Thursday, December 21, 2017

Violent, bloody police beating of Michigan woman enhances our concerns about possible brain damage that Carol sustained during our Missouri eviction

Tiffany McNeil
A Michigan woman who was left bleeding and unconscious after her arrest in July is suing the police department whose officers brutalized her. The case of Tiffany McNeil produced one of the most horrifying videos of police violence we have ever seen. But it is similar, in a number of respects, to what Missouri deputies did to my wife, Carol, during an unlawful eviction in November 2015.

The video shows Coldwater, MI, officer Lewis Eastmead holding McNeil face-first against a brick wall at the police station before suddenly turning, and with her in handcuffs, throwing her to a concrete floor. The federal complaint says McNeil immediately was knocked unconscious, and the video shows blood coming from her face. A report at said McNeil had to be taken to the hospital, where she received 17 stitches for a cut over her eye and was diagnosed with a concussion. (The video is embedded at the end of this post.)

That last health-related item reminds us of an issue that has become of particular concern in Carol's case. As I've reported here at Legal Schnauzer, Greene County, MO, deputies burst into our duplex apartment and threw Carol, who had been looking out the peephole, up against a wall. While handcuffing her, one or more officers slammed her head, face-first, into the wall multiple times -- hard enough to knock her glasses off her face and a cell phone out of her hand.

About 30 minutes later, as the eviction was nearing an end, a male officer in a blue shirt grabbed Carol from behind as she was trying to enter the apartment -- as she had been given permission to do -- to retrieve our cat's litter box.  The officer body slammed Carol to the ground, butt-first, and then yanked viciously on her limbs -- breaking her left arm into more than two pieces and leaving her right armed bruised deep purple for pretty much its full length.

My view of the first incident was limited because Sheriff Jim Arnott was placing me in handcuffs and turning me around -- plus, Officer Scott Harrison had an assault rifle pointed at my head, so my attention was a bit diverted. I saw the full second incident, from 15-20 feet away, and immediately recognized that it was violent enough to possibly cause a concussion. Based on Carol's account of how hard her head was slammed during the first incident, it's possible (likely?) that she sustained two concussions in about 30 minutes.

One week after the eviction, Carol underwent almost eight hours of trauma surgery to repair her shattered left arm. During that time, she never was examined or treated for a concussion. I've written about our concerns about a possible concussion multiple times since the eviction, and those concerns only have grown stronger. In the roughly two years and three months since Carol's injuries, we've noticed a clear decline or disturbance in her cognitive abilities. The changes have become increasingly noticeable over the past 16 months or so.

We're talking about a 57-year-old woman who was valedictorian of her high school class, made straight A's at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), and worked 18 years for Alabama Power, one of the largest and most respected employers in her home state. In the 30 years that I've known her, Carol always has shown strong powers of perception and memory. But it now is almost a daily occurrence for her to have trouble expressing herself verbally. She will speak, for example, three sentences, and they might be so jumbled that I am left wondering what on earth she is trying to say.

X-ray of Carol Shuler's broken
arm before surgical repair.
I will go into more detail in future posts, but this is not the same woman I've known for most of our adult lives. That she was the victim of cop-induced head trauma -- not to mention the stress of then having cops bring bogus criminal charges against her . . . well, I don't think it's a coincidence that she now exhibits signs of garbled thinking. Is it because Carol has a scrambled brain that never has never been assessed or treated -- especially since we don't have health insurance, thanks to the conservative thugs (Rob Riley, Doug Jones?) who cheated us out of our jobs at UAB (me) and Infinity Insurance (Carol)?

Our concerns have grown severe enough that we intend to consult lawyers who specialize in traumatic brain injury (TBI) cases. My focus has been mainly with the injury we could see -- the broken arm. We now are increasingly focused on the possibility of an injury we can't see -- one that is inside Carol's head and affects her ability to function.

Unlike the Tiffany McNeil case, the pummeling Carol took did not produce blood or facial cuts. But we might have been better off if it had. That might have tipped emergency-room personnel -- the ones who diagnosed Carol's broken arm -- to check for head-related damage.

