Tuesday, August 20, 2019

Corruption among cops and correctional officers is a hot topic after Jeffrey Epstein's "suicide," but we've seen this disturbing reality play out in an up-close way

Debi Wade
Corruption among law-enforcement and correctional officers has become a hot topic since the so-called suicide of alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein in New York City.

It's not a new subject here at Legal Schnauzer because we've seen the corruption firsthand, perhaps most glaringly in the case where Greene County (MO) deputies broke my wife Carol's arm during an unlawful eviction and then hit HER with the bogus charge of "assaulting a law-enforcement officer."

Why should this be a particularly troubling topic for anyone living in the US of A? Countless Americans wind up behind bars, based almost totally on the words and observations of law-enforcement officers (LEOs). Because of that, many of our countrymen tend to view LEOs as exceptionally honest people, who take their authority seriously. Those who hold that viewpoint might want to give it a second thought after examining the actions of Missouri deputies in the "assault on an LEO" case against Carol.

We've already shown that Judge Jerry Harmison Jr.'s guilty verdict against Carol was procured via perjured testimony from Deputy Scott Harrison -- and we will have more on that subject in an upcoming post. The perjured testimony, under Missouri law, is a fraud on the court and requires that the judgment be set aside -- or, based on U.S. Supreme Court law -- vacated. (More on that in an upcoming post.)

Harrison was not the only cop-witness in Carol's case to play fast and loose with the truth. In fact, his three colleagues -- Jeremy Lynn, Debi Wade, and Christian Conrad -- all made statements under oath at trial that conflicted with their written statements in incident reports or the Probable Cause Statement (which Wade wrote). That means they, too, committed perjury or they filed false police reports -- both of which are crimes -- and like Harrison, they are subject to criminal prosecution.

In her Motion to Vacate Judgment That Was Procured by Fraud, Perjury, etc., Carol examines the dishonest statements of cops under oath. This all presents disturbing evidence that cops -- despite their ability to deprive citizens of freedom -- are less truthful than the average person. (Carol's motion is embedded at the end of this post, along with video evidence that Deputy Harrison committed perjury.) We'll start with Debi Wade, and Carol's motion is supported with relevant exhibits:

DEBI WADE (Exh. C, No. 2) 
Per Probable Cause Statement (9/22/15): “Just as [Carol] appeared to be getting into the passenger side door to the car, she started screaming that she needed her cat’s litter box. I was trying to tell her that I would go back into the residence for it, when she suddenly took off on a dead run toward the front door to the residence. Knowing that Deputy Harrison would be exiting that door any moment, I feared that she would catch him off guard, so I jogged up behind Carol and attempted to tell her that I would get the litter box for her. Just as I caught up to her, she suddenly pivoted and barreled into me head first. I was caught off guard . . .” 
Per Incident Report (9/10/15):“I came up on her right side from behind her and was making an attempt to calm her down when she suddenly pivoted around on me and immediately charged into me head first. It happened so fast that it caught me off guard . . .” 
Per trial testimony (5/17/18): “Carol Shuler than charged Wade like a bull since she wanted in the residence, but the doors were being locked. Carol Shuler was handcuffed and placed in Harrison’s car. She threw herself against the cage and car door once in the vehicle.”

Summary: In her previous statements, Wade said she came up from behind Carol Shuler, and described Carol turning around and the two running into each other. Both Carol and Roger Shuler testified at trial that Wade and Carol never made contact with each other – that Wade was in front of Carol on the porch, and they were talking in a fairly standard manner, when “Mr. Blue Shirt” brutalized Carol and broke her arm. Neither version of Wade’s story actually happened, but assuming something like that did occur, Wade’s earlier statements describe an accident, where Carol Shuler turned around, not knowing Wade was there, and a collision ensued. Wade is describing an accident, which is not a crime and might be the reason even DA Dan Patterson did not charge it. At trial, Wade changes her tune, placing herself in front of Carol and making Carol’s alleged act seem more intentional. Also, Wade repeats the “throwing herself against the cage” canard, even though Dep. Harrison admits Carol might have been seat-belted the whole time, making it impossible for her to throw herself about.

