Missouri judge Jerry Harmison, an Eric Greitens appointee, finds Carol guilty of an offense even the "victim" stated under oath that she did not commit

Jerry Harmison Jr.

Missouri Judge Jerry Harmison Jr., an appointee of scandal-plagued Gov. Eric Greitens, has found my wife, Carol, guilty of "assault on a law enforcement officer," in a ruling that defies fact, law, logic, and common sense. In the almost 11 years I've been writing this blog, Harmison's "judgment" might stand as the most blatant example of judicial corruption I've ever seen -- and as regular readers know, that's a mouthful.

Sentencing for the "crime" Carol did not commit -- and Harmison's findings show she didn't commit it -- is set for June 11. (Judgment is embedded at the end of this post.) The prosecution removed jail time from the table months ago for the misdemeanor offense, and that seems like a good thing. But that move took away Carol's right to a jury trial and forced her to a bench proceeding before a judge, who proved to be every bit as sleazy as the governor who appointed him.

Harmison, apparently looking to burnish his right-wing, pro-police street cred, was willing to turn a blind eye to a prosecution case that was filled with enough lies to make Donald Trump blush. All four prosecution witnesses lied under oath -- and Carol can prove some of the lies; she probably can prove all of them, with an opportunity to conduct the discovery she was denied prior to trial.

Get this: Harmison apparently based his "judgment" on the following statement: "This court finds the testimony of the state's witnesses more credible and persuasive than the defense witnesses (Carol and me). Is this guy serious? Is a witness "more credible" because he's wearing a uniform and has a gun strapped to his waist -- no matter the garbage he spews forth in court?

Speaking of credibility, every prosecution witness testified that Carol flailed about in the back seat of a patrol car, suggesting she broke her own arm -- and they had nothing to do with it. Never mind that Carol testified she was handcuffed and seat-belted while in the car. Never mind that I testified that an unknown deputy -- who was not present at the trial -- slammed Carol butt-first to the ground, grabbed both arms above the elbow while she was seated, and yanked on them in an upward and backward direction, breaking her left arm before she ever was placed in the patrol car.

But Jerry Harmison is dumb enough to believe a person can inflict a comminuted fracture in her own arm? This man isn't qualified to be a judge in a pissing contest. Does Harmison cite anything that caused him to conclude Carol and I were less credible than the cop witnesses? Nope, not one thing.

Here are a couple of nuggets of good news:

* Under Missouri law, Carol can file a number of post-trial motions -- seeking to have the judgment vacated or set aside for various reasons. She also can seek a judgment of acquittal or a new trial. She also can seek criminal charges for perjury and "deprivation of rights under color of law."

* Under Missouri law, a judgment based on "fraud and collusion" cannot stand and will not preclude Carol's federal, civil-rights claims. [See Kapp v. Naturelle, Inc., 611 F. 2d 703 (Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, 1979).]

What is wrong with Harmison's judgment? I don't have room to go into everything in one post. We will provide more analysis in upcoming posts, but here are several key points for now.

(1) Statute? What criminal statute?

You might expect a judge to make note of the statute that governs a criminal case he is deciding. But we did not get that with Jerry Harmison. His "judgment" makes no mention of RSMo 565.083 -- which was repealed, by the way, effective Jan. 1, 2017 -- the statute governing Carol's alleged offense. Here is the key language from the statute, saying a person commits the offense if:

Such person knowingly causes or attempts to cause physical contact with a law enforcement officer . . . without the consent of the law enforcement officer.

When that language is applied to the facts, as stated in Harmison's own "judgment," Carol is not close to being guilty. But Harmison makes no mention of the applicable law; it appears he did not even read it. If a judge is going to convict someone of a crime, doesn't he have an obligation to use the law under which she was charged? I kind of think he does? What do you think?


(2) Well, what law did Harmison use to convict Carol?

On page 7 of Harmison's "judgment," we find this rationale: "The relevant evidence in this case is that the Greene County Deputies evicting Roger and Carol Shuler were acting in good faith."

Harmison is citing the so-called "good-faith exception," which defense lawyers routinely use in lawsuits alleging excessive force and Fourth Amendment violations against cops. In other words, Harmison decided a criminal case . . . with civil law. Carol's case is governed by the criminal statute mentioned in item No. 1 above. The charge is against her, and the statute is about her alleged actions; it has nothing to do with whether cops acted in "good faith" -- and there was overwhelming evidence at trial that they did not act in good faith, anyway.


(3) What about that key word, knowingly?

Under the statute, Carol had to act "knowingly" to be convicted, meaning "she was aware of the nature of her conduct or that those circumstances exist." Did the prosecution prove this? Nope. But it didn't matter because Harmison didn't apply the law and make them prove it. From page 5 of Harmison's "judgment":

The defendant, Carol Shuler, testified on her own behalf. She stated the judgment for possession was an interlocutory judgment in the landlord tenant case and did not authorize the Sheriff's Department to evict her and her husband. She stated that on September 9, she was napping and got up for some water. She heard loud noises outside the front door and looked through the peep hole, but it was covered. She saw the door knob moving, and she got scared and grabbed her cell phone. She said the door flew open, and she went flying against the wall. She felt hands grabbing her, and her head was pounded against the wall several times. She was placed in handcuffs, and then she saw it was the police.

Here are four points we can take from this:

(a) Carol was correct that the rent-and-possession judgment was interlocutory (non-final). Officer Scott Harrison admitted this under oath, on page 1 of the Harmison document. Under Missouri law, there cannot be execution on a judgment that is not final. (See State ex rel Turner v. Sloan [MO, 1980]) Neither Harrison nor Harmison could be bothered to look up the law. But Harrison inadvertently admitted that the cops had no grounds, under the law, to be on our rented property, much less to break into our home. Also, Carol believed (correctly) that the judgment was non-final, so there could be no eviction. She believed cops could not possibly be at her home, so she could not have "knowingly" assaulted one of them.

An X-ray of the arm a Missouri judge
apparently thinks Carol broke on her own.

(b) First, Carol did not testify that she heard "loud noises"; she said she heard noises, and that allergy problems caused her hearing to be off that day. Further, her testimony was that she looked out the peephole, and it was covered, so she could not see who was outside. Is this "good faith" in HarmisonWorld? For goodness sakes, the cops intentionally covered the peephole, so Carol could not see who they were, and that is good faith?

(c) Carol testified that she felt hands grabbing her, and she never said she "caused contact" with a cop; he caused contact with her, and the key prosecution witness admitted this. No kidding.

(d) Carol did not know she was dealing with cops until after her head had been pounded against the wall, and she was placed in handcuffs.

Did Carol "knowingly cause contact" with a cop? Hell, she did not even know they were cops, and they covered the peephole to ensure she would not know they were cops. The prosecution did not come close to proving Carol acted knowingly -- even if she did cause contact with a cop, and she did not.


(4) How can you be so sure Carol did not cause contact with a cop?