Speaking of the McNeil case, here is perhaps the most disturbing similarity it has with Carol's situation. We've shown that Missouri deputies lied repeatedly in their written reports about the incident, going so far as to suggest Carol broke her own arm by flailing about in the back seat of a patrol car. Of course, the worst example of dishonesty here in Missouri are the bogus "assault of a law enforcement officer" charges -- brought even though the "victim," Officer Jeremy Lynn, admits in writing that he "knowingly caused physical contact" with Carol, meaning she could not have assaulted him, under the Missouri statute.

Here is how police dishonesty reared its head in the McNeil case. Michigan attorney Solomon Radner is representing McNeil. From the Coldwater Daily Reporter:

The suit contends that Eastmead and [Officer Matt] Schoenauer both filed false police reports to justify charging McNeil with resisting arrest. It claimed [Officer Suleiman] Sumbal omitted facts from his report that would have shown the statements were false.

The suit claimed the reports allowed McNeill to be charged with felony resisting arrest in an effort to obtain a plea bargain.

That kind of deceit is right out of the playbook being used against Carol here in southwest Missouri.


Anonymous said...

And yet Carol does such an awesome job researching and writing her own legal briefs and motions. They are better than most lawyers can manage. And she's doing it suffering the debilitating after effects of a concussion that have left her not being able to speak three sentences clearly. Kudos Carol!!!

legalschnauzer said...

@6:10 --

You might try rereading the post because you obviously didn't get it the first time. I didn't say Carol can't speak three sentences clearly. I said that on an almost daily basis now, she will have moments where her sentences don't come out right -- at least they confuse me -- and she was not this way prior to the eviction beating. I also said that the changes seem to be in her verbal skills. I've noticed no change in her ability to read or write. I also said I will provide more details in an upcoming post -- and I will.

BTW, your final sentence suggests you are such a wise-ass that you think it's amusing to make fun of someone who has been beaten by cops to the point she possibly has TBI. What a classy individual you are!!!!

Given your own inability to read, perhaps you shouldn't make fun of others' cognitive abilities.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I had not heard about the case in Michigan. Thank you for getting the story out there. Horrifying!

legalschnauzer said...

@6:38 --

You're welcome. Yes, it is horrifying. And it's not much different from what was done to Carol. Carol's case did not involve blood, but it did involve shattered bones and eight hours of trauma surgery. Having watched video of one and seen the other live, I can tell you both were horrifying.

Anonymous said...

@6:10 --

You're an ass.

Second opinion. You're a stupid ass.

Third opinion. I feel pity for someone who is both stupid and an ass.

Anonymous said...

Hey, 6:10 - Great idea. Why don't you go to the neurological unit of a nearby hospital and make fun of the patients who've had strokes. Wouldn't that be your idea of entertainment?

Anonymous said...

That video from Michigan is extremely painful to watch. Feel so bad for that woman.

Anonymous said...

Per the AP, one suffers injuries instead of sustaining them. Journalism 101 stuff.

Anonymous said...

Newbie commenter here. I can't see how 6:10 is making fun of Carol. Does she really write her own legal briefs and motions? I'm actually surprised by that too after reading that her speech is "so jumbled that I am left wondering what on earth she is trying to say" and that she possibly has a "scrambled brain" and "exhibits signs of garbled thinking."

legalschnauzer said...

@7:26 --

Per UPI Style Book:

Injuries: They are suffered or sustained, not received.

Journalism 101.

My first professional editor, Angus McEachran at the Birmingham Post-Herald, insisted on the "sustained" usage, and that has stuck with me.

legalschnauzer said...

@7:35 --

I would suggest you read my answer at 6:27. In a sense, you answer your own question when you say she "possibly" has a scrambled brain. I say multiple times that she has not been diagnosed with a concussion or TBI; hasn't even been assessed for one. I'm not a physician, so I can't makes such a diagnosis, but I can note changes in Carol's verbal skills -- which are not ever-present, but they manifest often enough that I'm concerned about it, giving that I saw how viciously she was slammed to the ground.

