My nephew, Noah Hayes Shuler, gets nailed for driving 88 mph in a 60 zone, but his father (my brother-lawyer David Shuler) is rushing to his defense in Missouri

Noah Hayes Shuler
(From jewellcardinals.com)

Another of my nephews is in trouble with the law here in the Heartland. This time, it's Noah Hayes Shuler, the oldest son of my brother-lawyer (David Shuler) and his wife (Gina Hayes Shuler).

According to public records, a Missouri state trooper clocked Noah driving up to 88 mph in a 60 mph zone on May 22, 2017. Noah is charged with Exceeding Posted Speed Limit (Exceeded By 20 - 25 mph) {Misdemeanor B RSMo: 304.010}.

The statute includes the following language:

11. Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a class C misdemeanor, unless such person was exceeding the posted speed limit by twenty miles per hour or more then it is a class B misdemeanor.

Class B misdemeanors in Missouri include driving while intoxicated and first-degree trespassing, and they carry a possible punishment of up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

Noah is an 18-year-old freshman at William Jewell College, a liberal-arts school, in Liberty, MO, where he plays on the soccer team. He graduated in 2017 from Greenwood Laboratory School, a private school associated with Missouri State University in Springfield.

Noah's encounter with the law happened at 1:43 a.m., as he was driving at a high rate of speed on U.S. 65, north of Evans Road, which leads into the Millwood golf-course community, where his family lives in a house appraised at $631,300. The residence is part of $1.162 million in real estate that David and Gina Shuler own in Greene County.

Here is Trooper E. Mueller's description of the incident, from a traffic ticket. (See 1731-TR01863 - ST V NOAH HAYES SHULER at case.net.)

Exceeded posted speed limit (exceeded by 20-25 miles per hour). FR radar same, pass test at 0147 hours. OBSV as vehicle passed patrol car and then rapidly increased speed, to as fast as 88 just S/O Battlefield and into 55 MPH zone. Patrol cruise set at 60 MPH. "I was supposed to be home at 0130."


Driving 85, with posted speed limit of 60

US-65 SB N/O Evans Rd.

Noah's excuse to the trooper apparently was that he was supposed to be home by 1:30 a.m., and he was running about 15 minutes late. Hmmm . . .

David Shuler

In his freshman soccer season at William Jewell, Noah played in one match, for four minutes. The team had a 3-14 record under Coach Garrett Jahn. (Yes, Noah's name is misspelled as "Schuler" on the team roster. I've been dealing with that my whole life, and I guess he will be, too. In the digital age, you'd think someone could manage to make that easy correction.)

The traffic incident occurred in May, but the case docket shows it did not become a court case until Sept. 28. The docket shows that Noah entered a plea of not guilty, and his father entered an appearance on his behalf on Nov. 3.

An arraignment is set for 9 a.m. on Dec. 19.

We sought comment from David Shuler, and he responded with some pretty interesting words.

(To be continued)

Whistle blower Jill Simpson plans to seek IRS audit of Alabama listserv that once helped Don Siegelman, but now is used to assist Democratic con man Doug Jones

Pam Miles
(From free-don.us)

A major figure in the Don Siegelman case plans to seek an IRS audit of a north Alabama listserv to determine if it improperly has been used to raise funds for U.S. Senate candidate Doug Jones.

Jill Simpson, who blew the whistle on a Republican scheme to prosecute Siegelman, said in a recent Facebook post that she is concerned the left-leaning listserv is being used to help raise campaign funds for Jones, in his Senate bid against Roy Moore. Pam Miles, of Huntsville, runs the listserv, and Simpson said it raised significant funds to help with Siegelman's legal expenses. Any efforts to now help Jones would be ironic, Simpson says, because Jones used his ties to Rob Riley and other Republicans to help ensure Siegelman and co-defendant Richard Scrushy would be convicted -- and it would not be overturned on appeal.

Simpson apparently is struggling to wrap her head around the notion that any person, or organization, could support Don Siegelman and then support Doug Jones, who reportedly left knife wounds between the former governor's shoulder blades. I share Simpson's astonishment, and like her, I have suffered mightily for being on the front lines of defending Siegelman; Simpson experienced a mysterious house fire and multiple highway mishaps, while my wife and I were cheated out of our jobs, I was unlawfully thrown in jail due to a bogus lawsuit brought by Rob Riley, and we had our house stolen from under us via a wrongful foreclosure.

Clearly, Simpson believes Jones was directly or indirectly involved in the abuses directed at her -- and Carol and I share that belief regarding our experiences; in fact, we would not be surprised to learn Jones was involved in the unlawful eviction in Missouri that led to Carol's left arm being shattered so severely that it required trauma surgery.

What word might accurately describe Simpson's emotions toward the Huntsville listserv at the moment? "Enraged" probably would be a good one. That also might summarize my feelings. From Simpson's Facebook post on the subject:

I have decided to speak out about Pam Miles using the Siegelman list server to send out messages in support of Doug Jones.

It is just freaking unbelievable she would use that to reach out to folks when Doug running his mouth to Republicans such as Rob Riley -- who did a case with Doug that benefited them in having Don and his codefendant Richard Scrushy go to prison is amazing to me.

Ms. Miles solicited tons of money over the years, and I heard at times it was several million dollars for the Siegelman matter. But to my knowledge, I never personally received one dime of that money, and I think that account should be audited by the IRS,  as the folks donating deserve to know exactly where that money went.

My story of coming forward was used to help solicit funds without my consent, but over the last couple of years asking Miles about it, I have never been able to get a straight answer. 

