Thursday, March 8, 2018

Does Missouri Public Defender Patty Poe deserve credit for getting jail time off the table in Carol's case? Evidence suggests the answer is a resounding no

Patty Poe
Several readers have argued in recent weeks that we should be grateful to Missouri public defender Patty Poe because, before bailing out on Carol's case, she got the possibility of jail time removed from the table. If we seem less-than-grateful for that, here are two reasons: (1) The whole case should have been booted about 10 months ago if Poe had done her job, filing pre-trial motions focusing on the case's myriad weaknesses based on constitutional problems and defective charging documents; (2) We have not been privy to possible behind-the-scenes coordination between Poe's office and that of prosecutor Nicholas Jain, but we do have evidence that suggests Carol herself had more to do with jail time being booted off the table than did Patty Poe.

Our last in-person meeting with Poe was on Monday, Oct. 30., and Poe's statements in that meeting left us concerned enough that Carol followed up with an email two days later on Nov. 1.  Carol focused on matters of law that are highly relevant to her case, especially about the unlawfulness of the eviction that led to Greene County, Missouri, deputies breaking her arm. She started with this:


This is Carol. As a brief followup to our meeting on Monday, Roger and I have found information that says a judgment in Missouri does not become final for 30 days.

We also found a law firm's landlord/tenant Web site for Missouri that says, "Any judgment, other than a default judgment, becomes final after thirty (30) days."

This seems to be another sign that someone jumped the gun on our eviction.


Here's how Poe responded:

If you send me those citations, I'd be happy to take a look.

Poe might soon have regretted making that statement because Carol dropped a payload on her, making clear and accurate citations to law that shredded bogus legal arguments Poe had been feeding us for weeks . . . months. From Carol, with links to the actual law:

(1) The part about a judgment becoming final in 30 days is at Missouri Supreme Court Rule 81.05: 

(2) The part about that rule's impact on an eviction is at p. 6 (of 7) at the following Web page, from a law firm that handles evictions in MO and KS: 

(3) While we're at it, we also found RSMo 535.020, which states a landlord must make a demand for rent before seeking eviction.
Cowherd never made a demand for rent. Here is the notice that was attached to our door, telling us to get out and saying nothing about a rent demand -- and that's because our rent always was timely paid. Cowherd had no rent and possession case, but they filed one anyway -- even though their own notice shows we weren't late on rent, and they made no demand for rent:

(4) Finally, you might check the date on the notice to vacate above. It is July 2, 2015, demanding we vacate by July 31. Missouri law holds that tenant must be given full one month's notice -- and our lease said the same thing. In fact, the lease said we were to be given notice on the 1st of the month, and that obviously didn't happen.

These are four more grounds upon which our eviction was unlawful, bringing the total to about 12 -- meaning Cowherd had no grounds to evict us, Lowther [Cowherd's attorney, Gerald] had no grounds to seek eviction, and cops had no grounds to be on our property at all.

These citations to law show that our eviction was wildly unlawful, and under a U.S. Supreme Court case styled Mapp v. Ohio (U.S., 1961),  all evidence must be suppressed -- gutting the state's case and leaving it with . . . nothing. Poe, however, was not finished trying to con us. She responded with this:

Whether or not the eviction was unlawful is not a defense. I attached a case that spells out that it doesn't matter if the officer was performing his duties in a lawful manner consistent with the constitution at the time of assault. As we discussed on Monday, I may discuss the eviction proceedings at trial to help the judge understand Carol's state of mind at the time, or why she would be mistaken in believing that the person at her door wasn't a police officer because she thought the eviction was stayed.

The case Poe cited was State v. Summers, 43 S.W. 3d 323 (2001) For weeks, Poe's mantra had been: "The fact the cops acted unlawfully is not a defense." Carol was ready to lower the boom on that malarkey, but first, she shredded State v. Summers:

I was charged under 565.083. State v. Summers is all about 565.081 and is even referenced at that specific statute (but not at 565.083).

Also, Summers is supported by a reference to 575.150, which involves constitutionality of an officer's actions in making an arrest. In my case, the officers were not there to arrest me. I had done nothing to be arrested for -- and the officer statements reflect that. They were there for an eviction, for which there was zero legal basis. That means Roger and I are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and all evidence must be suppressed.

The officer in Summers was called to the scene by a citizen, for an apparent criminal matter. Our situation was 100 percent civil -- and Debi Wade admits in her statement that officers had doubts about validity of the eviction, so she contacted an unnamed "counsel" in the sheriff's office, who told them to go ahead, contrary to law. We need to know the identify of said "counsel," and what he told Officer Wade. Whoever it was caused gross violations of our constitutional rights.

