. THE LEASE TERMINATED. To get a new lease that didn't include your mother involved things you didn't want to do, like commit to a whole year. But that doesn't put the orginal lease back into existence. Once one party terminate, all parties terminate. If you had decided to let the lease terminate, and gave notice, and moved, your mother could not then stay there on a month to month basis. The lease is OVER.

You don't ever seem to understand that once your mother took herself off the lease, and let the original lease terminate, the landlord isn't obligated to extend that lease for any parties on the lease who would rather stay.

You can blame your mother for wanting to stop being obligated to Cowherd. I have a feeling she tried to help you work things out, but you were in denial about your true options. They were, as follows - get your own lease, without your mother on it. Move. Move, but negotiate an additional month or two, and pay your rent in a timely way.

legalschnauzer said...

@1:59 --

I figured you were a dense one, and it's nice to see you prove me right. Here's the thing: You and the woman at Cowherd are stupid and wrong:

(1) Cowherd sent a notice to vacate that was contrary to Missouri and their own lease. You can read the notice here. It's embedded at the "10 Grounds" document.

(2) There is nothing in our lease that said we had to get a new lease because the co-signer wanted off. You can read the lease here. It's embedded at the "10 Grounds" document.

(3) We didn't stay without paying rent. We were told to leave on multiple unlawful grounds, contrary to the lease. When Cowherd sued, we countersued for breach of contract and challenged all of it in court, as we had every right to do. The final judgment did not show that we owed a single dime. And our countersuit was to be heard on Oct. 1, meaning the judgment on possession was not final. But Cowherd is corrupt and evicted us any way. That's called a constructive eviction, one done outside the law, and it's illegal in all 50 states. Cowherd's witness at trial admitted she was violating the lease, so it's funny to hear you try to argue the opposite now. It's a matter of record in court that Cowherd violated the lease. They knew they were going to lose on our countersuit, and that's probably a big reason they unlawfully evicted us. Dumb move.

Here's a suggestion: Try reading the post and attachments before commenting. You will look much less stupid that way.

The record shows Trent Cowherd is a hideously corrupt landlord with a hideously corrupt lawyer. Their business and law licenses should be revoked, and we might just make that happen. Perhaps that makes you squeamish because you work for Cowherd and could soon be out of a job. Wouldn't that be amusing?

No wonder you are trying so hard to change the facts and law of the case. Not . . . gonna . . . work. But good luck.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:09 --

Here's a challenge for you. Below is a link to the lease. See if you can find anything in there that supports what you say:


Also, here is a link to the "!0 Grounds Our Eviction Was Unlawful" document. She if you can find any law in there, or elsewhere, that supports what you say:


Let's see if you can do a little work, or if you only can pull "law" out of your ass? I think we all know the answer to that question.

Anonymous said...

How long was Cowherd required to rent to you?

legalschnauzer said...

@3:14 --

Nice try at changing the subject. I'll take that as a sign I've backed you into a corner, and you're looking for a way out.

Cowherd was required to abide by Missouri law and his own lease. He didn't -- on 10 or more grounds.

If you are capable of reading, you know that. And if you know that, it explains why you are desperate to change the subject. Sorry, but you are trying to prop up a losing argument, and it's going to be a loser for you, too.

Why don't you just admit the obvious: Cowherd and his lawyer screwed up big time -- and they are going to pay. One of the risks of running your business like a rogue is that you will get caught. They've been caught, and they are in trouble -- no matter how hard you attempt to wriggle them off the hook.

Anonymous said...

Hey, @3:14 . . . You seem to throw a lot of questions around, so I have one for you.

Cowherd was required, by Missouri law, to demand rent before filing his eviction case. The Notice to Vacate makes no mention of a demand for rent, so it seems clear Cowherd made no such demand. Why didn't he do that?

That issue alone makes the eviction unlawful. So, why didn't Cowherd demand rent?

Anonymous said...

Not trying to change the subject. It's a relevant question in the overall scope of what happened. How long was the landlord legally obligated to rent to you? No longer? Forever? Another month? Somewhere in between? Just curious what your perspective is.

legalschnauzer said...

