Thursday, June 7, 2018

Who is "Mr. Blue Shirt," what agency does he work for, and why was he at our Missouri eviction, where he ended up brutalizing Carol and breaking her arm?




The individual who slammed my wife, Carol, to the ground and broke her arm during an unlawful eviction in September 2015 -- we call him "Mr. Blue Shirt" -- was not present at her recent "assault" trial. That raises these puzzling questions:

(1) Who is he?

(2) Does he work for someone other than the Greene County Sheriff's Department (GCSO)?

(3) If the answer to No. 2 is yes -- and I'm starting to think it is -- who does he work for?

(4) Why was he there?

(5) Why is the GCSO going to considerable lengths to protect his identity?

During the discovery process, Carol asked for his identity multiple times, in multiple ways. She asked for the names and addresses of all GCSO personnel who were on our rented property that day. The prosecution first responded by giving only the names of the three cop-witnesses (Christian Conrad, Jeremy Lynn, Scott Harrison) they intended to call, essentially claiming that any other names were irrelevant.

Carol then asked for the names of everyone who was on the premises that day, other than us, and she got five names -- with Sheriff Jim Arnott and Lt. Debi Wade, author of the Probable Cause Statement, added as a fourth witness. That answer still didn't cut it because there clearly were more than five law-enforcement types there that day; our estimate is 6-8.

We have not considered this possibility until recently, but perhaps the prosecution answered Carol's first query in a certain way because "Blue Shirt" (and perhaps others) did not work for the GCSO.

Perhaps the prosecution answered the second query in an evasive manner because . . . well, they were determined to protect "Blue Shirt's" identity, and prosecutors didn't care if they had to violate Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) to do it. After all, enough prosecutors violate Brady that some analysts have said the legal landscape is plagued with "an epidemic of Brady violations."

Bottom line: We increasingly see reasons to believe "Mr. Blue Shirt" did not work for the GCSO? That leaves these questions: Who did he work for, and why was he there?

So far, we have two theories, but we certainly are open to other ideas:

(1) The Alabama Bingo Trial Theory -- This comes from a regular reader who is most clever and insightful. In late July 2015, I wrote a series of posts about documents that had been released related to the Alabama Bingo Trial. The documents mostly involved transcripts of closed-door meetings about alleged sexual misconduct involving FBI agent Keith Baker and various women connected to various court proceedings. Also at issue were some 8,000 missing text messages sent to, and received by, Baker. The reader's theory is that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) thought I possessed documents that might prove damaging or embarrassing to their efforts in the bingo matter. Under this theory, "Blue Shirt," was a DOJ operative -- perhaps an FBI agent or trainee -- who was sent to conduct a bogus eviction that really was designed to intimidate us and examine any documents we might have.

Part of this theory is that "Blue Shirt's" actions indicate he is not a real law-enforcement officer or he is inexperienced at such work. According to the reader, no real cop would have yanked on Carol's arms, while she was seated on the ground, in an effort to handcuff her. A real, experienced cop would have known such an act was likely to cause an injury. In fact, the reader suggests, Sheriff Jim Arnott (standing just a few feet away) knew instantly that Carol was injured, so he created the bogus criminal charges on the spot.

(2) The "Luv Guv" Bentley Theory -- This is my theory, and it arises from the fact that -- contrary to what you might have heard on The Rachel Maddow Show -- I broke the story of Gov. Robert Bentley's affair with senior aide Rebekah Caldwell Mason on Aug. 31, 2015, nine days before our eviction. We later learned from the Alabama House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Report that Bentley knew by May 7, 2014, that his wife had taped him in a lovey-dovey phone conversation with Mason. On August 5, 2014, two members of Bentley's staff -- Spencer Collier and Wendell Lewis -- confronted Bentley about the tapes and tried to nip the affair in the bud.

"Luv Guv" Bentley and
Rebekah Mason
That did not work, and we learned that Bentley became obsessed about the tapes and wanted to hurt people who knew about the affair or perhaps had the tapes. He even threatened to arrest his wife and her assistant, Heather Hannah, whom the governor blamed for the tapings.

