tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post7189965535566342354..comments2024-03-12T21:13:06.850-05:00Comments on Legal Schnauzer: Missouri Sheriff Jim Arnott shows that his immediate tendency is to lie when confronted with police brutalitylegalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-18434142285017416562015-11-20T14:38:00.503-06:002015-11-20T14:38:00.503-06:00It's not that I can't point to a post or g...It's not that I can't point to a post or give a link. I can give many. I'm just not going to do it for someone who seems to be a know-it-all, and who has refused to read and comprehend material at other links I've provided. You aren't worth the trouble, so do the research yourself.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-72549043017511844952015-11-19T20:18:29.249-06:002015-11-19T20:18:29.249-06:00You said you have " already cited the law on ...You said you have " already cited the law on avoidance numerous times on this blog", yet you can't point me to a single post. Since you have given links in the past, it is safe to say that was a lie. You haven't cited law on avoidance, otherwise, you would post a link.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-6376865911513125062015-11-19T09:51:23.764-06:002015-11-19T09:51:23.764-06:00The link goes to a new SCOTUS ruling that says an ...The link goes to a new SCOTUS ruling that says an officer cannot extend a stop for any reason unless there is probable cause to believe a crime is connected to the vehicle. Once the license and registration has been returned to the driver, as it had been in this case, the stop is over unless the officer suspects criminal activity connected to the car. That is the very definition of a "pretext" stop, but DeHart never said a word about criminal activity related to our car, so he lied about it being a pretext stop. It actually was a bogus and unlawful stop. <br /><br />On top of that, I've shown that DeHart not only violated our civil rights, he likely committed a crime. You should be able to find that post, if you care to actually read it.<br /><br />If you can't understand Rodriguez, well, that's your problem. I can't help you, with that or with your legal research on avoidance. And unless you ID yourself and show you have some ability to grasp legal concepts, I'm not remotely interested in your opinion.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-32088643056371278272015-11-18T16:27:00.583-06:002015-11-18T16:27:00.583-06:00It doesn't, at no point in the post was the te...It doesn't, at no point in the post was the term or definition of avoidance. I asked for a link to the post talking about avoidance and you link to one that doesn't prove anything. The stop wasn't bogus nor was it extended. He gave you the papers immediately after giving you the ticket. There was no extra time and you voluntarily took the papers. I understand your opinion, but it will not hold up in court. The stop is a non issue. Where are the links to you defining and addressing avoidance?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-22221909117723040822015-11-18T10:40:09.955-06:002015-11-18T10:40:09.955-06:00Read this post at following link, and it answers y...Read this post at following link, and it answers your questions. If you can't grasp it, I can't help you:<br /><br /><br />http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2015/04/new-us-supreme-court-ruling-helps-show.htmllegalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-30550647220831671062015-11-17T19:53:00.856-06:002015-11-17T19:53:00.856-06:00I don't recall you citing the law on avoidance...I don't recall you citing the law on avoidance. Why don't you point me to it, you have provided links to other things, but you seem to be avoiding trying to give a definition.<br /><br />You were served while you were "out and about". I'm not saying you should go to jail for it, but you were avoiding. If it looks like a duck, it's probably a duck.<br /><br />As far as a bogus traffic stop, Dehart's words never contradicted the fact he said you ran a stop sign. That is the probable cause for the stop, whether or not his intentions were different does not make it bogus. You are trying to say he unreasonably extended the stop, but the stop was not bogus by anything Dehart has said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-71705538487531965982015-11-17T10:37:40.111-06:002015-11-17T10:37:40.111-06:00DeHart's own words say the traffic stop is bog...DeHart's own words say the traffic stop is bogus. Read here:<br /><br />http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2015/05/alabama-deputys-own-words-show-he.html<br /><br />I've already cited the law on avoidance numerous times on this blog. If you are too lazy to find it, that's your problem.<br /><br />I've been served in multiple states on various matters, in Alabama and Missouri, so I have a history of accepting lawful service. During the time frame in question, I was out and about frequently and could have easily been served. If the cops couldn't do it, a professional process server should have been hired.