Because the "victim," Officer Jeremy Lynn, admits it -- as we've been reporting here for months. From page 3 of the Harmison document:

When [the door] was three-fourths open, resistance was experienced. Lynn used his left foot to block the door and forcefully opened the door. Lynn saw a male in the living room, approximately 15 feet away. The male was sitting in a chair with his hands palm down and his feet on the floor, apparently demonstrating he was not a threat. Lynn grabbed the person behind the door and pulled her out to apprehend her. Carol Shuler kept pushing Lynn and trying to pull away from him to resist custody.

Who caused contact here? Lynn admits he did, by grabbing Carol from behind the door. The statement goes on say to Carol "kept pushing Lynn," but that is different from Lynn's written incident report, where Lynn never says Carol pushed him or even touched him. And that goes to possible perjury -- or the filing of a false police report. Does Lynn say what Carol had done to merit being "apprehended"? Nope. Don't you have to do something wrong to have a cop grab and attempt to apprehend you? Not in Missouri, I guess.

Once again, the cop-witness and the judge seem to be clueless about the law. Missouri appellate courts have determined the key question in such cases is "Who initiated physical contact?" (See State v. Armstrong, 968 SW 2d 154 [Mo. Court of Appeals, 1998]) So, who initiated physical contact? Jeremy Lynn admits he did -- in order to apprehend someone who had done nothing unlawful.

Just how incompetent is this Missouri court? At case.net (1631-CR07731--ST V CAROL T SHULER) -- under charges, judgments, and sentences -- it has Carol being found guilty of trespass, first degree. The court bounced that charge almost one year ago. Again, I don't have the imagination to make this stuff up.

We'll stop for now with the above four primary points, but there is much more to examine in this horror show of a "judicial process."


(To be continued)

Missouri governor resigned because of judge's ruling on "dark money" non-profit, adding to questions about Eric Greitens' Greene Co. appointee Jerry Harmison

Eric Greitens

Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens resigned yesterday just hours after a judge ruled that his "dark money" non-profit would have to turn over documents by the end of this week to a Missouri House investigative committee.

On the personal front, we have this question: Could the scandal engulf Greene County Associate Circuit Judge Jerry A. Harmison Jr., the Greitens appointee who is overseeing the "assault on a law enforcement officer" case against my wife, Carol? Prosecutors brought the "cover charge" against Carol after sheriff's deputies broke her arm, requiring trauma surgery for repair, during an unlawful eviction in September 2015.

It's too early to tell if Harmison could be part of the Greitens dark-money scandal, but we reported this yesterday:

We've uncovered evidence that Harmison knew he was going to be appointed shortly after Greitens' election and took steps to ensure the judgeship would be his. In other words, Harmison is a political hack, and his prime supporter now is a fallen political embarrassment. . . . 

We have obtained substantial evidence in recent days that Harmison has acted in a wildly unlawful and corrupt fashion on Carol's case. In essence, we've seen signs that Harmison is every bit as corrupt as the sleazy governor who appointed him. . . .

How was Harmison so certain that Greitens would appoint him as judge, even before Greitens took office? We don't have a clear-cut answer to that question yet, but much of the governor's problems stem from efforts to procure and hide campaign donations.

As for Eric Greitens and the real reason he resigned, here is this from The Kansas City Star, published at 11:34 a.m. yesterday:

Gov. Eric Greitens’ political nonprofit has until Friday to turn over documents to the Missouri House committee investigating allegations of misconduct against the governor as a precursor to possible impeachment.

Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem issued a ruling Tuesday ordering the organization, A New Missouri Inc., to turn over communications and documents showing potential coordination among the nonprofit, the governor and the governor's campaign committee, as well as expenditures related to advertising.

The House committee issued subpoenas to the nonprofit and campaign seeking documents lawmakers believe might demonstrate efforts to illegally circumvent the state's campaign disclosure laws. Greitens' attorneys objected, and the House filed a lawsuit seeking an order from Beetem enforcing the subpoenas.

Roughly five hours after that was published, reports came that Greitens was set to resign. Perhaps the best summation of the resignation came from TPM editor Josh Marshall, in this tweet:

Okay, Greitens refuses to resign in the face of merciless, insanely damaging sex and blackmail scandal, resigns immediately when forced to turn over records of his dark money group? Gonna go out on a limb and say there's probably something bad there.

What could this mean for Greitens' donors, including (perhaps) Judge Jerry A. Harmison Jr.? Greitens has been dangling from a cliff for some time, due to allegations regarding dark money. Consider this from a report three weeks ago at St. Louis Public Radio, focusing on former Greitens aide Mike Hafner:

At the time, in early 2015, Hafner says he and allied consultants still thought Greitens was exploring a bid for lieutenant governor – not governor.

Hafner says he also was unaware when he drew up the call list that there could be legal problems with using The Mission Continues donor list without the charity’s specific approval.

Jerry Harmison Jr.

 Hafner has been subpoenaed several times.

Now, more than three years later, Hafner is among the witnesses at the center of probes by several law enforcement and governmental entities to determine if Greitens broke the law by his use of the list – or by his initial denials.

The Associated Press first broke the story of the donor list in October 2016. Greitens denied using it, but changed his stance in a “consent order’’ filed in April 2017 with the Missouri Ethics Commission. In the order, Greitens admitted using the donor list, but said it had been obtained by then-campaign manager Danny Laub in March 2015. Laub has denied that account.

Greitens now faces a felony criminal charge of misusing the donor list. The Missouri attorney general’s office, the St. Louis circuit attorney, the Ethics Commission and a House committee have all subpoenaed Hafner.

The report hints that donors, and not just the Greitens campaign, might have engaged in wrongdoing:

The donor list was crucial in those early months of fundraising, Hafner said. The Associated Press has calculated that at least $2 million was raised from the donor list for Greitens’ successful campaign for Missouri governor.

Hafner suspects the tally could be higher, because some of the donors broached early on the idea of forming nonprofit groups so that their contributions could not be tracked. “There was, in the very embryonic stages of the campaign, discussions already being had about C4s and LCs (two types of outside groups) and not disclosing the source of those contributions,” Hafner said.

It all is about deceiving the public -- and it got Greitens elected, but it also led to his fall:

Hafner said he simply wants to make sure the record is correct about his involvement in Greitens’ early campaign, and why he believes the public should pay attention.

“I do believe in transparency in campaigns,” Hafner said. He contended that Greitens was misleading the public when he appeared on St. Louis Public Radio’s Politically Speaking podcast in January 2016, and declared that his campaign was transparent and his donors would be public.

Although Hafner was with Brunner’s campaign by then, “I knew what they were already planning’’ with the secret money going to outside groups.

By Hafner’s calculation, “Eric had (at least) $6 million in untraceable money.”

Does this have an impact on other candidates, from both parties? Absolutely:

Greitens’ success during his campaign, and as governor, in raising so much from unidentified donors has caused some dissent within GOP and Democratic ranks. Some of that money has been used to run ads and phone banks attacking fellow Republicans in the Missouri General Assembly.

Hafner cited his previous work for such Republicans as former Sen. Jim Talent, former Gov. Matt Blunt and former Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder. “These guys put the party ahead of themselves. . . . Eric has kind of redefined all of that in the last year and a half, and I don’t think he’s redefined it for the better.”

Hafner said that the public needs to pay more attention. “Voters didn’t take into consideration the dark money that came into the race,” he said, referring to Greitens’ 2016 bid.

