Thursday, December 14, 2017

Missouri lawyer David Shuler, asked for a comment on his son's speeding case, indicates he's keeping secrets that could wind up biting him on the ass


Noah Hayes Shuler
How did David Shuler (my lawyer-brother) respond after shown a draft of our post about his son Noah Hayes Shuler (my nephew, a student and soccer player at William Jewell College) being clocked at up to 88 mph in a 60 zone -- an offense that, if proven, is the equivalent of a Class B misdemeanor, such as a DUI?

David did respond, which surprised me. His words, in places, were peculiar -- and given that he's a lawyer and has stabbed me in the back on at least one obvious occasion (and, I suspect, quite a few more) -- I was not surprised by that. Here, in pertinent part, is David's response:

Roger: As you know, you are free to write what you want but I have not been authorized to talk to you about this matter. I should point out that you do have the alleged facts incorrect. It is my understanding that the alleged speeding occurred on Highway 65, not on Evans Road.

Roger, if you would like to get together to talk as brothers, I would be happy to do that. I can not and will not talk to you about other people's business.

Now, that was interesting, especially the last sentence. So, I responded thusly:

David:

I will make the correction about U.S. 65.

As for anything else . . . (1) You say you are not authorized to talk about the traffic incident; and (2) You "cannot talk about other people's business." What does that mean?

The way I read your email, I don't see that there is much to talk about. If you can give me a reason for us to have a talk of substance, I will give that consideration. But right now, I don't see where any such substance exists.

I've heard nothing more from David. As you can see, I was bumfuzzled by his claim that he "can not and will not talk about other people's business." Since David does not seem inclined to elaborate on what that means, I can only take a whack at it myself.

Who are these "other people" and what is there "business"? David seems to be referring to people in the Springfield legal/business world (perhaps individuals from Alabama, too), and he feels an obligation to keep their secrets. Their "business," I'm guessing, is connected to the unlawful eviction in September 2015 that ended with cops breaking Carol's left arm. If I'm correct about that, David probably is speaking of landlord Trent Cowherd, attorney Craig Lowther (or someone at his firm), and Sheriff Jim Arnott (or someone affiliated with him).

Here are a few questions I wanted to ask David about Noah's traffic case:

* According to court records, Noah was clocked at 88 mph, 28 mph over the speed limit. How does one prepare a defense for that?

* Why didn't Noah pay the fine and be done with it?

* Are you hoping the state trooper doesn't appear for the trial, which would let Noah off the hook?

* Are you planning to claim the trooper was incompetent, corrupt, or both?

* In your communications with Carol and me, you generally have suggested that cops can do no wrong. If they lie about someone making a threatening 911 call, that's fine. If they break into a residence without having lawful grounds to be on the property, that's fine. If they break your sister-in-law's arm so severely that it requires trauma surgery, that's fine -- and it doesn't even merit a, "Gee, Carol, I'm sorry this happened, and I hope you are doing OK" from you. But if they nab your son driving 28 mph over the speed limit, that's not fine -- and the cops must be incompetent or corrupt? Is that how it works in your mind?

David Shuler
As for David's tight-lipped approach, the casual observer might say, "Hey, David is just trying to keep things in confidence -- "in house," "on the down low" -- to maintain the trust of those with whom he interacts." That sounds reasonable on the surface, but it takes on a different tone when you consider certain legal realities.

Consider, for example, Rule 4-8.3 of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct:

RULE 4-8.3: REPORTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

We've noted the strong likelihood that the actions of cops (and any associates) in unlawfully evicting us and breaking Carol's arm constitute a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. 242 (Deprivation of rights under color of law). Was David actively involved in a conspiracy to commit such a crime? If so, he clearly has problems. Is David simply keeping his lips tight in order to protect members of the legal/business tribe? If so, he still has problems.