It's certainly not a stretch to think Bentley might have sent "Blue Shirt" (and maybe others) to Missouri to rough up Carol and me and see if we had copies of his "Luv Guv" tapes.

That suggests "Blue Shirt" might have been a member of Bentley's security detail or an employee of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA).

Either way, "Blue Shirt's" presence, his "bull in a china shop" actions, and the apparent determination of Missouri types to hide his identity suggests our eviction wasn't about any of the issues you normally associate with such a proceeding. It increasingly looks like someone thought I had damning information, and they wanted to make sure I was not able to publish it.

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

What is the BCA?

Anonymous said...

This adds a whole new level of intrigue to this charade.

Anonymous said...

If Carol asked for identities of everyone on the premises except for the two or you, that request obviously is relevant and by law should have been granted. I didn't know you could get away with discovery violations simply by saying, "We're not aware of anyone else who was there."

legalschnauzer said...

@9:29 --

Like you, I thought both sides had obligations to respond properly to discovery requests. In this case, the prosecution turned over three items that Carol asked for. That's it, but they claim they weren't stonewalling.

Of course, a corrupt judge won't compel them to do anything, and Harmison was appointed by the uber sleazy Eric Greitens.

Anonymous said...

What were the prosecution's responses to discovery requests?

legalschnauzer said...

@9:32 --

They have an obligation under Brady to turn over anything that might help Carol's defense. Here, their responses to anything that might have helped Carol's case generally fell in these ranges:

* It doesn't exist.

* We're not aware of that existing

* That's not relevant

* We'll continue to look for it.

* We've already turned that over -- when they hadn't

Anonymous said...

No way Carol was able to put up an adequate defense if "Mr. Blue Shirt" was not identified and present for questioning.

Anonymous said...

Someone is protecting Mr. Blue Shirt.

Anonymous said...

I find it particularly interesting that "Blue Shirt" might have broken Carol's arm because he's not really a cop and doesn't know how to properly handcuff people.

Anonymous said...

You need to get to the bottom of this, and a civil case likely is the route to take.

T Dog said...

I believe Bentley and Mason are mean enough and corrupt enough to pull something like this.

Anonymous said...

In California, a prosecutor can be hit with a felony and three years of prison time for withholding evidence. Used to be a misdemeanor:


http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-prosecutor-misconduct-20161003-snap-story.html

Anonymous said...

Judge in Greitens case sanctioned prosecutors for failing to turn over evidence as quickly as they should have. What if prosecutors don't turn over evidence at all?


http://www.ky3.com/content/news/St-Louis-judge-rules-charge-against-Gov-Greitens-stands-480259413.html

Anonymous said...

Was Blue Shirt wearing a badge of any kind?

legalschnauzer said...

@10:25 --

He had no badge, and Carol and I don't recall seeing any kind of identifier on him.

Anonymous said...

Bentley is an old, diseased prick, and this sounds like something he would do.

Anonymous said...

If Bentley is behind this, and he used state resources, I'd say that opens up a whole new can of criminal whoop ass for the "Luv Guv."

Anonymous said...

It would be fitting for Bentley, the crooked "Luv Guv," to send an incompetent dumb ass up here who breaks Carol's arm

Anonymous said...

I'm starting to think cops are the most dishonest form of life on earth.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:56 --

It's almost comical how much they lie. Scott Harrison, the thug who pointed an assault rifle at my head, said he had just his regular weapon (a pistol, I presume) and no assault rifle. I know an assault rifle when I see one, especially when it's pointed at my head. Harrison also said he was wearing a light blue shirt, like he was about to go out for a round of golf. He and most of others were wearing what looked like SWAT gear, complete with bullet-proof vests. I guess Harrison is trying to insinuate that he was "Mr. Blue Shirt."

Blue Shirt was fairly slender and athletic looking. He wasn't a fat hog like Harrison. Harrison has flaming red hair, and dark brown hair.