“That’s something people should be concerned about, going forward. People should know who’s funding these campaigns.”

Was Jerry Harmison (or his allies) helping to fund the Greitens campaign in an undisclosed and underhanded way? We will do our darnedest to find out in the coming weeks and months. We know this much already:

* Harmison has left a paper trail showing he is a crooked judge, who unlawfully favors right-wing, law-enforcement interests;

* Harmison took actions that show he knew, weeks before Greitens took office, that a judicial appointment was coming his way.


(To be continued)

Lawyer Greg Morris tries to represent us at meeting, and Judge Virginia E. Hopkins pitches a fit, leading to revelations about Alabama State Bar interference

Virginia Emerson Hopkins

How did evidence surface that the Alabama State Bar is interfering in one of our pending federal court cases and probably has been interfering in our court matters -- federal and state -- for eight to 10 years? It started with Gregory L. Morris, an attorney in Fultondale, AL.

I learned that a reader had hired Morris for a legal matter and was pleased with services rendered, so I made arrangements to speak with Morris about our "Jail Case," -- the one about Shelby County cops kidnapping me (with no apparent warrant) out of my own home and tossing me in jail for a five-month stay. All over a civil matter, alleged defamation from Alabama GOP crooks Rob Riley and Liberty Duke -- plus a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that has been prohibited by more than 200 years of First Amendment law.

Morris informed me that, as a solo practitioner, he almost certainly could not take on our full case because it involved more than 15 defendants and simply was too wide-ranging for his small shop to handle. He did, however, agree to help with one matter -- a Rule 26 meeting, where parties were to develop a schedule for discovery and filing of dispositive motions.

This normally is a routine proceeding, and lawyers have told me it often is handled via telephone conference if some parties are at a distance, as we were in this instance. U.S. District Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins ruled that, if we could not find an attorney to handle the meeting, Carol and I would have to appear in person. Hopkins set no such requirement for any other party and cited no law to support her requirement for us; it was a judge's blatant attempt to cheat a party that the court knew had been granted in forma pauperis status and lived more than a 1,000-mile round trip from the courthouse.

Hopkins, however, was not content to abuse us; she decided to heap abuse on our representative. Shortly after Morris arrived at the meeting, which I'm told normally doesn't even involve the judge, Hopkins pounced. Here is how Morris described it to me:

I tell you what, I was professionally scolded yesterday. I think it falls under the one of two categories: Either I did a horrible job of explaining -- I guess this one is more likely -- or I didn't truly understand the nature of the hearing. Roger, I did attend the meeting; I thought we were going to discuss deposition time frames, and interrogatories. I believed my scope of duty was to take notes and prepare you a report. I truly didn't understand [Hopkins] did not want to hear what I was attempting to say. Certainly that is her prerogative.

It did not take her long to explain to me her position. I absolutely told her the truth, in that I knew about the meeting, I attended the hearing, and was on time. I explained that I did not represent you vs. the 40-plus defendants. I am just not set up for that kind of onslaught. I would have to hire an attorney, a paralegal, and a legal secretary to handle this one case. She did not want to hear that I was at the meeting on your behalf, but my scope of duty was to attend the meeting and relay info or questions back to you.

I am certain I could have represented you with honor at the hearing. Most, if not all, of the claims were routine. Now most of the other attorneys were fine with this option; however, the judge was not. I am not complaining about the judge; she makes the rules. That gets me back to my failure to adequately express myself to the judge, or that I assumed that the hearing was routine. Regardless, I would have been glad to have represented you at the hearing and make some suggestions for you to consider at this point, I believe my good deed has certainly backfired on me, and certainly I was just trying to help. I am not sure I got a full sentence out during the entire 20-minute hearing. It is obvious that the judge doesn't want to see me again and at this point I don't know what else to type. Except, type the words "I am sorry." I truly mean it.

Morris added a few more words to describe his experience:

It was painful and it went on for 20 minutes, pretty much non-stop. Of course, 20-something attorneys were there as well. I don't believe I said a single word that could have angered her. But that is moot now. . . . Again, it was brutal.

The brutality and stupidity did not end there. In her fit of pique, Hopkins refused to allow anything of substance to take place while Morris was there. The meeting was a complete waste of time, and she then had it rescheduled, ordering that Carol and I had to attend in person, even if we had an attorney. We wound up driving to Birmingham and completed the meeting -- all of which could have been handled by phone conference.

Not content with that piece of injudicious behavior, Hopkins hinted in one or two documents that we were due to be hit with sanctions for failing to abide by her orders on the initial Rule 26 meeting -- even though we clearly were allowed to have an attorney represent us, we did have an attorney represent us, and we even notified the court in advance that an attorney would be representing us. (Hopkins' "show cause" order, and our response to it, are embedded at the end of this post.)

But Hopkins apparently was incensed, to a large degree, because Morris did not file a Notice of Appearance. I had suggested to Morris in an email prior to the meeting that it might be a good idea for him to file a Notice of Appearance. I didn't push the matter because I thought, "Well, he's the attorney here, and I don't want to come off as trying to tell him how to do his job."

Morris wound up not filing a Notice of Appearance, and Hopkins used that as an excuse to rail at him and threaten us with sanctions. Morris later admitted to me that he didn't file a notice because he did not trust Hopkins to let him out of the case once he officially was in. In other words, the vibes from her were so negative that he thought she would try to punish him by forcing him to take a case he wasn't equipped to handle -- and that could have caused all sorts of damage to  his entire practice.

With Hopkins still threatening us with sanctions, Morris was kind enough to prepare an affidavit, explaining that we had, in fact, asked him to appear on our behalf -- whether he filed a Notice of Appearance or not.

While preparing that affidavit, a question came to Morris that he decided to pose to someone in the Alabama State Bar's Office of Professional Responsibility.

That's what led to evidence that the Alabama State Bar was interfering with our case.


(To be continued)

Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens resigns amid scandals, as we find evidence that his appointee, Greene County Judge Jerry Harmison Jr., is a crooked scoundrel, too

Eric Greitens

Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, once considered a possible GOP presidential candidate, resigned today amid a sex scandal and multiple investigations, according to an Associated Press report filed at 4:30 p.m.

The resignation hits close to home here at Legal Schnauzer because Greitens appointed Greene County Associate Circuit Judge Jerry A. Harmison Jr., who is overseeing the bogus "assault on a law enforcement officer" case against my wife, Carol. Greene County sheriff's deputies brutalized Carol during an unlawful eviction in September 2015 and left her with a comminuted fracture of the left arm, requiring trauma surgery and months of physical therapy. She is expected to regain, at most, 80 percent usage of that arm.

We've uncovered evidence that Harmison knew he was going to be appointed shortly after Greitens' election and took steps to ensure the judgeship would be his. In other words, Harmison is a political hack, and his prime supporter now is a fallen political embarrassment.

Jim Arnott, the sheriff who caused the charges to be brought against Carol, also has been tied to Greitens and claimed to be a supporter before the governor's election in November 2016. Arnott stood about five feet away and watched an officer slam Carol butt-first to the ground and then yank on her arms in an upward and backward motion, causing severe bruising on her right arm and breaking her left arm.

