Audio evidence shows Missouri Deputy Scott Harrison committed perjury in Carol's "assault" trial -- putting Judge Jerry Harmison's guilty verdict on shaky ground

Deputy Scott Harrison

Corruption and incompetence 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. But it's not a new topic here at Legal Schnauzer, and we've seen a shocking level of dishonesty play out under oath in a court of law.

A Missouri sheriff's deputy committed perjury in my wife Carol's "assault on a law enforcement officer" trial in Greene County. That means, by law, the guilty verdict against Carol is due to be vacated or set aside, and Deputy Scott Harrison is subject to criminal prosecution.

Harrison's false statement under oath is one of several such statements cop-witnesses for the state made in Carol's trial. But Harrison's is the one we can prove -- right this minute, with no additional investigation or discovery -- is perjurious. Other deputies' sketchy statements generally were inconsistent -- their trial testimony differed from written statements in incident reports -- so it would take some research to determine what might rise to the level of perjury. Either way, they apparently committed perjury or filed false police reports, both of which are crimes.

At least one statement from Harrison -- the deputy who burst into our apartment and pointed an assault rifle at my head during an unlawful eviction in September 2015 -- leaves no doubt. This is from page 3 of Judge Jerry Harmison Jr.'s judgment in Carol's case: (The judgment and Carol's Motion to Vacate Judgment That Was Procured by Fraud, Perjury, etc. are embedded at the end of this post.)

Harrison stated he initially focused on Roger Shuler once the front door was open because Roger Shuler had called and expressed threats to law enforcement on August 12, 2015.

We have recorded evidence that Harrison's statement is false, and we presented that evidence in a recent post, with more relevant posts to come. (The video/audio is embedded at the end of this post.)

How is perjury described under Missouri law? It can be found at RSMo 575.040, and Carol cites it in her Motion to Vacate:

Perjury is defined at RSMo. 575.040:

1. A person commits the crime of perjury if, with the purpose to deceive, he knowingly testifies falsely to any material fact upon oath or affirmation legally administered, in any official proceeding before any court, public body, notary public or other officer authorized to administer oaths;

2. A fact is material, regardless of its admissibility under rules of evidence, if it could substantially affect, or did substantially affect, the course or outcome of the cause, matter or proceeding;

3. Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of this crime, and it is no defense that:

(1) The defendant mistakenly believed the fact to be immaterial.

Is there any doubt that Harrison's statement was material? Absolutely not. At least two deputies -- including Jeremy Lynn, the "victim" of Carol's assault -- stated they were only on the scene because of Harrison's false claim that I had made a threatening 911 call. The only problem? Audio evidence shows that Josh Davis and Kathryn Mays -- a case manager and social worker at Burrell Behavioral Health, respectively -- made the 911 call. And I had nothing to do with it.

Carol and I, of course, knew all along I never made a 911 call or a threat to law enforcement -- and I've reported that here -- but how did we obtain evidence to prove Harrison's trial statement was false? Carol explains in her Motion to Vacate:

During the course of discovery in the instant case, the Shulers obtained a copy of the 911 call – it was among the 2-3 discovery requests the prosecution actually produced, and Shuler didn’t get it until almost the trial date – and the call came from Josh Davis, a case manager at Burrell Behavioral Health, with Kathryn Mays, a social worker, whispering instructions in his ear. Roger Shuler had nothing to do with the 911 call, and he never made a threat re: cops or anyone else to a member of his family – contrary to the hearsay testimony presented by multiple prosecution witnesses in this case.

As for the important element of materiality, here are details about that, from the Motion to Vacate:

Harrison’s statement clearly was false, with intent to deceive the court, and it was material. The other three cop-witnesses also testified in some fashion, via hearsay, about such threats from Roger Shuler, and two of them – Debi Wade and Jeremy Lynn – stated at trial that they were present for the Shulers’ eviction only because of a “threat” Roger Shuler never made and/or a 911 call he never placed. Carol Shuler wound up falsely accused of “assaulting” Jeremy Lynn, but he was only there because of Scott Harrison’s bogus 911 story. Debi Wade went on to falsely testify that Carol Shuler charged into her “like a bull” – a canard even prosecutors apparently did not believe because they did not charge Carol with it. 

Also, Wade falsely testified that Carol flailed around in the back seat of a patrol car – even though Carol was seat-belted – suggesting Carol produced a comminuted fracture (broken in more than two places), a feat that likely is physically impossible and has never happened in human history. This was not a hairline fracture of the arm; it was about as bad a trauma-induced break as is found in medicine. Bottom line: The officer who falsely claimed Carol Shuler assaulted him and the officer who authored a bogus Probable Cause Statement on the subject were only present at the Shulers’ eviction because of Scott Harrison’s phony 911 story. It’s very likely Harrison’s perjury is the reason Carol Shuler was found guilty of an offense even the “victim” (Jeremy Lynn) admits she did not commit.

Let's drive this point home because it's important: The officer who falsely claimed Carol assaulted him (Jeremy Lynn) and the officer who wrote a false Probable Cause Statement on the subject (Debi Wade) stated under oath that they were only present because of Scott Harrison's phony 911 story.