BTW, where does Rule 24.04 say a motion to dismiss is proper only for defects in information, cases of entrapment, etc.? I don't see it.

The only issue on appeal in Summers was whether the evidence was sufficient to convict for felony assault of a law-enforcement officer. Carol isn't charged with a felony; the officers in her case (in their own words) were not there to arrest her; and there has been no trial. so sufficiency of evidence is not remotely an issue for her.

Summers proved to be Poe's last gasp at her "that officers acted unlawfully is not a defense" spiel. And Carol was about to prove that Poe's efforts to "represent" her had been a sham -- and that's what would cause Poe to bail out.

(To be continued)


Anonymous said...

So you knew your landlord wanted you out, but you stubbornly decided to stay. What did you think would happen? You cite a law governing appeals. We're you appealing something? You cite a law firms' website as law. Did you read the part of that same paper about being physically removed? But you though there was no chance you'd be physically removed? How's all that been we out for ya? Word to the wise - next time you know your landlord wants you out, you probably should go ahead and get out. Why would anyone want to stay where they're not welcome?

Anonymous said...

So, Patty Poe really didn't do anything to help get jail taken off the table for Carol?

legalschnauzer said...

No, she didn't do a damned thing. As this post begins to show -- and the followup post will finish showing -- Carol backed Poe into a corner with actual law, and Poe had to bail out when it became clear she could no longer con Carol.

The person who got jail taken off the table was Carol.

legalschnauzer said...

@6:58 --

This will come as a shock to you, but landlords have to follow the law. Landlord lawyers have to follow the law. Cowherd and Lowther didn't follow the law, and they will come to regret that.

Here is another shocker: Tenants have the right to challenge an eviction, in court, especially when it is being done unlawfully -- as this one was on 12 grounds or more.

Cowherd was breaching his own contract -- his own lease -- and the company's witness admitted it on the stand in court. If you don't know what we were appealing, maybe you need to do a little research.

Word to the wise: Don't write comments on legal issues about which you have no clue.

Anonymous said...

How exactly did Carol push Poe into a corner?

legalschnauzer said...

The followup post will explain in full. But the short answer is Carol raised the issue of a motion to suppress evidence, based on illegal search and seizure, and Poe responded almost immediately that jail was taken off the table -- via a notice from prosecutor Nicholas Jain -- and she was bailing out of the case.

I can't read Poe's mind, but it appears to me that she was unwilling to go through with a suppression hearing, and she knew she could not con us on that subject.

legalschnauzer said...

Nicholas Jain is the one who filed notice to take jail off the table. I wasn't privy to any conversations between him and Poe, but he's the one who filed the document -- not Poe.

The whole process was set in motion by Carol proving that she could not be conned on the suppression issue -- and others.

Anonymous said...

This is about going up against the legal/law enforcement establishment. Cops and prosecutors are in bed together every day of the week, and Poe's boss knew this was going to look bad for those dudes, so he wanted out of it. I suspect Poe was just following orders.

legalschnauzer said...

@12:08 --

I think you are probably right, but it suggests the Missouri Public Defender System isn't worth a crap, especially if you are the victim of corrupt cops and prosecutors.

Anonymous said...

These allegations seem strangely familiar:

A mother posted on her private Facebook page her frustration when her ex-husband, a Washington County deputy sheriff, refused her request to pick up medicine for their sick son.

As often happens, friends wrote in support, with one referring to the ex-husband by the derogatory term “POS.”

Within days, the ex-husband Capt. Corey King and his colleague and friend, Capt. Trey Burgamy, began paperwork to have Anne King and her friend arrested. Both women were later charged with criminal defamation of character — a law that the Georgia Supreme Court found unconstitutional 32 years earlier.

Anonymous said...

A motion to suppress generally requires a hearing, and if conducted properly by the court, can reveal ugly stuff about the cops and prosecutors. Poe and her boss probably wanted no part of a proceeding that could make law enforcement types look very bad, so they bailed. It likely had nothing to do with trying to help Carol.

e.a.f. said...

you really have to wonder why the state continues with this case. In Canada this would have been tossed as a waste of the taxpayer's money. What is it with the American legal system that they go after all this small time stuff. Oh, right, so the big stuff never gets dealt with. Got it.

Anonymous said...

