It doesn't take long for Jessica Medeiros Garrison's rant against Legal Schnauzer to start springing leaks

Jessica Garrison and Luther Strange
(From marieclaire.com)

How long does it take for Jessica Medeiros Garrison's public-relations assault on Legal Schnauzer to show that it has a disconnect with the truth? The answer is one paragraph--specifically, three sentences.

We've already shown that Garrison's claim that I stalked her is laughably untrue--in fact, Garrison presents zero evidence that I've ever been anywhere near her house and admits that on one occasion she was convinced a boogeyman (me, I guess) was outside only to discover it was cops doing a drive by. Her assertion that I reported Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange is the father of her child can be proven false with a simple search on my blog.

You have to read down into the Garrison piece a ways to discover the stalking and "Lutha as baby daddy" fables. But the nuttiness starts right at the top. Consider the lead on Garrison's piece, which was told to a marieclaire.com writer named Liz Welch, who apparently is incapable of asking a few questions to determine if anything Garrison says is true. Ms. Welch also must not have been capable of sending me an e-mail or calling me and allowing me to respond to Garrison's wacky tales.

Perhaps Welch was afraid I would present a number of facts that would run contrary to the point of her juicy piece--and facts were not supposed to get in the way of this "good story." Here is how Garrison/Welch start their tall tale, in Garrison's voice:

​My saga started in July 2013. A friend texted me, asking, "Do you know this guy, Roger Shuler?" I didn't, but quickly learned he was the political blogger behind the website Legal Schnauzer and author of a new post that would forever change my life: "AG Luther Strange Has a Messy Extra-Marital Affair with Ex-Campaign Aide Jessica Garrison."

A reasonable assumption here seems to be that the friend was not asking if Garrison knew me personally; the question seems to be: Did she know of me? And Garrison's answer was no. Well, I've got evidence to show this is false.

It appears the friend's inquiry was triggered by my first post about Garrison's affair with Luther Strange, and that post was dated July 17, 2013. Garrison gives the impression that she was baffled as to who I was or what I was working on. But e-mail records show she had every reason to know who I was and why I had contacted here. That's because I sent her an e-mail on July 12, 2013, informing her of my investigation on the alleged affair and asking for an interview on the topic.

Here are the contents of that e-mail:

Ms. Garrison:

I am a journalist in Birmingham, reporting on justice/legal issues at a number of Web sites, including the blog Legal Schnauzer. I've received reports from multiple sources that you and Luther Strange had an affair that culminated with your divorce and his election as attorney general of Alabama. I have been researching this matter for several months, and I'm at the point where the stories are ready for publication. I would like to give you an opportunity to respond to questions and ask that we schedule a time for an interview, either via phone or in person.

My plan is to begin running the articles in the next few days, so I ask that you respond to this request by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, July 16.

Thank you,

Roger Shuler

legalschnauzer.blogspot.com
(205) 991-7438

Roughly five days before the inquiry from her friend, Garrison knew exactly who I was and why I was contacting her. So Garrison either has a horrifically bad memory--in which case, marieclaire.com should not be running her story--or she is lying.

Garrison chose not to respond to my interview request, and it's her right to do that. But you will notice that she had every opportunity, before publication, to state that the affair story was inaccurate and answer questions on the subject. But it wasn't until a couple of months later that she chose to file a lawsuit, publicly proclaiming the affair story to be false and defamatory--when she earlier had passed on an opportunity to make pretty much the same declaration.

The careful reader--for example, one who has followed the Garrison/Strange story here at Legal Schnauzer--has every reason to doubt Garrison's veracity from the opening lines of the Marie Claire article.

In terms of accurate reporting, the story only goes downhill from there.

Jessica Medeiros Garrison launches PR assault against Legal Schnauzer, and it's filled with false and defamatory statements, plus horrific journalism

Jessica Medeiros Garrison and Luther Strange
(From Yellowhammer News)

Alabama Republican operative Jessica Medeiros Garrison has launched a public-relations offensive against Legal Schnauzer, connected to the $3.5-million default judgment entered against me in a defamation case she brought. The original Garrison story, which appeared yesterday at a Web site called marieclaire.com, is filled with false statements from Garrison--including at least one that probably rises to the level of defamation.

The Garrison article is more or less in first-person form, as told to someone named Liz Welch. Did Ms. Welch bother to actually question Garrison about any of her statements? Sure doesn't look like it.