X-ray of comminuted fracture
in Carol Shuler's left arm.

Without the 911 canard, one deputy likely would have been on the scene -- and he might have stayed in his vehicle, scratching himself in indelicate places throughout the eviction. Our research indicates that's how most Missouri evictions are handled, with one deputy usually providing a "presence" to help ensure a tense process remains peaceful. In our case, we were confronted with a heavily armed SWAT team, whose members wound up brutalizing Carol and breaking her arm so severely that it required roughly eight hours of trauma surgery for repair.

Do courts view perjury during a criminal trial as a serious matter? On paper, they sure do? What impact can a finding of perjury have on a verdict? On paper, it can turn the results upside down.

How could Scott Harrison's perjury affect the judgment in Carol's case? We will examine that subject in an upcoming post.

And what about the Missouri Attorney General's Office? That likely is where a case of suspected perjury should be reported. Do they take it seriously?We have our doubts, but we intend to find out.


(To be continued)

Missouri Judge Jerry Harmison failed to disqualify in case where his son-in-law, Ryan Olson, was part of prosecution that brought bogus charges against Carol

Jerry Harmison

The Missouri judge who found my wife, Carol, guilty of "assault on a law enforcement officer" was disqualified from hearing the case because his son-in-law was part of the prosecution team that brought the charges. Perhaps Judge Jerry Harmison Jr. issued a verdict that had no basis in fact or law in an effort to protect the son-in-law, and his prosecutorial colleagues, for bringing charges without a whiff of probable cause.

Harmison's family ties to the Greene County Prosecuting Attorney's Office also likely explain his corrupt handling of a recent probation-revocation hearing involving former NFL player Dorial Green-Beckham.

In the 11-year history of Legal Schnauzer, I've observed a lot of corrupt judges. But this might be the most blatant judicial scandal I've witnessed. It revolves around a Springfield, MO lawyer named Eric Ryan Olson.

Harmison did not disclose his conflict of interest before conducting a bench trial in the matter. Carol filed six post-trial motions -- including a Motion to Vacate Judgment As Made By A Judge Who Was Disqualified Due to Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest -- which brought the matter to Harmison's attention, in clear and unmistakable language. (Motion is embedded at the end of this post, along with Harmison's judgment.) Carol's motion showed that the judgment against her was due to be vacated, per U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. (U.S., 1988). Harmison, however, did not vacate and gave little or no indication that he had even read the motion.

Harmison's conflict also involves dubious actions that apparently were orchestrated to allow former Gov. Eric Greitens to appoint him to a Greene County judicial seat. Greitens, of course, since has resigned in a wave of scandals.

Dorial Green-Beckham

Missouri has several statutes within its Rules of Criminal Procedure that govern judicial disqualification, and the ones that likely apply to Carol's case are Rule 32.09  and Rule 32.10. An article titled Judicial Disqualification in Missouri boils the matter down to a few simple issues. Under Rule 32.09, "prejudice" grounds are not in play; rather, "the only consideration is whether fundamental fairness requires disqualification." Rule 32.10 "sets forth specific grounds that are deemed to be sufficient to warrant judicial disqualification for cause; for example, where the challenged judge has a proscribed relationship, is interested in the cause, or was “of counsel.” Finally, state courts have looked to the Missouri Code of Judicial Conduct to decide disqualification motions, guided by this clear-cut notion: "In accordance with the Code, litigants who present their disputes to a Missouri court are entitled to a trial which is not only impartial, but which appears to be so."

That leaves us with the following questions:

(1) Did Carol receive "fundamental fairness," required by 32.09? Nope.

(2) Did Carol's judge have an improper "proscribed relationship," or "interest in the cause"? Without question. His son-in-law was part of the team that brought the charges.

(3) Was Carol's trial "impartial" and did it "appear to be so"? Not even close.

Where does attorney Eric Ryan Olson enter the picture? The Greene County Prosecutor's Office brought charges against Carol on Sept. 8, 2016. Olson worked in the office, serving as senior assistant to Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson. At the time, Olson was engaged to Jessica Harmison, Judge Jerry Harmison's oldest daughter.

Ryan Olson and Jessica Harmison were married on Nov. 11, 2016. (Jessica Harmison previously had been married to, and divorced from, a man named Taylor Straub.)

Carol was not arrested until Jan. 31. 2017. That means Ryan Olson was part of the prosecution team that brought charges against Carol and pursued her arrest. Throughout that time, he was engaged, or married to, Jessica Harmison -- who just happened to be Judge Jerry Harmison's daughter, making Ryan Olson the judge's son--in-law for part of the time that the case against Carol was launched.

How does the Olson/Harmison connection create a disqualifying conflict for Judge Harmison, and how does it tie to the machinations the family took to ensure that Jerry Harmison could be appointed as a judge? We will examine those questions in an upcoming post.


(To be continued)

Under a U.S. Supreme Court case called Alabama v. Shelton, Carol's sentence of probation in Missouri "assault" case is invalid and due to be reversed

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The suspended sentence that a Missouri judge placed on my wife, Carol, in a bogus "assault of a law enforcement officer" case is "invalid" and a "nullity," and it must be reversed,  according to U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) precedent.