Prosecutors were stonewalling on discovery, and Poe was not forcing them to turn it over, so that tells you all you need to know. Both sides are corrupt and in cahoots.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Poe's single most important job is to demand discovery from the prosecution -- thorough discovery. Her second most important job is, if possible, to use that discovery to get the case dismissed prior to trial.

That she failed in both areas -- and apparently made no serious effort at either -- tells you she did a crappy job, probably at the direction of higher ups.

Anonymous said...

You aren't fooling anyone. You clearly work for the landlord. Just as clearly, you are dumb as a stump. Also, you clearly are not interested in justice or the suffering of others.

Add all that together, and you are one sh-tty human being. Must be a bitch being you.

Anonymous said...

When is your next court date? is there a warrant out for Carol for not showing up last time?

legalschnauzer said...

Who wants to know? ID yourself, and I would be glad to discuss. Otherwise I assume you are a mindless troll who isn't worth my time.

Anonymous said...

Would you be willing to provide some examples of you engaging in selfless service to other individuals -- on an individual basis? You know, like philanthropy -- via either money or time or some other means? Cite instances of unconditional generosity? Volunteer work? Etc?

legalschnauzer said...

@10:24 --

Since you raise the issue, you go first. Gives us your name and contact information, brief bio, and examples of your "unconditional generosity." Look forward to hearing about it.

Anonymous said...

@9:01 --

You must be stupid. LS doesn't have a court date.

You must be lazy. Court-related info is easily available on the Web. Look it up yourself, you sorry sack of s--t.

You must be a coward. You ask personal questions of others, without telling them who you are. You don't even have the slightest hint of fair play.

I suspect you are the dumb ass at 10:24. Are you running for canonization, or suggesting someone must be a saint to write a blog? Do you hold these standards for political candidates? Let me guess, you voted for Trump.

Hypocrite. Phony.

Anonymous said...

@9:01 and @10:24 are empty-headed trolls, dishonest to the core.

Two pig turds have more value to society.

Anonymous said...

@10:24 --

Would you be willing to cite any examples where you stood up to injustice? Have you ever seen anyone suffer from abuse by the powerful and reported it to authorities or to the public? Have you ever seen the powerful cheat and steal -- break the law -- and done anything about it? Have you ever done anything to help anyone who has been the victim of injustice? Or do you just sit back and let it happen, maybe even participate in it?

Have you ever unconditionally stood up for justice and victims of injustice?

Anonymous said...

10:24 here. I have received your response and you deflected. I will conclude that your answer is "no."

legalschnauzer said...

@12:21 --

I don't care what you conclude. You are a coward and a nameless troll to my readers and me.

I normally wouldn't even run your meaningless comment, but I kind of enjoy giving readers a glimpse at a wuss in action -- someone who deflects and then alleges that against others.

You are the very definition of a wuss and a troll.

Anonymous said...

Why not just require identities to comment.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:58 --

Because I don't want to impose that requirement, and I'm the one in charge at LS. Here are several reasons why I don't impose that requirement:

(1) It's easier for people to click Anonymous and make a comment. That's the easiest way to do it, and I don't want to take that from legit commenters.

(2) I don't want to reward trolls by making things more difficult for people who really care about the issues and want their voices to be heard.

(3) You can be fired from your job for leaving a comment under your real name at a blog that might be on a different political wavelength from that of your employer. That's pathetic, but it's a sad reality of American life. I don't want legit commenters to have to worry about that.

(4) I only bring up the ID issue with commenters where it's highly likely they are trolls -- people who have an agenda, know nothing about the relevant law or facts, but simply comment to harass or intimidate. So far, I've not had one such commenter take me up on the offer to ID themselves and I'd be happy to discuss. Not one. So my radar on trolls is pretty darned good.

(5) I run this blog, and I will not let a few bad eggs (trolls) force me into adopting policies that I believe are unnecessary and unfair for everyone else.

(6) Probably 95 percent of troll comments go straight in my digital trash can, so that's the easiest way to deal with them. I can tell what they are after 4-5 words, and they hit the trash. Easy. I bring out the ID challenge only once in a while, just to see how they respond -- and I always know how they will respond.

Anonymous said...

Hey. I'm the guy who, weeks ago, suggested that maybe Poe deserves some credit for getting jail time off the table.

I maintain my position. Yes, I have no doubt that Carol was the driving force behind this. but Poe, I am willing to bet, did something.

What she did, i suspect, is cal the prosecutor and say, "Look, my client is insisting that I file a suppression hearing. Either drop the jail time requirement and I'll be dismissed or drop the case or tell me when you want a hearing and we will go at it."