@3:43 --

I've already answered your question at @3:21 above. If you wish to discuss further, contact me via email or phone. In the meantime, why don't you answer @3:35's question.

Anonymous said...

10:13 . . . You appear to be a dim bulb, but on the off chance you are capable of adult-level thinking, let me throw something out at you. You seem to have disdain for the term "matter of law." Well, you know what the alternative is? It would be called "matter of whim." Under the concept of a "matter of law," judges are required to make non-discretionary rulings on the basis of written law -- as developed by legislators, elected by the people.

The only alternative to that is a "matter of whim," which would allow judges to ignore written law and rule according to how they feel at that moment. In fact, there would be no reason to have law books, or law schools, law libraries, law reviews, etc. That's because all rulings would be based on a whim, not on law. At best, we would have the Harvard University School of Whim.

Even with our supposed "Rule of Law," we often get judges who make rulings based on whim. Those are the rulings that should be overturned on appeal, but they often aren't. Under the system you apparently favor, all rulings would be based on whim. Is that what you really favor? Are you that intellectually and morally vacant?

legalschnauzer said...

Words of "wisdom" from @2:09:

"If you had decided to let the lease terminate, and gave notice, and moved, your mother could not then stay there on a month to month basis. The lease is OVER."

You must be a newbie to this blog. My mother never stayed there. Only my wife Carol, our two kitty kats, and I lived there. My mother never was a tenant. She was a co-signer. That's how I reported it for months on end.

I guess that makes everything you've written null and void, since you have no clue what you are talking about. Maybe when you were done, we all should have said, "Never mind."

Anonymous said...

The judge might ask the same question. Maybe you ought to be prepared with an answer. Sounds like you're not.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:57 --

I have no problem answering that question. In fact, I've already answered it. You seem to have a problem comprehending the answer, but that's your problem, not mine.

Another problem you have: Showing why your question has any relevance to Carol's criminal case. The question you ask is grounded in the lease, so there is no reason to even ask it. The lease makes the answer clear. It's just that Cowherd has trouble understanding his own lease. You seem to have the same problem. Gee, that's curious.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter if your mother never stayed there, or was on the lease as tenant or guarantor. She was a party to the lease; as a co-signer she is a much a party to the lease as you.

She was on the hook financially if the lease went past its term into a month-to-moth arrangement.

She decided she did not want this obligation and unilaterally gave notice to the landlord that she would not continue as co-signer (a party to the lease.) That mean, when the lease came to its natural term, it did not extend to a month to month; there was no lease to extend. The original lease was over, kaput, fini, done.

Even though you wanted to stay, albeit in some temporary way that did not lock you in for another full year, there was no lease anymore to go to month to month. Your mother ended her relationship to the landlord, notifying the landlord that there would be no continuing relationship on her part. That act ended the lease.

The only way to get one would be to apply and renegotiate terms, which included you qualifying on your own without a co-signer.

One thing that could have happened, but didn't: If the landlord had accepted a check from you past the termination date, you would have entered into a month-to-month relationship by default --but this would have nothing to do with the fact that you had a previous lease, but would be the way the law in Missouri handles a tenant/landlord agreement without any written lease.

However, the landlord told you to vacate, unless you got your own lease. You chose not to try. You say the landlord told you "We don't have to rent to you," and the truth is, they didn't have to.

Instead of asking for a month or two, you became combative (and in my opinion, based on your description of the things your said) combative. You assured the outcome where they would not consider any rental arrangement with you going forward.

Now, if you had continued to maintain (incorrectly) that you had a right to stay on month to month, you should have paid the rent. If they had cashed the check and taken the money, without any new lease, you would have automatically entered into a month to month arrangement. If they refused the check, you would at least have had clean hands when you ended up in court.

The thing that you did, (neither paying not leaving) deprived the owner of their propery rights and the court agree with this.

legalschnauzer said...