Debi Wade's fantasy about Carol "bulling" into her is a complete lie. I saw the whole thing, and the two never made contact with each other.

Anonymous said...

This says a lot about why the landlord wanted you and Carol out, even though your rent had been timely paid and you had been a good tenant.

Cowherd Construction is a bunch of lowlife creeps who enjoy licking cop butt.

legalschnauzer said...

@12:59 --

Yep. Also tells you why Cowherd and attorney Craig Lowther and Arnott moved ahead with an "eviction" based on an interlocutory judgment and no court order authorized by a judge. Somebody was in a hurry, and they didn't care about breaking the law left and right. As for Blue Shirt, he didn't care about breaking Carol's arm.

Anonymous said...

The BCA isn't mentioned in this post?

Anonymous said...

Be careful about admitting that this mysterious "blue shirt" stranger is the one who broke Carol's arm -- if you don't know who he is he is going to be hard to sue, and the others who were present, if they read this blog, are going to construe it as an admission that they were not liable for what some stranger on the scene, sent it by thugs from Alabama, did to her. Also, given all that has taken place, would it be in Carol's best interest to plead guilty to some milder charge and try to save her credit and be approved to lease an another apartment someday? You may not be in the mood to consider this, but if Carol will go to a good attorney in town who is not involved, he or she may give her some good advice.

Anonymous said...

You might want to look into this. A prosecutor is being sued in St. Louis, and the suit claims the prosecutor misrepresented some evidence, disregarded other evidence, lied to the judge, etc.


http://www.kmov.com/story/38365032/former-st-louis-officer-jason-stockley-sues-former-prosecutor

legalschnauzer said...

@7:00 --


Thanks for sharing. Had not heard about this lawsuit.

The case involved a police shooting and says the prosecutor felt pressure to bring charges that weren't merited. This is the Jason Stockley case, which is well known in Missouri. I thought immunity generally protected prosecutors from lawsuit, but attorney Daniel Finney Jr. might have found a way around that. From the article:


"The suit alleges some evidence was misrepresented, and other evidence that could have benefited his case was disregarded. His lawsuit said Joyce felt pressured to file charges due to a rash of other officer-involved shootings of black suspects. He also accused Joyce of lying to a judge when she claimed there was new evidence that led to charges nearly five years after Smith's death.

"The suit calls their actions, "wanton, willful and outrageous." It reads that their actions caused "great and permanent damage to Jason Stockley's reputation and ability to work and live in his community." The suit says Deeken and Joyce are responsible for the protests and rioting that took place following the verdict."

Anonymous said...

So do you think the inmates running the asylum are going to try and put an electronic tracker on Carol come Monday? You know that their main goal is to f$ck with your appeal, right?

legalschnauzer said...

I should point out that Carol's case involves a lot of evidence that was more than "misrepresented" or "disregarded."

It was out and out falsified and material, under oath, which is a crime called perjury. Prosecutors Nicholas Jain and Nicholas Bergeon and their boss, Dan Patterson, had every reason to know the evidence was false.

They may wind up facing a lawsuit like this, and Carol certainly will look into filing criminal civil-rights charges under 18 USC 242 (Deprivation of rights under color of law).

You can bet we will be looking into the Stockley case.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

legalschnauzer said...

Here is URL to the complaint in the Stockley case. Interesting stuff.



http://kmov.images.worldnow.com/library/3e243e08-386c-45e2-b020-b41c31c4ba47.pdf

Anonymous said...

Speaking of lawsuits, looks like Spencer Collier keeps slogging on with the Old Wh*remonger Bentley: http://whnt.com/2018/05/10/spencer-colliers-lawsuit-against-former-gov-robert-bentley-heating-up-bentley-deposition-set-for-june/

Anonymous said...

It appears to me that the Blue Shirt case could reopen the possibility of criminal charges against "Luv Guv" Bentley and "Home Wrecky Becky" Mason. Since this act crossed state lines, the "Bonnie and Clyde" duo would be under federal jurisdiction and could spend years in federal prison.

