Former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, once bounced from office in sex scandal, faces allegations of domestic abuse in the midst of campaign for U.S. Senate

Sheena and Eric Greitens

Eric Greitens, former Missouri governor who was bounced from office in a sex scandal, faces accusations of abuse from his ex-wife as he tries to gain traction in the Republican race for U.S. Senate. From a report at ky3.com:

Former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, now a leading Republican Senate candidate, was physically abusive and demonstrated such “unstable and coercive behavior” that steps were taken to limit his access to firearms, according to new allegations from his ex-wife revealed in court records.

The sworn affidavit from Sheena Greitens is part of an ongoing child custody dispute in Missouri. A public affairs professor at the University of Texas, she sought divorce from Eric Greitens after a sex scandal that led to his resignation as governor in June 2018. She’s now asking the court to move the custody case to Austin in part to spare her children from renewed public attention as Eric Greitens tries to mount a political comeback.

  The Greitens story has national political implications:

The allegations could complicate his bid to emerge from Missouri’s Aug. 2 primary as the GOP nominee and potentially jeopardize his party’s chance to hold onto a key Senate seat in the general election.

In the affidavit, Sheena Greitens casts her ex-husband as someone who threatened to use his political connections and influence in order to destroy her reputation to win custody of the children.

“Prior to our divorce, during an argument in late April 2018, Eric knocked me down and confiscated my cell phone, wallet, and keys so that I was unable to call for help or extricate myself and our children from our home,” Sheena Greitens wrote in the filing. “I became afraid for my safety and that of our children at our home,” later adding that his “behavior included physical violence toward our children, such as cuffing our then-3-year-old son across the face at the dinner table in front of me and yanking him around by his hair.”

Once a swing state, Missouri has become more reliably Republican in recent years. But the race to succeed retiring Sen. Roy Blunt is nonetheless receiving national attention because some in the GOP establishment are anxious that, with the allegations released on Monday and previous scandals, Greitens would face vulnerabilities against a Democrat. And with the Senate evenly divided, the GOP can’t afford to lose what would otherwise be a safe seat.

Greitens once was considered presidential timber, but he has not been able to outrun scandal:

Greitens was a rising GOP star after his 2016 election, a charismatic former Navy SEAL officer and Rhodes Scholar who founded a nonprofit benefiting veterans. He didn’t hide his ambition, either, reserving the website EricGreitensForPresident.com.

But that all seemed to fade after he was indicted on an invasion-of-privacy charge in February 2018 in St. Louis, accused of taking a compromising photo of his hairstylist without her consent during a 2015 extramarital affair. In short order, a Missouri House committee began investigating campaign finance issues, and Greitens faced a second felony charge in St. Louis, accused of providing his political fundraiser with the donor list of his veterans’ charity.

Sheena Greitens said her ex-husband admitted to her that he had, in fact, taken a compromising photo of his hairstylist that led to the felony invasion of privacy charge. But she says in the affidavit that he warned her that she could face legal trouble of her own if she ever disclosed that fact. She later learned that was not the case.

Eric Greitens mostly kept a low profile after his resignation in 2018. That changed last year after the Missouri Ethics Commission found “probable cause” that Greitens’ campaign broke campaign-finance law, but also “found no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Eric Greitens, individually.”

Greitens said the ruling “fully exonerated” him.

Sheena Greitens’ affidavit, however, offers a bleak picture of his waning days as governor. At one point, she said, Eric Greitens purchased a gun but refused to tell her where it was. He also threatened to kill himself “unless I provided specific public political support,” she wrote.

The behavior was so alarming, she wrote, that on three separate occasions in February, April and May 2018, “multiple people other than myself were worried enough to intervene to limit Eric’s access to firearms.”

At one point, Eric Greitens made a reference to the fact that he had the children — and she didn’t — while trying to persuade Sheena Greitens to delete emails she had sent to the family therapist seeking help, according to the affidavit.

Sheena Greitens said her ex is not shy about threatening to use his influence in abusive fashion:

In 2020, after informing Eric Greitens that she accepted a job at the University of Texas, she said he threatened “to use his political influence to get my job offer revoked.”

Her ex-husband’s reemergence in politics has been taxing, Sheena Greitens said in the affidavit. Meanwhile, his past ability to influence law enforcement and appoint judges, as well as the even greater power he would obtain as a senator are “extremely intimidating,” she wrote.

“Now that Eric is a candidate for federal office, public interest in my life, my relationship with Eric and the breakdown thereof, and the existence of issues of custody between Eric and me are being rekindled and brought back into central public discussion,” Sheena Greitens wrote.

“The weight of these facts and the intimidation they cause” justifies moving the case to Texas, she wrote, where “the reach of his power and influence is significantly less.”

Several of Greitens' fellow Republicans encouraged him to drop out of the Senate race and get help:

          Other candidates in the race on Monday called for Greitens to end his campaign.

“Real men never abuse women and children. Period, end of the story,” GOP U.S. Rep. Vicky Hartzler said in a recorded statement posted on Twitter. “It’s time for Eric to get out of the Senate race and to get professional help.”

Missouri’s Republican Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who is also running, tweeted: “The behavior described in this affidavit is cause for Eric Greitens to be in prison, not on the ballot for U.S. Senate.”

Former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, bounced from office once by scandal, already has campaign-finance problems in his bid for a seat in the U.S. Senate

Eric  Greitens

Missouri's Eric Greitens, who went from Navy SEAL to one of the nation's most corrupt governors, appears already to have stepped in doo-doo in his bid to make a political comeback by replacing retiring U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO).

Greitens' earlier problems started with a sex scandal but ultimately led to questions about "dark money." Now, he appears to have more campaign-finance problems, according to a report from Associated Press and KY3 in Springfield:

A federal elections watchdog group on Wednesday filed another complaint against former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, alleging that money from his old gubernatorial campaign was illegally spent on kickstarting his campaign to run for retiring U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt’s seat.

The Campaign Legal Center, a Washington-based nonprofit, filed its complaint with the Missouri Ethics Commission against Greitens, who resigned in 2018 amid a sex scandal and other claims of campaign finance misconduct. He’s running in a crowded Republican primary for Blunt’s seat.