That points to 18 U.S.C. 4 (misprision of felony), which holds:

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Perhaps David is counting on his connections to save him from being held accountable. Perhaps that has happened before, especially in a legal-malpractice case (31107CC3401 -- SCOTT WELLS V DAVID SHULER ETAL) that ended in 2012. Records at case.net show the Wells case started in 2007, rocking along for more than five years, and was set for trial. That means David could have been in serious trouble, especially if he did not have malpractice insurance -- and many small-firm lawyers do not. Shortly before trial, Wells' lawyer withdrew from the case, for reasons that aren't clear from the record. Forced to represent himself in complex malpractice litigation, Wells apparently was not able to pull it off, and the case was dismissed in David's favor.

Maybe David will pull one out at the 11th hour again. But speaking in "brother to brother" form, I'd say he's playing with fire.

50 comments:

Anonymous said...

So you refuse to accept the invitation to meet and talk? You'd prefer to keep airing your dirty laundry on your "investigative journalism" blog. That you fail to see how this makes you look astounds me. You seriously need help.

Anonymous said...

I feel sorry for your family.

Anonymous said...

Are you saying that an email communication from your brother, that you initiated, about a speeding ticket contains cryptic messages about a secret master plan to destroy your life? Interesting.

Anonymous said...

How does one defend a driver who was clocked at 88? That's the question in my mind, too?

Anonymous said...

I take your brother's cryptic message to mean he's been selling you and Carol out a long time. Typical lawyer.

legalschnauzer said...

@7:52 --

What do you think he means by "other people's business" that he "cannot and will not talk about"? I guess you consider that a benign statement if it's made about you? Get real.

legalschnauzer said...

@7:50 --

I feel sorry for them, too. I remember them when they had some class and integrity, before they allowed themselves to be led around by the nose by "Little King Lawyer." Now, they are just angry old racists, with a 1-2 exceptions in the extended family. They are nothing but an embarrassment to me, especially the "Little Lawyer" with his big "secrets."

Anonymous said...

This reveals the creative ways your lawyer brother can lie. If he knows about something, then it's his business, too. Very lawyer-like statement, to think regular people can't see this duplicity. He's involved in the abuses against you and Carol, up to his eyeballs.

Anonymous said...

This confirms that your brother has been working against you and Carol, probably for a long time. I take it he was the spoiled brat in your family. He doesn't think he's supposed to be held accountable for anything. The youngest in my family is a spoiled brat, too, and she sounds exactly like your brother. They avoid accountability like Kryptonite.

Anonymous said...

Your brother sounds like a shitty person and a shitty father. "Oh, son, driving 88 mph and putting the lives of others at risk is no big deal. Don't worry about paying the ticket, I'll get you off."

Anonymous said...

I guess the trolls would like to be in the driver's seat with someone driving 88 bearing down on them in the other direction -- at 1:40 something in the morning?

Frauds!

Anonymous said...

Is this the same lawyer-brother who wrote the stab-me-in-the-back letter to a judge, bitching about your and Carol's rent (even though you'd been told not to pay it because the landlord was booting you anyway) and seemed to take offense that the two of you would challenge the landlord's actions in court?

Can we all say "effing hypocrite"?

legalschnauzer said...

@11:23 --

Yep, same guy. Here is what he wrote to a judge, ex parte (and he still, to this day, has not served me with a copy):

"Dear Judge Halford:
I am writing regarding the above referenced case. Roger Shuler is my brother who has been estranged from my family for approximately 25 years. Recently, a family friend helped him relocate to the Missouri area. Unfortunately, my 85 year old mother made the mistake of agreeing to co-sign a lease for Roger with Trent Cowherd Construction. She agreed to pay his moving expenses and his rent for thirteen months to help him get back on his feet. She never dreamed that Roger Shuler would then refuse to pay his rent and/or vacate the property.

"My purpose in writing this letter is to let you know that I intend to appear on behalf of my mother. Gondolyn Shuler intends to cooperate with the Petititioner (Trent Cowherd) in the matter and assist in any way to help them regain possession of the rental property currently occupied by Mr. Shuler."

David Shuler

A few thoughts on this coming up.

legalschnauzer said...