When I was viciously attacked in 2015, my husband and I asked for any help we could get, but Ms Miles said there was nothing to help me with at all, not one penny, which seemed odd. We asked, "Well, could you help us get a lawyer friend of Don's to help? I am being attacked, and she said no. My husband and I asked about fund raising on the listserv, and Miles replied that can only be used for Don. 

But then early this year we learned that was a lie and that she was working for Doug Jones and using that same listserv, as I started getting listserv notices for Doug Jones,  promoting him and asking for money -- that sort of fund-raiser stuff.

I can feel Simpson's pain. It is undisputed that I lost my job of 20 years at UAB because of reporting on my blog -- on my own time and resources -- about the Siegelman case. I caught a UAB HR administrator named Anita Bonasera admitting that to me in a tape-recorded phone conversation. Carol and I lost our home to a Riley/Jones/Republican wrongful foreclosure in July 2014, and ever since then, we've been on the verge of homelessness. If we've received any help from the Pam Miles listserv, it's been minimal, at best. That has not bothered me in the past because I figured the listserv generated limited funds. But if Simpson is correct that it has drawn in millions, and some of it is going to Doug Jones -- the guy who helped put Siegelman in prison and almost certainly is tied to abuses directed at Jill Simpson and Carol and me -- I am all for an IRS audit. Writes Simpson:

I don't know what happened to all the money she collected over the years, but I know early on it was a lot. But I never got any, and I really want to know if any of that money collected is being used to help Doug Jones, since Miles used my story without my permission to collect money, as I have never felt that was right. 

So I have decided the account needs to be audited, as I want to make sure no money was ever used to help Jones from my story. I want to make it real clear that I believe Jones running his mouth when I came forward early in the Siegelman case caused my house to get blown up on one end and my car to get run off the road. Also, I believe Jones shortly afterwards sent Rob Riley to Scrushy's home office to examine records and get a look around, to see if I was at the office, as Scrushy told me how strange Rob acted that day.

Looking back, my showing up sent a potential monkey wrench in Doug and Rob's plans to pillage $51 million from HealthSouth by putting Scrushy in prison -- and they did it with a story Doug and Rob cooked pretty well on Don and Scrushy for the Republicans. What a hoot. 

But one thing is for damn sure: I don't want Doug getting benefit of a listserv my story helped build nationally. I contacted some folks who know Don several weeks ago and asked why that listserv was allowed to be used by Pam, if owned by Don, for Doug Jones' benefit. And I was told Don was disappointed in her working for Doug, but disappointed is not enough; I want it stopped, and it hasn't been. Now I have decided I want the listserv audited from the day that Ms Miles started using my story of coming forward. After all, I have never seen one penny of that money and deserve to know who got it and how it was spent.

I think she is trash for using any listserv that told any of my story, for the benefit of Doug Jones -- knowing what in all likelihood happened to me was from him yapping to Rob Riley.  I heard from a young man recently who has helped see the Jones story told all along as well, and he had been put off The Free Siegelman Web site for talking about Doug -- and I think Siegelman owes him and us explanations as well or whether this is Ms Miles' actions. I have decided to ask the IRS to audit all the money-solicitation  accounts that occurred from the web server list site -- since it is being used to boost Doug Jones, after using my story to collect funds without my permission.

As for Don Siegelman, he needs to think long and hard of whether he is on the side of people who defended him or on Doug Jones' side. This not 'a both and' situation 'it is an either or.' If Don stands with Doug, which it looks like due to this listserv deal being used, then he needs to fess up, as I am done with ever helping them again. After all, I risked my life and lost everything to stand up for what was right, and he should do the same thing as he has known for a very long time I believe Doug yapping caused harm to me and him. 

If these are strictly Ms Miles' actions, then he needs to release a press release saying she used it without his permission. Either way, I expect a full accounting, and if necessary, I have no fear of calling in the IRS.

In a moment of dark comedy, public defender Patty Poe informs us that constitutional issues in Carol's case will be decided on the word of a ghostly "friend"

Patty Poe, on law-school graduation day
(From facebook.com)

One of the "benefits" of having your own lawyer repeatedly lie to you is that it can create moments of dark comedy. Consider our experience with Patty Poe, the public defender who supposedly was representing Carol in a pending "assault" case over the past six months.

Carol is charged with "assaulting" a law enforcement officer by pushing him as he burst into our rented duplex apartment in Springfield, Missouri, for an eviction on Sept. 9, 2015. The charge is nutty, of course, because the "victim" -- Officer Jeremy Lynn -- admits in a written statement that he caused physical contact with Carol, not the other way around. And under the statute in question, RSMo 565.083, that is the central element to the offense.

In our early interactions with her, even Poe seemed to acknowledge there are big issues here -- ones that go straight to the U.S. Constitution. "Did Carol push Jeremy Lynn, or did Jeremy Lynn grab Carol?" is an important question. But it pales in importance to this question: "Did Jeremy Lynn and his fellow officers that day have lawful grounds to be on our property, much less to be breaking into our residence?"

If they did not, any evidence they gather is a violation of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable and unlawful searches and seizures, and it must be suppressed or excluded. In criminal law, it's called the "exclusionary rule," and we've written about it many times -- especially in the context of dubious traffic stops. But the same rule that protects you in your automobile also protects you in your home. That doctrine was made clear more than 55 years ago in a U.S. Supreme Court case styled Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961),

A Motion to Suppress the prosecution's evidence probably was the No. 1 task that needed to be addressed in Carol's case. If granted, such a motion would exclude all of the government's evidence -- and there isn't much, just the weak tea in its Probable Cause Statement. Without that evidence, however, the government's case is wholly barren, and the case must be dropped. It is, after all, hard to prosecute a case with no evidence.