I can't speak for others who have commented on this, but the mocking tone of 6:10's comment is obvious to me. Just read the last sentence. Whoever wrote that is a classless piece of garbage, in my book. If you endorse the mocking of people with possible brain trauma, you must not be worth much yourself.

Anonymous said...

If cops were so rough with Carol that they shattered her arm, I can only imagine the force they used to throw her to the ground. I'd say the likelihood of a concussion is extremely high.

Anonymous said...

@7:35 -- You must be as brain dead as 6:10 if you can't see the mocking tone of that comment. It starts with the very first sentence and continues throughout. It's smart-alecky from start to finish, regarding a person who indisputably was beaten by police and possibly has a TBI, as a result.

In my book, 6:10 is lower than whale shit. If you are standing up for him, you aren't much better.

Anonymous said...

Will be interesting to see if the Michigan cop gets nailed on a state assault charge. He should wind up in prison.

Anonymous said...

Scrambled brain? She should sue the hell out of them! Will she be forced to represent herself pro se in such a condition? Won't the state provide her with an attorney?

legalschnauzer said...

@8:54 --

Agreed. A federal criminal charge of "deprivation of rights under color of law" also should be on the table. We are going to seek federal criminal charges against the cop who broke Carol's arm. The Greene County Sheriff's Office likely knows the guy could wind up in prison, so they are withholding his name. That's called a cover-up.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:54 --

She will sue the hell out of them, and that federal complaint probably will be filed within a month or so. That case will involve both me and Carol. If we find a trustworthy attorney, great. If not, we'll represent ourselves. BTW, "scrambled brain" is my term, based on what appears to be deterioration in Carol's verbal skills since cops beat her. That's not an official diagnosis. In fact, she has not been assessed for brain trauma at all.

Anonymous said...

I don't see the sarcasm in 6:10. It seems positive to me.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:15 --

Hah! I suspect you are 6:10, and even you now realize what a jerk-off you are. Trying to walk things back, but you're not fooling anyone, except maybe yourself. Suggestion: Embrace your assholery. It's your true self.

Anonymous said...

I think one of the stories on the Michigan deal said the woman had been drinking and cursed the officer while he was holding her up against the wall. The woman definitely was not on her best behavior, but aren't cops trained to handle this -- to know that someone might throw a foul word their way or misbehave due to excessive drinking? Obviously cops aren't supposed to just take any and all abuse, but they should know how to handle a little foul language without having to give the woman a concussion.

Anonymous said...

Did Carol really write her own motions in this condition? If so, wouldn't the judge have reason to want her to be represented by an attorney, rather than continue on her own incapacitated?

legalschnauzer said...

@9:30 --

Is your head thick as a brick? I never said I've seen deficits in Carol's ability to read or write. I said I've seen signs of issues with her verbal skills -- at least to my ears. And my ears have been listening to her for 30 years, so I'm as likely as anyone to notice changes. Is that proof she's had a head injury? No. But she's been in a position to sustain a head injury, and she never has been assessed for one.

I've never said Carol is incapacitated. Do you have a reading deficit, or do you just enjoy making shit up?

Anonymous said...

In older adults such as Carol (not trying to be sarcastic here just an observation) it's difficult to prove any ill mental effects down the road since people in general succomb to the effects of aging. It's difficult to differentiate the two unless the changes are dramatic and immediately sudden.

Anonymous said...

You did say her brain was possibly scrambled. Should she be writing her own motions in that condition? Should the judge allow it?

legalschnauzer said...

@9:43 --

And . . . your point is?

And your expertise in neurology is based on . . . ?

legalschnauzer said...

@9:44 --

She seems to be doing a pretty good job to me, given that I've noticed no change in her writing skills. Feel free to ask the judge, if you want.

BTW, you are aware that the brain consists of a number of "compartments," which are responsible for various functions in the body? One compartment could be injured, causing changes in one function (say, verbal skills), while another compartment is unaffected, causing no changes in another function (say, writing skills).

I'm hardly a neurologist, but I do know different parts of the brain are responsible for different functions of the body. You comments indicate you weren't aware of that. Just trying to be helpful.

Anonymous said...