We already have shown that, by placing a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) on Carol, Judge Jerry Harmison Jr. ensured there is no final, appealable judgment in the case and no conviction (even though Carol, contrary to fact and law, was found guilty). Now, we learn that the SIS and two-year probation Harmison imposed are unlawful and due to be vacated.

How many ways can one compromised judge screw up a case?

This all goes back to Missouri's denial of Carol's right to counsel, and the relevant law comes from the nation's highest court in a case styled Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002). How rich is the irony that the cheat job heaped on Carol in Missouri would be -- or should be -- decided by a SCOTUS case that originated in Alabama?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (with dissents from -- surprise, surprise -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, William Rehnquist, and Anthony Kennedy) wrote the opinion in Shelton. Here is it's central holding:

Held: A suspended sentence that may "end up in the actual deprivation of a person's liberty" may not be imposed unless the defendant was accorded "the guiding hand of counsel" in the prosecution for the crime charged. Argersinger, 407 U. S., at 40. Pp. 660-674.

What does this mean for Carol's case?

(1) She was placed on probation, but a violation of its terms could lead to a jail term. That, SCOTUS found in its 2002 Shelton ruling, is not allowed under the Sixth Amendment;

(2) Carol at one point had an attorney -- public defender Patty Poe -- but when Poe bailed out of the case, jail was waived as a possible punishment, by law;

(3) Carol never had another attorney, and she never waived her right to counsel, so Harmison committed a huge blunder by adding probation to the equation -- and probation, by definition, means jail is on the table. And that, Justice Ginsburg found, is a no-no.

(4) Both Poe and Margaret Palmietto (the original judge in Carol's case) apparently have more functioning brain cells than Harmison, who took over after Palmietto recused -- or maybe Poe and Palmietto are slightly less corrupt than Harmison. Either way, Poe told us upon exiting that, with jail off the table, the court could only sentence Carol to a fine, community service, or some type of educational course. Palmietto, in her final days on the case, said multiple times in open court "it's just a fine" -- as if Carol should have no problem being fined for an offense she did not commit, even according to the written and verbal statements of the so-called "victim."

Carol Tovich Shuler

Where does the SCOTUS case have its roots? The answer is Etowah County, Alabama, (county seat is Gadsden), where LeReed Shelton represented himself and twice was found guilty of third-degree assault -- being sentenced to a suspended 30-day jail term and unsupervised probation. Shelton appealed, and the Alabama Supreme Court ultimately reversed his sentence, finding it invalid because he did not have counsel, violating his Sixth Amendment rights.

SCOTUS upheld the Alabama Supreme Court's finding, with these words from Ginsburg:

Defendant-respondent Shelton represented himself in an Alabama Circuit Court criminal trial. The court repeatedly warned Shelton about the problems self-representation entailed, but at no time offered him assistance of counsel at state expense. He was convicted of misdemeanor assault and sentenced to a 30-day jail term, which the trial court immediately suspended, placing Shelton on two years' unsupervised probation. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed Shelton's suspended jail sentence, reasoning that this Court's decisions in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25, and Scott v. Illinois, 440 U. S. 367, require provision of counsel in any petty offense, misdemeanor, or felony prosecution, Argersinger, 407 U. S., at 37, "that actually leads to imprisonment even for a brief period," id., at 33. The State Supreme Court concluded, inter alia, that because a defendant may not be imprisoned absent provision of counsel, Shelton's suspended sentence could never be activated and was therefore invalid. . . .

The Sixth Amendment does not permit activation of a suspended sentence upon an indigent defendant's violation of the terms of his probation where the State did not provide him counsel during the prosecution of the offense for which he is imprisoned. A suspended sentence is a prison term imposed for the offense of conviction. Once the prison term is triggered, the defendant is incarcerated not for the probation violation, but for the underlying offense. The uncounseled conviction at that point "result[s] in imprisonment," Nichols v. United States, 511 U. S. 738, 746; it "end[s] up in the actual deprivation of a person's liberty," Argersinger, 407 U. S., at 40. This is precisely what the Sixth Amendment, as interpreted in Argersinger and Scott, does not allow.

Carol was the victim of an uncounseled (and unlawful) conviction, and SCOTUS makes clear that her sentence must be reversed as invalid. Whether the dictates of the nation's highest court has any impact on Jerry Harmison Jr. -- or anyone else in Missouri's perverse "justice system" -- remains to be seen. But it's clear Carol's sentence is a nullity, meaning it is legally void and is based on . . . well, nothing.

Here is the tip of a legal iceberg that shows Missouri thugs' efforts to "preclude" Carol's federal claims are due to fail, assuming an honest judge applies the law

Jerry Harmison Jr.

We have established that Missouri "law men"
brought a false assault of a law enforcement officer charge against my wife, Carol, so they could attempt to "preclude" her from bringing a federal lawsuit for excessive force, police brutality, and related claims. We've shown that Judge Jerry Harmison Jr., in essentially sentencing Carol this week to a $10 fine, apparently committed a legal blunder of epic proportions. Where might this tale of crookedness and corruption lead? Let's take a look:

Our justice system has become so diseased that cops, prosecutors, lawyers, and judges actually conspired to bring baseless criminal charges against Carol because thuggish deputies broke her arm during our unlawful eviction in September 2015. In other words, our experience shows that if cops brutalize you and break your bones -- causing you to land in the hospital for trauma surgery -- they are more likely to bring false criminal charges against you to avoid accountability for gross civil-rights violations.