Al.com, the largest news organization in the state, picked up on the marieclaire.com piece today, and reporter Leada Gore proceeded to mangle the simplest facts about the case. For good measure, the right-wing site Yellowhammer News ran the original piece verbatim, repeating all of the false statements it contains.

Did any of the "journalists" involved contact me for comment--or question me about key legal and factual issues that they got wrong? Nope. Did any of them check the court file, which is public record and easily available at alacourt.com? They clearly did not.

The story in question involved allegations that Garrison had an affair with Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange, for whom she was campaign manager in 2010 and (according to some press reports) in 2014. Did any of the "journalists" involved in the latest Garrison coverage point out that my reporting never has been found false or defamatory before a jury? Did they report that Jessica Garrison, in her original filings, did not even seek a jury trial--and her lawyer, Bill Baxley, only asked for one after I had demanded one in my answer to her complaint? Did the "reporters" note that my posts never have been found false or defamatory in any adversarial proceeding in a court of law?

Have Garrison or Strange ever sat for cross examination under oath, such as in a deposition, or have they ever turned over documents (emails, text messages, phone records, etc.) related to their relationship? Have Garrison or Strange ever volunteered to unseal records from her divorce case in Tuscaloosa County, where she once was married to school-board member Lee Garrison?

The answer to all of those questions are no. And none of the reporters wrote that I was the victim of a default judgment only because I was unlawfully thrown in jail for five months and then got out to find our home of 25 years going into a foreclosure that smells to high heaven. The foreclosure almost certainly was wrongful, and no one benefited from it more than Jessica Garrison--because I was not able to defend myself against her lawsuit, or bring a valid counterclaim.

Did any reporter question Jessica Garrison about her knowledge of my incarceration and the foreclosure? No.

Here are a few items that did come out in the marieclaire.com article:

The final straw was when Shuler wrote a follow-up post claiming my then five-year-old son was actually Luther's illegitimate child. I could handle the professional stuff—I have pretty thick skin—but this crossed a line. It upset his father, my ex-husband, who sent Shuler a comment to set the record straight, which of course he never posted.

There is a slight problem with this statement from Garrison--it isn't true. I never reported that Luther Strange was the father of her child. Anyone can go to Legal Schnauzer, go to the search box at the top of the page and key in "Jessica Garrison and Luther Strange," and review every post I've written on the subject. Never have I reported that Luther Strange is the father of her child. In fact, I contacted Lee Garrison and interviewed him on the subject. He said he was convinced the child was his, and I never reported otherwise.

I have that interview on tape and will be running it shortly. I'm not aware of Lee Garrison ever sending me a comment. If he did, he certainly did not identify it as being from him. And there was no reason for him to "set the record straight" regarding his son's parentage because I never reported anything about Luther Strange fathering the child.

Jessica Garrison really goes off the deep end with the following:

There is no second place in politics—you either win or you lose—and this ridiculous little blog was being used as a tool to try to gain a competitive advantage. I was livid.

Then, it got worse.

Shuler posted photos of my home on his website, which felt like a threat, not to mention a huge violation of privacy. Had he been at my house? Was he stalking me? I installed a home security system and put the police on notice. I was so paranoid that I called the cops in tears one night, convinced someone was outside, and was relieved—and slightly mortified—to learn it was the police doing a drive by.

Garrison implies that I was stalking her, but she fails to mention that the home in question was subject to a foreclosure, and documents related to that proceeding are public record. Also, the home apparently had recently been on the market, and the photos in question came . . . right off the Web. I also ran a photo of her and Luther Strange, which might have been taken in her yard--I don't know. But I do know the photo came straight from . . . Garrison's own Facebook page.

For the record, the only time I've ever seen Jessica Garrison was in a courtroom. I only wrote about her home because public records suggest she got an extraordinarily good deal on a house in one of the Birmingham area's most desirable neighborhoods--the Crestline section of Mountain Brook, and the location of her home was a significant factor in a child-custody case that grew from her divorce.

Do I now have a defamation case against Jessica Garrison? I'm not sure; that question will require some research. But I do know that the law, in general, frowns on making "imputations" that someone has committed a crime that they have not committed. And stalking, last time I checked, is a crime.

As for al.com and reporter Leada Gore, consider this from her article that was published today:

In April, a Shelby County judge entered a default judgment against blogger Roger Shuler and his website Legal Schnauzer, ordering him to pay $3.5 million in damages to a former campaign manager for Attorney Gen. Luther Strange.

