Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Nicholas Jain stays silent about dropped charge and breath score in his DUI case, plus on questions about drugs, his pilot's license, and political connections


Nicholas Jain
Missouri prosecutor Nicholas Jain had shown a tendency to appear transparent about the drunk-driving conviction in his background, while carefully avoiding certain questions related to it. That trend continued as we posed a few follow-up questions.

Public records at case.net (11BA-CR00648 - ST V NICHOLAS DAVE JAIN) leave quite a few questions unanswered. So we sought answers to those questions via an email to Jain. (Links to previous posts in our serious are here, here, here, and here.)

Mr. Jain:

Court records indicate that you were required to pay into a victim's fund. Was a person injured, or his property damaged, as part of your DUI? Records also suggest a charge was dropped, with you pleading guilty to DUI. What was the dropped charge? If you took a breathalyzer test, what was the score on that?

Thank you,

Roger Shuler

Here is Jain's response:

No one was injured and there was no property damage. Most criminal cases require a civil judgment to be paid to the Crime Victim's Compensation Fund. In this case it was $10.

You will notice that Jain's response did not address all the questions posed. So we responded with this:

What was the dropped charge, and what was your breath score?

How did Jain respond? With silence.

We still had a few questions, so we sent one more email:

Mr. Jain:

I have a few follow-up questions:

(1) Public records show you were ordered "not to enter a private motor vehicle after consuming intoxicants and to submit to a chemical test at the request of any law enforcement officer." You were to "reimburse any law-enforcement agency for laboratory charges related to drug testing." Were drugs involved in your DUI?

(2) You appear to be using an MU student e-mail address? Why?

(3) You appear to have a pilot's license. Was your drunk-driving record disclosed to authorities who oversee such licenses? Is it routine for a convicted drunk driver to be given the license to fly an airplane? Here is public information about your pilot license:

NICHOLAS DAVE JAIN

Medical Class 3 (Expires: Nov 2018)

Address: 1033 E KINGSBURY ST, Springfield city, MO 65807

Pilot License: Private - Airplane Single Engine Land

Since you've proven you have problems with the responsibility of driving a motor vehicle, how is the public suppose to feel about the fact you've been given authority to fly airplanes?

(4) You seem to be granted courtesies that others in your position would not receive? Do you have special political connections, maybe because your father is a doctor? Do you have supporters among politicians from your home area around Kennett? Has your father made donations to any politicians in the Kennett area? If so, who are they and would you please identify them? Who were your references on applications you've filed for various educational and professional pursuits?

Nicholas Jain did not answer our questions about the dropped charge and his breath-test score. He did not address any of the issues raised in questions 1-4.

How to sum this up? Jain was quick to say that no one was injured and there was no property damage as a result of DUI. But other questions -- whether he disclosed his DUI to authorities who oversee pilot's license, whether drugs were involved in his DUI -- went untouched.

Certain issues connected to the drunk-driving offense seem to be sensitive for Mr. Jain. A reasonable person might say, "I wonder why that is?"

We intend to find out.

20 comments:

Brian said...

In question 3 you ask "Is it routine for a convicted drunk driver to be given the license to fly an airplane?" How would Jain know this? Wouldn't this be a question for whoever issued the pilot license to Jain?

Anonymous said...

Aboard the Eliza Battle the Captain made his way to the ship's bow to meet the Recon Green volunteers. He was startled to see Jimmy, Coach and the General awaiting him. The Captain asked the men if they realized the danger of their mission. The General replied that he thought looking for green was the same as ambulance chasing. Ms Chapelle wished the Captain luck in making the trio into Marines. The Captain replied,"Lets go find Bob Yancey". In the ship's pilot house, Ms Chapelle chastened the Captain for being too harsh on McCain. The Captain replied that he did not have time to mollycoddle McCain because America's Democracy was at great risk. Ms Chapelle asked him to please explain. The Captain replied that everytime Roger contacts a Ashley Madison Subject, the first thing they say is,'Please do not report this. I want to protect my family." The Captain continued that Perot did not discover the Document, that Russia had flown Vietnam POWs To Russia, by accident. In 1986 when Perot found the Document, McCain was elected U S Senator. The Russian's knew that McCain's instinct would be to protect his Navy family from the embarrassment of the Navy having 4 Airmen abducted because of a High School Graduation. The Russian's released the full set of remains of Captain Wilson in 1988 thru the Soviet Republic of Vietnam. In 1989, the Vietnamese salted the alleged crash site of Captain Williams with a partial skull and 4 toe bones to send a warning. The U S reacted as the Russians hoped they would and Appointed a Senate Committee comprised of Navy Vietnam Veterans. Ms Chapelle asked the Captain what the Russians hoped to gain. The Captain replied that the Russians Knew that if the Senate Committee Members took the bait that Boris Yeltsin threw them in June 1992- they would own 5 U S Senators. The Captain continued that future historians will debate whether Senator and Secretary of State Kerry's decisions were influenced by the cover-up of Lt McDonald's abduction. They will also debate the actions of Senator Grassley during the Russian Collusion Probe. Bob Yancey interrupted the Captain to inform him that the Russian ship Aurora was on the horizon.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:23 --