Debi Wade wrote the Probable Cause Statement, so Carol's arrest and prosecution was based totally on her word. And yet, you can see that Wade is so reckless with the truth that she makes no discernible effort to ensure her accounts match each other. What about Jeremy Lynn, the guy Carol supposedly pushed as he unlawfully entered our residence, amounting to an "assault"? He's no better than Wade:

JEREMY LYNN (Exh. C, No. 1)

Per incident report (9/21/15): “Mrs. Shuler then grew very upset and became emotional and charged towards the front door. Lt. Wade tried to explain to her that she would get something if she needed it. Mrs. Shuler then tried to force her way past Lt. Wade with her head dropped. She intentionally ran directly into Lt. Wade. Lt. Wade then backed up and bladed herself away from her.”

Per trial testimony (5/17/18): “After backing her car back, [Carol Shuler] started back in the residence and was told she could not go in again. At this point, she lowered her head and charged Lieutenant Wade.” Lynn proceeds to say he “observed her thrusting around in all four directions and yelling loudly,” even though Harrison admitted Ms. Shuler may have been seat belted throughout her stay in the patrol car, which would have made such action impossible.

Summary: Lynn appears to have Lt. Wade in front of Ms. Shuler throughout this incident and insists Ms. Shuler engaged in a thrusting motion in the patrol car, even though Officer Harrison admits she may have been seat-belted the entire time.

The key point, regarding Lynn's statements, is that he has Wade in front of Carol throughout the "bulling incident" (which didn't happen) -- and that is consistent with testimony from Carol and me, and it directly contradicts Waid. These Keystone Cops can't even support each other's version of events.

Lynn's trial testimony regarding the alleged push also differed from his written incident report. This is from Harmison's judgment, about Lynn's trial statement: "Lynn grabbed the person behind the door [Carol] and pulled her out to apprehend her. Carol Shuler kept pushing Lynn and trying to pull away from him to resist custody."

Here are Lynn's own words from his incident report: "She was grabbed by her arms and restrained to stop her from harming one of us or herself. During this process she was pulling her arms away from me and tried to push me back with her arms and body."

We summarized Lynn's written statement in an earlier post:

What do we learn here?

(1) Lynn says he grabbed Carol by the arms -- he caused physical contact with her.

(2) Lynn says Carol was trying to pull away from him; she didn't "get physical" with him or "push him repeatedly," as Debi Wade claims. Lynn grabbed Carol, and she tried to pull away.

(3) Lynn then claims Carol "tried to push [him] back with arms and body." This is pure nonsense. Lynn already has stated Carol pulled away, and now he's claiming she "tried" to push him. How can one pull and push at the same time? Those are contradictory terms, and indicate Lynn's whole statement is rubbish.

For the record, Lynn claims Carol "tried" to push him, but he never says that she did push him. Under the law, the "push" issue is irrelevant. Missouri law clearly frames the question: Who caused contact with whom, against whose will?

Jeremy Lynn admits that he grabbed Carol, that he caused physical contact, not the other way around.

The bottom line: Officer Lynn said in his original written statement that Carol did not push him. At trial, under oath, he changed his tune and claimed she did push him -- even though, in both instances, he said Carol was trying to pull away from him. How can someone pull away and push someone at the same time? I took enough high-school physics to know that can't be done. One of Jeremy Lynn's statements is false, and either way, he committed a crime for which he is subject to prosecution.

What about Officer Christian Conrad? Well, he has a fractured relationship with the truth, too:


Per Incident Report (9/22/15): “Carol then went out to their vehicle and placed another bag in the trunk. She then began walking back towards the house and took off running towards the front door. Carol ran toward Lt. Wade on the front side walk . . . “

Per Trial Testimony (5/17/18): “Conrad later saw Carol Shuler charge Wade and run into her . . . On cross-examination Conrad verified he saw Carol Shuler “out of control” in the back of Harrison’s vehicle, as she was thrashing and screaming loudly.

Summary: Conrad contradicts Debi Wade’s original statement in every way. He has Wade in front of Carol, on the sidewalk and near the porch, and says nothing about Wade coming up from behind Carol. How could Carol be “out of control” in the back seat of Harrison’s vehicle, when Harrison himself admitted she might have been seat-belted the whole time (and Carol testified she was seat-belted the whole time.) The answer is “she couldn’t,” which suggests Conrad, Wade, and Lynn all committed perjury or filed false police reports.