So when Poe first joined Carol's case in late May, she brought up the issue of the eviction's legality -- and noted, as a public defender who deals in criminal cases, she is far from an expert on tenant/landlord law. We said, "Fine, we're not experts either, but we have had reason to study tenant/landlord law because of all we've been through -- and we'd be happy to try to help."

In that spirit, knowing that Poe works in an understaffed, overworked office, Carol sent her five e-mails in early August, outlining research on a number of issues related to the case. Poe acknowledged receipt of the emails and said she would go over the material and get back to us. The information on eviction law was primarily in Email No. 2, dated Aug. 8, 2017. (The emails, and Poe's responses to them, are embedded at the end of this post.

Poe's response came about 2 1/2 weeks later, in an email dated Aug. 27. Rather than show the slightest hint of appreciation for having a client who was able and willing to help, Poe's response had a snarky, "you put me out" tone. Worse, she hit us with one lie after another, showing she had made no genuine effort to understand the law she had admitted a few weeks earlier was critical to Carol's case. A key point to remember: A Motion to Suppress, if granted, wipes out what little evidence the government has in Carol's case -- and the prosecution is over, finito.

So, we had this strange notion that Poe would take Carol's research on this matter seriously. But here is the introduction to Poe's response:

Good Evening Roger and Carol:

I've spend a good part of my Sunday researching some of your points as well as preparing the Motion to Compel. I will send you a copy of that motion once it's complete. I've broken up my responses based on your 5 emails. If you have any further questions or wish to set up an appointment please let me know, although I'll be on vacation Wednesday through Wednesday. As always, Carol, if you disagree with how I am representing you in this matter you may always proceed pro se or hire private counsel.

Notice in the first sentence that Poe almost seems to be expecting us to write a note of apology for causing her to actually do some work on a Sunday. Then, in the last sentence, she invites Carol to boot her ass off the case if Carol is dissatisfied with her "representation." That was the first of about a dozen times Poe resorted to that tactic in the final 2-3 months she was on the case. Her commitment to justice during that time was profoundly touching.

Carol refused to bite at that bait, even when Poe used it 3-4 more times during our final in-person meeting with her on Oct. 30. But here is where the dark comedy enters the picture.

Poe made it clear in her email that she saw nothing wrong with the eviction -- that everything about it was lawful and downright hunky dory. So we challenged her on that in our in-person meeting -- in fact, we flat out told her she was wrong; after all, she had admitted she knew virtually nothing about tenant/landlord law.

But get this! When confronted with the rubbish she had spewed on perhaps the single most important issue in Carol's case, Poe said the following (and I'm not joking): "Well, I have a friend who knows a lot about tenant/landlord law, and my friend says the eviction was lawful."

Well, there you go -- that's what students learn at the University of Missouri School of Law. If they don't know something about a certain topic, they call a friend they consider to be an expert -- whether the "friend" really is an expert or not. Then, they transmit that information to the client, seemingly never thinking that, "You know, discussing this case with someone else might violate attorney-client privilege -- just a little bit." And then there is this: "Since I'm not going to disclose the identity of my friend to the client, she's not going to have a clue about this person who is having a major impact on her case."

In essence, the client's defense strategy is being formed by some unknown third party -- and the friend might not even be a lawyer. Even worse, the friend might be a lawyer who has a vested interest in the outcome of the case, who has a conflict the size of Yellowstone National Park. The friend might be feeding a steaming load of buffalo turds to Patty Poe, but Carol is supposed to accept that, without any concern.

Well, Carol and I both had huge concerns. And it was in that moment, we both knew -- FOR SURE -- Patty Poe was trying to screw Carol. Still, during that meeting, Carol refused to let Poe off the case. In followup emails, Carol again raised the suppression issue, and that's when Poe broke, came up with the Notice of Jail Waiver from prosecutor Nicholas Jain, and bailed out of the case.

That's not the only moment of dark comedy in the song-and-dance routine Patty Poe put us through. There is at least one other, not to mention specifics about how wrong she was on the critical issue of eviction law.

We will address those subjects in an upcoming post.

Luther Strange declares himself a corruption fighter as rising billboards and rampant investigations show the soon-to-be-former senator is a corruption creator

U.S. Sen. Luther Strange (R-AL) is the political equivalent of a canker sore. Just when you think you are rid of him, he pops back up -- usually in a painful and annoying way. With a special election just one week away -- Roy Moore or Doug Jones will be elected to Jeff Sessions' old seat, which Strange has been keeping warm on an interim basis -- "Big Lutha's" days as a political force appear to be numbered.

But darned, if he didn't crawl out from under his rock the other day with a guest column at al.com, containing a headline that seemed right out of The Onion. The title of Lutha's screed: "The importance of taking on corruption."

Readers all over Alabama must have spit up when they read that. The Strange column came as VictoryLand owner Milton McGregor has erected billboards around the state that shout "Exposed!," followed by photos of Strange, former governor Bob Riley, and former U.S. Attorney Leura Canary. Reports Josh Moon, of Alabama Political Reporter (APR):

The billboards, McGregor said on Monday, were a reminder to the people of the state about the corruption he feels was exposed by the documentary “Atticus v. Architect: The Political Assassination of Don Siegelman.”