This is 9:43. My point is that is will be very difficult, if not impossible, to prove that what happened during the eviction 2 years ago is what is causing her problems currently. My qualifications are that I'm an MD board certified in geriatric medicine who frequently works with patients in mental decline.

MontanaMuleGal said...

Roger - I think it would still be extremely important to get an MRI of Carol's brain, if you can find a competent neurologist to order one. I know it's expensive and I'm sorry if the cost is too high; medical costs are part of structural violence.

I can't believe the emergency room docs were so non-focused that Carol didn't have a brain MRI at the time. Needless to say, with her list of symptoms, she should be checked out.

Love your little dog and love your Peter B Collins interviews! You are a hero in fighting corruption!

legalschnauzer said...

@12:35 --

You know, Carol's only 57, not 77 (55, at the time of incident). If she had been as old and frail as some people seem to think she is, she probably would have died from this incident of a spinal fracture or similar injury. As the person who spends more time with Carol than anyone else, I know she showed no signs of "mental decline" before being attacked by cops. She has shown decline, at least in my non-MD mind, in her verbal skills after the attack. Doesn't seem all that hard to prove to me. Sort of a before-after thing.

Aside from that, I certainly can't prove, at this point, that Carol has had a concussion. My main point, is that we're concerned about the issue, and we are going to consult people who work in the area of TBI injury to see what we can find out. She was subject to head-related trauma and has never been assessed in the aftermath.

It's odd that you, as a doctor, seem to have no concern about the lack of assessment in Carol's case. You're just a "proof" guy.

The woman in Michigan was diagnosed with a concussion after one really violent blow to the head that produced blood. Carol's injury did not produce blood, but the level of violence was pretty much the same -- and her head was used as a volleyball with multiple blows, both directly to the head and to the brain inside her head when her butt came to a screeching halt. As I understand the workings of he head, he brain likely was jostled in both an up-and-down motion and a side-to-side motion.

You sound like a peculiar "MD" to me. In two comments, you've voiced zero concerns about the nature of Carol's injuries and their possible impact on her health. But you seem interested in what might be proven, as in a court of law, regarding her injuries.

You sound more like the standard soul-free lawyer than a person of the healing arts. Would you care to give us your name and the places where you received your medical training? Perhaps you can provide links to any papers you've written?

Anonymous said...

I hope the woman in Michigan takes the dirty bastard cops to the cleaners. I hope Carol does the same thing in Missouri.

Anonymous said...

It's interesting that the naysaying trolls always try to change the subject -- did Carol write her own briefs, can such and such be proven in court? They don't even address the issue raised in the post -- did Carol, like the woman in Michigan, have a concussion, and what are the long-term implications on her health, especially if it has never been diagnosed or treated?

If this had happened to their wife, I bet they would be concerned about a concussion. These low-life individuals only seem interested in protecting the cop/thugs who caused the injuries.

The commenter at 6:59 said it best: They sound like the types who would enjoy going to a hospital NICU and making fun of the stroke patients. Warped and sick, if you ask me.

Anonymous said...

It seems that you attack every commenter that doesn't sympathize with you in exactly the manner you expect.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:16 --

I'm guessing you have a pretty broad definition of "attack." I do challenge commenters who present information that is incorrect, analysis that doesn't make sense, or seem to be operating with an agenda. If you are going to try to debunk my reporting, you need to be prepared to be challenged. I didn't create this site so any anonymous ding-a-ling can freely come here to spread agenda-driven manure.

If you call that an "attack," I would say your use of the word is overly broad. In fact, I find it amusing that you seem to be calling me sensitive and thin-skinned, while you are displaying that very behavior.

My advice for any commenter who can't handle being challenged: If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Anonymous said...

Merry Christmas to you and Carol.

Anonymous said...

Carol did not have express or implicit permission to re-enter the apartment, and she should have obtained it before running back to retrieve and important forgotten necessity. That, or you should have simply bought an aluminum pan and some cat litter for less than ten dollars.

legalschnauzer said...

Merry Christmas to you, E.B. Thanks for reading.

Anonymous said...