The pattern goes something like this: Cops abuse a citizen physically (and we've seen that repeatedly across the country since the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri -- most recently with the abuse of NBA player Sterling Brown, who has filed a lawsuit in Milwaukee.); cops and prosecutors abuse the victim in state criminal court (and judges let them get away with it); then, they all try to cheat the victim in federal court.

As Muhammad Ali might have said, particularly when he was a young Cassius Clay: "The more they abuse you, the more they screw you."

Will it work in Carol's case? Not if a federal judge can be found who follows the law. But since when in postmodern America has a judge been known to follow the law -- in Alabama, Missouri, state, court, federal court?

As we showed in our previous post in this series, our federal claims (I have civil-rights claims, along with Carol) will be governed by preclusion law -- also known as res judicata or collateral estoppel -- at the state level. And Missouri preclusion law is not complicated.

Dozens of cases spell out the basics of preclusion law in Missouri, and we will borrow them from a case styled Stacy v. Massa (W.D., Missouri, 2013). From the Stacy opinion:

In Missouri, issue preclusion applies when:

(1) the issue in the present action is identical to the issue decided in the prior adjudication; (2) the prior adjudication resulted in judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted was a party or is in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior suit.

Much is happening in Carol's case at the moment -- including an apparent attempt to cheat her that might blow up in the faces of midwest "law thugs," with possible comical consequences -- and we will go into details in upcoming posts. But we already can make a reasonable analysis on the four issues cited above in Massa:

(1) Will the issue in the criminal action be identical to that in the federal civil-rights action? No, not even close. The issue in the criminal case: Did Carol "knowingly cause, or attempt to cause, physical contact with Officer Jeremy Lynn?" We have not yet filed the federal case -- Missouri has a five-year statute of limitations -- so all of the claims have not been set. But the central issue will be this: Who broke Carol's arm, who caused that to happen via an unlawful eviction, and was the forcedused reasonable? None of those issues was decided in the criminal case.

(2) Did the prior adjudication result in a judgment on the merits? No.In fact, I'm not sure you could say it was adjudicated at all. Jerry Harmison Jr., the third judge assigned to the case (Becky Borthwick recused for unspecified reasons after two days), followed in the footsteps of his predecessor (Margaret Palmietto) and allowed the prosecution to get away with stonewalling on discovery. In essence, Carol was not allowed to gather evidence central to her defense, so it's hard to see how anyone could claim the case was decided on its merits. The prosecution's case had no merit, as we've shown repeatedly on this blog -- and we will show in upcoming posts. On top of that, it appears that one result of Judge Harmison's screw-up is that there is no final judgment at all in Carol's case, much less one based on the merits..

(3) Was the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted a party in the criminal matter? Carol was a party in the criminal matter, and she will be a party in the civil matter. I was not a party in the criminal matter, and I will be a party in the civil matter. So, the answer is no.

(4) Did Carol have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior case? This question is so ridiculous it almost makes me laugh. How can you have a "full and fair opportunity to litigate" when the prosecution is not forced to turn over discovery, and multiple motions to compel are ignored? I could write dozens of paragraphs on this question, but for now, we can narrow it down to one issue: Harmison was required by Missouri law to rehear Carol's Motion to Suppress Evidence, and that's because Palmietto's earlier denials were interlocutory and not conclusive or binding on future proceedings. [See State v. Pippenger, 741 S.W.2d 710 (Mo. App. W.D. 1987)]. Did Harmison fulfill his obligation to address suppression issues? Nope. He avoided them -- twice. If he had followed the law, and ruled according to law, there would have been no trial. So, the answer to our question is no, not even close.

We are just getting started in our analysis that shows the scheme to preclude Carol's federal claims is due to fail. Missouri state law. Eighth Circuit federal law, federal law from other circuits, and U.S. Supreme Court all show Carol's civil-rights claims are not precluded, as a matter of law. And we soon will show how the outlandish nature of Carol's sentencing could add significantly to Greene County's civil liability for its inability to police its police force.


(To be continued)

In screwy postmodern America, a crooked judge like Jerry Harmison Jr, of Missouri, can convict you of a "crime" without even saying what law you've broken

Jerry Harmison Jr.

Is it possible to be convicted of a crime in an American court for doing . . . well, nothing? Based on our experience with my wife Carol's "assault of a law enforcement officer (LEO)" case in Missouri, the answer is yes.

To examine that question, let's look at Judge Jerry Hamison Jr.'s judgment in Carol's case. (The judgment is embedded at the end of this post.) We invite you to check out Harmison's first paragraph. Does it say one word about what Carol is charged with? Nope.