At issue is $100,000 that the Campaign Legal Center alleges Greitens’ state gubernatorial committee illegally spent to kickstart his Senate campaign. State campaign funds cannot be used for federal campaigns.

In October, the nonprofit filed a complaint over the spending with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Greitens’ Senate campaign has said that “no gubernatorial campaign funds were used for the Senate campaign” in response to the FEC complaint.

 Will that satisfy the FEC, considering Greitens' not-so-distant past? Maybe not:

The latest complaint claims that Greitens’ state committee didn’t properly report the spending to the Missouri Ethics Commission as an in-kind contribution to the federal committee.

“It violated both state and federal law for Greitens to spend $100,000 in gubernatorial campaign funds on his U.S. Senate race without proper disclosure,” Brendan Fischer, the nonprofit’s director of federal reform, said in a statement. “Missouri voters have a right to know where the money being spent to influence their votes is coming from.”

Greitens’ Senate campaign and his state committee treasurer didn’t immediately reply to requests for comment about the complaint.

Is this a case of history repeating itself? It certainly has that smell about it:

If the latest claims against Greitens are true, his state committee is at risk of violating a 2020 consent order with the Missouri Ethics Commission that stemmed from a campaign finance violation during his 2016 gubernatorial run.

In February 2020, the ethics commission found “probable cause” that Greitens’ state committee failed to report a donor list from his charity for his 2016 political campaign and issued a $178,000 fine, though it required payment of just $38,000.

The consent order said Greitens’ campaign would owe the rest if it committed any more violations between then and February 2022.

Former Missouri Governor Eric Greitens, whose rising star crashed because of a sex scandal, is seeking Trump endorsement for 2022 run at a U.S. Senate seat

Eric Greitens

Eric Geitens, who stepped down as Missouri governor in the wake of  a seamy sex scandal, is seeking an endorsement from Donald Trump for a 2022 GOP run at the U.S. Senate. It's hard to tell what is more nauseating: that a greaseball like Greitens thinks be belongs in the Senate, or that he is seeking the help of a greaseball like Trump. Some possible good news: A number of Republican honchos reportedly are advising Trump to steer clear of Greitens. From a report at The Washington Post:

Former Missouri governor Eric Greitens keeps getting questions on the campaign trail about the state of his relationship with former president Donald Trump.

But the scandal-scarred Senate candidate, who is trying to run under the banner of Trump’s “America First” movement, always finds a way to avoid a direct answer.

“We are honored to have so many of Donald Trump’s strongest fighters on our team,” Greitens said last month in one interview on a conservative podcast when asked about the relationship.

The dodge glosses over one of the most dramatic behind-the-scenes battles for Trump’s favor taking place right now. The former president has hosted a steady stream of potential candidates, sitting senators and political kibitzers who have tried to keep him from endorsing Greitens, a devoted cheerleader who is trying to use Trump’s grass-roots strength to emerge from disastrous allegations of bound hands and coercive sex that forced his resignation as governor in 2018. Trump advisers aware of the meetings spoke on the condition of anonymity to reflect private conversations.

 Greitens once was a Navy SEAL, but he seems to have little trouble sucking up to Trump:

Few candidates have done more in recent months to court Trump, or to compare his own controversy to the scandals that enveloped the former president. Yet in a state that Trump won by 15 points in 2020, the Greitens campaign has tested the question of just how far the former president and Republican voters are willing to go to overlook past misdeeds.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who is leading the Senate GOP campaign effort, is among those encouraging Trump to stay out of the primary in Missouri and elsewhere.

Several Republican strategists say they worry that the lurid scandals that brought down Greitens would create an opening for a Democrats if he is the nominee, especially if former governor Jay Nixon (D) decides to run. More likely, they say, Greitens would just increase the costs for Republicans to win the state, diverting resources from other contests.

“I keep saying to the president: We want to nominate electable people. I think he’s trying to find the most Trumpian person who is electable,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who recently traveled to Trump’s Bedminster resort in New Jersey and said it was “an encouraging sign” for Republican chances to take over the Senate that the former president was, for now, staying out of some races. “A lot of people on the ground are encouraging him to stay out. They are saying don’t put Missouri in play.”

But the efforts by Greitens to win the endorsement and the support of Trump’s most devoted followers have not abated. Greitens has hired a coterie of former Trump aides, and won the endorsement of former Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani and former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik, whom Trump pardoned after a guilty plea for tax fraud and lying to the government. Former interior secretary Ryan Zinke, former White House aides Boris Epshteyn and Sebastian Gorka and several others from Trump’s orbit have signed on to the effort.

The campaign has hired Trump’s former pollster, Tony Fabrizio, who produced a March survey that showed Greitens leading the crowded field. Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former Trump campaign aide and the girlfriend of his son Donald Jr., has been hired to chair the Greitens campaign.

“Gov. Greitens has unparalleled support among the MAGA base and beyond in ruby-red Missouri,” campaign adviser Epshteyn said in a statement, citing campaign event turnout and small-dollar donation numbers. “That support is evidenced in polling by President Trump’s pollster which shows Greitens annihilating all the other candidates.”

Greitens has also gone all in on Trump’s false claims of election fraud, even embracing the idea that a new ballot count in Arizona and other states could lead to President Biden being replaced by Trump before the next presidential election.

“If they don’t have the ballots in Arizona, they don’t have the victory,” Greitens said during a June appearance on another conservative podcast, a comment that goes beyond the position taken by his rivals in the Senate contest, who have also expressed concern about the fairness of the presidential election but left more fantastical predictions alone.

James Harris, a Republican consultant in Missouri who has worked with Smith, expressed what has become a widespread concern among GOP officials.

“I think if the election were to be held today in a five- or six-way race, Eric Greitens is ultimately the nominee,” Harris said. “If there was a prolonged effort on educating people on all he did, his support would fall pretty quick and he would pose a serious problem in the general election.”

Greitens political star once only seemed capable of rising. But heavy baggage has brought him down to earth:

Greitens was once seen as a rising star in the party, with a movie-star appearance and campaign talent that Trump typically gravitates toward. But his rise was upset in 2018, when his former hairdresser accused him of coercing her into a sexual encounter three years earlier.