<br /><br />Of course, a professional server might have asked, "Uh, where is the summons?" Since there wasn't one, a professional probably would have refused to attempt service. The thugs from Shelby Sheriff's office were more than happy to give it a try.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-6929137185211903782015-11-16T18:36:21.716-06:002015-11-16T18:36:21.716-06:00Who says the traffic stop was bogus? The only per...Who says the traffic stop was bogus? The only person I heard say that was you, but I bet Dehart would tell a different story. So, no there is no law permitting an unlawful traffic stop, but there is one that permits a lawful stop. There is one that says a traffic stop can not be unreasonably extended, but the handing of papers doesn't extend it an unreasonable amount of time. <br /><br />As far as the planned accident, if he is ever called to court after he lied to you, I'm sure Gespass will say it was an oversight and he didn't mean to miss it. Have you gone and checked? You did talk of how unprofessional he was when he was at the jail, tossing his pencil. You did not trust him and your opinion is everybody has ulterior motives because they are out to get you. <br /><br />As far as the definition of avoiding, why didn't you answer the question? If it is merely a question of looking it up, why didn't you just provide it? Sounds like you don't know if you legally avoided or not. Either way, you had no intention of accepting service.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-9781581053752144932015-11-16T13:44:39.273-06:002015-11-16T13:44:39.273-06:00Where, @4:27, does it say in the Motion to Quash t...Where, @4:27, does it say in the Motion to Quash that I ran into the garage? Can you point that out?<br /><br />And what, by the way, was "Bill Baxley's story"? It would be interesting to know since even he doesn't claim to have been present on the night in question.<br /><br />Why should I take your advice about anything if you insist on remaining cloaked in anonymity. Contact me at rshuler3156@gmail.com and ID yourself and we can talk. I can make an informed judgment about whether your advice is worth taking.<br /><br />If you give advice without stating your name and qualifications, it makes me think YOU might have a mental illness.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-74551087164670242912015-11-16T13:36:31.866-06:002015-11-16T13:36:31.866-06:00What technicalities are you talking about, @4:31. ...What technicalities are you talking about, @4:31. Share some. When have I avoided court after being lawfully summonded? Let's hear of some examples.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-69885694017242868862015-11-16T13:34:19.273-06:002015-11-16T13:34:19.273-06:00You are a piece of work, @5:50. Here's a chall...You are a piece of work, @5:50. Here's a challenge for you, one I know you can't meet, and I know you are too lazy to even try:<br /><br />* Try to find a single citation to law that says it is proper for an officer to conduct an unlawful traffic stop to "serve" court papers. I've already cited law that shows it is improper, but go ahead and see if you can find law to support your argument?<br /><br />* My definition or your definition of avoiding service doesn't matter. The real definition is what counts. Can you cite it? <br /><br />* You've read comments on here that there was a summons? Hah, what a joke. An attorney with almost 40 years of experience viewed the sealed file, at the time, and put in writing that there was no summons. But you want to believe an anonymous commenter who is viewing a file long after the fact, after it almost certainly has been tampered with. And you expect to be taken seriously?<br /><br />* I never said Gespass had an ulterior motive for visiting me in jail. In fact, I know the people who arranged for his visit. I also never said I don't believe anything Gespass said. I've written extensively about his written statements and shown what seems to match the law and what doesn't.<br /><br />* Here is your all-time ridiculous statement: ". . . perhaps accidentally missing the summons when he was looking through the case file was planned to give you false hope."<br /><br />Do you realize how stupid this sounds. You are saying that Gespass "planned" to "accidentally" miss something in the file. Was it planned or an accident. It can't be both.