"it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to prove that what happened during the eviction 2 years ago is what is causing her problems currently"

This is true in the case of any future litigation, especially since Carol had pre-existing mental health treatment with memory issues, based on what you have published on this blog.

Also there are court records that might hurt, including the incident at her employer when a collector tried to warn Carol about the risk to her home from the unpaid debt.

Her mental status is not addressed in the medical records related to the eviction incident that you have published here. There would have been some, if limited, review of her mental status in the records. There are also no records that you have publised mentioning bruises, contusions, or swelling in any of her facial features or head.

Anonymous said...

You are actually not worth the effort to engage with. Good luck.

legalschnauzer said...

@3:11 --

Then, why are you here? Is someone forcing you to read this blog, out of the millions of blogs on the planet? Sheesh!

legalschnauzer said...

@2:47 --

Let me try to explain something, in a way that maybe you can understand. Carol was standing on the sidewalk, talking with Debi Wade and Scott Harrison about the need to get the litter box. In the midst of that conversation, a cop in a blue shirt, attacked Carol from behind, slammed her butt first to the ground and yanked on both arms so viciously that he broke the left one and left the right one purple from bruising.

Debi Wade's story about Carol "barreling head first" is pure fantasy. Carol walked down the sidewalk, Wade and Harrison met her at the edge of the front porch, and Carol tried to engage them in rational conversation before she was beaten by a blue-shirted thug. Carol never initiated contact with anyone.

Debi Wade's story is so bogus that even the prosecutors have not charged Carol with it. The only charge is based on the alleged "push" of Jeremy Lynn, which has zero evidentiary support, with Lynn himself admitting Carol didn't assault him -- as such an act is defined by Missouri law.

I'm sure you won't be able to grasp that in your agenda-driven state, but there it is. Chew on it, if you are capable.

legalschnauzer said...

@3:07 --

You are out of your frickin mind:

(1) There was no incident regarding a debt collector at Carol's employer, so it's hard to see how there could be a court record on it. Why don't you produce the document? I would love to see it.

(2) Carol never has been treated for a pre-existing memory condition, so I'm not sure how I could have written about it on this blog.

(3) I've said flat-out multiple times that Carol never was assessed for a head injury. The subject never came up, according to her, and it certainly didn't come up in doctor visits where I was present. You seem to have no point.

(4) I said flat-out, right in this post, that Carol didn't have bruises and such on her face. That still doesn't mean she didn't have a concussion. Athletes get concussions all the time from falls and collisions that leave no marks on their faces. Again, you have no point.

Unreal comment, beyond lunacy.

Anonymous said...

You really should have her go in for testing. You'll need a suit (and evidence they have cause the brain injury) to finance any long term care she might need as her condition worsens. Since you dont have the means to finance any private care, the public care isnt worth a bucket or warm spit

Anonymous said...

Hope the cat being able to shit in that box was worth all this. You are your own worst enemy Roger.

Anonymous said...

You are well aware of appeal documents containing the narrative of the bill collectors calling Carol at her work. You sued over the matter.

Carol became hysterical and had a breakdown at work and you sued over it.

legalschnauzer said...

@4:25 --

Congratulations on producing perhaps the dumbest comment in the 10-year history of this blog. I will focus on only one element of the raging stupidity:

(1) Why don't you cite any Missouri law that gives cops the authority to keep evictees from gathering their personal property? Having trouble? That's because there is no such law. Bottom line: The landlord is responsible for an eviction, and sheriff is to be there only on a standby basis. This post explains how it is suppose to happen, as a matter of law:

From the post, quoting directly from the Greene County Sheriff policies:

The tenant should be served with, or the property posted with, a summons and petition notifying them that a lawsuit has been filed and will have the opportunity to be heard in court before any eviction. Upon the Landlord receiving a judgment for possession and filing for a Writ to Execute on the judgment for possession, the GCSO will schedule a date and time with the plaintiff/Landlord within five business days to stand by while the Landlord evicts the Tenant and regains possession of the property. The Landlord has the responsibility of scheduling for a locksmith and staff required for moving of property if needed.