She testified under oath to a special investigative committee of the Missouri House that he led her to his basement, bound her hands, blindfolded and undressed her and later coerced her into performing oral sex. She said she believed he had taken a photo of her at the time and threatened to release it publicly if she spoke of their relationship. Greitens declined to testify in his own defense, but he made his cellphone available to police, who found no evidence that a photo was taken.

In a separate audio recording made days after the encounter, the woman agreed when an acquaintance asked if she had been “half-raped and blackmailed,” according to a bipartisan report written by the Republican-held Missouri House. “Yes,” she said.

She later told House investigators, when asked whether she consented to sex, that “it felt like consent, but, no, I didn’t want to do it.”

A prosecution for invasion of privacy based on the photo allegation fell apart, with the lead investigator later being charged with lying in a deposition and the prosecutor being referred for a disciplinary hearing. A separate Missouri Ethics Commission investigation of Greitens’s 2016 gubernatorial campaign found “probable cause” that his campaign had failed to disclose some contributions, but concluded that Greitens did not have knowledge of the violations even though he was “ultimately responsible for all reporting requirements.” His campaign paid a fine.

Greitens has admitted to the affair but denied the specific behavior described by the woman, pointing to her testimony that she felt like she was “remembering it through a dream.”

Greitens has reached into the GOP playbook to decide that liberals caused his downfall:

On the campaign trail, Greitens has become practiced at minimizing and deflecting questions about the accusations, largely by claiming that he is the victim of the same liberal forces that attacked Trump in office, and dismissing criticism from “Republicans in name only.” He has also emphasized that the criminal prosecution against him collapsed.

“I feel incredibly blessed to have lived through that,” Greitens told a conservative audience at a town hall July 15 in O’Fallon, Mo., of his various scandals. “Because I feel like I had a window into the true viciousness of the left. I had a window into what is really at stake for this country. I feel like I was pulled aside and I had an opportunity to come back with stronger faith, with more courage, even bolder.”

Sen. Josh Hawley, one of the most powerful Republicans in the state, has made clear that he does not think Greitens has been absolved of wrongdoing. As Missouri’s attorney general, he had called for Greitens’s resignation in 2018, and when asked this year whether he stood by that decision, he said, “I wouldn’t change any of that.”

Hawley is one of the three senators, along with Scott and Graham, who are known to have discussed the race with Trump, and advisers working for Greitens’s rivals consider him an asset in their efforts to prevent Trump’s endorsement of the former governor.

“Josh has had a number of conversations with different candidates and President Trump,” Kyle Plotkin, Hawley’s chief of staff, said in a statement. “He hasn’t made any decisions, but stay tuned.”

Greitens’s campaign remains confident of his ability to win over Trump supporters in next year’s primary, regardless of the positions taken by other elected officials.

“There’s one thing RINOs and liberals have in common — they’re terrified of Governor Greitens going to Washington to fight for President Trump’s policy,” Greitens’s campaign manager Dylan Johnson said in a statement.

Missouri judge Jerry Harmison issued bogus guilty verdict against Carol, even though he was required to recuse because his son-in-law helped bring the charges

Ryan Olson, Judge Jerry Harmison's son-in-law, was part of the
prosecutorial team that brought baseless charges against my wife, Carol
after Missouri deputies had broken her arm.

(Second of two parts -- see Part 1 here)

The Missouri judge who found my wife, Carol, guilty of "assault of a law enforcement officer" heard the case even though his son-in-law was part of the prosecutorial team that brought the charges. That means Judge Jerry Harmison had a disqualifying family interest in the case, and his ruling is due to be vacated, per U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

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.

As for Carol's case, she filed a post-trial "Motion to Vacate Judgment . . . Due to Judge's Undisclosed Conflict of Interests," but Harmison apparently did not bother to read the motion, and he certainly did not act on it. (Motion to Vacate is embedded at the end of this post.) Canon 2-2.4 of the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (Code of Judicial Conduct) states:

A judge shall not permit family, social, political, religious, or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.

The Code of Judicial Conduct further holds (at Rule 2-2.11):

A judge shall recuse himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned . . .

Harmison clearly has violated at least two rules of the judicial code, and courts have referred to the Missouri Code of Judicial Conduct in deciding judicial disqualification issues. In Carol's case, the matter boils down to this simple fact: Eric Ryan Olson, Harmison's son-in-law, was part of the prosecution team that brought baseless charges against Carol, and public records indicate he helped plan the prosecution for at least three months.

Jerry Harmison

Why did Harmison fail to disclose this conflict? He likely was trying to protect his son-in-law from the possible repercussions of bringing a case that lacked probable cause and contained enough reasonable doubt to sink the RMS Lusitania. From Carol's Motion to Vacate:

Harmison’s son-in-law, Eric Ryan Olson, is a member of the Missouri State Bar and has worked for the Springfield firm of Ellis Ellis Hammons and Johnson since December 2016. Olson is married to Harmison’s daughter, Jessica. Before taking a position with the Ellis firm, Olson worked for three-plus years at the Greene County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, where he was hired by PA Dan Patterson and became senior assistant prosecuting attorney before leaving for a position with the Ellis firm.

Olson is not just a son-in-law to Harmison. He has done the judge a huge favor, so Harmison probably feels he owes him, big time. From the Motion to Vacate:

Why did Olson change jobs? The record indicates it was to help his father-in-law become a judge. Eric Greitens was elected governor of Missouri in November 2016, and Jerry Harmison Jr. apparently knew that gave him the inside track to a judicial appointment in Greene County. But there was a slight problem. With his son-in-law (Ryan Olson) working in the prosecutor’s office, that presented such an obvious conflict that Harmison would not be able to hear any criminal cases. In essence, Harmison would not be able to do the job as a judge with his son-in-law working for PA Dan Patterson.

The solution apparently was to arrange for Olson to take a job with the Ellis firm, opening the way for Harmison to take an appointment from Greitens. Since that appointment, Greitens has resigned in disgrace due to a series of scandals, including an extramarital affair with his one-time hair stylist. Greitens’ administration also was riddled with accusations of fund-raising irregularities, which could involve Jerry Harmison, given that he clearly knew the Greitens election gave him a strong shot at a judicial appointment.