And them the prosecutor took jail time ff the table, to get rid of the lawyer, so that Carol will need to defend herself at the suppression hearing and won't, in all likelihood, prevail.

Like I said, I'm perfectly happy to admit that Carol did all the work, and put Poe in a position where she had to start moving forward. I am even willing to suggest that Poe did not do anything that any lawyer with a pulse could have done. But...I have met lawyers without a pulse, too. Poe did get jail off the table, just by pointing out what was coming -- even if what was coming was from Carol. This isn't anything to be sneezed at.

Hey, there was some speculation that I'm from Missouri or have personal knowledge. I don't. I'm a thousand miles away from Carol's case. I remain convinced ta the reason this case continues is to try to run out limitations on a Section 1983 action, but I'm not a player, either in Missouri or in Alabama. I am a lawyer, however, which means that my opinions are not necessarily anything you want to hear.

Please make sure you file Carol's 1983 case before limitations runs out. That's what this is about, and it is designed to distract you from filing.

legalschnauzer said...

@7:36 --

Thanks for an interesting comment. I don't agree with you on Poe, but I appreciate the thought and care you put into your statement. A few thoughts from my end:

(1) I have to laugh at your line about giving credit for Poe having a pulse. That's not exactly a rousing endorsement, but yes, I guess she does have a pulse. When you put the bar that low, she doesn't look so bad.

(2) A call like you describe between Poe and the APA (Nicholas Jain) might have taken place. But in my view, Poe should have been pushing months ago to have Carol's dispositive motions heard. Instead, she lied to us about the relevant law, so that does -- and will continue -- to rankle me.

(3) It's not a given that Carol won't have an attorney for a suppression hearing. Even if she doesn't, I disagree that she won't prevail. If the judge is honest and the law is applied, Carol has to prevail -- on multiple grounds.

(4) You are at a distance, so you might not fully grasp how outrageous all of this is. Here's one glaring example: The landlord (Cowherd) and his lawyer (Lowther) moved forward with this eviction even though there was only an interlocutory order issued by the court. I'm sure you understand that an interlocutory order is not final and cannot be the basis for an eviction -- and it doesn't even give us the right to appeal. It means the landlord/lawyer did not have a valid court order, signed by a judge, that gave them authority to evict. This was a self-eviction, which is unlawful in just about any jurisdiction you can think of. This also was gross abuse of process, maybe about as bad a case as you ever will hear of.

(5) The SOL in Missouri on a 1983 case is 5 years, and we will be filing soon, so that should not be an issue.

Anonymous said...

1024 here. i volunteer a total of 25-30 hours a week with 3 different organizations that provide legal aid, housing assistance, and mental health services. how about u?

legalschnauzer said...

@8:37 --

Hah! You think anyone here believes all these glorious claims, coming from a nameless troll? I don't, and I doubt any readers do. Why should they? Nothing's easier in the world than to anonymously make self-congratulatory claims, while offering no reason to believe they are true.

The rubber meets the road when you are willing to put your name and contact information behind what you say. Get back to us when you are ready to do that. Until then, shove it up your arrogant ass.

Anonymous said...

i will provide you with all my info as soon as you provide examples of your philanthropic/volunteer/civic contributions to society. but that won't happen because you spend 100 percent of your time cranking out your sad story of oppression at the hands of . . . well practically everyone. outing philanderers on AM is NOT public service. your life is about you. all about you. only about you.

legalschnauzer said...

@6:32 --

Why do you think I (or anyone else) cares one iota what you say? We don't. We care even less what you do. I'll repeat what I've said already: Until you ID yourself -- put yourself out there, as I do every day of the week -- I don't believe a word you say, and I have no respect for who you are. All of your comments, so far, are frauds, and I think you are a liar. Plus, you know nothing about my life, so I don't give a crap about your opinions.

You sound like a selfish prick to me, the type who certainly would not be involved in philanthropy. And even if you are, I don't care -- you are just doing it to aggrandize yourself, as your comments prove.

Blow it out your ass, fraud.

Steve said...

@ 6.32am.
Roger Shuler and his brave wife Carol have been assaulted, robbed of almost everything they own and illegally jailed by thugs and crooked officials reacting to Mr. Shuler's exposure of the corruption of politicians gorging off the public teat.
Yet they still have the one thing you will never have, and they have never been able to steal.
Their integrity and common decency.
That is real philanthropy.
Because of their fight to expose injustice done to others they have had to lose far too much. But they don't give up.
I bet you have never had to sacrifice a damn thing that would make a difference to you.