“I think that film peeled back the layers of corruption in this state and exposed these people for the crooks they are,” McGregor said. “They have gone unpunished and been allowed to stay in power far too long. I hope to, at the very least, let every person in this state know what they did.”

McGregor has received an up-close view of Strange/Riley/Canary corruption. Writes Moon:

The film also details the attempted prosecution of McGregor, which the VictoryLand owner has long maintained was motivated by politics and lacking evidence of criminal activity on his part. A federal jury agreed, acquitting him and his co-defendants of all charges.

But the trial was not McGregor’s only run-in with Riley and Strange. After operating a legal electronic bingo casino operation in Macon County for more than five years — a business that was inspected and deemed legal by then-state Attorney General Troy King — Riley decided the business was illegal and formed a task force to shut it and other casinos down. McGregor’s casino was raided numerous times — both by Riley’s task force and by Strange’s office — and to add insult to injury, machines confiscated from VictoryLand were allowed to be transferred — with VictoryLand stickers still attached — to the casino floor at the Poarch Creek Indians’ Wind Creek Casino.

Strange's corruption-fighting column came roughly six weeks after APR reported there are so many complaints against Strange the Alabama Ethics Commission can't keep up with them all:

A formal complaint was filed by Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill last spring regarding transfers of campaign funds that Strange made between his various campaign accounts. The issues were similar to the charges filed against former Gov. Robert Bentley, leading to his conviction and resignation.

The Ethics Commission was expected to take up the matter by late summer but it still hasn’t found its way onto an agenda. There was plenty of speculation about the cause – with most guessing the Commission was bending to political pressure, since Strange was facing a Republican primary in a special election this fall. That speculation grew when the Ethics Commission mysteriously delayed its July meeting until a day after the primary.

But multiple sources familiar with the Ethics Commission’s investigation say it was additional allegations that led to the long delay. Those allegations run the gamut, including that Strange violated ethics laws by accepting the appointment to the U.S. Senate from Bentley, that he broke multiple campaign finance laws and that he used his office for personal gain in several instances.

The allegations also have tied Strange to the ongoing bribery scandal surrounding the north Birmingham superfund site. However, U.S. Attorney Jay Town, earlier this month, stated that no elected officials other than Oliver Robinson were being investigated in that matter.

For those keeping score, let's count the Strange-related scandals mentioned in the above passage:

(1) Improper shifting of funds from one campaign account to another;

(2) Accepting a U.S. Senate appointment from former "Luv Guv" Robert Bentley, who was the subject of an investigation by Strange's attorney general's office;

(3) Violations of multiple campaign-finance law;

(4) Using his office for personal gain;

(5) Connections to the North Birmingham Superfund scandal.


On top of that, Strange and his former campaign manager/mistress Jessica Medeiros Garrison are defendants in two pending federal lawsuits that my wife Carol and I have filed -- "The Jail Case," regarding my unlawful arrest and incarceration in Shelby County; and "The House Case," regarding the theft of our Birmingham home of 25 years, via a wrongful foreclosure.

Luther Strange and Jessica Garrison

Legitimate discovery in those cases likely will reveal astonishing corruption involving Strange and his associates.

Speaking of Strange, Garrison, and the use of public office for personal gain, we can't forget a story with this unforgettable headline: "How Did Jessica Garrison Have A Mt. Brook House in 2011, When Foreclosure, Public Auction Didn't Come Until 2012?" From the story:

Court documents show that a Republican political operative with close ties to Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange was set to live in a Mountain Brook home in 2011, even though the property in question was not sold at public auction until summer 2012. . . .

Did Garrison's ties to GOP heavyweights help her obtain a home in Birmingham's most exclusive suburb when the house apparently was not even on the market yet? Did powerful figures pull strings to help keep Jessica Garrison quiet about certain party secrets, and in the process, commit mortgage fraud, foreclosure fraud or other wrongdoing . . . ?

[A court document in her child-custody case] establishes that Jessica Garrison had the Crestline home lined up on July 26, 2011, but that is at odds with a Foreclosure Deed on the property that is dated July 20, 2012. . . .

How did Jessica Garrison know she had a house in 2011 when it wasn't sold at foreclosure until 2012? We don't know--but we do know that Ms. Garrison isn't anxious to answer questions about it.

Yep, I tried to interview Ms. Garrison about her curious home acquisition, but she wanted none of that. Two days after the interview request, however, I received a letter from her lawyer, Bill Baxley, threatening a lawsuit. Two weeks after my post on the subject, Shelby County cop/thugs broke into our house, kidnapped me (no warrant), and threw me in jail for five months.

In fact, I wrote a followup post (dated Oct. 22, 2013) on the cushy nature of the Garrison house deal and was arrested the very next day.

Gee, that doesn't sound the least bit dirty, does it? But hey, Luther Strange is one fine corruption fighter . . . Cough! Hack! Snort!

Roy Moore supporters scuttled Bill Pryor's chances for SCOTUS seat, but new report doesn't tell full story about Pryor's ties to badpuppy.com and gay porn

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

How has Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals CEO Mark C. Trudeau found time for Ashley Madison, with all of the controversies swirling around his St. Louis company?

How has Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals CEO Mark C. Trudeau found time to fiddle around on Ashley Madison, with all of the contentious issues swirling around his company? Perhaps all things are possible when you are paid $12.6 million a year.

How many headache-inducing issues have crossed Trudeau's desk recently? In January 2017, Mallinckrodt paid $100 million to settle a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit alleging anti-competitive behavior. In December 2016, Mallinckrodt was cited in a U.S. Senate report on price gouging in the prescription-drug industry.