In short, Jerry Harmison is a judge because Ryan Olson, his son-in-law, was willing to change jobs. But that did not clear all the conflicts in Jerry Harmison's path. What about cases -- like Carol's -- that date to Ryan Olson's time as a prosecutor? Missouri law requires Harmison to recuse himself in such matters, but he failed to follow the code that governs judicial conduct:

Ryan Olson’s transfer to the Ellis firm seemed to clear up any conflicts for criminal cases that launched since December 2016, when Olson joined the Ellis firm. But what about cases the Greene County prosecutor launched before that date – like the Carol Shuler case?

Jessica Harmison-Olson

The docket in the Shuler case clearly shows the Greene County Prosecutor’s Office brought charges in September 2016. That’s while Ryan Olson was still working at the PA’s Office, as Dan Patterson’s chief assistant. That means Ryan Olson likely was involved in the decision to bring charges against Carol Shuler – even though there clearly was no probable cause to bring the case, and a mountain of reasonable doubt precluded any possibility of a guilty verdict. In short, the public record suggests Ryan Olson was involved in the decision to trample Carol Shuler’s civil rights, which leaves him vulnerable to both civil and criminal liability (per 18 USC 242, deprivation of rights under color of law).

Why did Judge Harmison issue a guilty finding against Carol, contrary to facts and law in the case? The answer seems clear: He was trying to provide legitimacy for the charges that his son-in-law helped concoct out of thin air:

So, why did Judge Harmison find Ms. Shuler guilty, contrary to facts and the law? He was protecting his son-in-law (Ryan Olson), Olson’s former boss (Dan Patterson, who signed off on the misdemeanor information against Carol Shuler), and the buddies Mr. Olson left behind in the PA’s office to go with the Ellis firm. Mr. Olson did his father-in-law a favor to help Harmison become a judge, so Harmison is returning the favor by issuing a bogus guilty verdict that he hopes will protect those who wrongfully brought the case, including his family member, Mr. Olson. Does Harmison care that this leaves Carol Shuler, who always has lived well within the boundaries of the law, with a criminal record she does not deserve? Obviously, Harmison does not care; he cares only about himself, his career, and that of his son-in-law. In other words, Harmison is a typical self-centered Republican – who, like the man who appointed him, is corrupt to the core.

The guilty finding against Carol is due to be vacated under Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. (U.S., 1988). That issue has been put before Harmison once, and he chose to ignore it. If he continues to ignore it, we will go over his head to Missouri appellate courts -- especially since, as we've shown, there is no final judgment and no conviction against Carol.

Dorial Green-Beckham

We also will look into the possibility of pursuing criminal charges against Ryan Olson and his prosecutorial colleagues, under federal civil-rights law:

Harmison’s failure to disqualify in the instant case was every bit as inexcusable as that of the judge in Liljeberg. And no one could seriously argue that Harmison appears to be “disinterested,” given that his son-in-law almost certainly was involved in bringing the baseless case against Carol Shuler.

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)

Former football standout Dorial Green-Beckham and my wife, Carol, share the distinction of being cheated by the same crooked courts in the Missouri Ozarks

Dorial Green-Beckham

I never dreamed my wife, Carol, would have something in common with a former player in the National Football League. In a roundabout way, Carol now even has a connection to Coach Nick Saban's recruiting operation with the Alabama Crimson Tide. No kidding.

How did this happen? Well, it centers around Dorial Green-Beckham ("DGB"), who might be the finest athlete Missouri ever has produced. Like Carol, Green-Beckham has been exposed to the hideously crooked and incompetent "justice system" in Missouri. In fact, they both have been on the receiving end of dubious rulings from Greene County Circuit Judge Jerry Harmison, an appointee of scandal-plagued and departed GOP governor Eric Greitens.

Harmison cheated Carol last spring, finding her guilty of misdemeanor "assault on a law enforcement officer," even though the "victim" (deputy Jeremy Lynn) admitted in a written report and in sworn testimony that he initiated contact with Carol -- meaning, as a matter of law, Carol could not have committed the offense. (Motions re: perjury and multiple court errors in the Carol Shuler case are embedded at the end of this post.)

Green-Beckham appeared before Harmison last week on a prosecution motion to revoke his probation in a DUI case, following his recent arrest on a marijuana possession charge. That might seem like a fairly straightforward court matter. But officers from the Springfield Police Department turned it into a scene from a Three Stooges movie. Harmison, as he showed in Carol's case, apparently believes prosecutors and law-enforcement officers can do no wrong, so he ruled against Green-Beckham -- sentencing him to 90 days in jail -- even though overwhelming doubt surrounds the drug charge that led to the probation revocation.

We will have more details about the DGB court fiasco in a moment, but first, we have established he and Carol share the "distinction" of being cheated by the same crooked judge in Missouri and by the same inept law-enforcement community. So, how does all of this connect to Nick Saban and Bama's recruiting machine?  Well, I will admit it's a stretch, but hang in there with me on this.

Dorial Green-Beckham, while playing at Hillcrest High School in Springfield, set a national high-school record for receiving yardage. At 6-6, 225 pounds, with world-class speed, Green-Beckham was ranked the No. 1 college-football recruit in the nation for 2012. DGB was such a scintillating prospect that Nick Saban his own self recruited him -- and as we know from watching Bama rack up national championships like many folks get parking tickets, Nick doesn't recruit just anyone, only the best.

Green-Beckham wound up spurning Saban -- along with Auburn, Arkansas, Texas, Ohio State, and just about every powerhouse in college football -- to sign with his home-state Missouri Tigers. Green-Beckham had two fairly productive season at Mizzou before being dismissed from the program after a couple of brushes with the law. He transferred to the University of Oklahoma but never played for the Sooners before entering the 2015 NFL draft.