Missouri State Statutes reference Landlord/Tenant Law RSMo. Chapters 441, 534 and 535

Landlord Trent Cowherd chose not to exercise his eviction authority, so the cops had no authority to prevent us from gathering all the personal belongings we could fit in our vehicle.

This information is for intelligent readers, of which we have many. It obviously will be beyond your capability to grasp.

legalschnauzer said...

@5:53 --

I'll repeat, you are out of your ever-loving mind. No debt collector called Carol at work, Carol had no "breakdown" over a call that never happened, and you simply are full of shit. Maybe you are concussed because no such appellate documents exist.

Anonymous said...

Ah, the old cop/landlord apologist is back, I see. The cops and landlords can do no wrong, according to this nut case. This dude always has been short on facts and law, but he now sounds like he's either drunk or senile, or both.

Hey, old fucker, put down your Jack Daniels long enough to ID yourself. Otherwise, you are both a pussy and a drunk. Not a good combination.

Anonymous said...

The hysteria of the trolls suggests to me that Carol likely did have a concussion, with ongoing repercussions, and they know it. They also likely know that any TBI or personal injury attorney can easily prove the causation in court. I've been around many of these cases, and the cops probably would be in much bigger trouble for the concussion than they would be for the broken arm.

The trollers know this, and that's why they are defecating in their pants.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Apologist is going to have to take a load of underwear to the dry cleaners because of shit stains. Hah! He and his corrupt buddies could have settled this matter months ago for a relatively minor sum. But no, they had to bring bogus criminal charges against Carol, and drag that out with Patty Poe lying her big, fat ass off, and now they could be getting a TBI attorney involved -- and my research shows there are bunches of them in St. Louis, Kansas City, and many around the nation who work in all states.

Those TBI specialists will run the damages up 20 to 25 times what they might have been if these dumb asses had settled months ago.

Nice job, Mr. Apologist! How is that sphincter of yours doing? Getting tight, you smarmy piece of excrement.

Anonymous said...

Think I read somewhere that deputies generally aren't supposed to even leave their vehicle. The landlord and his staff do the eviction, and the deputy only acts if there appears to be a problem.

legalschnauzer said...

@6:55 --

You probably read it here, at this post:

A law firm that represents landlords in Missouri eviction cases states on its Web site that it's standard for only one deputy to be present, and he usually remains in his vehicle during the eviction. This is from the FAQ section of the firm's Web site:

Q. Do I need to be present at the eviction?
Yes. On the day of the eviction, you must be available to “greet” the Deputy Sheriff. The Deputy will usually pull up to the location of the eviction in a marked patrol car. Typically, the Deputy will not leave the car. It is up to you to go to the car and identify yourself as the landlord or landlord’s representative. You will then need to identify the entry door to the rental property and will sign a document authorizing the Deputy to use force to enter if necessary. Generally, you either need to have a key to the rental property so that the Deputy can enter or have a locksmith available to provide access.

Anonymous said...

These idiot cops and prosecutors made a huge mistake by bringing this bogus criminal case against Carol. Now they are going to greatly enhance the possibility of major damages by getting a TBI attorney involved. Stupid . . . stupid . . . stupid . . .

Anonymous said...

Your account at 3:25 PM isn't true. It can't be true. You know it, Carol knows it... we all know it. You lie so much you can't keep track of the lies.

Anonymous said...

You are simply lying about this. You sued on the point, and is explicitly described in an order of the court. I don't know who you think you are deceiving

"No debt collector called Carol at work, Carol had no "breakdown" over a call that never happened"

legalschnauzer said...

@9:22 --

You simply are out of your mind. Produce the document, if you are so all knowing. Otherwise, shut up and go back to your Jack Daniels.

legalschnauzer said...

@7:25 --

What about my account at 3:25 "can't be true"? I saw the whole thing from about 20 feet away, this includes Carol's account of the conversation, and it fits exactly with what I've written multiple times before. But you know more than I do about what happened?

It also fits with the prosecutor's actions because he didn't bring Debi Wade's "barreling" account. Even the prosecutor thugs don't believe her story. But you know best, of course.

Why do you think prosecutors/cops have been stonewalling on discovery for 9-plus months.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to "Sarah (I'm back)" :

Send me the video. I'll run it.