<br /><br />You really need to learn how to write in English--or is it your second language?legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-50974987660612360912015-11-16T05:50:22.319-06:002015-11-16T05:50:22.319-06:00You were served papers, there was no need to post ...You were served papers, there was no need to post or use a private process server. What is your definition of avoiding? How did their action show you weren't avoiding? Your actions showed you didn't want to be served. What kind of person throws papers out of their vehicle? I have read comments on here that according to alacourt their was a summons. You say that Gespass had an ulterior motive for visiting you in jail, perhaps accidentally missing the summons when he was looking through the case file was planned to give you false hope. You don't believe anything he said to you except the part that fits your story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-22829421451018797932015-11-15T16:31:37.252-06:002015-11-15T16:31:37.252-06:00This is my problem with you - you are always looki...This is my problem with you - you are always looking for and proclaiming technicalities to excuse you. That course has never served you well. Instead of dealing with the inherent truth or falsity of claims you have made against people who also have a character to preserve, or just the reasonableness of your claims, you keep acting unreasonably and avoiding court and avoiding supporting your claims in that forum.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-16278742836609210052015-11-15T16:27:54.954-06:002015-11-15T16:27:54.954-06:00You were avoiding service of the lawsuit. Why, I ...You were avoiding service of the lawsuit. Why, I don't know. Why you weren't willing to stand behind what you wrote with evidence to back it up, is a puzzle. You should have been prepared to defend the very damaging and defamatory claims you had made in public about the private acts of arguably private persons. <br /><br />There was more than one attempt at service and you did run into your garage on one occassion. You included it in a motion to quash, here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/177407308/Jessica-Garrison-Lawsuit-Quash-Service. It matches the story of William Baxley, the lawyer who arranged for the server, in all details but one - whether the papers made it under the door. If you would deny the first, maybe no one should accept the denial of that point, either. <br /><br />In any case the probate conservatorship is a different kind of case, and I'm here to tell you if you think it would help Carol to hide or run or play gotcha games with service, you are mistaken. There is no chance to run out the clock, and unreasonable avoidance will help support an impression formed by other means that mental illness has has made either or both of you unreasonable and paranoid so that you cannot manage your own affairs. Maybe it's moot at this point; maybe your relatives have no intention of going forward. Just please listen to the person who is bound by law to represent your interests and TAKE HIS ADVICE. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-41708734563683505112015-11-15T13:39:32.996-06:002015-11-15T13:39:32.996-06:00The document I filed in court persuaded the judge ...The document I filed in court persuaded the judge that service was improper, and even Bill Baxley must have seen that outcome coming because he then had me served in county jail. Given that jail regulations limit visitors (inmate's family, friends, ministers, their own lawyers) that service probably was unlawful, too--or the woman Baxley sent lied and claimed she was my lawyer.<br /><br />As for the civil papers, I would suggest you read David Gespass' letter at the link provided. It shows there was no summons issued, and without that, there can be no lawful service--that means both DeHart and the other officers had some ulterior motive, or whoever sent them on a "service mission" without a summons had an ulterior motive. Plus, DeHart's own words show he violated the Fourth Amendment by making a traffic stop with no lawful grounds for doing so.<br /><br />Your third paragraph is just another glaring example of your ignorance. You don't have a clue what avoiding service even means under the law, and whether someone does or does not answer the door when no legitimate service is being attempted does not come close to equaling avoidance of service. If I was really avoiding service, all they had to do was do service by process server or by publication. They didn't do it, so their own actions show I wasn't avoiding service just because they failed to complete their task over about a five-day period of time.<br /><br />If my memory is on target, the law allows 60 to 90 days for service. That these jokers failed to serve Carol and me over about five days . . . well, that's not even close to the legal definition of avoidance. Again, sorry to cause you problems with facts and actual law. Better luck next time.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-42765903341305004992015-11-14T22:35:29.020-06:002015-11-14T22:35:29.020-06:00You filed that document with the court, so it does...You filed that document with the court, so it doesn't prove anything. If I recall correctly, the Judge didn't make a determination. He said he would deliberate about the motion, but it wouldn't matter either way since they could have you served in the county jail. Rather than waiting for an opinion, they had you served in jail, thus making the judges deliberation a moot point.