I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask this of Jain. He surely is familiar with the paperwork he filled out for a pilot's license and whether it asked about any criminal record. He surely knows whether he did or did not disclose his criminal record. And he knows how the relevant agency responded to said disclosure, or lack thereof -- all of which goes to how the agency deals with such matters.

That doesn't mean Jain is the only person to whom I will ask this question. My reporting on the Jain DUI story is ongoing, and I will be posing questions such as this to a number of agencies, entities, and individuals.

There is noting wrong in journalism with posing a question to someone who claims not to know or does not respond. It's not like you get a mark against your record. You simply go on to the next person. In this instance, I felt it important to pose this question directly to Jain. His silence, to me, says a lot.

Anonymous said...

I bet Jain's breath-test score was off the charts. That's why he's not interested in answering your question.

Anonymous said...

So you're going to harass this poor guy forever?

legalschnauzer said...

"Harass this poor guy?" He holds a public position, paid with taxpayer dollars, and he doles out punishment to others for their alleged crimes. To report on his own crimes is called "journalism." He's shown a tendency to bring charges against others where there is no probable cause, and that too is journalism. Yes, I will report on Nicholas Jain "forever" if that's how long it takes to get to the bottom of his story.

Anonymous said...

Before the "white boy bitches" whine in, I want to say I love your reporting on this. Nicholas Jain is a disgrace to his position, basically stealing money from the public. I hope you take him to the mat, step on his fat, drunk ass, and kick him in the crotch. He's a lying, sell-out, phony, elitist (with daddy the doctor), corrupt pig.

Anonymous said...

Jain is subject to drug testing, but he doesn't want to answer questions about that. Methinks I smell a rat.

Let me guess, he now prosecutes people for drug cases?

legalschnauzer said...

@9:53 --

Jain is assigned to "general crimes," and I'm pretty sure that includes drug cases. We know for sure that, as a drunk driver himself, he handles DUI cases:


https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2018/02/in-glaring-show-of-hypocrisy-missouri.html

Anonymous said...

Jain should have refused to answer any of your questions, or he should be answering all of them. His "pick and choose" routine makes him look real, real bad.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Jain apparently didn't like some of your questions. That tells me you are asking the right questions.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:48 --

I should note that all of my questions were based on information in the DUI docket or in the public realm. I didn't just pull them out of thin air. They all were based on research related to the DUI case.

So, I agree, I am asking the right questions because I've done the background work. That's how journalism works -- or how it's supposed to work, whether certain commenters with an agenda like it or not.

Anonymous said...

What is the latest on Mr and Mrs. Schnauzer? Will you be moving back to Alabama anytime soon?

legalschnauzer said...

@2:01 --

We don't know. We certainly want to get the hell out of Missouri and back to Alabama, ASAP. But when and if that happens depends on a number of things.

We never would have left Alabama if we hadn't been conned into doing it by certain "family" and "friends."

legalschnauzer said...

A follow-up point: Our No. 1 goal is to achieve justice, no matter where we are living. And we have pending court cases in both Missouri and Alabama, so we intend to receive justice in both states, whether we are living in one, the other, or somewhere else.

We've had lawyers and judges cheat us for 18 years, and that no longer will be tolerated. Any members of the legal tribe who think it appropriate or amusing to cheat us, had better give that a second thought. We've been extraordinarily patient about being the targets of corruption, but our patience is wearing thin, and I repeat: Anyone who thinks cheating us is a good idea . . . well, they are walking down the wrong path. We will use any and all tools at our disposal to fight back -- and it won't be pleasant for our adversaries.