Harmison spends the better part of six pages regurgitating the testimony of various witnesses (including Carol and me) and begins his analysis in the final paragraph on page 7. Best we can tell, this includes his primary reasons for reaching a guilty verdict:

The relevant evidence in this case is that the Greene County Deputies evicting Roger and Carol Shuler were acting in good faith. . . . [Note: 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. Harmison cites civil law, which has nothing to do with this criminal case.] Captain Lynn keyed the door and started to push it open, announcing the identity of officers again. Carol Shuler resisted the door, but it was pushed open. Lieutenant [Christian] Conrad announced the identity of the deputies again. Regardless, Carol Shuler continued to push Lynn multiple times and tried to pull away from him to resist detention. Lynn eventually handcuffed Carol Shuler. Consequently, the court finds the defendant guilty of Count I beyond a reasonable doubt. Sentencing is scheduled for June 11, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. [Note: Sentencing, and the hearing of post-judgment motions has been continued to 10:30 a.m. on June 19.]

So, Harmison pronounces Carol guilty, but of what? He doesn't say. He makes no mention of the governing statute -- RSMo 565.083 (Assault of a law enforcement officer . . .  in the third degree.) He doesn't even describe the offense with which Carol was charged. So, we will do it for him:

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.

Harmison also does not bother to address Missouri case law, which has held that the key question is: Who initiated contact? (See State v. Armstrong, 968 SW 2d 154, Mo. Court of Appeals, 1998.) Jeremy Lynn stated twice -- in his written incident report and under oath on the courtroom stand -- that he caused and initiated contact with Carol, by grabbing her as he burst through the front door of our rented duplex apartment.

From reading the final paragraph of Harmison's judgment, you would think the central element of the offense was: Did the subject push the officer? But neither the statute nor the case law says a word about pushing someone. It's all about who "knowingly caused -- or initiated -- physical contact."

Well, Jeremy Lynn admits that he knowingly grabbed Carol, and in his written report, never said a word about her pushing him. In fact, he said she tried to pull away from him. Last time I checked, it is impossible to push someone and try to pull away from them at the same time.

So, we are left with this question: Is it a crime to push a police officer -- which Carol testified she did not do -- especially in this situation?

We will examine that in an upcoming post.


(To be continued)

By accident, Missouri cop Scott Harrison admits Carol "may have" been seat-belted in patrol car, blowing to hell cops' theory about Carol breaking her own arm

The cage area where Carol was handcuffed and
seat-belted in a patrol car

A Missouri deputy stated at Carol's "assault" trial that she "may not have" been wearing a seat belt when she was initially detained in the caged area of a patrol car near the end of our unlawful eviction in September 2015. The flip side of Deputy Scott Harrison's statement, of course, is this: Carol may HAVE been wearing a seat belt while detained in the patrol car.

That blows to hell the cops' story that Carol broke her own arm by flailing about in the back seat of the patrol car before transport. (Never mind that a comminuted fracture -- a break in more than two places -- is caused by trauma, as in a car crash and likely is impossible to inflict on one's self, especially while handcuffed and seat belted.) It adds credence to Carol's testimony that she was seat-belted in the back seat from the get-go and could not have flailed about -- even if she had wanted to, and she didn't.

Harrison's slip-up on the stand is proof that telling the truth makes sense -- if for no other reason than it's hard to keep lies straight. This is straight from page 2-3 of Judge Jerry Hamison Jr.'s judgment:

Harrison placed [Carol] in the back seat of the patrol car, and he returned to the residence. He saw her thrusting back and forth, as well as forward and backward while she was in the patrol car with her hands cuffed behind her back. . . . Carol Shuler . . . was transported to the Greene County Jail wearing a seat belt. Upon arriving at the jail, she said for the first time that her arm hurt. A series of photos of her arm were taken over the course of 90 minutes, showing progressive swelling and bruising. On cross-examination, Harrison testified he was wearing a blue polo shirt with GCSO insignia. (False: He was wearing a dark uniform, with bullet-proof vest, and pointed an assault rifle at my head.)
He affirmed Carol Shuler was transported wearing a seat belt. but she may not have been belted when detained in the caged area of the patrol car initially. 

A few obvious questions come to mind:

* Harrison left an un-belted individual in the back of a patrol car and "returned to the residence"? Is that in line with departmental policy? Wouldn't it have been possible for Carol to open the door with her foot and walk away? What if someone who was actually dangerous did that?  Cops in Missouri are really that careless?

* Was Harrison inside the residence when he claims to have seen Carol thrusting about, etc? How far away was he? Were the car windows tinted? How could he tell what she was doing from that distance?

* If Carol was, in fact, flailing about, why didn't Harrison do something about it? Is it departmental policy to do nothing when a person in custody could be injuring herself?

* Aren't Harrison, the Sheriff's Department, and the county civilly liable if they do nothing to protect someone who was in their custody?

* Oh, wait . . . Harrison admits Carol "may not have been belted when" initially detained in the patrol car. That means -- in Harrison's own words -- Carol may HAVE been belted from the outset, just as she testified. Speaking of Carol's testimony, here it is, in relevant part:


[Carol] remembered she needed Baxter's litter box and started to go back toward the residence. She said she was surrounded by officers. She never barreled into Wade. (I, too, testified to this.) She was then grabbed and thrown to the ground by an unidentified officer. (We call him "Mr. Blue Shirt.") She was handcuffed while on the wet ground. She was led to the police car. She sat in the car quietly. She was seat-belted in the car, and she told Harrison her "arm hurts so bad." She was eventually taken to Cox North for an examination (where X-rays revealed a comminuted fracture of her left arm). 