A few points:

(1) Our rent was late by five days, and wouldn't have been late at all if landlord Cowherd hadn't told us not to pay it; Noah's traffic ticket has gone unpaid for almost seven months. But that's OK.

(2) We weren't supposed to challenge an unlawful eviction in court, one where the landlord admitted he was violating the lease. But Noah is supposed to challenge a speeding ticket, where he was going a mere 28 mph over the speed limit.

(3) David admits he is going to work on behalf of the corrupt landlord, stabbing me in the back. I'm not just dreaming the stuff about him keeping secrets for the corrupt landlord and his lawyer. He's already sided with thugs, right there in black and white.

David has two sets of rules: Roger and Carol are supposed to pay what they "owe," even when they don't owe it, without challenging anything. Noah is supposed to delay and dodge, and then challenge anything.

Anonymous said...

Based on his letter to the judge, it appears David has no problem talking to a judge about your business. So why does he have a problem talking about "other people's business" now?

legalschnauzer said...

@11:38 --

You noticed that. Good for you. Double standard. That should be his middle name.

Anonymous said...

Gotta admit, I wouldn't want to talk with him either -- given that he had just said he couldn't talk about anything.

Anonymous said...

Is David referring to his own clients? Those are the only people with business he can't talk about. As you note, he has an obligation to report dishonest actions by other lawyers.

We know it's not his clients, so he is proving that he himself is a corrupt lawyer who doesn't not follow the ethical obligations of his own profession.

Anonymous said...

Maybe David needs to discover that he "can and will" talk about other people's business when you and Carol sue his ass in court.

legalschnauzer said...

@11:49 --

Good point, and that is coming -- very soon. He won't be able to skulk away from that one.

Anonymous said...

If the "other people" have been involved in screwing over you and Carol, that is YOUR business. David is involved in a cover up, and that's clear from his own words.

Depending on the nature of the cover up, he could be joining some folks in the big house. They probably aren't going to provide cover for him.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of feeling sorry, I feel sorry for Noah. His parents obviously need to teach him accountability, and they are failing miserably. He will carry that with him throughout life. Sad.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't it David who claimed you had placed a threatening call to 911, and we now know that's not true?

legalschnauzer said...

@12:08 --

Yes, he lied his ass off about that, in conjunction with the sheriff's dept. So lying and working collaboratively with thugs is part of his bad act.

Anonymous said...

Oh, but you actually did "owe" it. Did you think you could keep living there for free?

Anonymous said...

It's called attorney client privilege.

Anonymous said...

No, You are not being accurate about the 911 call. You brother said an officer informed him that you had made a threatening 911 call - he hoped it wasn't true. He said so in a letter he wrote to you, that you have published on your own blog.

It is true that a 911 call was made, and the substance was (in a nutshell) that you had made threats related to your pending eviction.

Apparently when the dispatch came over the line, you making threats was the takeaway and the officer believed it had been you calling to make threats.

Pssibly your brother misunderstood what the officer told him, but your brother did not take it as gospel that you had made such a call. He only believed it possible, and it was brought to his attention by a police officer who was trying to get family to intervene and speak to you.

IIRC your brother offered you in the same note some kind of alternative housding situation (that did not prove to be an acceptable offer to you).

That might have been a different letter but bottom line is your brother went out of his way to assist you out of what you did not realize at the time was an impossible situation and very dangerous to all - you , Carol, the officers - the officer stressed that he did not want anyone to get hurt

You spin that help around into some kind of evil perpetrated against you. In reality, you were wither going to leave that property of your own accord before eviction, or be evicted. Your angry threats so alarmed your care provider, they contacted police to inform them of the danger. In order to violate patient confidentiality, that threat would have had to be of a specific nature and serious level of threatened action and

legalschnauzer said...

@12:36 --

You surely are too stupid to grasp this, but I will explain for benefit of intelligent readers. Check the Notice to Vacate landlord Cowherd put on our door. (See link below.) Does it mention our rent being late? No, it doesn't, and that's because it was paid. Cowherd and his laywer, in their own words, did not have a rent-and-possession case, but they filed one anyway. Shows you that they are incompetent and corrupt.