The Tennessee Titans drafted Green-Beckham in the second round, and on June 1, 2015, the Titans signed him to a 4-year, $5.6-million contract with $3.0 million guaranteed and a $2.3-million signing bonus. As a rookie with Tennessee, Green-Beckham played 16 games with 549 receiving yards and four touchdowns. After one season, the Titans traded DGB to the Philadelphia Eagles, for whom he appeared in 15 games, with 392 receiving yards and two touchdowns in 2016. The Eagles waived him in summer 2017, and Green-Beckham, despite possessing all of the attributes that should make him a star, has struggled to get a foothold in the NFL. He has not played the last two seasons.

Judge Jerry Harmison and Green-Beckham attorney
Tyson Martin

DGB's sports legacy, however, does not end with football. I've never seen him play basketball, but I know a few folks who have, and they say he might be a better basketball player than a football player. He received numerous scholarship offers from high-major college basketball programs, and probably would have received even more if it had not been widely assumed he would choose the football route.

Before his most recent legal troubles, Green-Beckham reportedly had attracted attention from teams in the Canadian Football League. I would like to see him get his life straightened out and hook up with a college basketball program, where I suspect he quickly would become a star. He might even develop into an NBA prospect, although 6-6 is considered an "in between" height for pro hoops -- sort of a forward and sort of a guard.

Any hoop dreams DGB might hold will be difficult to achieve while he's in jail. What kind of process led to his current incarceration? Calling it a joke would be kind.


(To be continued)

Clinton J. Toedtmann, Judge Jerry Harmison's future son-in-law, blew almost twice legal limit on DUI and will be on probation for wedding to Jenna Harmison

Clint Toedtmann mugshot

The future son-in-law of Missouri judge Jerry Harmison had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of almost twice the legal limit when he was charged with DUI in February 2016.

Clinton J. Toedtmann, who is set to marry Jenna Harmison on Oct. 13 in Ozark, Missouri, pled guilty in May 2017 and will be in the midst of a two-year probation when he steps to the altar on Saturday.

Perhaps that is a touch of karma for Judge Harmison, who found my wife, Carol, guilty of "assault of a law enforcement officer" in a case where there was no probable cause to support charges, much less a prosecution, and the "victim" admitted he initiated contact with Carol, meaning she could not be guilty. On top of that, Harmison ignored post-trial motions that showed he was, by law, disqualified from hearing the case due to a conflict involving his other son-in-law -- attorney and former prosecutor Eric Ryan Olson (more on that coming soon); that cop-witnesses presented rampant inconsistent statements under oath, and at least one clearly committed perjury; that all evidence was due to be suppressed because of an unlawful eviction that violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Harmison will at least have the peace that comes with welcoming a son-in-law who has a criminal record because of a crime (a serious offense, by most any standard) he actually committed. Meanwhile, the crooked Harmison -- an appointee of disgraced former Gov. Eric Greitens -- has left Carol with a criminal record for an offense even his own judgment shows she did not commit. In fact, Harmison is so crooked and incompetent that his judgment does not even say what offense Carol supposedly committed. That should make us all feel confident in the judiciary.

Clint Toedtmann and Jenna Harmison

How serious was Toedtmann's offense? His breath test registered .143%, while the legal limit in Missouri is 0.08%. In other words, Toedtmann was behind the wheel while seriously sloshed. In a Probable Cause Statement, Officer James Whitehead said the offense occurred at 23:03 (11:03 p.m.) on 2/25/16 at the intersection of E. Elm St. and S. South Ave. in Springfield, MO. From the PC Statement. (The PC Statement, Misdemeanor Information, and Commitment After Jail Sentence are embedded at the end of the post.):

On 02-25-2016, I was on patrol driving east on Walnut from Grant. I observed a black Chevrolet Cruz disobey a stop sign at Main and College then failed to signal at Campbell and Elm. I stopped the vehicle at South and Elm and contacted the driver who was identified as Clinton Toedtmann. 

While speaking with Toedtmann, I could smell an odor of intoxicants in the vehicle. Toedtmann exited the vehicle to take the Standard Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs). Prior to the tests, Toedtmann advised me that he had drink (sic) two to three beers. I observed Toedtmann's eyes and they appeared to be watery and bloodshot. 

Jerry Harmison

Toedtmann took the tests and indicated on several clues of impairment. Toedtmann also provided a sample of his breath into a Preliminary Breath Test and the sample showed positive for alcohol. Toedtmann was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated and transported to the jail. While at the jail, Toedtmann consented to giving a sample of his breath, and the sample showed showed a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of .143 %. Toedtmann was issued Greene County Circuit Court citations for Driving While Intoxicated and Disobeying a Stop Sign.

Public records indicate Toedtmann spent 48 hours in jail, and he wound up with the mugshot above as a keepsake.

Rudy Giuliani's absurd "truth isn't truth" statement may be a sign of creeping totalitarianism, and we've seen it brewing in courtrooms for roughly 18 years

NBC's Chuck Todd (left) reacts to Rudy Giuliani's proclamation
that "truth isn't truth"

Rudy Giuliani might have dropped the most memorable (and absurd) statement of the Trump era yesterday when, in reference to a possible interview involving the president and Special Counsel Robert Mueller, he said "Truth isn't truth."

The statement almost drew a guffaw from Chuck Todd, host of MSNBC's Meet the Press. (The Todd/Giuliani interview is embedded at the end of this post.) Richard Painter, Trump critic and former White House ethicist under George W. Bush, said such attempts to distort the truth are a sign of totalitarian leadership in the making. Here is Painter from an interview with Al Sharpton yesterday on MSNBC's AM Joy. (See YouTube video, starting at the 23:20 mark.):

This is a rehash of what Kellyanne Conway said when she talked about "alternative facts." There is such a thing as objective truth. And those on the extreme left and extreme right have consistently attacked the notion of objective truth. This is the way Hitler talked in his political campaigns. This is a distortion of the truth, combined with extreme racism and extreme religious bigotry. It is very dangerous for our country. The White House is not going to fix this problem. It is up to the United States Congress to address it. The Constitution has an impeachment clause. The Congress is not investigating. It is their obligation to hold hearings. . . . They aren't doing anything; they are sitting on their rear-ends, griping about Hillary Clinton's emails and the FBI. I hope voters throw every last one of them out the door.