Arnott's response to such police violence? His immediate inclination was to lie. He pointed at Carol and said, "She assaulted a law enforcement officer," and then apparently ensured (with the help of prosecutor Dan Patterson) that a "cover charge" was brought to help cover up gross civil-rights violations.

Arnott and Harmison, both Republicans, appear to be politically aligned, and we have seen signs that there is not an ounce of integrity between them. We have obtained substantial evidence in recent days that Harmison has acted in a wildly unlawful and corrupt fashion on Carol's case.

Jerry Harmison Jr.

In essence, we've seen signs that Harmison is every bit as corrupt as the sleazy governor who appointed him. This is from the AP report on Greitens' resignation:

Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens has resigned amid criminal and legislative investigations stemming from an extramarital affair and campaign finance questions.

The 44-year-old Rhodes Scholar and ex-Navy SEAL made the announcement Tuesday. The resignation takes effect Friday.

A St. Louis grand jury indicted Greitens on Feb. 22 on one felony count of invasion of privacy. The charge was dismissed during jury selection, but a special prosecutor was considering whether to refile charges. Prosecutors say he took a compromising photo of a woman with whom he had an affair without her consent in 2015, before his election.

The woman told a legislative committee Greitens restrained, slapped, shoved and threatened her during sexual encounters.

The Missouri Legislature began meeting in special session less than two weeks ago to consider impeachment.

The Kansas City Stae reports that Greitens' problems go way beyond an admitted extramarital affair with his hair stylist:

Along the way, Greitens was accused of using a self-destructing text message app called Confide to circumvent the state's open records laws.

He was accused by former campaign staff of exploring the idea of raising money from foreign donors, which would violate a federal law that prohibits campaigns from knowingly accepted money from foreign nationals.

He was accused of using shell companies to filter donations to his campaign to hide the source of the money.

Most recently, he was accused of using his political nonprofit, A New Missouri Inc., to illegally circumvent the state's campaign disclosure laws.

How was Harmison so certain that Greitens would appoint him as judge, even before Greitens took office? We don't have a clear-cut answer to that question yet, but much of the governor's problems stem from efforts to procure and hide campaign donations.

If it proves Harmison was involved in donation issues, a most unwelcome spotlight might wind up shining on a most crooked judge.

Viral video shows New Jersey cops pummeling a woman at beach over Memorial Day, reminding us of police brutality against my wife, Carol, in Missouri

New Jersey cops pummel Emily Weinman on beach

Police punched a woman on the New Jersey Shore over the Memorial Day weekend, and much of the incident was captured on a video that has gone viral.

Emily Weinman, age 20 of Philadelphia, is charged with two counts of aggravated assault on a police officer, aggravated assault by spitting bodily fluids at/on a police officer, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, obstruction and minor in possession of alcohol. The officers involved have been assigned administrative duties while the Wildwood, N.J., Police Department conducts an investigation.

Bruising on Carol Shuler's arm, moments before X-rays
revealed multiple breaks, inflicted by Missouri cops.

The incident is reminiscent of police brutality here in Springfield, Missouri, against my wife, Carol, where deputies from the Greene County Sheriff's Office left her with an arm broken so badly that it required trauma surgery. The beating of Carol came during an eviction that was unlawful on at least 10 grounds. There are quite a few differences between our experience and the New Jersey incident, and we will address those in a moment. But first, here are more details about the Emily Weinman incident, from a report by Gina Tron at oxygen,com:

The involved officers have been re-assigned to administrative duty while the investigation is conducted, Wildwood Police said Sunday. 

“Chief [Robert] Regalbuto stated that while he finds this video to be alarming, he does not want to rush to any judgment until having the final results of the investigation,” police said.

That video appears to show two officers wrestling a young woman to the ground and punching her in the head on a beach in Wildwood. People can be heard shouting at the woman to stop resisting. A woman who was sleeping on the beach woke up to the disturbance, recorded it on her phone and posted it on Twitter. (Video is embedded at the end of this post.)

The mayor of Wildwood, N.J., said Weinman spit at an officer, as if that somehow justifies the beating that was captured on video. From a report at cbsnews.com:

Wildwood Mayor Ernie Troiano Jr. told The Philadelphia Inquirer that the episode was a "shame," but said police would soon release body camera footage showing officers being insulted and spat upon. Weinman is also charged with spitting at an officer.

"It wasn't just that this officer decided to beat her up," he said. "That wasn't the case."

Troiano declined comment on the use of force, saying he didn't know the whole story, but added: "We don't like to see anyone get hit, period. But then again, when you have someone who's aggressively attacking you or spitting at you. I wasn't there. I don't know."

Notice that the mayor admits cops beat up Weinman? It appears he considers that acceptable.

As for comparisons of police brutality against Carol in Missouri and the Weinman incident in New Jersey, a few issues appear clear:

(1) Weinman apparently escaped with no serious injuries; Carol was not so fortunate, winding up with a comminuted fracture of the left arm, meaning it was shattered in more than two places.

(2) New Jersey police, at least, are making a show of holding officers accountable; in Missouri, cops, prosecutors, lawyers, and judges have engaged in a cover up that has grown more blatant and corrupt in recent days. (Details on that in upcoming posts.) Just one example: Cops have conducted no investigation of the beating, contrary to their own policies, and suggested in both oral and written statements that Carol broke her arm by flailing about in the back of a patrol car. Never mind that Carol was handcuffed and seat belted in the patrol car, and comminuted fractures are caused by trauma, as in a car crash -- and are not the kind of injury one inflicts upon herself.

X-ray of Carol Shuler's broken arm,
a comminuted fracture.

(3) Both Carol and Weinman face criminal charges that would have to improve to be dubious. In Carol's case, she was charged with "assault on a law enforcement officer," even though "victim" Jeremy Lynn admitted in his incident report that he "knowingly caused physical contact" with Carol -- and under Missouri law, that means Carol did not "initiate" contact, and she is not guilty; Weinman was charged with aggravated assault on an officer, and that smells funny, based on the report from Oxygen:

In a now-deleted Facebook post, Weinman wrote that before the arrest, she passed a breathalyzer test. Then, she claimed police followed her on the sand.

"I asked them don't they have something better to do as cops than to stop people for underage drinking on the beach,” she wrote on her Facebook, according to New Jersey.com. She said that an officer replied, “I was gonna let you go but now I'll write you up."

She went on to write that she then refused to cooperate with police and didn’t give them her name. As she was backing away, she tripped and fell and she said that’s when one of the officers grabbed her and began tackling her.

Police are asking that anyone present during the incident contact them to assist with their investigation. They should contact Detective Lieutenant Kenneth Gallagher at 609-522-0222.

That suggests Weinman was arrested because she dared question a cop, not because she violated any laws. It also suggests cops instigated the larger incident by following Weinman, rather than just letting her go.

That is in keeping with the dishonesty, intimidation, and thuggery we've experienced in Missouri -- and others have experienced around the country -- in the past three years or so.

Evidence shows member of Alabama State Bar staff has interfered in at least one of our pending federal court cases, pointing to possible crimes and RICO acts

Newly obtained evidence shows the Alabama State Bar has been interfering with at least one of our pending federal-court cases ("The Jail Case") and probably has been interfering with the other ("The House Case"), which likely explains the string of unlawful rulings in that matter.