<br /><br />As for Dehart's stop, you do admit he had civil papers for you, so you can't say for sure they were not there to serve civil papers to you earlier. What was contained in them can't be proven by you because you tossed them out of the window. <br /><br />You state "There is nothing under the law that obligates me to open the door and ask cops why they are banging on my door," which actual shows that you were avoiding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-32366369651086645622015-11-14T13:19:24.881-06:002015-11-14T13:19:24.881-06:00BTW, here is a court document that describes exact...BTW, here is a court document that describes exactly what happened with the process server in the Garrison case. I'm not aware of any document that even tries to dispute this, and Judge Don Blankenship (who is a really bad judge) ruled that service, in fact, had not been lawfully completed. <br /><br />I know you have a hard time digesting facts, and you are resistant to learning about the real law, but one of my missions is to educate the public--even some of its most dense members:<br /><br /><br />https://www.scribd.com/doc/177407308/Jessica-Garrison-Lawsuit-Quash-Servicelegalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-79833886066763779362015-11-14T13:03:58.119-06:002015-11-14T13:03:58.119-06:00How dense are you, @6:08? The answer appears to be...How dense are you, @6:08? The answer appears to be "pretty damned dense."<br /><br />A. By law, an officer can not give you a "civil paper" (or anything else) once he has returned your license/registration, etc. and a traffic stop is over--unless he has probable cause to believe there is a crime associated with the vehicle. DeHart admits in court docs that it was a "pretext" stop, which means I likely never committed a traffic violation in the first place, and he stopped me only because of the civil papers, which he cannot do under the Fourth Amendment. I know the U.S. Constitution is a problem for you, but it matters to quite a few Americans, and it should matter to DeHart--although it obviously doesn't. There is a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on this subject, and I would suggest you read it (http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2015/04/new-us-supreme-court-ruling-helps-show.html) You'll be amazed what it's like to actually know what you are talking about.<br /><br />B. Lawyer David Gespass reviewed the sealed file at the time of these service attempts and found that no summons had been issued. The summons is the document that legally calls (or "summons") someone to court. Without it, there can be no lawful service. At the time of the multiple cops banging on our door, and DeHart's bogus traffic stop, court records show there was no summons--and by law, this was not service of process. This post explains exactly what Gespass found, and I suggest you read it. You can read the letter he wrote on the subject. If you don't believe him, call and ask him about it--his number's in the phone book. (http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2015/07/letter-from-alabama-attorney-david.html)<br /><br />C. There is nothing under the law that obligates me to open the door and ask cops why they are banging on my door. Have you ever tried to reason with a cop? I have, and it's a fruitless endeavor. As for why they were there, contact former Sheriff Chris Curry and ask him. I only know that they for sure were not there to serve civil papers.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-20014079453521295662015-11-13T18:08:37.951-06:002015-11-13T18:08:37.951-06:00And what was Dehart trying to give you after the t...And what was Dehart trying to give you after the traffic stop? You can fool some of these people, but he served you a civil paper. It doesn't matter if they send 10 deputies to your house to serve a paper or how uncommon it may be, it was still a civil paper. If it there were an ulterior motive (such as a warrant or whatever), they would have kicked your door in and handled business. Why else do you speculate they were there? Oh wait, answering the door and asking would have been too easy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-11689651429084405162015-11-13T14:34:05.397-06:002015-11-13T14:34:05.397-06:00You seem incapable of comprehending facts or law, ...You seem incapable of comprehending facts or law, @5:45. The description in your first sentence is strictly from "Fantasy Island," and even the process server didn't allege I ran inside my house. I was pulling our car into the garage, and never saw or heard a process server, and Judge Don Blankenship (as buffoonish as he is) admitted service was not lawfully done. <br /><br />As for the videos, who do you think took those? I did, to show that sending 3-4 deputies and 2-3 vehicles is not normal for serving process. And in fact, it wasn't. A lawyer who reviewed the record at that time said it showed a summons had not even been issued when those officers appeared, so they were not trying to serve process. Those officers were up to something, but they weren't serving process because they could not have had a summons. That means I wasn't avoiding service of process.