We have come to admire Painter as a rare voice of Republican reason and integrity. But we know from firsthand experience that distortion of the truth did not start in the United States with Donald Trump's rise to power. We've seen it in Jeff Sessions' Alabama and Eric Greitens' Missouri -- especially in courtrooms, where the equivalent of  "truth isn't truth" might be "facts aren't facts and law isn't law."

We could give at least a half dozen examples, but let's focus for now on the case that started our legal headaches -- the criminal trespassing case we brought against Mike McGarity (the troublesome neighbor and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama employee) who threatened to sue us for attempting to protect our own property rights and refused to stay off our yard despite what he admitted were repeated warnings.

Ron Jackson, former Shelby County district judge, found McGarity "not guilty" of the offense, even though he admitted to committing it. We're not kidding -- the guy was acquitted after admitting he was guilty as charged, and that gave McGarity grounds to sue us for a disfavored tort called malicious prosecution. It essentially refers to a case, either criminal or civil, that is brought without probable cause (or probable grounds). We had not only probable cause, we had actual cause, so no reputable attorney would have filed such a case. But McGarity managed to get a disreputable attorney -- William E. Swatek, with his long disciplinary history via the Alabama State Bar -- and that lawsuit cost us tens of thousands of dollars, led to us being cheated out of jobs, me being kidnapped and thrown in jail, my wife Carol's arm being broken, etc.

How badly were the facts, law, and truth distorted in our criminal trespassing case against McGarity? We addressed that in a post from October 2016:

Our legal woes started when we had the misfortune of having a career criminal named Mike McGarity move in next door to us. Our charming neighbor apparently hid his ugly past during the job screening process at his employer, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama. (In blunt terms, he likely lied on his job application, and the lax process at BC/BS let him get away with it.)

McGarity, his kids, and guests -- having already sassed us when we asked him to keep his barking coon hound under control ("You just need to get earplugs") -- proceeded to trespass on our property on an almost daily basis. When we called to let McGarity know his presence was not welcome on our yard, McGarity replied, "I'm going to sue you for harassment" and "we're going to keep on coming,"

When we asked a Birmingham lawyer named Bill Lewis to write a letter, explaining the law to this dunderhead, it seemed to have no effect. The trespassing continued, and the last line of Lewis' letter was, "You will receive no more warnings."

With all that in mind, we felt we had no choice but to pursue a case against McGarity for criminal trespassing, third degree. The alternative was to wait until someone got hurt on our property, have them sue us, and watch our homeowners-insurance premiums go through the roof. (Allowing trespassers to freely roam your property is a bad idea, for a lot of reasons, perhaps the biggest one is financial.)

The "Giuliani moments" came when the case hit the courtroom:

District Judge Ron Jackson had encouraged both parties to work out a settlement, but McGarity refused to discuss it. That meant the case went to trial, and a transcript shows that McGarity confessed to the crime as charged. How do we know? Well, the elements of criminal trespassing, third degree, are about as straightforward and simple as law gets. Here they are, straight from Code of Alabama 13A-7-4:

Mike McGarity

(1) "A person commits the crime of trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises."

(2) "A person enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises when he is not licensed, invited or privileged to do so."

Our research indicates "licensed" refers to someone who has a professional reason to enter property, such as a meter reader. "Privileged" refers to someone who tries to address an unexpected occurrence. For example, if your hat flies off your head and lands in my yard, you have a right to retrieve it. "Invited," as it sounds, refers to someone who who has a good relationship with the owner and has reason to believe he is welcome to enter.

The transcript shows that McGarity admitted to entering our property, he made no claim to being licensed or privileged, and he made no claim that he was welcome. In fact, he admitted we had verbally warned him multiple times to stay off our property, along with others entering from his yard. Translation: McGarity admitted to the crime of criminal trespass, third degree.

How nutty can this stuff get? Imagine O.J. Simpson admitting in court that he killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, only to have Judge Lance Ito rule, "In this case, I'm going to acquit." Judge Jackson did the equivalent of that in our case -- proving that he lives in GiulianiVille, a land where "truth isn't truth," "facts aren't facts," and "law isn't law":

Judge Jackson, however, found that -- in this instance -- we had to give McGarity written warning. We did that, of course, in the form of Bill Lewis' letter. But a woman from Lewis' office testified that she could not find the certifield-mail receipt that proved when McGarity received the letter. McGarity claimed he had not received the written warning prior to trespassing, and Jackson found that created enough reasonable doubt to acquit -- even though the judge essentially read McGarity the proverbial "riot act" from the bench about the dire consequences of any future trespassing.

We later discovered that Jackson got the law laughably wrong -- except it's not funny when you are the victim of a judge's corrupt rulings. Here is the actual law from a case styled Chambers v. City of Opelika, 698 So. 2d 792 (Ala. Crim. App., 1996):

The appellant has cited no authority for his position that to be guilty of criminal trespass the intruder must be aware that he or she had no license or privilege to enter or to remain on the premises. There is authority, however, that states that when those premises are private and not open to the public, there is no requirement that the prosecution prove that a prior written or verbal warning was given to the intruder.

In other words, we had no obligation to warn McGarity at all. We certainly did not have to warn him in writing, as Jackson found. The same holds true for any homeowner -- or renter, for that matter. It is the would-be intruder's duty to make sure he has lawful grounds to enter. McGarity never did that, and Jackson turned the law on its head in order to reach an "acquittal."

We suspect Richard Painter has his history in order when he says efforts to distort objective truth are a sign of a totalitarian government. But our experience teaches that such efforts are not limited to Donald Trump or the presidency. Our courts -- at every level -- appear to be infested with them. We've seen that in an up close and personal way.

Former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens sought cash and influence from Russia and other foreign interests, in part through U.S. Rep Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)

Eric Greitens

Have Russian interests been involved in abuse that has been directed at my wife, Carol, and me for 10-plus years? Carol and I are relatively small fry, so the question might seem absurd at first glance. But we know Russians tried to influence public opinion in the Philando Castille case in Minnesota, where deadly police force had the potential to spark racial unrest. We also know public officials in our former home state, Alabama, have been dallying with Russian interests for years; the most recent example involving U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), who led a Republican delegation to Russia with the apparent purpose of sparking Arctic drilling and possible meddling in 2018 midterm elections.