You must be a fraud, a shill, a ninny, or a Cowherd employee -- although the first three likely are incorporated into the Cowherd employee category. Must be terrible to go through life as stupid as you are.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1GXKJS567CoMXBnNHUwSGdacmc/view?usp=sharing

legalschnauzer said...

@12:54 --

What is your point? Do you have a point? Are you saying David is protecting his own clients? What made him think I would ask about his clients? Why would I care about his clients?

legalschnauzer said...

@1:11 --

You seem to be slightly mixed up. Court documents show that it was David and my other brother, Paul, who called both the health provider and the sheriff's office itself about the so-called threats, which I never made. So David knew I didn't call 911 because he was the one who had made such calls. David is a liar and a con artist, no matter how you spin it.

As for being helpful, we can see how helpful David was trying to be by reading the letter below. Hard to spin that, too.

Anything else you want to try to spin? I'd say your spinning efforts are failing miserably, but feel free to keep trying. It's a source of endless amusement for me:


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1GXKJS567CoZUlrTDUzZC1BbGM/view?usp=sharing

Anonymous said...

Well, this post clears up several things: Your contentions that your brother is a lying, evil prick are true. Your contentions that your brother has been stabbing you in the back are true. Your contentions that your brother has been collaborating with others who are screwing you over are true. Your contentions that your brother likely is the source of family dysfunction are true.

Here is another likely truth: If David was involved in a conspiracy to help "other people" break Carol's arm and then cover up, he could be on the hook for criminal charges. That could very well be a criminal violation of Carol's civil rights -- and his response to you makes clear he knows all about who is behind it, but has been playing cover up.

legalschnauzer said...

@6:35 --

You'd be amazed at how little I care about the opinions of anonymous trolls. Show the courage to put your name on your critiques, and perhaps it will carry some weight. Otherwise, to quote the immortal Doug Jones, "You're nothing to me."

On top of that, you need help with reading comprehension. I didn't refuse to meet and talk. But given that he said he couldn't talk about this and he couldn't talk about that, I asked what of any substance are we supposed to talk about it? He didn't reply.

Anonymous said...

I was intrigued by your mention of the legal malpractice case against your brother -- Scott Wells v. David Shuler. So, I checked case.net and found a few interesting things:

(1) Mr. Wells was represented by an attorney named John Allan. The docket is pretty lengthy, so some things are unclear. But it appears atty Allan represented Wells from the filing of the petition in 2007 and withdrew in 2010, just as it was set to go to jury trial.

(2) Why would an attorney represent someone for more than three years and bail out at time for trial? Odd.

(3) They had even gotten to the point of working on jury instructions. That makes me wonder if at least a portion of a trial was held. I thought jury instructions usually don't come until after both sides have presented cases. Maybe they did it ahead of time in this case, but seems weird to me.

(4) A defendant was Young and Shuler law firm. I assume that was your brother's law firm at the time, before he went solo?

(4) See a reference to a deposition by someone named Daniel Dodson. Wonder who that is?

Thought this might be of interest.

legalschnauzer said...

@3:24 --

Yes, it is of interest. Thanks for sharing. I can shine light on a few things:

(1) John Allan is an attorney from STL, with Allan and Summary firm. They specialize in legal malpractice. My guess is that a lawyer like that does not spend three-plus years on a case if he doesn't see solid signs of malpractice. The court file indicates David did not take even the most basic steps to defend Mr. Wells.

http://www.legalmalpracticemo.com/attorney-profile.html


(2) Daniel Dodson is a criminal defense attorney in Jefferson City. He apparently was going to be the expert witness for the plaintiff, Mr. Wells.

http://www.danieldodson.net/


(3) Like you, I'm confused about the jury instructions issue. Maybe that is done before the trial, but I'm not sure. Might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

(4) Yes, David was in practice with a lawyer named Jeff Young. Did the split come because of the malpractice case against David? I'm not sure.

legalschnauzer said...