Again, we have a little problem. The Garrison case was in Jefferson County court, not Shelby County. Nothing like screwing up your story--and ruining your credibility--in the very first paragraph.

We can excuse, Ms. Gore, because her error is in keeping with the whole Garrison public-relations charade. The original marieclaire.com article reads like it was written by the cast from Fantasy Island. So we probably shouldn't expect much from any of the followups.

My wife's shattered arm is latest sign of an assault on Web-based journalism and my coverage of Don Siegelman case, according to new OpEd News piece

An assault by Missouri deputies that left my wife with a shattered left arm likely is the latest attack on independent, Web-based journalism, the kind that establishment forces such as lawyers, judges, law enforcement, and corporate elites cannot control. Specifically, it's a sign of ongoing blow back we have experienced for my coverage of the Don Siegelman case.

Those are two conclusions from Joan Brunwasser's new interview with me, "Truth-telling journalist evicted, wife assaulted by heavily armed deputies," at OpEd News. Brunwasser is based in Chicago, but she long has reported on political and legal corruption in Alabama, which I have called "Ground Zero" for deterioration of our justice system that started during the George W. Bush administration and largely has continued unabated under Barack Obama. OpEd News is ranked among the top 100 political blogs on the Web.

My wife, Carol, has had her stitches removed after trauma surgery to repair her arm. But she now must wear a compression garment, and her arm is filled with enough screws and titanium to build Tiger Woods a new set of golf clubs. Caregivers have said the goal is to get function in her arm back to 95 percent. While Carol's recovery is going well, it appears unlikely she will regain full and normal use of her arm.

In our interview, Brunwasser begins by setting the stage for the assault on Carol: (Brunwasser is "JB," and I am "RS.")

JB: You've had a pretty eventful life of late. Would you care to catch us up on what's been happening?

RS: Your readers probably remember that I was incarcerated in Alabama for five months (October 2013 to March 2014)--for daring to practice journalism--and my wife, Carol, and I lost our house in Birmingham to a foreclosure that I now am convinced was unlawful. After all that trauma in the South, we fled to Springfield, Missouri, where I grew up and still have family. But it seems the conservative forces that want to shut down my reporting on the blog Legal Schnauzer have followed us, perhaps through my brother David, who happens to be a right-leaning lawyer in Springfield. On Sept. 9, we were unlawfully evicted from our apartment in Springfield. Sheriff deputies (about seven or eight of them) burst through the door, trained at least one assault rifle and multiple handguns on us, handcuffed us both, and ultimately assaulted Carol, breaking her arm. A trauma surgeon used all sorts of screws and titanium plates to piece her arm back together. Her recovery seems to be going well, but she's a long way from "back to normal." In fact, we are concerned that her arm might never be the same.

Is such a show of force normal for an eviction? Brunwasser and I examined that issue:

JB: I'm really sorry to hear about the assault and Carol's resultant injuries. Is this the normal course of things for an eviction, Roger? It sounds more like you were on the Most Wanted List, based on the law officers' behavior. And why were you being evicted in the first place? I'd like some more details to sink my teeth into, please.

RS: I've never been involved in an eviction, Joan, so I don't know for sure about the normal course of these things. But I understand it's common for a deputy or two to be on hand and play a relatively passive role while the landlord's crew removes items from the property. In our case, I don't know why we were targeted for eviction. Our rent had been timely paid, and we had been model tenants. According to the lease, we were to go on a month-to-month basis after the first 13 months. That's what we thought would happen, but we had a notice to vacate taped to our door on July 2. When I called to see what was going on, the landlord's representative told me that we were being ousted under grounds that violated the lease. We fought the vacation notice in court, but as I've seen happen repeatedly with judges in Alabama, the Missouri judge seemed to pay little attention to the facts or law and ruled against us. Under Missouri law, there is a 10-day window where execution on an order (such as an eviction) cannot be carried out (levied is the term used in the law).

Carol Shuler

The eviction was scheduled for Sept. 9, which was inside the 10-day window, so it was unlawful on those grounds. On top of that, we filed a Notice of Appeal on Sept. 8, and by law, that puts a stay on the eviction. But the eviction happened anyway, and judging by the behavior of deputies (who included Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott), you would think we were running a high-level drug-smuggling operation. In the ensuing chaos, Carol and I were handcuffed, and a deputy pounced on her and slammed her to the ground, breaking her arm, when she tried to enter our apartment (as she had been given permission to do) to retrieve our cat's litter box.