The biggest headache, however, might just be brewing. In February, Mallinckrodt executives were served with subpoenas -- one from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the other from the U.S. attorneys office in Massachusetts. The subpoena from Massachusetts apparently involves the company's patient-assistance program. Several other pharmaceutical companies have received similar subpoenas regarding patient assistance, so it's unclear how much trouble that might cause for Mallinckrodt.

The SEC subpoena, however, involves allegations of fraud regarding the sales, profits, promotions, and pricing of Acthar, a pricey drug used in the treatment of lupus, multiple sclerosis, and infantile spasms. That appears to have the makings of a major headache.

How did the fraud allegations arise? It appears they originated with Andrew Left, an activist short seller, author, and editor of the online investment newsletter Citron Research. From an article at Investopedia:

Mallinckrodt (MNK) Chief Executive Officer Mark Trudeau has been accused of fraud by short-seller Andrew Left for allegedly misrepresenting how much Medicare pays for its main drugs.

“Trudeau has been caught red-handed committing securities fraud,” Left, the head of Citron Research, wrote in a November 16 report. “Doctors do not even know if the most expensive drug reimbursed by Medicare, at $162,000 per patient, even works.” Citron Research is a firm that identifies fraud and terminal business models, according to its website.

What about specifics? Left provides them:

Left claimed that Mallinckrodt’s chief misled investors when, during a conference call in October, he said that its H.P. Acthar Gel’s exposure to Medicare is roughly a quarter of the company’s business. It is 61 percent, according to the short-seller’s analysis of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services dashboard, which was set up in 2015 to provide detailed information on Medicare spending on prescription drugs. He also alleges that there is no clinical evidence that the gel, which is often prescribed to treat multiple sclerosis relapses and a rare kidney disease, actually works.

A Mallinckrodt representative was not immediately available for comment. But it's not the first time that the head of Citron Research has questioned the company's sales of the drug. Responding to criticism last year, CEO Trudeau said that Left "really put out a whole variety of different speculations and allegations and not very many facts," according to CNBC.

More details can be found at Citron's Nov. 16, 2016 newsletter. Is the report causing discomfort in the investment community? The answer appears to be yes:

After the release of Citron’s research results yesterday, Mallinckrodt shares tumbled 12 percent. Some analysts saw the sell-off as an investing opportunity while others have provided a counter-argument to Left’s allegations which are based on a database that provides data on gross sales.

“We don’t know the exact net sales of Acthar to Medicare/Medicaid,” said Leerink’s Jason Gerberry and Etzer Darout, according to Barron. But they believe that “Acthar net sales would be closer to 38-45% range vs. the 61% figure cited in the short-report.”

They also added that “Acthar Gel is an old product lacking good randomized, controlled data consistent with most products approved in the modern era.”

The pricing of Acthar has been a source of controversy for some time. It might not help that Trudeau's annual compensation shot up 29 percent, to $12.6 million, at about the time price gouging in the drug industry hit the national spotlight:

It’s not the first time that the high price of Mallinckrodt’s Acthar has been called into question. In 2014 a New York Times report said that many experts say there’s insufficient evidence that the gel works better than much cheaper options. “Some in the medical community say the program’s soaring bill for Acthar shows Medicare needs to do more to safeguard taxpayer dollars,” it added.

Not content to blow smoke up our butts about trespass issue, Patty Poe also spewed rubbish about Missouri Castle Doctrine and its impact on Carol's case

Patty Poe

As she was unleashing a monstrous lie about plans for deputies to arrest Carol for trespassing, Missouri public defender Patty Poe also was blowing plumes of smoke up our fannies about another legal issue -- one that actually applies to the case and presents grounds for dismissal.

We are talking about Missouri's Castle Doctrine Law, which allows for the use of force to protect the home. In Carol's case, it now is clear she did not use force against deputies who unlawfully entered our home for an eviction in September 2015; Officer Jeremy Lynn, the "victim" of Carol's alleged assault, admits he caused physical contact with Carol, not the other way around -- and that means Carol is not guilty of the "assault" charge against her.

Even if Carol had caused physical contact with Lynn, she would have been acting lawfully under Missouri's Castle Doctrine Law. We know that, despite the following words that Poe sent to us in an August email:

Castle Doctrine does not apply in Carol's case. Pursuant to RSMo 563.031 law enforcement are exempt from the protections of the castle doctrine. What matters is were the law enforcement officers reasonably believe they are executing an arrest (RSMo 563.046). In Carol's case, based on the execution for possession, the law enforcement officers thought they were reasonably executing an arrest for trespass.

We've already shown that Poe's last sentence is off target by the length of several Midwestern cornfields. But her statements regarding the Castle Doctrine also are wildly off base. Missouri's law is not much different from one in Indiana, which specifically allows a citizen to shoot a "public servant" (including a cop) he believes is unlawfully entering his residence. Here's how we summarized the two laws in a previous post:

Our research on the Indiana and Missouri laws shows that, while the language varies between the two, the main difference is this: The Indiana law specifically includes public servants (law-enforcement officers, etc.) among those against whom physical force can be used when they appear to unlawfully be entering a residence. The Missouri law, on the other hand, does not exclude law enforcement types from being the targets of physical force under such circumstances.

Both laws also allow for the use of deadly force against cops who appear to be making unlawful intrusions into a residence. Bottom line: It's a bad idea for cops in Indiana or Missouri to enter a residence without knowing for sure they have lawful grounds to be there.