Anonymous said...

All these comments have Carol forgetting something that happened at work? Do you think that was from the brain injury. Is she only forgetting day to day items or more long term things? Either way, i feel for you, both of my parents suffered dimentia during their life time and that can be really scary not only for them but for there love ones as well. We tried to keep surrounding similar for them to help them in their day to day activities. Unfortunately, once their speech regressed it was all downhill. Enjoy the time you have with your loved ones

Best wishes for a Merry Christmas LS and Mrs LS! Get well soon

legalschnauzer said...

@2:21 --

Thanks for the well wishes, and the same to you and yours. The comments about Carol and work are from someone who must have dementia himself because none of that ever happened, and there is no court document about it.

Carol worked in Birmingham in 2009, until being cheated out of her job, and the possible brain injury came in 2015 -- so they are wildly unrelated. But the main thing, the work scenario of someone's productive or diseased imagination.

The main thing I've noticed with Carol involves her verbal skills. I don't know that she had a concussion, but she certainly was banged around enough to have had one. We intend to find out, via a TBI attorney, what we need to do next. I don't think it has anything to do with dementia, unless an untreated concussion can cause dementia.

Anonymous said...

@9:22 --

You are a sexist pig. You keep referring to Carol having a "breakdown" at work, and you use that term because she's a woman. I hope you choke on your own vomit, you sexist pig.

Anonymous said...

Carol may have progressive mental problems.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:32 --

Glad you picked up on the blatant sexism. This commenter -- who I suspect is Missouri lawyer Craig Lowther, or someone affiliated with him -- has been sexist for a long time. He's always claiming Carol has fragile bones, is emotionally unstable, that she fell and hurt herself, etc.

He's not only a sexist pig, he's a lying sexist pig, and he knows he has major liability because he's the one who set up this bogus eviction. Thank you for pointing out that he's a true sexist creep, who clearly has zero respect for women.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:33 --

Progressive mental problems? What is that supposed to mean?

Anonymous said...

Shaky, hysterical, and in a panic.

That description ring a bell?

Anonymous said...

Memo to "Sarah (I'm back)" :

Send me the video. I'll run it.

@LS 1:36pm -- Oh no-o-o-o-o! lolol

I'll bring the popcorn. ; ^ )

legalschnauzer said...

@2:41 --

Nope. Is it supposed to?

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to 9:32 --

You've had zero credibility here for a long time. After your bull crap about Carol having a "breakdown" after debt collectors contacted her at work, your credibility is sub-zero. That canard was 100 percent false, and you likely know it, but you are too small an individual to admit. Here's an invitation: Take your phony facts and your empty analysis and jam them up your anal cavity. You're toast here.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to 6:27 --

Produce the document. You're trying to change your story, which tells me you know your earlier statements are false, which gives us no reason to believe anything you say.

Anonymous said...

I just have one question, if the landlords people were going to bring all you items outside and place them on the curb. Why not just wait until they brought the litter box outside?

legalschnauzer said...

@12:24 --

The answer to your question has been addressed many times on the blog. Carol was told she could go back into the apartment to get our personal belongings, with no limit given on how many trips she could make. When she was finished, I was to go in and gather personal belongings, and we were to gather however much we could fit into our car.

Carol came out from her first trip, put some stuff in the trunk and headed back in to get some other stuff, mainly the litter box. She started to walk back in through the front door and was blocked by Officers Wade and Harrison, told she could not go back in. They had a discussion, apparently about what Carol had been told previously and about our particular need for the litter box. As this was going on, "Mr. Blue Shirt" attacked Carol from behind, slammed her to the ground, and yanked on her limbs so viciously that he broke her left arm.

In other words, we were trying our best to follow instructions, which kept changing from one cop to another, and Carol was brutalized while she was trying to figure things out with Wade and Harrison.

Does that answer your question?

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it have been easier to just pay your rent?

legalschnauzer said...

Our rent was paid. I've posted the landlord's Notice to Vacate many times, and it says nothing about rent being unpaid. That's because it was paid. You can look it up, if you aren't too lazy.

