Wednesday, May 23, 2018

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)


Anonymous said...

Your Brothers letter to the judge is a conflict of interest.He is a officer of the court and it looks like he is trying to influence the judge.

Anonymous said...

You've convinced me -- your brother is a bastard.

Anonymous said...

The landlord, Cowherd, never contacted you about their claim that you needed to sign a new lease?

Very strange.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:35 --

Nope, the only communication I received on that subject came from David Shuler, via the email that is in this post.

I did talk via phone about it with a woman in the Cowherd office, but I made that call. The only information from "Cowherd" was via email and David Shuler.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like collusion. How very Trumpian.

Myles to go said...

I'm guessing David was on somebody's payroll. Even bad lawyers, like him, don't work for free.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:02 --

There is no doubt that's what he's doing, and it should cost him his bar card.

The Missouri State Bar probably is as crooked as the Alabama State Bar, and I wouldn't be surprised if the two are working together to trample our constitutional rights.

BTW, I have evidence of interference by the Alabama State Bar in our federal case, and that all points to RICO. I suspect the Missouri State Bar of similar activity, and I'm probably going after both on RICO charges -- civil and maybe criminal.

Details will be coming on Legal Schnauzer.

Anonymous said...

I thought your brother was supposed to be staying out of your business. He has a funny way of doing it.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:54 --

Hah! He sure does. That letter to the judge in our rent-and-possession case is a classic example of David "staying out of our business."

That letter led directly to cops brutalizing Carol and breaking her arm and almost got my head blown off, thanks to a fat/ugly cop with an assault weapon.

But, wait . . . "David's only trying to help us."

legalschnauzer said...

Here is an email from David on 2/2/15, which is another fine example of him "staying out of business." Also shows his disconnect with the truth. Here, David and Deputy Scott Harrison make claims that I issued a threat, via a 911 call, to shoot cops during our eviction. We have proof that I never placed a 911 call and never issued such a threat:

"Roger: Per your request and your threat to sue me, I am doing my best to stay out of your business. As a good faith effort to stay out of your business, I would appreciate it if you would not respond to this e-mail. A deputy called me today and asked me to have you contact him. He said he posted the notice to vacate on the Cowherd property. He also said he was concerned because his dispatch contacted him and said you had called 911 and threatened to shoot anyone coming on the premises to get you out. I certainly hope that you did not really do that, but he asked me to make you aware that they take such threats seriously and that you are setting up a potentially dangerous situation. He stressed to me that he would like to help you find housing and that he did not want you or anyone else to get hurt. His name is deputy Harrison and his phone number is 501-6092. He is very concerned and stressed to me that he did not wish for you or anyone else to get hurt."

Anonymous said...

Re: 5/23/2018 @ 10:19am

Just one of my opinions here, but: is this pile of documentation going to make it to the Missouri bar ? To paraphrase you: I sure hope so. *Opinion*

*More Opinion*
In years, and I do mean years of reading your blog, I never remember you suggesting a firearm as a solution to anything. I can never remember you saying anything about firearms. I cannot logically derive that you would even own or want to own a firearm.

The only Smith and Wesson I can see Mr. S (or Mrs. S) going to for anything, would be if Mr. Smith was a mailman, and the Wesson was a type of cooking oil.

One final opinion: D.S. would be the safest man in a room full of every type of venomous snake, spider, scorpion- simply on the basis of professional courtesy.

legalschnauzer said...

@12:00 --

(1) The big question: Is the Missouri Bar a corrupt organization? Is it worth your time to engage them with evidence? No doubt the Alabama Bar is corrupt, and I have a post coming on that in a.m. I'm starting to think a lot of bar associations are there to cover up lawyer misconduct, not expose it and impose punishment for it.

(2) You are right. I've never suggested a firearm as a solution to anything, and I've never owned a gun. I'm about as anti-NRA as you can get.

(3) Love your last paragraph, and appreciate an insightful comment all around.

Anonymous said...

Notice that David Shuler automatically takes the word of a cop, Dep. Harrison, who has been proven to be a liar.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure David S. espouses "family values."

legalschnauzer said...

Correction on my comment at @10:19 --

The date on that email from David was 9/2/15, one week before our eviction.

Anonymous said...

Hey, it looks as thought the landlord gave you 30 days notice to vacate at the end of the first long lease. You understand as long as they give you that notice, they are not required to rent to you month to month, even if the option is in the lease....they don't have to do it any more than you do as a tenant with an expiring lease. (A month to month lease is a new lease.) even if your Mom hadn't given notice about not renewing aa consigner, they could end the lease on their end, and in Missouri they don't have to have cause.

Also, didn't that lease question go through the courts? I see you did not pursue the appeal you filed. That means even the courts see it as a "done deal", already judged and the judgement final. If you don't use the remedy to challenge the judge's errors in an appeal, you lose the right to have a do-over that could change the ruling. If you don't prosecute your claim, in the allotted time for appeal, you can't bring it up later.

You are also in error on the point of when eviction proceedings begin. And if you are overstaying a single day, you can be on the hook for a whole months rent. The rental people made it pretty clear they did not want you as a month to month tenant. why didn't you leave?

legalschnauzer said...

@3:14 --

Congratulations for being wrong on every point you raise. I admire that kind of consistency.

You can't even count. Try checking the date on the Notice to Vacate and then count to the end of July and see how many days you get. Missouri law requires one month's notice, and assuming you can learn to count, you will see we didn't get that. You also will notice there is no demand for rent, which Missouri law requires in a rent and possession case which Cowherd filed.

If you can read, you might learn something about the actual law at the URL below: (Not holding my breath on the likelihood that you can read or comprehend anything beyond a third-grade level.)

If you want to learn about other ways you are wrong, feel free to contact me by email at You can find my phone number on this blog, and I would provide it here, but I know you are too big a puss to call.

Anonymous said...


Hey, dumb ass, have you learned to count?

Have you taken up LS's offer for you to contact him? Guess not. Must mean you are a puss, guilty as charged.

Are you a fat, ugly, lying dumb ass? That's a hell of a way to go through life.

e.a.f. said...

Hate to put it this way, but if you and Carol had been killed in all of this, from David's perspective there would have been one less sibling to split the estate with. Even if all he had been able to do is fracture your relationship with your Mother it might have made the split a tad larger for him.

No one really knows their siblings until the parental units die and the estate has to be split. I know of what I speak. Been there, saw it, had a good laugh.

Worst/best one I ever saw was two parties spent their own fortunes fighting over the will and in the end neither had anything to show for it.

legalschnauzer said...

e.a.f. --

I wouldn't be surprised if David thinks that way. I think the plan was for Officer Scott Harrison to shoot me with his AR-15 assault rifle, or whatever it was.

My guess is he just couldn't do it on a guy sitting calmly in a chair. If I had moved a muscle, my brains would have been splattered all over the wall, and they probably would have killed Carol, too.