Facebook is filled with videos and articles about law enforcement officials lying to cover up misconduct. That certainly was present in our case:

JB: I believe the law officers accused Carol of attacking them. What really happened?

RS: Jim Arnott, the sheriff himself pointed at Carol, as her arm had just been broken in four or more places, and said, "She assaulted a police officer." I didn't know whether to guffaw or blow my stack. I saw the whole thing from the driver's seat of our car. I heard Carol say, "I'm just trying to get . . . ", and then I saw her being slammed to the ground, and one officer grabbed both of her arms and jerked them in an outward and upward motion, before putting handcuffs on her. Carol is 55 years old, very feminine (she's hardly Rhonda Rousey) [editor's note: RR is current UFC Women's Bantamweight Champion] and I've never seen her do anything remotely violent in the 28 years I've known her. We're about to "celebrate" our 26th wedding anniversary, with her arm in a compression garment. This is a blatant example of the kinds of lies law-enforcement officers will tell when they know they are in the wrong. We saw it on video with the Sandra Bland case in Texas. Facebook is filled with images and videos of cops abusing citizens--and in this case, officers had no lawful grounds to be on the property at all.

Brunwasser also addresses the latest nuttiness, an attempt by my brothers (Paul, a radiology tech at Mercy Hospital Springfield, and David, a Missouri lawyer) to have Carol and me declared incompetent. That came after I told Brunwasser that I planned to continue my reporting as long as we are physically and fiscally able. And I pointed out that we definitely could use donations to help keep our reporting efforts on track:

JB: Wow. That's brave, some would say foolish. Kudos to you and Carol! How can people help?

RS: Well, the latest is that my two brothers--David, a lawyer, and Paul, a radiology tech at Mercy Hospital, both in Springfield, MO--have filed court documents to have Carol and me declared incapacitated and disabled, with a guardian or conservator appointed for us. I'm just beginning to learn the law on this, but it sounds like we could lose many of our rights--right to vote, right to take care of our own finances (such as they are), right to make our own medical decisions, even the right to bring a lawsuit.

I think that last one is the real reason this court case has been filed--someone wants to prevent a lawsuit because of Carol's injuries, theft of our property, etc. It also sounds like it could be a first step toward having us physically committed. I guess that's what we do now to journalists who report on uncomfortable truths--first jail, now this? I reported on this latest development at Legal Schnauzer in a post dated Oct. 7, 2015. It sounds wacky, I know, but it's the latest thing we are dealing with. As for ways to help, we could use financial support, for sure. Donations are the main way we have of keeping my reporting going, so any help is very much needed and would be greatly appreciated.

JB: How very Kafkaesque. Your brothers sound like two scary dudes. On a more positive note, how would someone make a donation? Give us everything we need in order to help.

RS: I'm not sure my brothers are scary, Joan, but I do think they are misguided--and perhaps they've been influenced by some corrupt forces from Down South. Probably the best way to donate is to go to the Legal Schnauzer blog and click on the donate button in the upper right-hand corner of the front page. That's connected to our PayPal account, and there are several payment options. Again, any support is greatly appreciated.

Brunwasser then asked a big-picture question, connecting the blow back Carol and I have experienced to my reporting on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who remains imprisoned at Oakdale, Louisiana:

JB: I thought we were done but something else occurred to me, Roger. Your blogging activities since 2007 have seemingly gotten you in trouble. Unlike the mainstream/corporate press, you spent a lot of time and energy covering the Don Siegelman* case. So, do you think that, at bottom, this all started with Siegelman and the attempt by the powers that be to shut you up?

RS: Oh, there is no doubt the answer to that question is yes, Joan. Here is a link to one of several posts I've written that provide evidence showing I was fired from my job as an editor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB, where I had worked for 20 years) because of my reporting on the Siegelman case. Near the end of the post is a partial transcript of a conversation I had with a UAB human-resources exec named Anita Bonasera. This conversation took place after I had been put on administrative leave for allegedly writing my blog at work but before I was fired --UAB's own IT expert, who monitored my work computer for 4-5 weeks, later testified at a grievance hearing that I never touched the first keystroke on my blog while at work. Bonasera states that my supervisor, Pam Powell, went to UAB IT to check on my computer usage, and the following exchange takes place.

Bonasera is AB, and I'm RS.