Wouldn't it be easier to do a little research to educate yourself before sending stupid comments?

Thomas S. Bean said...

Cops are very dangerous, rage filled, wacko, criminal scum........and they're proud of it.

"Contempt of Cop" is a secret charge they all seem to be looking forward to sniffing out, because it gives them a pretext to unleash their "anger-retaliation overkill" street punishment as a way of subverting due process wherefore the judge has the power to punish.

They think they're special.
They think they are the law.

The job they volunteered for promises many interactions with civilians who are either emotionally charged or incapable of preserving decorum: you would think five cops could handle a mouthy drunk without drawing blood. I expect more out of any adult, especially officers of the court who have plenty of experience dealing with the public in all it's ignominious color.

Especially bothersome is the fact the woman is in cuffs....and pushing her head into a concrete wall seems to be a form of entertainment. Do they also "roll homeless drunks" in the alley for fun?

This is the banality of evil: on the surface, the rigid psychopath doesn't appear to be a wacko...but...under duress the social mask comes off. You saw it...that's a crime...especially with cuffs preventing any sort of physical threat.

Thomas S. Bean said...

..."There are a number of well-established measures of authoritarianism; the best known (and hence the most widely used) is the California F Scale which attempts to measure prejudice, rigid thinking.  There are nine factors and statements reflecting each factor:

1. Conventionalism: rigid adherence to conventional middle-class values. (‘Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn.’)

2. Authoritarian submission: uncritical acceptance of authority. (‘Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but as they grow up they ought to get over them and settle down.’)

3. Authoritarian aggression: a tendency to condemn anyone who violates conventional norms.  (‘A person who has bad manners, habits and breeding can hardly expect to get along with decent people.’)

4. Anti-intraception: rejection of weakness or sentimentality.  (‘The businessman and the manufacturer are much more important to society than the artist and professor.’)

5. Superstition and stereotypy: belief in mystical determinants of action and rigid, categorical thinking. (‘Some day it will probably be shown that astrology can explain a lot of things.’)

6. Power and toughness: preoccupation with dominance over others.  (‘No weakness or difficulty can hold us back if we have enough willpower.’)

7. Destructiveness and cynicism: a generalized feeling of hostility and anger. (‘Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict.’)

8. Projectivity: a tendency to project inner emotions and impulses outward. (‘Most people don’t realize how much our lives are controlled by plots hatched in secret places.’)

9. Sex: exaggerated concern for proper sexual conduct. (‘Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished.’)

Thomas S. Bean said...

..."According to Adorno's theory, the elements of the Authoritarian personality type are:
Blind allegiance to conventional beliefs about right and wrong

Respect for submission to acknowledged authority

Belief in aggression toward those who do not subscribe to conventional thinking, or who are different

A negative view of people in general - i.e. the belief that people would all lie, cheat or steal if given the opportunity

A need for strong leadership which displays uncompromising power

A belief in simple answers and polemics - i.e. The media controls us all or The source of all our problems is the loss of morals these days.

Resistance to creative, dangerous ideas. A black and white worldview.

A tendency to project one's own feelings of inadequacy, rage and fear onto a scapegoated group

A preoccupation with violence and sex


I could add to this profile:

--They enjoy breaking the law and getting away with it;
--They despise those who have more social rank than they have;
--They despise education and advanced degrees seeking it as a sign of weakness and passivity;
--They are misogynistic and consider women weak, emotional, and incompetent in a man's world where "might is right" and "getting even" is more important than taking responsibility for bad acts (which they usually rationalize while creating the pretense of maturity);

--They see all use of force in any situation to be justifiable in a black and white rigid world;

--They seek power over others and employ scapegoating as a way of avoiding their own redemption and remorse;

--They prefer overkill retaliation in any situation and justify "Win At All Costs" tactics regardless of policy, guidelines, rules, or laws;

--They are vigilantly dedicated to noticing social rank in a competitive mindset and seek to obliterate anyone who subjectively challenges or supersedes their position;

--They filter reality through narrow "all or nothing" and "black and white" lenses and prefer simple homily's, mantras, and story lines.