In our situation, there were at least 10 reasons cops did not have grounds to be there. And Carol had a reasonable belief cops were unlawfully entering our residence, especially since she knew we had filed a Notice of Appeal the day before, putting a stay on execution of the eviction.

So where did Poe come up with her contention that the Missouri Castle Doctrine did not apply in our case? We can only assume she pulled it out of her ass -- or maybe she just enjoys lying straight to the faces of her clients. Let's examine Poe's two claims regarding the Castle Doctrine:

(1) RSMo 563.031 excludes law-enforcement officers --  What does RSMo 563.031 actually say? Here it is, in pertinent part:

563.031. Use of force in defense of persons. — 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

  (1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

  (a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

  (b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046;

Poe apparently believes item (b) exempts law-enforcement officers from the Castle Doctrine. But it clearly does not do that. It simply says that officers, in instances of entry into a residence, are an aggressor, by definition. In other words, officers (by their job descriptions) are the ones who can seek lawful entry into a private citizen's home, not the other way around -- but if the occupant has reason to believe the officer is attempting to enter unlawfully . . . well, the officer could have problems on his hands.


(2) RSMo 563.046 excludes officers who reasonably believe they are executing an arrest -- What does RSMo 563.046 actually say? Here it is, in pertinent part:

563.046. Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest. — 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, a law enforcement officer is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he or she reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.

This one is easy to deal with. The statute clearly involves possible use of force in making an arrest or preventing an escape from custody. The officers' own written statements show they were at our residence to conduct an eviction (although it was an unlawful eviction), and there is no indication an arrest was planned or that there were grounds for an arrest -- and Carol certainly was not in custody.

Even if an arrest had been in the picture, Sec. 563.046 includes the following language:

The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful, and the amount of physical force used was objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the particular facts and circumstances confronting the officer on the scene, without regard to the officer’s underlying intent or motivation.

It is "objectively reasonable" for an officer to break a tenant's arm while executing an eviction? Uh, I don't think so -- and even the Missouri deputies aren't vacant enough to make that assertion.

Report that judge forced Senate candidate Doug Jones off Siegelman defense is wildly deceptive -- portraying Jones as a hero, when he was anything but that

Doug Jones and Don Siegelman (with daughter Dana
and wife Lori)
(By Amy E. Voigt)

A federal judge forced Doug Jones off the Don Siegelman defense team, according to an al.com report yesterday that is misleading and deceptive (at best), knowingly false (at worst).

The article, by Amy Yurkanin, is at odds with Jones' own testimony before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in 2007. Is the al.com article just a case of shoddy reporting? Or is it a plant by Jones' right-wing supporters -- including Karl Rove, Bob and Rob Riley, and Bill Canary -- to soothe progressives' concerns about Jones' deplorable treatment of Siegelman?

My guess is it's the latter. And it might be driven by a new poll that shows Roy Moore leading Jones by five points in the U.S. Senate special election in Alabama -- to be decided on Dec. 12. Despite numerous reports about Moore and sex-related misconduct involving teen-aged girls, Jones appears to be losing. Did that drive Jones' right-wing supporters to plant the al.com story in an attempt to appeal to Siegelman voters, who probably are less than thrilled with Jones? The answer probably is yes, and they likely are the same right-wing thugs who caused Siegelman to be prosecuted and sent to prison in the first place.

As we've reported here numerous times, Jones charged Siegelman $300,000 for a criminal defense, did almost nothing on the matter, and then bailed out. We've seen no sign that Jones ever returned the money he was paid, for services he did not render. That's about as classless a move as one can imagine in the attorney-client arena -- and quite a few progressives now might be wondering what that says about Jones' integrity.

The al.com piece appears to be a deliberate attempt to obscure what really happened with Jones' "representation" of Siegelman. From the Yurkanin article:

A federal judge ordered Jones off the Siegelman case because of his involvement in related cases during his time as U.S. attorney. Even though he did not represent Siegelman in 2007, Jones still spoke out against his conviction at the (Judiciary Committee) hearing about selective prosecution.

Is the reporter here poorly informed, or is she deliberately misleading her audience? My guess is the latter.

As any informed Alabama citizen knows, there were two Siegelman trials. One in the Northern District of Alabama (Birmingham), involved Dr. Phillip Bobo and allegations of Medicaid rigging. The prosecution dropped the charges after U.S. Judge U.W. Clemon made a number of evidentiary rulings that essentially gutted their case. The second case, in the Middle District of Alabama (Montgomery), primarily involved allegations of bribery -- with both Siegelman and co-defendant Richard Scrushy being convicted, in what generally is considered the most outrageous political prosecution in U.S. history.

The Birmingham case is the one where the court did force Jones off the Siegelman defense team. From Jones' testimony before the House Judiciary Committee:

Other than an initial contact with the Government to make sure that they were not going to seek arrest and perp walk the Governor, I had nothing to do with the defense of the Birmingham case. The Government made it clear from the outset that they were going to seek to have me recused because of my involvement in allowing the case to go forward against Dr. Bobo when I was U. S. Attorney. While I disagreed with that position, the Court ultimately held that I was precluded from representing the Governor in that particular matter.