AB: She was able to determine what you were working on and whether it was related to your blog . . .

RS: Well, you just said it, it's all about my blog. You just said that.

AB: That was a piece of it. Some of it was research related to your blog, from my understanding. I understand there were some things about Siegelman, screens up about Don Siegelman, things that they saw you doing that they consider to be research for your blog because then that was topics that you wrote about on your blog.

RS: Those are also news articles that we are supposed to keep up with, about Alabama, stuff in the news.

At the end of that blog post, with the link above, is a video where your listeners can listen to a tape recording of the actual conversation.

You can see from the [highlighted] sections, that Bonasera admits two things:

(1) My supervisor, Pam Powell, targeted me because of my blog, which UAB's own expert said I was not working on during company time;

(2) My supervisor specifically was looking for anything I might look at on my computer regarding the Siegelman case--even though it was the biggest news story in Alabama at the time (and we were supposed to keep up with Alabama news stories), Siegelman, as governor, was a former member of our board of trustees, and Siegelman's codefendant, Richard Scrushy, was and probably still is the most well known UAB alumnus in school history.

Here's what it boils down to: The concern about my Siegelman coverage, I'm convinced, was that, back in 2007-08, I was showing that U.S. Judge Mark Fuller had acted corruptly in the case. And Fuller had been hand-picked by Karl Rove and other Bush types to make sure Siegelman got convicted for a "crime" that doesn't even exist under U.S. law. Some 7-8 years later, the entire country knows Mark Fuller was corrupt and unfit for the bench now that he's been forced to resign after being charged with beating his wife. My reporting was both accurate and way ahead of its time, but it made the regime of GOP Governor and prime Siegelman opponent Bob Riley uncomfortable, and they caused me to be cheated out of my job. I have zero doubt that Bob Riley's son, Birmingham lawyer Rob Riley, who later filed the lawsuit that led to my unconstitutional imprisonment, played a major role in getting me fired. I lost my job in May 2008, and in October 2009, Carol lost her job at Infinity Insurance in Birmingham under bizarre circumstances. I feel certain that Riley forces also were behind that, and the job loss largely is the reason we now find ourselves barely above homelessness.

Sorry for the long answer, but your question goes straight to the heart of our situation. That someone saw fit to mess around behind our backs with our jobs is what led to much of what we discussed earlier.

What's the future of other journalists who might dare to uncover unpleasant truths in swampy, shark-infested waters? Brunwasser and I addressed that topic:

JB: It's good to have the background so our readers can get the context. Pretty sordid. So, it's not out of line to ask at this point, what's in store for other intrepid journalists who rock the boat by actually doing their jobs?

Dana Siegelman, daughter of
political prisoner Don Siegelman

RS: It's hard to say, Joan. Alabama is a unique animal, or at least I hope it is. One problem is that journalists tend not to stick together these days--and that's probably been the case for years. Consider the case of the late Gary Webb, who broke the story at a San Jose newspaper of the CIA and Bush I admin being involved in drug smuggling to inner cities. He was crucified by the NY Times, LA Times, WaPo and other establishment papers. We now know that his reporting, for the most part, was right on target, and there is a fairly current movie about him called Kill the Messenger. Ironically, the NY Times did an inaccurate and very poorly reported story on my incarceration. I find that, if a story originates at a blog, web site or some form of nontraditional press, the mainstreamers want no part of it--jealousy, maybe? We need both responsible, fearless journalism and a strong, relentless Justice Department to attack the widespread problems in our courts. And citizens need to care, even if they personally have not been cheated by corrupt judges or lawyers. All of us send taxpayer dollars to support this system that is broken and needs major repair. We all have an investment in it, and it simply does not dispense anything close to what might be called justice. The rule of law means nothing to many people who have law degrees.

JB: I wish I could disagree with anything you've said here. Anything you'd like to add before we wrap this up?

RS: Our justice system is failing us. It became obvious during the Bush II administration, and the Obama administration has done almost nothing to fix it. In my view, most of the corruption initiates with Republicans or conservative Democrats, but Democrats of all stripes have been enablers. We're talking here about basic constitutional protections--due process of law, equal protection, rule of law--the very things that are supposed to make us America. They are rotting right under our noses, and before long, we're going to have a country that we don't recognize. The legal profession has proven that it cannot be entrusted with our justice apparatus. We somehow must get regular citizens involved in an oversight capacity. Lawyers overseeing lawyers simply does not work--no more than foxes guarding henhouses, to borrow a phrase from my rural roots.