@3:40 --

You are so full of feces it's hard to know where to begin. I challenged you at 2:32 (Nov. 21) to cite anything in the lease or in Missouri law that supports your contentions. Obviously you can't do it because your new comment (as usual) includes no citations to law, only stuff you pull out of your ass.

Both the lease and Missouri law say issues re: a notice to vacate are between the tenant and the landlord. My mother was neither one, so she cannot terminate anything. You're just wrong across the board -- and you either are attempting to be a con artist (a bad one) or you are stupid.

Cowherd's own actions show you are a boob. They gave us a notice to vacate without ever informing us that we needed to sign a new lease, or that my mother wanted off, etc. In essence, you are even more stupid than the Cowherd people -- and that is a big-time level of stupidity.

Either way, you are wasting your time with these brain-dead comments because you aren't fooling me, you aren't fooling my readers, and any future comments from you will never see the light of day.

Suck on that, dim bulb. While you're at it, eat shit and die, you gravy-sucking pig.

Anonymous said...

Your mother certainly let you know she was ending the lease, and let you know that you would be able to apply for a new one that didn't include you. Cowherd sent you a letter you published that gave you notice that you mothers had decided to take her name off as co signer. You must on some level comprehend that this changes the terms of any tenancy and there could be no extension under the same terms, including all parties to the lease. Your mother had the unilateral right to block any extension continuing under those original terms.

You got a timely notice to vacate. since your mother gave her notice she wouldn't be participating in any extension of that lease ( so that her legal obligation ended) the lease came to its natural end. You coul get your own lease, or negotiate your own extension. Unfortunately for you, not only was your landlord not inclined to offer you a month to month situation without all terms, including you mom as consigner, you were so abusive and combative you essentially shut any possibility of that down, and they were assured of the need to move forward swiftly to get you out of their building.

On top of this, you made no attempt to pay rent, despite continuing to occupy the premises. Even if you were in the wrong about your right to keep possession of the property, you must have understood you had no right to live there and refuse rent too. You should have at least made a good faith effort to keep you end of what you believed was the bargain, instead, you turned yourself and Carol into unwelcome squatters.

How much more sensible it would have been to talk to the rental office humbly and request a one month deferral, paying your rent, and finding a new place more suited to you wish for month to month terms.

legalschnauzer said...

@6:48 --

Well, our Friendly Neighborhood Knucklehead is back. I swear, you refuse to confront reality more than anyone I've ever encountered. For the sake of our readers who reside on this particular planet, I will interject some reality -- even though you clearly won't get it:

(1) The lease and Missouri law plainly state a lease is between a landlord and a tenant. My mother was neither, and she had no authority to "end the lease." She never said a word to me about "ending the lease," apparently because she knew she had no grounds to do so. That means her knowledge of tenant-landlord law is way ahead of yours.

(2) My mother's obligation was for the one-year (13 months technically) period of the lease, and once our rent was paid for July 2015, her obligations were done. That's the law in Missouri and most other states that I'm aware of. That Cowherd sued her, and my brother allowed it, only shows how corrupt they are.

(3) Cowherd never sent me a letter saying my mother had decided to take her name off as co-signer. I challenge you to present such a letter; I know it doesn't exist.

(4) I got a "timely" notice to vacate? Hah, it wasn't timely. It was dated July 2, and by law and terms of the lease, it had to be received at the beginning of a pay period, July 1.

(5) Don't know why you can't realize that my mother's obligation ceased at the end of 13 months, regardless, and nothing she did had any impact on the month-to-month issue. Again, she was a tenant and she was not a landlord. We had a lease that was to go month to month, and Cowherd violated the lease; it's real simple.

(6) Show me where Cowherd made a demand for rent. You can't show it because they didn't do it. Certainly not in the notice to vacate, which made zero references to rent. Another unlawful move by Cowherd, one of about a dozen or so.

(7) Show me where Carol and I ever refused to pay rent. Also, show where a court ever ordered us to pay a specific amount in rent. It didn't. That issue should have been decided at Oct. 1 hearing, but we got evicted first -- without a court order.

(8) Just once, try making a citation to law -- for entertainment's sake. I'd like to see if you are capable. I don't think you are.