OK, this establishes that the court blocked Jones from participating in the Birmingham case. But the al.com piece never mentions the first case. It mentions only the Montgomery case -- the one where Siegelman was convicted -- and gives the clear impression that a judge forced Jones off that matter. That is absolutely false, as Jones' own words before the Judiciary Committee make clear:

Because of a trial conflict in the spring of 2006, and the Governor’s insistence on a speedy trial before June 2006 primary, I had no real choice but to withdraw as lead counsel. However, facing incredible challenges in sifting through mountains of discovery in a short period of time, Gov. Siegelman was the beneficiary of exceptional legal talent lead by attorneys Vince Kilborn, David McDonald and Redding Pitt. But at the end of the day, despite acquittals on an overwhelming number of the charges, matters involving Mr. Scrushy and one obstruction of justice count did stick, and Gov. Siegelman was convicted. As you are aware, following sentencing, an appeal bond was denied and he was shackled and taken into custody from the courtroom.

From reading the al.com article, one could almost see Jones as a hero in the Siegelman case -- the guy who could have saved the governor, if only a judge hadn't forced him off the case. That, however, is pure rubbish. Jones left the Montgomery case of his own accord, because of his own conflict, and we've seen zero evidence that he even had the decency to return Siegelman's $300,000 -- a sum Jones almost certainly did not earn.

An enterprising reporter should ask Jones to provide his time-keeping information on the Montgomery case, to prove how much time he spent on the case and what hourly rate he charged. Jones' likely response? Loud shuffling of feet.

My guess is the Jones campaign is catching heat from progressives for his deplorable treatment of Siegelman. Opposition researcher, whistle blower, and retired attorney Jill Simpson has been ripping Jones to shreds on Facebook as a two-timing, back-stabbing, opportunist, whose loyalty (if elected) would be to the right-wing Alabama Gang headed by Bob Riley. Simpson's reports are both insightful and on target, and it appears true Alabama Democrats are beginning to realize she is right -- that Doug Jones is a fraud, with a history of stabbing Siegelman, Milton McGregor, Ronnie Gilley, and others right between the shoulder blades.

From our chair, the al.com article looks like a right-wing plant job, designed to portray Doug Jones as a hero in the Siegelman case -- when, in fact, Jones played a significant role in ensuring the former governor would be convicted.

Tennessee's courtship of football coach Greg Schiano, botched because of his supposed ties to Penn State's Jerry Sandusky scandal, is a legal screw-up for the ages

Greg Schiano
(From Associated Press)

The University of Tennessee, in its never-ending quest to secure a football coach who can win at least nine or 10 games a year, has created one of the most gross injustices in recent memory -- at least in the employment arena.

Over the weekend, UT officials worked out a memorandum of understanding for Ohio State defensive coordinator Greg Schiano to become the Vols new head coach. Word of the agreement leaked on Sunday morning, and protesters promptly gathered on campus -- with various political and social-media types joining in from a distance.

What were they protesting? Schiano, it turns out, had worked as an assistant coach at Penn State during the time convicted child sex abuser Jerry Sandusky was on the football staff there. A court document unsealed last year suggested Schiano had witnessed Sandusky engaging in inappropriate acts with a boy in a shower at a Penn State locker-room facility. UT protesters apparently took that to mean Schiano had witnessed a heinous crime and failed to report it, meaning he did not have the bedrock principles required of a Vols' head coach.

With protesters blowing hot air down their necks, UT officials broke their agreement with Schiano -- booting him out of a job he essentially had been offered and accepted. There is a slight problem with this rush to judgment. Not one shred of evidence suggests Schiano had anything to do with the Sandusky scandal, not even as a bystander. The unsealed court document certainly provides no such evidence.

So Greg Schiano is unworthy of working at UT simply because he and Jerry Sandusky shared air space for a few years. What's next? Are all Penn State grads from that era supposed to be fired from their jobs? Does UT have faculty members or administrators who are Penn State grads? You can almost bet the answer is yes, so are they going to be fired? Will UT no longer accept Penn State grads in its graduate or professional programs?

Not only is this a moral outrage, it's a journalistic train wreck. I've seen reports that the court documents were from a trial; they weren't. I've seen reports that Schiano testified; he didn't. Here's how The Centre Daily Times, the closest daily newspaper to the Penn State community, described the unsealed court documents:

Court documents released in the summer of 2016 included a deposition from former Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary, who indicated former Penn State assistant Tom Bradley said Schiano went to him in the early 1990s "white as a ghost and said he just saw Jerry doing something to a boy in the shower."

Two key points here:

(1) This was from a deposition, not a trial. Depositions are taken under oath, but they can be filled with statements that would not be admissible in court;

(2) This was a statement by Mike McQueary, as heard from Tom Bradley, about Greg Schiano. That sounds like hearsay to the third degree. Even under the worst of judges, such a statement would not be allowed in court.

So, there is no admissible evidence regarding Greg Schiano's actions, and nothing about Schiano and Sandusky ever has been adjudicated in a court of law. But the U of Tennessee allows campus mobs and social-media cranks to make its personnel decisions? What a show of courage.

Here are a couple of other factors the public often does not consider:

(1) Even if true, the statement regarding Schiano gives no indication he knew he had witnessed a criminal act. A coach who happened upon a disturbing scene in a shower -- as Penn State defensive coordinator, Sandusky was Schiano's direct supervisor -- is likely to think, "My God, I didn't just see Jerry doing what I thought he was doing, did I? No way, one of the most respected defensive coaches in the country could have been doing that. I mustn't have seen that right." It's highly unlikely that Schiano stood there for several minutes, assessing the shower scene. He probably averted his eyes and hustled away as soon as possible. After a taking a few deep breaths, he maybe said to himself, "That couldn't have been what it appeared to be."