I would encourage your readers to pay attention to the various presidential debates and see if they ever hear a question or comment about corruption in our justice system and the overwhelming need for reform. I've yet to hear a single Republican candidate mention it. And I would be shocked if Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, or any other Dem raises it.

Don Siegelman can only be described as a political prisoner, but it seems our citizens and our candidates are willing to accept that as part of our postmodern American democracy. I refuse to accept it. And I think most of my fellow citizens would refuse to accept if they took the time to educate themselves and understand just how badly the system betrays all of us. For those who think this doesn't affect them, here's a thought: If you live in America, you almost certainly will be in court someday--over a divorce, an estate, a car wreck, a property matter, an insurance matter. No matter how hard you try to avoid it, court is almost certainly going to beckon you one day. When that day comes, you will want to make sure the judge and lawyers you face act in an ethical manner. But too many of them now are unethical, and if something isn't done about it, you will be victimized down the road.

My brothers are trying to turn a Missouri probate court into the stage for a farce that wastes taxpayer dollars

Lowther Johnson law firm of Springfield, MO

Do my brothers in Missouri have a legitimate case for trying to have my wife, Carol, and me declared incapacitated and disabled? Is the court-appointed attorney assigned to Carol and me actually representing our best interests?

The answer to both questions is "not even close." In fact, we have come to see the Republican presidential primary race often described as a "clown car." Now we know that term should be reserved for the legal stunt my brothers--Paul J. Shuler (radiology tech at Mercy Hospital) and David N. Shuler (lawyer, Shuler Law Firm)--are trying to pull in Greene County Probate Court.

My brothers' nefarious activities make the Donald Trump-led GOP train seem positively quaint and genteel by comparison. At least there is a legitimate reason to have a GOP primary. There is no lawful or factual basis for the "INP and DIS" (incapacitated and disabled) case my brothers have wrought.

How do we know? For starters let's look at the Public Administrator page for Greene County, the very jurisdiction where my brothers filed their petition. It's clear that "INP and DIS" proceedings are not for people who have been the victims of bad luck or the targets of bad people (as we have been)-- it's not for folks whose property has been stolen over a 15-year period of time (as ours has been, by corrupt lawyers, judges, and law-enforcement types); it's not for folks who've had their home wiped out by a tornado or flood; it's not for those badly injured in a car crash or other mishap.

These cases are for people who have the most serious of mental-health conditions. Here is how the Greene County public administrator explains the process--and it seems reasonable to assume that he is drawing from statutory and case law:

The Guardian/Conservator Appointment Process:

There are four types of mental disability and incapacitation that may cause the probate court to appoint a guardian and/or a conservator:

* Mental illness (such as schizophrenia and bi-polar illness)

* Mental retardation/developmental disabilities

* Brain injury or disease

* Diseases of the aging (such as Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia)

Do we have schizophrenia or bi-polar disease or anything similar to them? No one has even hinted that we do. Do we have mental retardation or brain injury or any form of dementia? Again, no one has even hinted at that.

Even if we did have one or more of those conditions, that is not necessarily grounds (under Missouri law) for appointment of a guardian or conservator. From the Public Administrator Web page:

The above disabilities are not by themselves sufficient reasons to declare someone incompetent. Competency has to do with a person's ability to make an informed decision without the risk of harm that may be experienced as a result of inability to provide for him/herself or manage his/her affairs.

Further, a conservator may be appointed when only a physical disability impairs a person's ability to handle his financial affairs. . . .

Guardianship/conservatorship is the most restrictive form of protection given to mentally disabled and incapacitated individuals and should be used only when less restrictive measures are not adequate to meet their needs.

That Paul and David Shuler have brought such a baseless case should be grounds for sanctions against them. It also should outrage taxpayers who are seeing their funds wasted.

Even more alarming is this: Evidence strongly suggests the "INP and DIS" case was filed with an ulterior motive in mind. It has nothing to do with the well-being of Carol and me. It's all about protecting the landlord, sheriff deputies, and lawyers (including my brother, David) who are responsible for our injuries. One sign of that is the court-appointed lawyer who is assigned to "represent our interests."