@3:24 --

Yes, it is of interest. Thanks for sharing. I can shine light on a few things:

(1) John Allan is an attorney from STL, with Allan and Summary firm. They specialize in legal malpractice. My guess is that a lawyer like that does not spend three-plus years on a case if he doesn't see solid signs of malpractice. The court file indicates David did not take even the most basic steps to defend Mr. Wells.

http://www.legalmalpracticemo.com/attorney-profile.html


(2) Daniel Dodson is a criminal defense attorney in Jefferson City. He apparently was going to be the expert witness for the plaintiff, Mr. Wells.

http://www.danieldodson.net/


(3) Like you, I'm confused about the jury instructions issue. Maybe that is done before the trial, but I'm not sure. Might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

(4) Yes, David was in practice with a lawyer named Jeff Young. Did the split come because of the malpractice case against David? I'm not sure.

Anonymous said...

@1:11 --

What do you mean by this:

"That might have been a different letter but bottom line is your brother went out of his way to assist you out of what you did not realize at the time was an impossible situation and very dangerous to all - you , Carol, the officers - the officer stressed that he did not want anyone to get hurt."

Why was this an impossible situation, and who made it so?

Why was this dangerous, and who made it so?

Are you saying Mr. and Mrs. Schnauzer made it "impossible" and "dangerous"? I've seen nothing to suggest they did any such thing. So who are you talking about?

Anonymous said...

@1:11 . . .

It's comical that you wrote that long comment, and clearly did not have a clue what you were talking about.

LS has posted police documents where officers admit that David and the other brother called both Burrell Health and the cops themselves about a supposed threat via 911. So, David knew Roger didn't make the call because David himself had helped create the call out of thin air -- with no evidence that any such threat came from Roger.

David clearly was lying in the email you reference. You would know that if you had bothered to read the police documents that have been run here several times.

Here's a suggestion: At least try to study up on stuff before making a comment about it. That greatly reduces the chance that you look like an absolute douche bag.

legalschnauzer said...

@5:40 --

@1:11 probably doesn't care that he looks like a douche bag. Looking that way likely is old hat for him.

Anonymous said...

LS has posted no such thing, 5:40. He did not call 911, Burrell health did. You have it all mixed up.

Anonymous said...

@6:35 ,

Roger isn't airing his dirty laundry. He's airing Noah and David's dirty laundry. Are you aware of any dirty laundry to air about Roger, other than GOP thugs having him kidnapped and thrown in jail in Alabama? I'm not aware of any. I guess you support the kidnapping of journalists?

Anonymous said...

I noticed on the docket that David sought a judge change in Noah's speeding case. It initially was under Judge J. Ronald Carrier, and at David's request, it's under Jerry A. Harmison. What's up with that?

legalschnauzer said...

@6:10 --

Interesting question. If Noah had a strong not-guilty case, the judge shouldn't matter, right? In the Wells v. Shuler legal-malpractice case, David sought a judge change in that, too. It wound up with a guy named Gerald McBeth, from Nevada, and David wanted no part of him, so somebody else got it. McBeth was in his mid 70s and died in 2016. But yes, David shows signs of being a judge shopper. Maybe that's because he sucks as a lawyer. Perhaps McBeth was so old and crotchety that he wouldn't put up with David's BS. Maybe McBeth expected lawyers to actually follow the Rules of Professional Conduct.


http://www.nevadadailymail.com/story/2367208.html

legalschnauzer said...

@3:50 --

Feel free to contact me via phone or email and share the information you claim to have. I'd be curious to know what you are talking about. My guess is that you have no clue what you're talking about, but on the off chance you have a pair, here is your invitation to contact me.

Anonymous said...

Good grief. Who cares? Do you really think this newsworthy? I don’t - did not read the article - did not read the comments. What a waste of space.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:50 --

So, you're commenting on a post you didn't read -- and you're claiming it isn't newsworthy, even though you didn't read it. Now, that is brilliant stuff.