I know a lot of people in Alabama who would love to see this happen.

Anonymous said...

Judges are subject to prosecution under Sec. 242. Harmison is really stupid to jump in bod with sleazy cops and prosecutors and issue a judgment that is as crooked as the one in Carol's case. My God, the "victim" himself admits she is innocent, so how stupid does a judge have to be to find her guilty? Harmison would be wise to yank that sucker ASAP.

Anonymous said...

I don't know much about the bingo-trial theory, but the Bentley theory rings true to me. I absolutely could see him doing that. After all, we know he made it a practice to misuse state resources for personal use.

Anonymous said...

LS: I've posted a few comments over the last week and none of them have shown up. Have I unknowingly offended you, perchance?

Anonymous said...

Could he be an investigator from the office of the DA?

Anonymous said...

Further to my last comment check out the Bliss Worrell prosecution by the US Doj in October 2015. There a prosecutor in St Louis brought bogusresisting attest charges against an arrested to help cover up an officer related asssult.

What I think is that Mr Blur Shirt was a direct employee of the local prosecutor. Not a cop but a pseudo cop. I think he was there to keep an eye on the situation because of the bogus story that you planned a violent response to the police or because the local da is connected to the landlord.

And it makes some sense. The landlord will make connections with the da office to help effectuate evictions. The pseudo cop is the one who runs the eviction. Problem is that pseudo cop wants to be real police (better salary and promotion) but needs to show how tough he is. When he sees whatever happened with Carol he grabs her and takes her down hard to show that he can be real police too.

And great advantage to cops — he isn’t a cop! Cops can identify all officers present without identifying the investigator because the investigator does not work for the police but instead works for the prosecutor.

Based on what you said I think he is an investigator with the local DA. In other words I think the conspiracy against you was local and not the product of federal or Alabama influence.

Anonymous said...

Wow that was odd. I just wrote an really long comment
but after I clicked submit my comment didn't show up.
Grrrr... well I'm not writing all that over again. Anyway,
just wanted to say excellent blog!

Anonymous said...

Great article. I'm going through many of these issues
as well..

Rhonda West said...

How can I reach you?

e.a.f. said...

Given the state of law in the U.S.A. and in my opinion the corruption, Mr. blue shirt could have been anyone. the main intent was to cause harm to you and Carol. You have truly pissed off a lot of political and financial elites in the good ole U.S.A. Not much of a democracy these days. There are a lot of people like Mr. blue shirt in other countries which are dictatorships and have weak democracies. The breaking of Carol's arm was to send you and Carol a message which you've ignored. I would not be surprised if they try again.

I am so sorry this has all ended so badly for you and Carol. Freedom of Speech is dead in the U.S.A. and a lot more rights will disappear over the years.

legalschnauzer said...

Note to readers: Over the past 10-12 days, I have not been alerted via email that comments were present in my folder. I did not know they were there, so they have not appeared. I apologize for inconvenience, but I just have approved a bunch of comments. If yours isn't there, please let me know. Just found out about this problem today, so I wasn't aware quite a few comments had become stuck in the moderation que. Not sure why I got notices on some comments and not on others, but I'm going to working on a fix going forward.

legalschnauzer said...

e.a.f. --

It hasn't ended badly yet. Carol has post-judgment motions, appeals, etc. The trial judge is corrupt, which is nothing new for us, so we'll deal with him.

legalschnauzer said...

Rhonda West:

My email is rshuler3156@gmail.com

legalschnauzer said...

@7:30 --

Interesting thoughts. Thanks. The prosecution withheld evidence, either way. They were asked to identity everyone on the premises, except us, and they didn't do it.

legalschnauzer said...

@7:10 --

Why would they use an electronic tracker on a misdemeanor case, where jail was off the table, and the judge's own findings show she was innocent?

legalschnauzer said...

@4:18 --

We'll find blue shirt, and his actions don't absolve the other cops of their misconduct. It's not to Carol's benefit to plead guilty to something she did not do, and she will not do it.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:33 --

Business Council of Alabama.