Now, we've learned that our current "home state," Missouri, has been led by a governor who sought Russian cash and influence. We're talking about Eric Greitens, who resigned in May amid a whirlwind of scandals.

First, it's a matter of public record that one strong Greitens supporter is Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott, who orchestrated an unlawful eviction that ended with deputies breaking Carol's arm and bringing bogus criminal charges against HER, the victim of police brutality. And how is this for curious timing? Greitens was inaugurated on Jan. 9, 2017, and Carol was arrested for "assault on a law enforcement officer" on Jan. 30, 2017. A Greitens appointee, Greene County Judge Jerry Harmison, found Carol guilty even though the deputy "victim" admitted in an incident report (and on the stand, at trial) that she did not commit the offense -- that he caused physical contact with her, not the other way around.

Hmmm, almost sounds like Arnott was waiting for a signal from his favorite governor before moving forward with a baseless arrest. And sounds like Harmison handled the case corruptly to help provide cover for Arnott.

Did Arnott's "favorite governor" have ties to Russians and other foreign interests? The answer is "without a doubt."

One of Greitens' many scandals involved his efforts to seek campaign donations from foreigners. That, of course, is illegal, but it did not stop Greitens. From an article at the Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune:

During the first months of 2015, Gov. Eric Greitens actively sought donations from foreigners for his campaign — contributions that would be illegal under federal law — according to testimony given to a legislative committee.

Michael Hafner, a political consultant who worked for Greitens from January through March 2015, testified that the campaign team was working with people Greitens met while studying at Oxford University in the late 1990s.

“It was a road that I was never comfortable going down because I know in the American political system, foreign contributions are not allowed in American political races,” Hafner said in an interview Thursday. “I don’t know what happened after I left.”

The testimony raises troubling questions about whether the proliferation of “dark money” groups — political organizations that don’t disclose donors — has allowed illegal foreign money into U.S. politics, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said during a visit to Columbia.

Did Greitens attempt to have specific ties to Russia? Yes, indeed, via U.S. Rep Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), who has been described as a favorite of Russian President Vladimir Putin. From an article at the Kansas City Star, again focusing on former Greitens consultant, Michael Hafner:

Michael Hafner, a longtime GOP consultant who worked on Greitens’ campaign early on, told lawmakers that the governor directed him to “have conversations with donors who intended to raise significant amounts of money and … conceal the identity of those donors.”

Hafner said that at the governor’s urging, he spoke with Monu Joseph, a California-based venture capitalist who wanted to discuss how to bundle donations and conceal the identity of donors by funneling them through LLCs, according to a transcript of Hafner’s March testimony to a special House committee.

During the campaign, Greitens touted his commitment to transparency and blasted candidates who relied on support from political action committees to obscure their financial backers.

Notice that Monu Joseph is based in California, and that puts him close to Dana Rohrabacher:

Hafner told the committee that he and Joseph specifically discussed raising money from foreign nationals, which would violate a federal law that prohibits campaigns from knowingly accepted money from foreign nationals. . . .

Lawmakers asked Hafner about a campaign document that showed Greitens would be traveling to Hong Kong during the exploratory phase of his campaign.

Dana Rohrabacher

The committee released a heavily redacted version of the document that shows that Greitens planned to to meet in Hong Kong with a person who had donated to his charity, The Mission Continues.

The person, whose name is redacted, pledged to donate $50,000 to the campaign.

The document, which includes a call sheet of charity donors, recommends asking Joseph for $15,000 during the campaign’s exploratory phase and notes that he has a connection to U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who has faced scrutiny because of his ties to Russia.

Rohrabacher's ties to Russia, amid the Robert Mueller investigation, reportedly have put his re-election at risk:

The Russia investigation has shown few signs of having an impact in this year’s congressional elections, but there’s a House race in Orange County, Calif., where Vladimir Putin looms large.

In fact, the congressman running for reelection there says he once arm wrestled the Russian president.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher easily stands out as one of the most pro-Russia voices in the Republican Party. During the 2016 campaign, Politico called him ‘Putin’s favorite congressman.’ The New York Times reported that Russia viewed him as an intelligence source, even giving him a Kremlin code name. Rohrabacher’s story about arm wrestling Putin involves a few rounds of drinks in the 1990s and settling an argument over who won the Cold War.

Members of Congress and those hoping to become members of Congress are generally more focused on bread and butter domestic issues — such as health care, the economy and the environment.

But Rohrabacher is different. Opponents on his left and right are leveraging his long-standing calls for closer relations with Russia as one of the primary issues in their campaign, now that Russian attempts to influence American politics are a flashpoint.

Rohrabacher won the Republican primary in June and will face Democrat Harley Rouda in November's general election. The Rohrabacher seat widely is seen as one Democrats could pick up in the House-- with Russia being a key issue.

How might all of this connect to Carol and me? That, of course, remains unclear. But this much is clear: We have practiced aggressive journalism in two states -- Alabama and Missouri -- where key politicos are known to have ties with Russia. And the Philando Castille case proves that Russian meddling is not limited to those with fame or political power.

Judge Jerry Harmison's handling of Carol's sentence in "assault" case means she was (unlawfully) found guilty, but she is not "convicted" of any criminal offense

Jerry Harmison Jr.

My wife, Carol, unlawfully has been found guilty of "assault on a law enforcement officer" in Missouri, but she has not been convicted,  under state law. If that causes you to scratch your head, join the crowd.

It all flows from Judge Jerry Harmison Jr.'s decision to give Carol a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS), with two years of unsupervised probation and a $10 payment to a crime victims' fund. (Do you see irony in Carol being forced to pay into a crime victims' fund, when she was the victim here -- brutalized by Greene County deputies during an unlawful eviction in September 2015 and left with an arm broken so badly that it required trauma surgery and roughly six months of physical therapy?) The idea behind an SIS is that the case will be removed from the record if Carol abides by terms of her probation.