Anonymous said...

Hit us with some more brilliant logic, @10:50

Reminds me that I think Taylor Swift is overrated. Never heard a single one of her songs. But overrated? No doubt.

Anonymous said...

Yep, it's obvious that an article about a driver going 88 in a 60 zone isn't newsworthy. It means nothing. Tell that to the loved ones of Jill Morrison, a woman from Willard, MO, who was killed by a driver going 70-75 in a 45 zone.

One of Ms. Morrison's children suffered a broken collarbone, and another had an injured hip to go with various cuts and bruises. Plus, they lost their mother -- forever. No biggie.

And this was caused by a driver going roughly 13 mph SLOWER than was Noah Shuler.

But hey, a story about an 18-year-old bunk driving like a bat out of hell isn't newsworthy. Why would anybody waste space on a story like this? Nothing to see here . . . move along.


http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/crime/2017/12/14/manslaughter-charges-filed-2016-head-crash-killed-willard-mother/951548001/

Thomas S. Bean said...

I've been through a very similar but totally different series of never ending decades long harassment by vigilantes tied to law enforcement and protected by the police state (despite the specious posturing involving hollow mantras like "zero tolerence" "broken windows policing" "proactive policing".

Now, Targeted Individuals call this program CONTRACT GANG STALKING which involves: bizarre torts, malfeasance by Transference Authority Figures, malicious backstabbing behavior from family members, hostile incompetence by courts and officers of the court, etc.

I think it's a secret NSA sponsored community policing program under DOJ's Community Policing Program Divison with a Deputy: The used to call it COINTELPRO under Hoover and Op Chaos under DIA-ONI back in the 1940-1980's.

It shouldn't surprise you that county-city-state-fed law enforcement have always abused their powers and public trust as a political secret malevolent army of Republican-Right Wing-Authoritarian scum. It's obvious that "some funding source" pays for all this. Somewhere in the background is a badge (DHS? FBI? Local cops, usually so called "intelligence officers").

Have you looked or noticed foot, vehicle and electronic surveillance?

I say this because I noticed in your facts, the harassment and invisible hand of corruption and bizarre behavior by family, associates, job site, police, courts....followed you across state lines after you wisely left Alabama. INTERSTATE STALKING is a fed crime, but...not when Republicans and right wing assholes running the surveillance state break the laws.

I can only offer you my opinions and experience on what works and doesn't work: bad news, no possible strategy or remedy exists for Targeted Individuals. I had to abandon my home several times and ended up living out of my truck on fed lands...where...the surveillance vigilante dorks tracked my vehicle miles from any community or city...so they could get their jollies pretending to be a secret James Bond Community civilian surveillance group with special powers and immunities?

I'm not making this up...it's too bizarre and tragic to experience so many people suckered into joining a lynch mob running intrusive stalking using electronics to maximize the harassment.

Anonymous said...

It's not newsworthy, he's not a public figure or relation of a public figure;there were no injuries, moving violations without convictions or a pending serious accident investigation are generally ignored in the press, there is no unusual circumstance to elevate your fa iliy's business to news except your personal spite.

legalschnauzer said...

Hey, Smart-ass at 2:00 --

Is this your blog or my blog? I'll answer that question for you; it's my blog, so I make the editorial decisions around here. If you want to make editorial decisions at a blog, start your own.

On a related note, you need to take this issue up with lawyers for Hearst Corp. In our pending "House Case" federal lawsuit, they claim that due to the notoriety of my blog, I am a public figure. And Noah is my "relation," as you put it. So, argue with them about it. I actually agree with you, but we'll see what the court decides -- although judges are among the last people on earth to follow the law.

Finally, you suggest this is not news because such items are "generally ignored in the press." Perhaps this is news to you, but we don't make our editorial decision based on what the MSM covers or doesn't cover. The whole subject of judicial/legal corruption is ignored in the press. That doesn't mean we ignore it.

Not sure what you do for a living, but I'd say it's good for all of us that it's not journalism.