I've suspected for about eight years or so that someone has been interfering with our court cases, both at the state and federal level. Now, I have evidence that points to the origins of at least some of the interference -- and it appears to come straight from staff members at the Alabama State Bar.

This all points to likely violations of federal criminal law -- obstruction of justice, misprision of a felony, wire fraud, honest-services fraud, conspiracy -- and they could form the "predicate acts" for a civil and/or criminal complaint under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Yes, the organization that is supposed to police lawyers and ensure that our courts are honest appears to be engaged in racketeering. That should be comforting to all Alabama citizens, and it's little wonder that our courts have become corrupt sewers, at every level. But it will not be a surprise to those who have known the ugly reality of the Alabama State Bar. For years, it has been infested with cronies of crooked Republican political figures, including Jeff Sessions, Bill Pryor, Bob Riley. Ali (Akbar) Alexander, and others.

The interference in our situation definitely takes one form: Trampling our Sixth Amendment right to counsel and ensuring that we are not able to obtain the services of a lawyer. I suspect it takes another form: Collusion with judges to ensure that we receive one unlawful ruling after another, many of which have been documented on this blog, going back to Legal Schnauzer's beginnings in summer 2007.

I recently called the state bar office and asked to speak to Jeremy McIntire, the individual a Birmingham-area attorney identified as making statements that strongly suggested the attorney should not get involved in our Jail Case and could even come to some form of harm if he remained engaged. The attorney was "75 to 80 percent sure" he spoke with McIntire, not one of the other two assistant general counsels -- Tripp Vickers or Mark Moody.

When I spoke with McIntire by phone, he denied having talked with the attorney. When I asked if he could check with Vickers or Moody, he declined to do so. When I asked why, he rudely informed me that it's "not my job."

I wound up speaking with Acting General Counsel Douglas McElvy, who immediately went into whitewash mode -- saying he found it almost impossible to believe that a member of his staff would interfere in a pending court case. I informed McElvy that I had the evidence in a word-for-word format, so he invited me to send a written complaint (which I did), and he promised to investigate.

Douglas McElvy

Do I expect anything of substance to come from McElvy's investigation? No, I do not -- especially after learning last week that Judge Roman A. Shaul, had been selected as full-time general counsel at the bar, meaning McElvy soon will be hitting the exits. The esteemed acting general counsel made no mention of that in our phone conversation.

McElvy did  provide one tidbit of interest. If the Birmingham-area attorney had an ethics question, McElvy said, the call almost certainly went to Vickers and not McIntire. For now, I'm assuming Vickers made the improper statements pointing to interference, but it remains less than 100 percent clear.

McElvy has not responded to my written complaint, which I sent via email, as instructed.

I made it clear to McElvy that I consider this a matter of utmost seriousness, and I intend to use every possible avenue -- up to, and including, RICO -- to seek justice for gross violations of our constitutional rights.

If the interference is as blatant and long-running as I suspect, members of the Alabama State Bar staff and its attorney roster, could wind up in federal prison.

How did all of this come to light? We will have details in an upcoming post.


(To be continued)

Tennessee developer Franklin Haney, with boost from Alabama's Congressional GOPers, asks Trump admin to help speed up deal on Bellefonte nuclear facility

Bellefonte Nuclear Plant

 A Tennessee developer, with the help of Alabama Congressional Republicans, is asking the Trump administration to expedite the purchase of an unfinished nuclear plant near Scottsboro -- based on foreign investment from the Middle East. A prominent Alabama whistle blower and researcher says the deal, if completed, could be a disaster of Biblical proportions.

Franklin Haney, of Chattanooga, has a history of dumping cash on Alabama governors and receiving favorable treatment on the back end. He joined Trump lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen at a meeting last month in Miami with an official from Qatar. Haney bought the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in 2016. Construction on the facility started in 1975, and it has been sitting idle and uncompleted for 30 years.

Bellefonte likely has been a drain on Haney's substantial resources, and he wants Trump and the federal government to help him out -- all while possibly placing nuclear technology into the hands of financial elites in the Middle East and putting the environment and public health at risk in northeast  Alabama. From a report at al.com:

A company led by Chattanooga businessman Franklin Haney is seeking the help of President Trump to move along its purchase of Bellefonte Nuclear Plant in Jackson County.

Nuclear Development LLC has also applied for federal loans of about $5 billion to help pay for completion of the mothballed facility so it can produce its first watt of electricity, according to U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks, the Huntsville Republican whose district includes the plant site outside Scottsboro.

That's the same Mo Brooks who recently suggested sea levels are rising, not because of global climate change, but because of rocks falling into the oceans. We really want this guy involved with issues of nuclear power? Here's more from al.com:

Brooks said officials from Nuclear Development approached him and asked if he could send the letter to Trump. Dated May 14, the letter was also signed by Republican Alabama Congress members Robert Aderholt of Haleyville, Bradley Byrne of Mobile and Martha Roby of Montgomery as well as Tennessee Republican Congressman Chuck Fleischman, whose district includes Chattanooga - about 60 miles northeast of Bellefonte.

"I said, 'What can I do to help?'" Brooks said. "(Nuclear Development) said a letter to President Trump signed by you and other congressmen would be beneficial. So I've added my name, along with the names of other congressmen, to resume of a project I hope will bear fruit and generate thousands of short-term and long-term jobs for Tennessee Valley residents."

Jill Simpson, a retired lawyer who testified before Congress about corruption related to the Don Siegelman prosecution, says (in so many words) that Brooks and his colleagues are a bunch of dangerous loons. She says several Alabama GOP con artists -- Jeff Sessions, Bob Riley, Robert Bentley -- have been seeking to benefit from the Bellefonte deal. From a post at Simpson's Facebook page:

We found out that Mr. Sessions, the Riley folks, Bentley folks, Alabama Gang folks and Mr Franklin Haney were in cahoots trying to get control of a nuclear facility . . . I must admit I was pretty clueless as to why, but now it appears the picture is getting clearer. They are trying to take in foreign Arab investors and let them see the whole uranium-making process at a facility in northeast Alabama. . . .  

Who knows what this crowd will do next, as their ability to exploit our country's industries and resources are endless and beyond the imagination of most folks. These are evil dark forces, selling out our country's technology. I have a feeling this time they are caught in a deal to make nuclear equipment for foreigners and nuclear material for Trump's foreign buddies -- or at the very least to show them how it is done here, when they invest and get the plans to complete the facility. 

I might add it is dangerous to let foreign investors in on our nuclear facilities, even if the plants are eventually torn down or completely modernized after being studied by foreigners. Haney and his associates are caught in a trap of their own making about nuclear technology, of how to enrich uranium, and are just now starting to be exposed to the world.

Simpson grew up not far from the Bellefonte site and says her neighbors need to think hard about what this deal could mean to the area. From another Simpson Facebook post:

Everyone in northeast Alabama needs to be thinking about whether we want to put our beautiful environment at risk for some Trump and Alabama Republican Gang members to bring up a nuclear power plant that TVA says we don't need.