What do we learn here?

(1) Various cop-witnesses stated that Carol showed no signs of being injured and never complained of being hurt. But she testified that she told Harrison her arm "hurt so bad." That sound you hear is cop credibility being shattered.

(2) Carol says she was seat-belted in the car from the outset, and Harrison essentially admits she might be right. Again, cop credibility melts away.


We've shown that cops started concocting a false story about Carol breaking her own arm, and they did it the morning after they learned her arm was broken (if not sooner). Isn't it fun to see Scott Harrison -- because he's too stupid to keep lies straight -- blow the whole story to high heaven?

Missouri Deputy Jeremy Lynn deems me an "anti-government" blogger during Carol's trial, and Judge Jerry Harmison allows the absurd statement to stand

Jeremy Lynn

A Missouri deputy at my wife Carol's recent "assault" trial referred to me as an "anti-government" blogger. No kidding -- and Judge Jerry Harmison Jr. allowed the false, nonsensical, and prejudicial statement into the record. In Right-Winger World, if you take a stand against corruption -- especially the Republican variety -- you get labeled "anti-government." Such is the perverse, postmodern world in which we live.

The statement came from Greene County deputy Jeremy Lynn, who claimed under oath that Carol had pushed him as he burst into our apartment for an unlawful eviction in September 2015. This is the same Jeremy Lynn who made no mention of Carol pushing him in written incident reports -- and admitted, both in court and in written reports, that he grabbed Carol immediately upon entering our home. The key question under Missouri's "assault on a law enforcement officer (LEO) statute" (RSMo 565.083) is "who caused or attempted to cause physical contact?" Missouri case law has held that the key issue is "who initiated physical contact?" (See State v. Armstrong, 968 SW 2d 154 - Mo: Court of Appeals, Southern Dist., 1st Div. 1998.)

Who, then, initiated physical contact in this instance? Jeremy Lynn admits, twice, that he did. That means Carol, as a matter of law, is not guilty. That Judge Harmison ruled otherwise suggests he is ignorant, incompetent, compromised -- or some combination of all three.

As for Lynn, he said one thing in writing and then changed his story, under oath, on the stand to ensure Carol's wrongful conviction. That suggests he committed perjury or falsified a police report. Either is a crime, meaning Carol's case was decided on fraud, and her conviction is due to be overturned on post-judgment motions.

What do we learn from Lynn's claim that I am an "anti-government blogger"? Here are a few things that come to mind:

* Lynn has mostly horse feces between his ears;

* We live in a dysfunctional era where -- if you don't toe the corrupt Bush, Trump, Rove, Sessions line of corrupt thinking -- certain white people (probably driven by their own race-based fears) think you must be "anti-government."

* Lynn's reading-comprehension skills are so limited that he can't grasp this is an "anti-corruption blog" -- it focuses on actual law, and how judges routinely butcher it, and that's about as far from being "anti-government" as you can get. More than anything, our blog promotes honest government and the rule of law, a concept with which Jeremy Lynn likely is not familiar. Legal Schnauzer has been ranked among the top 50 law blogs (No. 37) in North America, by a Chicago-based Web research and marketing firm called Cision. Ours was the only blog on the list not affiliated with a law firm, law school, legal society, media conglomerate, or social-welfare organization -- the only truly independent blog so honored.. That makes Legal Schnauzer the No. 1 law blog of its kind in North America. That kind of recognition likely does not come for a wild-eyed blogger who churns out anti-government screeds (whatever those are). It comes from being a real journalist, with a degree from one of the top journalism schools in the world. It comes from producing the kind of accurate, hard-nosed reporting and analysis that is found hardly anywhere else on the Web.

* Why did Judge Harmison allow such an improper statement into the record? It suggests he was not even trying to be fair. While I was on the stand, I repeatedly was not allowed to make legal conclusions -- even though they were correct -- because, as a non-lawyer, I'm not considered an expert in the field. I understand those rulings, but why was Lynn allowed to make a conclusion about the nature of a blog, even though he clearly has no expertise on the subject?

What exactly did Lynn say. It comes straight from page 3 of Harmison's judgment. (The judgment is embedded at the end of this post.):

Captain Jeremy Lynn testified on behalf of the state. He was assisting the civil division with the eviction because of concerns about Roger Shuler. Lynn was made aware that calls had been made to the Sheriff's Office from Shuler's family members, expressing concerns for the safety of law enforcement, and he was aware of anti-government blogs posted by Roger Shuler.

Did I ever say a threatening word about law enforcement to a family member -- or anyone else? Nope. This fable apparently was the work of my lawyer-brother, David Shuler, in an attempt to get Carol and me unlawfully evicted, hurt, killed -- or all three. As for Lynn, his ignorance does not stop there. Let's examine it from a broader view:

(1) I'm a liberal; anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that. Liberals, by definition, are for a strong central government -- and that describes me, the opposite of a "states' rights" Reaganite. I'm "pro government."