The other side might think this is fun and games. But it's not fun and games to us -- our home has been stolen, our freedom has been taken away, we've been brutalized to the point of having bones shattered. Anyone who thinks this is fun and games had better think again.

Anonymous said...

We will use any and all tools at our disposal to fight back -- and it won't be pleasant for our adversaries.

That reads like the kind of threat which prompted a treating care professional to report you through the 911 system as a possible danger.

Are you excluding the kind of illegal actions you've declared yourself on this blog capable of? (Shooting or smashing skulls on the sidewalk?)

Anonymous said...

Love it, LS. Kick em in the ass. And here is your new theme song from the great Alice Cooper:

"No More Mr. Nice Guy"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN6ngThqMEs

legalschnauzer said...

@2:36 --

You are a dim bulb, but then you proved that a long time ago.

(1) A threat? Against whom? Nobody, so no "threat." Most second graders can comprehend that, but you can't.

(2) I'm simply saying we will fight them, just as they are fighting us. Nothing threatening or improper about it. Thugs should expect their victims to fight back. And we will.

(3) Where on this blog have I ever said I was capable of using illegal actions? I've challenged you to present that evidence, and you've never done it. It doesn't matter anyway. We're all capable -- if pushed far enough -- of fighting back in all kinds of ways. You're capable, so there is nothing improper or unusual about that statement -- even though you've never been able to show I made such a statement on this blog.

Anyway, suck it out your ear, phony simpleton -- and lover of fat drunk-driving prosecutors.

So predictable. I knew, almost word for word, that you would write a moronic comment like this. And you didn't disappoint.

Been back in touch with Chevene Hill, a-hole?

legalschnauzer said...

@2:36 --

Forgot to mention that the "treating care professional" you reference never treated me, not once. I never laid eyes on him. He knew nothing about me, other than what my warped brothers told him -- even though we had specifically instructed the agency in question that they were not to communicate with any member of my family or my so-called "friend" named Don Schlueter.

My brothers and Schlueter soon will be dealing with that, and a whole host of other issues, in court.

As usual, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Dip shit.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to @53:31 -- @5:48 --

You simply cannot get simple facts correct, which is why almost none of your comments run, and why neither I nor my readers take your analysis seriously. A few points:

(1) I notice, as usual, you can't produce the comments you reference, and that's because they don't exist and never existed. You aren't fooling me with your ongoing BS about that.

(2) It's a matter of public record that the 911 call came from a Burrell Health employee named Joshua Davis, who was an administrator and did not see patients. I've never laid eyes on him, and he's never laid eyes on me.

It had zero to do with my treatment at Cox North. Josh Davis did not work at Cox North, and the 911 call did not come from Cox North. As usual, you are so far off the beam to be comical.

Josh Davis took calls from individuals we specifically said were to be excluded from any communication with Burrell -- my brothers, Paul and David, and a fake friend named Don Schlueter. Interestingly, Mr. Davis left Burrell not long after all this came out, so perhaps he was invited to exit. He and Burrell will be subjects in our upcoming federal lawsuit, as will David Shuler, Paul SHuler, and Don Schlueter. Davis' 911 call was based on total fabrications from two brothers, and I'd never discussed anything with them about guns or anything else of substance. It's all in this post, for those capable of reading it: https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2017/09/bogus-911-call-related-to-our-eviction.html

(3) I intend to commit journalism against Nicholas Jain, as I already have, based on public records. You have a problem with journalism? If Nicholas Jain doesn't like it -- and I know certain powerful people in Kennett, MO (his homewown) are deeply concerned about it -- he should have thought about that before driving drunk and taking a publicly funded position as a prosecutor. My coverage of him will be relentless and thorough; you can count on it.

(4) "The due process we are all promised." I'm interested in due process that is applied, not promised. Promises are empty, especially in a U.S. where nut jobs like Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions, and Bill Pryor are in positions of authority. The central point of this blog, for 10 years, has been that due process (which is promised) is frequently denied, especially for everyday parties who go up against moneyed, powered, corrupt interests.

You aren't the least bit concerned about that, which tells me you are an extraordinarily selfish and shallow person. You are in some area of the "justice system" that works for you -- you benefit from its corruption -- and you don't care one iota that the system harms other innocent people.