I don't want an Arab country's nuclear plant in my back yard, dumping into our beautiful Tennessee River when a tornado goes through. Every Jackson County citizen with good sense knows Bellefonte is right in the middle of the tornado alley that runs through our area. Can you believe this is where the Alabama Gang wants to teach countries in the Middle East how to build nuclear reactors capable of enriching uranium for weapons? 

Wonder what Sessions, Riley, and the Alabama Gang are going to make off being traitors on that deal? First, we deal, literally, with New York shit being driven into Alabama on trains. Now, we are to teach Middle Eastern investors how to make weapons-grade uranium, U.S. style. I certainly don't see how the Alabama Creeps can do much worse, and their asses are busted on this deal.

Because of Michael Cohen's involvement in the Haney/Qatar meeting, this all could land in the middle of the Robert Mueller investigation, Simpson writes, and it points toward treason:

Now you all know how Cohen got his office raided. The jackass was plotting to help foreign investors get in our uranium-enrichment reactors and get the plans for them. What dumb asses these Alabama Gang thugs are. Wonder how big a campaign donation these thugs got, promoting this deal in recent weeks. Mo Brooks has been all for this deal, as have many others. Selling uranium reactor plans to Middle East folks I hear can be very profitable. 

This is the kind of crap the Alabama Resistance has been outing on this bunch ever since I first came forward, and we outed them for training Saudi pilots to create wars all over the Middle East -- and selling out our refueling-tanker deal. The Alabama Gang is a bunch of dirt bags who would sell their dead grandmother's bones out of her grave for a few pieces of silver from a foreign investor. 

The way I see it, the Alabama thugs are traitors and should be treated as such. Selling nuclear-reactor info to the wrong folks in the Middle East can cause the end of planet. I generally am not an advocate of the death penalty, but when folks sell out the planet and all the people on the planet, I am for the death penalty for those kinds of traitors -- and that is what we dealing with. 

We must protest with all of our might before these end-of-time, far-right extremists own a nuclear reactor in northeast Alabama -- in cahoots with investors from the Middle East.

Evidence, some of it new, shows my lawyer-brother, David Shuler, took acts regarding our eviction and bogus 911 call that almost got Carol and me killed

David Shuler

The person who arranged our unlawful eviction and a bogus 911 call almost got Carol and me killed; the individual largely did cause Carol's arm to be broken. Evidence increasingly shows the person behind both events is my lawyer-brother, David Shuler.

David's role in our eviction has been apparent since I received the following email from him on 6/2/15 -- three months and one week before our eviction in Springfield, Missouri:

Hi Roger: 

I hope you and Carol are doing well. Mom asked me to contact you regarding the lease on your duplex. She said she tried to talk to you about it when she recently stopped by to visit, but was unable to do so. She talked to the people at Cowherd Construction and they are willing to extend your lease without a co-signor in that the rent has always been paid in full and on time. The lady suggested that you meet Mom at their office on 6/29 and they would allow you to execute a new lease. This lease would be in your name and would be your responsibility. I do not know if they would require Carol to be on the lease. I would think that they would also want her to sign since she would be living there. I also do not know how they would handle the deposit and pet deposit since those were paid by Mom.

Mom will make the last rent payment on 6/29 which will cover the month of July. You have the option to renew and stay there or of course, you could vacate and pick some place else to live.

Again, I hope you guys are doing well. Mom just wanted me to e-mail this information to you to avoid any confusion.

David, it turns out, was the one in a state of confusion. Our lease required no provision that we execute a new lease in the event the co-signer wanted off the lease. And there was no reason to have such a provision because my mother's responsibility ended when the lease was up at 13 months -- with Carol and I set to take over payments on a month-to-month basis, per the lease. (Lease is embedded at the end of this post.)

The landlord, Cowherd Construction, never contacted us and said we had to sign a new lease. That all came from David, as if he concocted the whole charade, and Cowherd went along with it, in silence. The landlord also never made a demand for rent because our rent always had been timely paid -- and it would have been timely paid on a month-to-month basis by Carol and me. If we had been unable to pay, we would have moved out on our own, without the need for an eviction.

Again, that is in line with the lease and Missouri law. (Notice to vacate, with no mention of late rent, is embedded at the end of this post.) Failure to demand rent, in a rent-and-possession case, is one of about 12 grounds that made our eviction unlawful.

How ugly were David's motives? It's hard to say for sure, but an ex parte letter he wrote to the judge in our rent-and-possession case was flagrantly improper, prejudicial, and well . . . evil probably is not too strong a word. (Letter is embedded at the end of this post.) Consider these words from the letter:

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 Petitioner (Trent Cowherd) in the matter and assist in any way to help them regain possession of the rental property currently occupied by Mr. Shuler.

It's hard to get much lower than this. And as has become David's custom, he reveals that he and the truth have a distant, dysfunctional relationship, as I pointed out in a March 2017 post:

You will notice that this is the unvarnished David Shuler, with all the phony sweetness and light removed. He says our mother made a mistake by trying to help Carol and me, as if that's a decision for him to make. Has our mother (and our father, when he was living) provided financial assistance to David and his family when they encountered rocky waters? I strongly suspect the answer is yes. But to help Carol and me? What a dreadful thought.

David then falsely claims I had refused to pay the rent or vacate the property. David's letter was dated August 21, 2015, meaning Cowherd still was at least 10 days short of being able to initiate eviction proceedings, much less have a court date. David Shuler conveniently ignores this little matter of law.

The second paragraph is so crooked that is makes the mind swim. From one side of his mouth, David claims to be representing our mother. From the other side, he admits that he (and our mother) are working on behalf of Trent Cowherd, trying to make sure Cowherd regained property that he was not entitled to regain because he untimely filed his rent-and-possession case.

"Fraud on the court" is a legal term that is more complex than most lay folks realize. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but this probably comes pretty close to a "fraud on the court." David Shuler admits he was representing one person when his real interest was in assisting another -- and he even roped our elderly mother in on such a crooked act.

We recently discovered evidence that shows David Shuler can take dishonesty, deceit, and fraud to dizzying heights. The evidence involves the 911 call that David tried to lay at my feet, but actually was placed by an administrator at Burrell Behavioral Health, our health-care provider at the time.

Guess who encouraged Burrell to make the call and told some Whopper-sized lies in the process.

We will reveal that in an upcoming post, but here is a key point to remember: The 911 call is the excuse Greene County Sheriff's Office officials used for bringing 6-8 officers to an eviction, many of them heavily armed. It's apparently the reason Officer Scott Harrison -- upon bursting into our home with no court-approved eviction order -- pointed an assault rifle at my head. It's likely the reason the officer we call "Mr. Blue Shirt" brutalized Carol and broke her arm. Without the 911 call, he probably would not have even been on the scene.

So yes, David Shuler put our lives at risk, which raises this question: Was he intentionally trying to get us killed? Given what I've learned about his depraved sense of right and wrong, I would not put anything past him.