<br /><br />I know this is might be work for you, but try educating yourself a little before commenting. You might find that it's rewarding to actually know what you are talking about. Of course, knowledge might get in the way of your agenda, so that would be a problem for you.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-16909209255376053772015-11-13T05:45:09.148-06:002015-11-13T05:45:09.148-06:00As for avoiding legal service, there is the time y...As for avoiding legal service, there is the time you ran inside your house and the garage door was closing that the process server had to throw the papers for the Garrison case under the door. There are the videos of Shelby County attempting service while you stood in an upstairs window that were posted on YouTube. That's at least two occasions off the top of my head and I'm sure there were multiple times during each case. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-56098972059313438472015-11-12T10:12:09.322-06:002015-11-12T10:12:09.322-06:00You might try reading my comments again, @4:26. I ...You might try reading my comments again, @4:26. I said we were "not aware" or had "seen no signs" of attempts to serve Carol. That's all we can go on--what we observe. If they've tried service in a way that was not apparent to us, so be it. Sorry it didn't work out for them. You might keep in mind that the process server, one Roger Huffman, already has lied once about serving Carol; he claimed he served her at the time he served me, that she was with me. Slight problem: She wasn't with me and was nowhere near me at the time. So Mr. Huffman has a history of causing false entries to be made on court dockets.<br /><br />If you want your "advice" taken seriously, contact me via private e-mail at rshuler3156@gmail.com. We can arrange a time to talk via phone and you can ID yourself and describe your expertise in such matters. You also might be prepared to cite whatever "facts" you think you have that point to me ever avoiding service. I would like to hear them. "Advice" from anonymous commenters isn't worth much.<br /><br />Another point: You don't know what kind of legal advice we might be getting--and from whom. <br /><br />Look forward to hearing from you.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-30812322960544235172015-11-11T18:56:29.573-06:002015-11-11T18:56:29.573-06:00Right you are again Roger. Because I live in peace...Right you are again Roger. Because I live in peace and comfort with no enemies enjoying life"s wonderful blessings, I have not acquired the vocabulary that you have skillfully mastered in legal issues and certainly not as much legal knowledge. What I should have asked was not about Carol's defense, as she has not been charged with anything, but rather your preparation and intent to go after the county/state for the damages she has received. Good luck.<br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-49940034647517516932015-11-11T16:29:51.302-06:002015-11-11T16:29:51.302-06:00I'm not @5:56 - she isn't charged with any...I'm not @5:56 - she isn't charged with anything yet but there is risk of that - she was arrested and brought to the station, and she has some exposure until the statute of limitations expires to any accusation of resisting or assault upon a police officer that could be made. I doubt any charges will be brought but it's prudent to consider that they are POSSIBLE.<br /><br />In the matter of the probate conservatorship your family members may still be seeking (you know better than I if they mean to abandon the effort) Carol does need some attention to her interests, since a successful petition would mean others had power over her choices in some important matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-29771774441344263272015-11-11T16:26:13.072-06:002015-11-11T16:26:13.072-06:00It's flatly false that there have been no atte...It's flatly false that there have been no attempts to serve Carol - at least one attempt was made, per court records; it was not successfully carried out.<br /><br />If you won't take good advice, no one can help you. Your attempts to avoid service have never served you well; they resulted in harm to you and for that matter, to Carol, because you made yourself an object of pursuit. It has cultivated the image you know , true or false, that other persons have formed of you, and it may well serve to influence the court in this case. Ask a licensed attorney if you doubt me. Consult your court-appointed representative, or use google to find legal sources you trust with advice you can trust.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com