We will repeat this point because it's profoundly important. Debi Wade was author of the Probable Cause Statement, so Carol's arrest was based entirely on Wade's word. That means it's kind of important that Wade get things accurately. And yet two of her cop colleagues -- Jeremy Lynn and Christian Conrad -- contradict her account on almost every point.

Prosecutors ultimately took jail off the table in Carol's case, so loss of freedom was not a possible punishment. But she's on two years of unsupervised probation -- with a guilty finding (unsupported by fact or law) on her record -- based on the word of cops who can't even agree with each other on what happened.

(To be continued)


Anonymous said...

You can bet a cover-up is under way in the Epstein case, and that's what the cops in Missouri were doing in Carol's case. Pure sleaze.

Anonymous said...

Not many things in life are more dangerous than a crooked cop. And we seem to be getting more of them all the time.

Anonymous said...

Pretty funny to read the transcripts of these cops in Carol's case. They can't keep their stories straight. That's the problem with lying. Handling the truth is much easier.

Anonymous said...

While I don't know if the following has been considered, or would even be applicable, but the U.S. 7th Circuit Court ruled, embrace likewise by other courts it is a state or federal crime to commit "Fraud on the Court" and/or "Fraud upon the Court"; either way being illegal and any judgement[s] as a result are never final because no case can be lawfully adjudicated when fraud committed to achieve end results. Food for thought. Best wishes.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:34 --

Thanks for your insights. Fraud on the court is a topic I am researching right now. Based on what I've learned so far, I believe it might be pplicable to several of our cases that have been in federal court.

Anonymous said...

Epstein signed a will two days before he died. Hmmm . . .


legalschnauzer said...

@8:48 --

Thanks for sharing. Looks like Epstein also put $570-million in a trust, a move apparently designed to make it harder for his victims to collect on civil judgments.


Anonymous said...

Epstein got himself three 12-year-old French girls for a birthday present.



legalschnauzer said...

The plot thickens . . .

Australian socialite was filmed with Prince Andrew at Jeffrey Epstein's house:


Anonymous said...

The cops, as quoted in this post, don't even address the fact they had no lawful grounds to be on your rented property.

legalschnauzer said...

@12:09 --

You are correct; that issue is not addressed in this post. It is, however, addressed in the post at the following URL:


legalschnauzer said...

Here are details from post at URL cited above:

"A Greene County deputy testified, in so many words, that he and his colleagues had no lawful grounds to be on our property -- and yet, a Missouri judge still found my wife, Carol, guilty of an "assault on a law enforcement officer" in a bench trial that would have to improve to be deemed the product of a kangaroo court.

Here is the scary part: Deputy Scott Harrison apparently works evictions on a regular basis, but his testimony in Carol's case shows he has no clue about tenant-landlord law that governs such cases. Even scarier, Associate Circuit Judge Jerry A. Harmison Jr. apparently is just as ignorant as Harrison about the relevant law in Carol's case. Let's consider these words from page 1 of Harmison's judgment: (The full judgment is embedded at the end of this post.)

Scott Harrison of the Greene County Sheriff's Office, Civil Division, testified on behalf of the state. He served a summons by posting on August 11, 2015, at Carol and Roger Shuler's residence of 4070 South Fort, Springfield, MO. On August 27, 2015, an interlocutory judgment for possession was entered against the Shulers, with a future trial date established on the issue of damages. Deputy Harrison testified he posted an eviction notice on September 1, 2015, which indicated tenants must vacate the premises by September 9, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. The court file indicates the Shulers subsequently filed a Motion to Quash Execution and a Notice of Appeal on September 8, 2015. . . .

legalschnauzer said...

Here is more re: the issue of our unlawful eviction being based on a non-final (interlocutory) judgment:

Missouri law is clear that there can be no execution on any judgment that is not final. That certainly applies to evictions, where a court ruling regarding possession pretty much means nothing. A landlord can only move forward with a writ of execution, signed and authorized by a judge. And such authorization can come only on a final judgment.

The controlling law is found at State ex rel Turner v. Sloan, 595 S.W.2d 778 (MO, 1980), which holds: "An enforcement of judgment by execution supposes a judgment not merely interlocutory but become final.”

Even Scott Harrison admits the judgment in our underlying rent-and-possession was interlocutory. A semi-trained lowland gorilla would have known an eviction could not move forward on a non-final judgment. But Harrison did not know that, and Judge Harmison either was too ignorant to know it or too lazy to look it up.