(2) My late father worked for 26 years as a clerk for the U.S. Post Office. That's a federal government job, one that fed, clothed, and housed, our family of six for a long time. Am I "pro government?" Absolutely.

(3) My dad's job came with federal government benefits, which gave us health insurance, access to a credit union, paid vacation (where we actually could see him from time to time; his working hours mostly were in the evenings), and union protection that kept him from being fired on someone's whim. Me, pro government? Darned tootin'.

(4) During World War II, my dad (Bill Shuler) arrived on Normandy Beach three days after the D-Day invasion. One can only imagine the horrible sights he must have seen and the danger he and his company were in. He put his life (and my life) on the line to help save democracy as we know it. My dad was in the U.S. Army, serving the government in perhaps the most dangerous way possible. A puss like Jeremy Lynn likely can't comprehend making that kind of sacrifice. I can because my family is filled with individuals who honorably served their "government" via the military.

(5) One of my uncles (Carl Stamps), after serving in the WWII, worked for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, helping to design dams and locks and such. He worked for the government and was a wonderful uncle. Through his example, I'm pro-government.

(6) One of my aunts (Imogene Stamps) served both in WWII and the Korean conflict, and worked for the U.S. Veterans Administration in Little Rock, AR, for 33 years. Her work focused mostly on rehabilitation of disabled veterans. She worked for the government and was a wonderful aunt. Through her example, I'm pro-government.

(7) Before corrupt political forces cheated me out of my job at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) (because I dared write about corruption on this blog), I worked 20 years at an institution that long has been the No. 1 economic driver in Alabama and one of the great education success stories in the Deep South. UAB is a state institution, which means I was a state-government employee -- and a darned good one. It was not unusual for me to do the work of two or three people in our understaffed, underpaid, and unappreciated editorial office. I routinely got a heavy workload completed in a timely and a high-quality fashion -- and I've got the strong performance reviews to prove it. I was one helluva bargain for the State of Alabama, and until the cheat job kicked into high gear in my final six months on the job, I enjoyed my work and was proud to call myself a UAB employee -- a state employee; a government employee; a loyal, "pro-government" employee.

Here is the difference between me and Jeremy Lynn, a marshmallow with a badge who lied under oath and claimed a 58-year-old woman pushed him and hurt his wittle feelings. A term like "pro government" is an empty phrase to a  puss like Jeremy Lynn; he likely uses it only to lick the ass crack of his corrupt boss, Sheriff Jim Arnott.

It's not an empty phrase to me. I've come from a long line of individuals who actually have stood up for their government -- and gave us the democracy we know today, at least until Donald Trump is able to destroy it.

Jeremy Lynn wouldn't know an "anti-government blogger" if one kicked him in the crotch. He's too stupid to know any better than to make statements on topics about which he is clueless. That Judge Jerry Harmison Jr. allowed such an absurd statement into a court record suggest he's not much smarter than Lynn. After all, Harmison was appointed by Eric Greitens, perhaps the most corrupt governor in Missouri history -- and Harmison is doing his best to live up to Greitens high "ethical standards."

And yes, I'm against having scum bags like Greitens in elective office -- as my reporting here has shown. And yes, that makes me "pro government."

Missouri cops' written and verbal statements not only don't make sense, they defy the laws of gravity, in an effort to cover up police brutality against my wife Carol

Christian Conrad

All four Missouri deputies who testified at my wife Carol's recent "assault" trial said in written reports that she wound up on the ground either before or just after being handcuffed. But at trial, under oath, none of them mentioned Carol being on the ground -- and one of them went out of her way to say Carol was handcuffed while standing.

Why all the inconsistent statements, which likely amount to perjury? Well, it's obvious Carol's arm was broken for two reasons:

(1) She was seated on the ground, on her butt, where an unknown individual wearing a blue shirt and reflective sun glasses had slammed her;

(2) "Mr. Blue Shirt" then reached down to grab both of Carol's arms just above the elbows, while she still was seated on the ground, and violently yanked on them in an upward and backward motion.

Carol and I both testified to that, under oath, at trial -- and while Carol likely was in a state of shock and might have had a concussion from being slammed to the ground on the day cops beat her-- I saw the whole thing from about 15 feet away, while sitting in the driver's seat of our car. Unlike Carol, I did not have my brains scrambled by having cops slam my head against a wall multiple times after they unlawfully burst into our apartment. And certainly, no one slammed me butt-first to the ground.

Carol's arm likely was broken because she had been slammed into an awkward position, sitting butt-first on the ground, when an ignorant animal in a blue shirt started yanking on both arms as hard as he could.

How vicious was this? From my sportswriting days I've been on the sidelines at numerous college football games -- including pretty fair teams like Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Kansas State, LSU, Tennessee, UAB, Florida, North Carolina, and many more. I've seen some frightening hits from a few feet away, but I've never seen a level of violence inflicted on anyone that tops what was done to Carol during our unlawful eviction in September 2015.