(To be continued)

Tennessee mogul Franklin Haney, who dumped cash on Alabama governors Bob Riley and Robert Bentley, has sketchy ties to Trump fixer Michael Cohen

Franklin Haney

A Tennessee businessman with a history of dumping cash on Alabama governors Bob Riley and Robert Bentley joined Donald Trump fixer Michael Cohen in a meeting last month with a Qatari official, according to a new report at Mother Jones (MJ).

The meeting came days before federal agents raided Cohen's office and could be of interest to investigators for Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Franklin Haney, of Chattanooga, TN, reportedly was seeking an investment in an inoperative nuclear plant he owns in Alabama. Cohen likely was seeking a lucrative finder's fee. Reports MJ:

At a meeting in Miami on April 5, Franklin Haney, the owner of an inoperative nuclear power plant in Hollywood, Alabama, sought a major investment for his facility, according to two sources familiar with the gathering. His target, the sources say, was Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassim bin Mohammed Al Thani, Qatar’s minister of economy and commerce and deputy chairman of the Qatar Investment Authority, the $300 billion sovereign wealth fund of the natural gas-rich Persian Gulf state. Also at the meeting, according to the sources, was Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s longtime personal lawyer and fixer. (Several days later, Cohen’s office and home would be raided by federal agents.) Now, as the Trump scandal expands to include Cohen’s business deals and possible interactions between Trump associates and officials of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, any relationship between Cohen and Qatar would likely be of interest to federal investigators.

No one should be surprised that the meeting was about money -- big, big money. And once again, it offers an Alabama connection to possible national and international criminality:

The two sources familiar with the discussions between Cohen and Al Thani tell Mother Jones that the two men met with Haney to discuss possible Qatari investment in his nuclear power plant. Marinetraffic.com, a website that tracks the location of large ships, shows that Haney’s $50 million, 167-foot yacht, the Emelina, was docked in Miami’s Miamarina from April 2 through April 7. (Haney’s yacht is usually based in Washington, DC.)

If a deal were struck, Cohen could have expected to receive a finder’s fee, according to the sources. “Michael doesn’t do anything without getting paid,” said one of the sources, who knows Cohen. It’s unclear whether any agreement was reached.

Who is Franklin Haney? His name cropped up just as the Mike Hubbard trial was getting started in Alabama. From MJ:

Haney, 77, a Chattanooga, Tennessee, native who made a fortune largely through leasing office space to federal agencies, bought the unfinished Bellefonte Nuclear Plant from the federal Tennessee Valley Authority for $111 million in 2016. Work on the plant started in 1975 but was halted in 1988 and never completed. Haney still needs to line up financing—an estimated $13 billion—to complete work on two nuclear reactors at the plant. Haney also needs Trump administration help. He is seeking an extension of an Energy Department loan guarantee, nuclear power tax credits, and various Nuclear Regulatory Commission approvals. And if the plant is eventually completed, Haney will need business from the TVA, the only viable customer for the plant’s electricity.

Haney has aggressively courted the Trump administration. After giving heavily to Democrats for years, he donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee through one of his companies. He has also contributed at least $125,000 to the Republican National Committee this year, according to Federal Election Commission records. Bloomberg reported last year that Haney had bragged to associates that he has dined with Trump at least a dozen times since the election. Haney is also a member of Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida club, according to the report.

Haney also has aggressively courted Alabama governors and walked away with sweetheart deals. From a May 2016 post at Legal Schnauzer, quoting an al.com report:

Let's start with former Gov. Bob Riley.

Haney, a big Democratic donor over the years who in the last election gave $2 million to the Obama re-election campaign, put a load of cash into Alabama Republican politics in 2006, and Riley got a bunch of it.

Haney, according to the Alabama Secretary of State's office, passed at least $130,000 to Riley through PACs run by noted PACman Clark Richardson, much like he did last year with the Birmingham City Council. . . .

Riley, later, would become a big advocate for Haney and the Birmingham building.

One of his last acts as governor was to sign a lease that would consolidate Jefferson County's Department of Human Resources and move that agency into 290,000 square feet of Haney's building. Annual rent on that building began at $1.2 million a year, according to the lease, but rises this year to $5 million for the remainder of the term, plus possible extra costs for operational expenses.

That's higher than any of the 63 state tenants in any of David Bronner's newer and shinier RSA buildings, according to state records. It appears to be the highest rental rate for any state agency.

Riley not only signed the lease as he left office, he lobbied for Haney in Birmingham.

What about Gov. Bentley? According to published reports, Mr. Haney, from Tennessee, might have helped pay for the "Luv Guv's" mistress, Rebekah Caldwell Mason:

Haney has resurfaced under the Bentley regime. This time, Haney dumped cash on Bentley--possibly even helping support a slush fund to pay Bentley's mistress, Rebekah Caldwell Mason--and wound up getting support for a project involving a partially built nuclear reactor in northeast Alabama. Haney also got more support for his office building. Write Whitmire and Archibald, in an article dated May 13, 2016:

Michael Cohen

Just the traceable donations from Haney's businesses to Bentley's last campaigns total about $300,000, much of which moved into Bentley's campaign account after the last election was over. . . . That campaign account subsequently paid the salary of Rebekah Caldwell Mason, the governor's senior political advisor with whom he is accused of having an affair.

Meanwhile, the governor has helped Haney, too, finalizing a state lease in Haney's Birmingham office building which costs the state $5 million a year.

And more recently, the governor threw his support publicly behind the sale of a partially built nuclear power plant currently owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority north of Scottsboro.


Haney's name reportedly is familiar to investigators examining money funneled into a non-profit organization that helped pay Mason. Haney, however, does not seem anxious to discuss the situation. Reports al.com:


In the most recent election cycle, Bentley's re-election campaign received at least $200,000 through such transactions — $75,000 of which moved to Bentley after the election, when the governor was raising the money he'd later use to pay Mason's salary during his second term.

Haney's name has popped up repeatedly in recent months as investigators and lawmakers have sought to learn more about the money paid into ACEgov, a shadowy 501(c)4 that also was used to supplement the pay of Mason.

Asked this week if he contributed to ACEgov, Haney referred questions to his lawyer.

Note the highlighted sections above about Bentley's support of a nuclear-plant project near Scottsboro -- after receiving donations from Haney that helped pay Rebekah Caldwell Mason. That's the same plant for which Haney, with help from Trump fixer Michael Cohen, sought investment from a Qatari official.

If Mueller investigators really want to follow the money trail involving Franklin Haney and his Alabama properties, they might want to start with former governors Bob Riley and Robert Bentley -- not to mention "Home Wrecky Becky" Mason.

What did it mean when my lawyer-brother David Shuler, after we had expressed a desire to achieve justice, nonchalantly said, "It's not gonna happen"?

David Shuler

We've established that my elderly mother has made several curious statements indicating she has at least a general idea of who is behind the abuse directed at Carol and me in recent years -- and why we've been targeted. But my mother hardly is the only family member to make such statements. My lawyer-brother, David Shuler, has done the same thing. And given his status as a member of the legal tribe, it likely will surprise no one that he has engaged in flagrant falsehoods. In fact, we recently discovered evidence that shows David concocted stories that almost got Carol and me killed during an unlawful 2015 eviction that directly led to Carol's broken arm.