But Harmison's introduction of an SIS into the 21-month clown car of a case against Carol complicates matters. The case already includes the alleged "victim," Officer Jeremy Lynn, admitting both in a written incident report and on the stand at trial that he initiated physical contact with Carol by grabbing her as he burst into our apartment. That means Carol could not have committed the offense, as described under Missouri statute. Harmison's judgment includes Lynn's statement at trial, reflecting Carol's innocence, but this is a judge --appointed by Eric Greitens, the governor who was forced from office under a cloud of scandal -- who does not let facts and the law influence his thinking. (Judgment is embedded at the end of this post.) Harmison found Carol guilty while never once mentioning the definition of the offense, found at the controlling statute, RSMo 565.083.

What about those complications we mentioned? For one, there is no final judgment in Carol's case, which means there is nothing to appeal -- and since there is no punishment, beyond what amounts to a $10 fine, this case is pretty much a nothing-burger, a "brilliant" use of taxpayer resources. But now we learn Carol is not even convicted, which makes Harmison's actions look even more goofy.

That comes from a case styled Yale v. City of Independence 846 S.W. 2d 193 (1993) The holding:

The City contends that these repeated legislative efforts indicate that in all cases the term "conviction" should now include guilty pleas and findings of guilt regardless of the disposition of the case. We disagree. These statutes represent an awareness by the general assembly that the term "conviction," standing alone, does not include a plea or finding of guilt where imposition of sentence is suspended and that such a disposition is not one to which collateral consequences attach. These statutes apply only in certain specific instances. Had the legislature intended to define "conviction" to include the disposition of suspended imposition of sentence in all cases, it would have done so.

By "collateral consequences," the court appears to be referring to the small matter of punishment for those who violate terms of their probation. The Supreme Court of Missouri is saying such consequences do not "attach" when an SIS is involved. That means Carol is on probation, but she cannot lawfully be punished for violating it.

I told you this situation was goofy.

This outcome also throws a wrench into the apparent plans of Missouri law thugs to "preclude" Carol's upcoming federal civil-rights lawsuit, which also will include claims from yours truly. Preclusion in civil rights cases under 42 U.S.C.1983 can only apply to final state judgments -- and there has been no such judgment in Carol's case. Preclusion also can apply only where a party had a "full and fair" opportunity to litigate at the state level, with the party being convicted in the matter. Well, Carol had no opportunity (much less a "full and fair" one) to litigate many of the issues that will appear in our civil-rights case -- and Carol, as a matter of Missouri law, was not convicted, even though the court docket shows a guilty finding. No kidding. (See Motion for Acquittal and Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Judgment, which are embedded at the end of this post.)

The Yale case launched when a city firefighter, Ronald Yale, pleaded guilty to a felony charge and wound up losing his job because the city personnel manual authorized termination for "conviction" of a criminal offense. Yale appealed, arguing that his termination was unlawful because he received an SIS, and thus, was not convicted under state law. The Supreme Court of Missouri agreed with him. From the opinion:

Ronald Yale appeals an order of summary judgment dismissing his wrongful discharge action. We granted transfer to consider whether a plea of guilty to a felony charge followed by a disposition of "suspended imposition of sentence" constitutes a "conviction" under the City of Independence personnel manual, the provisions of which authorize termination of employees convicted of a felony. The judgment is reversed and remanded.

On November 4, 1988, Yale pleaded guilty to one count of sodomy, a class B felony. The court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Yale on probation for five years. Shortly thereafter, the City of Independence dismissed Yale without pay from his position as a firefighter, subject to further termination proceedings. The city personnel board, following a hearing, recommended that Yale's termination be upheld pursuant to the City's personnel manual, which authorized termination for the "conviction of a felony, criminal offense, or crime of moral turpitude." The manual did not define the term "conviction."

The high court found that a conviction does not include a case where an SIS is applied:

The precise issue of whether the disposition of suspended imposition of sentence constitutes a conviction apparently has never been addressed by this Court. This question has been discussed, however, in several appellate court decisions, most notably, Meyer v. Missouri Real Estate Comm'n, 238 Mo.App. 476, 183 S.W.2d 342 (1944). In that case, the Missouri Real Estate Commission sought to revoke the license of a broker who had pleaded nolo contendere to seven charges of embezzlement and who subsequently received a suspended imposition of sentence along with a three-year term of probation. The Meyer court noted that the term "conviction" is subject to more than one meaning depending upon the context in which it is used. . . .  For example, where the term is used in its common law sense to designate a particular stage of a criminal prosecution triable by a jury, the term "conviction" may merely include "the confession of the accused in open court, or the verdict returned against him by the jury."

However, when the term refers to a determination of guilt from a prior proceeding, and bears directly upon the status or rights of an individual in a subsequent case, there is a different meaning. In these situations in which collateral punitive consequences may attach, a "conviction" is not established, nor is a person deemed "convicted," unless it is shown that a judgment has been pronounced upon the verdict. 

The court found that, because of the SIS, no judgment was pronounced against Yale, and he therefore was not convicted. The same concept applies in Carol's case. The following passage from Yale has profound consequences for Carol's case:

It is well-settled that a suspended imposition of sentence is not a final judgment. State v. Lynch, 679 S.W.2d 858, 860 (Mo. banc 1984); Meyer, at 345. The word "sentence" in legal terms means "a judgment or final judgment." . . . Where imposition of sentence has been suspended, there can be no judgment.  See also State v. Bachman, 675 S.W.2d 41, 45 (Mo.App.1984).

Let that last highlighted sentence sink in. Not only is there no final judgment in Carol's case, there is no judgment at all. How does the scoreboard now read in State of Missouri v. Carol Tovich Shuler?

(1) The state got no final judgment;

(2) The state got no judgment at all;

(3) Carol is on probation, but she can't be punished for violating it;

(4) Carol's entire punishment amounts to a $10 fine, and that likely is not lawful;

(5) Carol was not convicted.

(6) The guilty finding against Carol, with no judgment and no conviction, can not preclude her federal civil-rights claims.

By my account, the state is trailing 0-6 on the scoreboard in this charade of a case.

The alert reader might check item No. 3 above and ask, "Is Carol's probation lawful? Is it valid if she can't be punished for violating it?"

Those are darned good questions, and our research led us to some stunning answers. Along the way, we dealt with a U.S. Supreme Court case that originated in Alabama. How's that for irony?


(To be continued)