The cops' combination of written and spoken words not only are false and nonsensical, they defy the laws of physics. (The judgment, written incident reports, and a perjury-related motion are embedded at the end of this post.) Let's examine the cops written statements:

(1)Debi Wade

Lt. Conrad came around my right side and grabbed [Carol's] left arm, and Deputy Harrison came up from behind and grabbed her right arm. Capt. Lynn rushed in to place her in handcuffs. She resisted them by jerking her arms in an attempt to free herself from their hold. (If Carol had been placed in handcuffs, how could be attempting to free herself from their hold?) I had stepped away once I knew they had her under control. As soon as she stopped resisting and the cuffs were checked for comfort, and I heard one of the male deputies advise her that she was under arrest and read her Miranda. Carol sunk down on the ground in a sitting position in a defeated manner, on her own accord. She waited quietly on the ground. (Sounds like someone coached Wade to avoid saying anything that might suggest Carol was slammed to the ground, against her will.)

The reality: A "male officer" did not advise Carol that she was under arrest. Sheriff Jim Arnott, after watching "Mr. Blue Shirt" slam Carol and break her arm, pointed at her and falsely said, "You assaulted a police officer." Arnott clearly knew Carol was injured, and he would need an excuse, in a hurry. Wade falsely stated that Carol "sunk down to the ground," "of her own accord." Carol and I both testified that "Blue Shirt" slammed her to the ground, and it had nothing to do with "her own accord." Wade was correct that Carol wound up on the ground, but she lied about how Carol got there and what happened once she was there.


(2) Scott Harrison

I approached Carol from behind and placed a hold on Carol's right arm and Lt. Conrad took a hold of Carol's left arm. We were able to detain Carol in handcuffs once she stopped resisting. (Where was Capt. Lynn, who according to Wade, applied the handcuffs? They can't keep their stories straight. That happens when you are lying.) I ensured the handcuffs were not too tight and made sure that they were double-locked so that they would not cinch down any further on her wrists. Carol then willfully sat down on the ground, with my assistance.

An inside view of the hardware required
to repair Carol's arm via trauma surgery

The reality: Like Wade, Harrison correctly stated that Carol wound up on the ground, but he lied about how she got there and what happened once she was there. He claims he assisted Carol in sitting on the ground, which is a complete crock.


(3) Jeremy Lynn

Lt. Conrad and Deputy Harrison then attempted to restrain Mrs. Shuler, however, she continued to resist and pull away from them. I grabbed Lt. Conrad's handcuffs and handcuffed her while Deputy Harrison and Lt. Conrad held her. Mrs. Shuler then sunk to the ground and sat. Lt. Conrad then retrieved Deputy Harrison's car. He pulled it up in the driveway, and Deputy Harrison escorted her to the vehicle. She continued to pull away and resist walking to the car.

The reality: Lynn continues the pattern of admitting Carol wound up on the ground, but he lies about how she got there and what happened once she was there. Like the others, he leaves "Mr. Blue Shirt" out of the story entirely


(4) Christian Conrad

At this point, I informed her she was under arrest for assault. (A lie; Arnott pulled the arrest out of his ass.) Carol fought against us until she was handcuffed. Once hancuffed, she sat down on the grass and said she was done fighting. I asked her if she was OK, and she said her shoulders were sore from being hancuffed the first time.

The reality: Sound familiar? Like the others, Conrad admits Carol wound up on the ground, but lies about how she got there and what happened once she was there. No word about Mr. Blue Shirt slamming her to ground and yanking so violently on her arms that he broke one of them.

What is a consistent theme through all four of these accounts? They have Carol sitting on the ground -- on her own -- while wearing handcuffs. I've had handcuffs on, so I know what the experience is like. One of the last things you want to do is sit yourself on the ground because: (A) The natural tendency is to use both arms to guide yourself down and cushion yourself once you approach the ground. With handcuffs on, you can't do that, and you realize it right away. Knowing that you are likely to fall directly on your ass, with nothing to support you, you are not likely to even attempt sitting on the ground of "your own accord."; (2) If you do manage to sit down, you have almost no way to get back up. Try sitting on the ground and getting up without using your arms. I'm betting you can't do it. And I know from experience that the handcuffed person realizes his arms are incapacitated and isn't even thinking of attempting an act that requires his arms to start or to finish.

I was never a star student in physics class, but I learned enough to know the cops' stories are bullshit.

They must have known their stories were bullshit because they changed them at trial. Only one of the four cops mentioned anything about Carol and the ground at trial. It came from Debi Wade, who seems to have a dysfunctional relationship with the truth:

Wade also confirmed Carol Shuler was handcuffed while in a standing position after charging Wade like a bull.

What baloney. This is the same Debi Wade who wrote that Carol wound up on the ground while being surrounded by multiple cops, but now Wade makes a special point of saying Carol was handcuffed while standing. Why the change? Well, these cops aren't very bright, but even they realize an injury is more likely to happen when a subject is placed in handcuffs while seated on the ground, with a thug yanking on her arms. So, they try to take the ground and the thug out of the equation.

Pretty much all of the cops' fairy tales fall apart on closer inspection, and another will do that shortly.


(To be continued)

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)

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.