(2) Reporting crimes, especially when you aren't sure what you saw, can come with high risk. I know because I was sued for "malicious prosecution" by our criminally inclined neighbor in Alabama, Mike McGarity, after he was "acquitted" on criminal trespassing charges. (That's the Mike McGarity with both a job at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama and an extensive criminal record; perhaps BC/BS spokesperson Koko Mackin can explain that soon.) I was absolutely sure about what I saw (and what my wife, Carol, saw), and McGarity even unknowingly confessed to trespassing. But Judge Ron Jackson found him not guilty -- after reading McGarity the riot act about staying off our property in the future -- so that gave McGarity the opporunity to sue, with the help of corrupt lawyer Bill Swatek. If Schiano had reported Sandusky as a child molester -- and Sandusky had been acquitted at trial, no matter how unlawful the verdict -- Schiano would have been subject to civil liability that might have cost him several million dollars.

I know from personal experience that reporting crimes is not worth it. Judges and prosecutors cannot be trusted to do their jobs, and that can leave victims or witnesses hanging. It's likely I never will report another crime. And even if Greg Schiano knew he had witnessed a criminal act -- and there is no admissible evidence that he did -- I would not blame him one bit for refusing to report it.

Who will be the big loser in all of this? Probably the U of Tennessee. From 2001-2011, Schiano compiled a 67-66 record at Rutgers, a school where it has been notoriously difficult to win in the modern era. The coach before Schiano went 11-44 at Rutgers.

Schiano probably would have done an outstanding job at UT, and he is highly respected in the coaching profession. But, hey, he once breathed the same air as Jerry Sandusky, so he can't possibly deserve a fair shake. 

Before bailing out in Carol's case, Missouri public defender Patty Poe told a veritable plethora of lies, including one of the nuttiest whoppers I've ever heard

Patty Poe

Before bailing out on my wife Carol's case, public defender Patty Poe told a lie that was so gargantuan that even Missouri deputies couldn't think of it. Now that's a whopper of a lie.

Poe told us that our eviction -- which was unlawful on at least 10 grounds -- actually was fine and dandy because deputies reasonably believed they were at our duplex apartment to (get this) execute an arrest for trespassing. And we've got Poe's statement in writing.

How mind-blowing is all this? I had to read the sentence about five times before I could believe she actually was stating this. How ironic is it? Poe herself got the trespass count against Carol dismissed because there was not a single word about it in the Probable Cause (PC) Statement. In other words, even the cops who prepared the charging documents in Carol's case did not include one shred of evidence about trespass.

This is at least the third big lie that Poe told us in the weeks and months leading to her ignominious exit from Carol's case last week. And we've got many more to reveal.

The ones we've addressed so far tend to be in the category of "Stuff Lawyers Often Lie About" -- discovery, what the law actually says, etc. But this one about trespass . . . it's as if Poe traveled to the moon and found it hidden amidst the cheese on the surface.

In early August, we sent a series of emails to Poe about issues in Carol's case. She promised to read them and get back to us -- and her response came about three weeks later. It included her take on information we had provided that shows our eviction was unlawful on so many grounds they have reached double figures. (Copies of our emails, plus Poe's responses to them, are embedded at the end of this post.)

One ground was that even if Carol caused physical contact with Officer Jeremy Lynn -- and Lynn's own written statement shows he made physical contact with her, not the other way around -- Carol would have been acting lawfully under Missouri's Castle Doctrine Law.

That can't seriously be disputed, but Poe decided to try it anyway. Here is part of her response:

Castle Doctrine does not apply in Carol's case. Pursuant to RSMo 563.031 law enforcement are exempt from the protections of the castle doctrine. What matters is were the law enforcement officers reasonably believe they are executing an arrest (RSMo 563.046). In Carol's case, based on the execution for possession, the law enforcement officers thought they were reasonably executing an arrest for trespass.

That part in yellow is so nuts that I'm not sure I have enough fingers to count all of the nuttiness. It's not hard to show that Poe is crackers on this one. You can read the PC Statement and see it includes not one word about trespass. You can read written statements from four officers, and not one them states he was there for an arrest, much less an arrest for trespass.

The comminuted fracture in
Carol Shuler's left arm, courtesy of
Missouri deputies.

The idea of arresting Carol never arose until three cops surrounded her as she tried to enter the apartment (as she'd been told she could do) to retrieve our cat's litter box. A male cop in a blue shirt came up from behind her, body slammed her butt-first to the ground, and yanked on her limbs so viciously that her left arm shattered just above the elbow. A split second later, Sheriff Jim Arnott -- quickly realizing his officers had screwed up big time -- pointed at Carol and said, "She assaulted a police officer." Only then was she placed in handcuffs, arrested, and taken to jail -- to be released when X-rays at a nearby emergency room revealed a comminuted fracture in her left arm that would require trauma surgery.


Why were cops, in their own words, on the property we rented from landlord Trent Cowherd? This is what you might call the "mission statement," from Officer Debi Wade:

On September 9, 2015, we responded to 4070 S. Fort to execute a Writ of Execution and Court Order (1531-                                                           ACO4535) to remove lessee Roger Shuler from the                                                             rental.

Cops were there for an eviction, however unlawful it might have been. Wade's "mission statement" makes no mention of trespass, makes no mention of Carol, period. So how did Poe come up with the notion that officers were there to arrest Carol for trespass? If that was the case, why didn't they arrest me for trespass?

I can only assume Poe fell victim to a malady that tends to afflict those who concoct tall tales: At some point, they can't keep their lies straight -- and they wind up tossing out absurdities.

Poe did not only screw up on the trespass issue; she also botched the Castle Doctrine. We will show you how in an upcoming post.