What about David's most peculiar statement? It came in summer 2014, shortly after Carol and I had arrived in Missouri, and I made a statement to the effect that, "Our No. 1 goal, in light of all that has been done to us, is to achieve justice."

David's response? "It's not gonna happen."

In addition to being rude and thoughtless, David's words could cause the following response in any rational human: "How in the hell do you know?"

As noted in the post about my mother's peculiar statements, these words from David perhaps can be interpreted in different ways, by different people. But I can conjure only one interpretation: David knows who is behind the abusive actions taken against Carol and me, he likely knows some of it is criminal, he has communicated with someone in Alabama (or elsewhere) who is closely aligned with the perpetrators, and he is determined to align himself with our adversaries -- probably because he knows some (or all) of them are fellow members of the legal tribe. Also, David has decided to stay silent about actions that likely are felonies, which can be a federal crime in itself.

As for David and falsehoods, it's going to take more than one post to deal with that subject. But here is one of the most alarming instances: A woman named Kathryn Mays, who was my social worker at Burrell Behavioral Health, said she had talked to David via phone after he called and said I had asked him to talk to her.

Just a slight problem with David's story: I never asked him to call Kathryn Mays, or anyone else. After Kathryn shared that story with us, Carol and I withdrew the releases we had signed allowing family members to communicate with personnel from Burrell. Once the releases had been canceled -- and Burrell knew exactly why they had been canceled -- the organization was strictly forbidden from speaking to David, my mother, or any other family members. We also withdrew the release for Don Schlueter, the so-called friend from my college days who convinced us to give up the fight for our house in Birmingham and move to Missouri.

Speaking of Burrell, it is involved in the evidence that suggests my brother's capacity for lying has grown to Goliathan proportions.


(To be continued)

Missouri prosecutor Dan Patterson is busy talking tough about drunk driving -- except when he's hiring a convicted drunk driver, like Nicholas Jain, to his staff

Dan Patterson

Greene County (MO) prosecuting attorney Dan Patterson hired a drunk driver for his staff, so you might expect that he would be squishy soft on issues related to DUIs. But based on Patterson's tough-guy Republican rhetoric, you would be wrong -- and we suspect his talking points become particularly rugged around election time.

So, it appears that Dan Patterson talks like Charles Bronson about drunk drivers, especially if it helps him get elected -- but then he hires a convicted drunk driver, Nicholas Jain, to be one of  his assistant prosecutors. I think, somewhere in the dictionary, that's called hypocrisy.

To make matters worse, Patterson assigns Jain to prosecute DUI cases, such as the recent one involving Charles Hollis Roux, of Springfield. Together, Patterson and Jain have a habit of bringing criminal charges without probable cause -- as they did in the Roux case and in the "assault of a law enforcement officer" case involving my wife, Carol.

Our previous articles in this series about the Roux case can be read here, here, and here. Documents related to the Roux case are embedded at the end of this post.

How gross is the hypocrisy in all of this? Jain has left his position in Greene County and is running for prosecuting attorney of Dunklin County, in southeast Missouri. Jain apparently is so arrogant that he thinks he can hide his DUI from voters -- or he thinks they simply do not care about his criminal record.

What is Patterson's rhetoric on drunk drivers -- when he isn't busy hiring a drunk driver for his staff? Let's look at some examples.

This is from a 2017 county press release, published last July at fox5krbk.com:

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – (7/31/17) Greene County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson announces that Joshua Xavier Oswald, 23, of Springfield, MO was sentenced last Friday by The Honorable Thomas Mountjoy to a five year prison sentence on each of four counts of Assault in the Second Degree relating to a drunk driving crash that occurred on December 5, 2015. Probation was denied by the Court.Oswald’s charges stemmed from a motor vehicle crash that took place at the intersection of South Campbell and West Sunset in Springfield, Missouri.

So, if you drive drunk and crash into somebody, Patterson will throw you in prison for five years. If you don't crash, he might offer you a job. Here is a 2016 Springfield News-Leader article (by columnist Steve Pokin) where Patterson gripes that a drunk driver was placed on five years' probation for a crash that caused a fatality. Nicholas Jain, a member of Patterson's own staff, received two years' probation:

On Feb. 19, [Circuit Judge David] Jones sentenced [Dylan] Meyer to five years' probation. He could have sent Meyer to prison for 5 to 15 years. The prosecutor has asked for 10. Meyer had been charged with involuntary manslaughter.

The sentence was a "slap on the wrist," says Dan Patterson, Greene County prosecuting attorney.

Meyer, a 2012 graduate of Kickapoo High School, took the life of Kelly Williams in the early morning of Feb. 10, 2015. He slammed his pickup into her car at Campbell Avenue and Battlefield Road. He was driving 95 mph, according to police, when he ran a stoplight.

His blood alcohol level was .266 percent, three times the legal limit — a level where many can no longer walk.

The sentence was a "slap on the wrist"? What is it when Patterson offers a convicted drunk driver a job? A kiss on the butt? From a 2011 county press release. (Notice that Patterson touts the convictions he gets in DUI cases. I haven't received a press release about the hiring of a convicted drunk driver to his staff.):

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – Dan Patterson, Greene County Prosecuting Attorney announced that Jeremy William Arata, 23, of Springfield, Missouri, was convicted today by a Greene County Jury of the class B felony of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree. The jury found that Arata was intoxicated on November 15, 2007, when the vehicle he was driving struck a vehicle driven by Mr. Paul Fain. Arata’s vehicle was going at speeds near 60 miles an hour in a residential area when it collided with Mr. Fain who had just pulled out from a stop sign. Mr. Fain died as a result of the injuries he suffered in the collision. Arata’s blood alcohol level was measured at .146%. The jury deliberated for approximately three hours before returning its verdict.

The jury trial was presided over by The Honorable Calvin Holden. The defendant is subject to a sentence of a minimum 5 years to a maximum 15 years in the Missouri Department of Corrections.

Finally, we have a 2014 press release about a plan to obtain blood samples from drunk drivers who refuse to take breath tests:

Greene County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson announces that his office will assist local law enforcement agencies by seeking search warrants to obtain blood samples from drunk drivers that refuse to consent to a breath test after their arrest. This pilot project resulted from a collaboration of the Greene County Sheriff’s Office, the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the Springfield Police Department and the Greene County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.

To combat the often deadly problem of impaired driving, the Greene County Sheriff’s Office, Missouri State Highway Patrol and Springfield Police Department will kick off the “no refusal” policy with a joint DWI check point in November and will be out in force cracking down on impaired drivers. Following the kick-off event, the “no refusal” strategy will be applied to all DWI arrests by those agencies when a driver refuses consent.

It is called a “no refusal” policy because all impaired drivers arrested who refuse breath testing will be subject to blood testing for alcohol if a judge approves a warrant. The ability of law enforcement officers to submit their search warrant applications to judges electronically make this process both easy and relatively quick.

“Impaired driving remains a major public safety threat that still claims thousands of innocent lives on our roadways every year. A ‘no refusal’ policy represents one more tool in our battle against this public safety threat,” said Greene County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson.

So, drunk drivers are a public safety threat, except when they apply for a job at the Greene County Prosecutor's Office -- and then, Patterson is likely to hire them.