Daniel G. Menzie

His name is Daniel G. Menzie, a solo practitioner based in Suite 200 of Hammons Tower at 901 E. St. Louis St. in Springfield, MO. Who just happens to be on the 20th floor of Hammons Tower? That would be Lowther Johnson, the law firm that represented landlord Trent Cowherd in our eviction case and allowed the eviction to proceed even though it was unlawfully scheduled inside the 10-day window when no such action could take place--and even though we had filed a Notice of Appeal, which put an automatic stay on the eviction.

In other words, Lowther Johnson and Trent Cowherd (not to mention the Greene County Sheriff's Office) have major liability for the injuries Carol and I have suffered--and "our attorney" just happens to be Daniel Menzie, one of Lowther Johnson's office neighbors.

On top of that, we have become aware of documentation about the way Mr. Menzie spends some of his extracurricular time, and it calls into question his ethics, taste, and judgment. We will share that information shortly, and it likely will help you understand why we want no part of Mr. Menzie--or the charade he is trying to help my ethically challenged brothers to pull.

My brothers in Missouri have no more respect for the rule of law than thugs we've encountered in Alabama

How off-the-chart nuts is my family's plan to have my wife, Carol, and me declared incapacitated and disabled in the wake of our unlawful eviction that led Missouri deputies to break Carol's arm in multiple places? To answer that question, it helps to learn a little about Missouri law on what are called "INP and DIS" cases.

I'm a long way from being an expert on this area of the law, but I've studied enough to know that Carol and I do not come close to meeting the definition of "incapacitated" or "disabled," there are no grounds for appointment of a guardian or conservator, and it appears that my brother, Paul, who is listed as petitioner, does not have standing to bring such a case. So why has he filed such a case in Greene County Probate Court?

This dubious train seems to be driven by my two brothers--Paul, a radiology tech at Mercy Hospital in Springfield, Missouri, and David, a lawyer in Springfield (at Shuler Law Firm, focusing mainly on divorce and DUI defense cases). If no lawful grounds exist for bringing such a case, what gives? My best guess is that it's an effort to ensure we cannot seek justice against the Greene County Sheriff's Department, landlord Trent Cowherd, and Lowther Johnson law firm (representing Cowherd), and anyone else who might be liable for injuries we suffered in an unlawful eviction on September 9--including Carol's shattered arm, which required repair from a trauma surgeon, using all sorts of screws and titanium plates.

Mercy Hospital, Springfield, Missouri

According to Carol's care providers, it very much is in doubt whether she will regain 100 percent use of her left arm. But my brothers apparently could not care less about that--in fact, neither has expressed the slightest concern about Carol's injuries, and neither has anyone else on my side of the family. It's deeply touching to see family members respond to such a serious injury with what might best be described as utter callousness. The "INP and DIS" case seems designed to ensure that no one ever is accountable for the assault on Carol--and if she never regains full use of her arm, well, why should a lawyer and a Mercy Hospital employee (who is engaged in patient care) give one iota?

They don't, and they apparently don't mind grossly abusing the legal process to seek whatever perverted outcome they are after.

What about Missouri law on "INP and DIS" cases? An online document titled "Guardians and Conservators Under Missouri Law" shines light. (It's in a PDF format to which it apparently is not possible to link, but a Google search of the document title should bring it right up.)

Here is the answer to one key question:

What Does it Mean to Be Incapacitated or Disabled?

As defined by Missouri law, “an incapacitated person is one who is unable by reason of any physical or mental condition to receive and evaluate information or to communicate decisions to such an extent that he [or she] lacks capacity to meet essential requirements for food, clothing, shelter, safety or other care such that serious physical injury, illness, or disease is likely to occur.” Similarly, a disabled person is one who is “unable by reason of any physical or mental condition to receive and evaluate information or to communicate decisions to such an extent that the person lacks ability to manage his [or her] financial resources.” Under certain circumstances, a conservator may be appointed by the court for a person who has disappeared or is detained against his or her will.

Neither Carol nor I come close to meeting that definition. We have food, clothing, shelter, and safety--we are in no position where serious physical injury, illness, or disease to likely to occur. Despite all we've been through, our overall health probably is as good, or better, than anyone on my side of the family. In terms of ethics, I might be the only one from our Missouri clan who has any left.

David Shuler, of Shuler law firm

My brother, Paul (the petitioner), should know that we are not incapacitated or disabled. But since we moved into an apartment here in July 2014 he has communicated with us exactly zero times--no phone calls, no e-mails, no visits, zip. But he's supposed to have some knowledge of our mental and physical status? My brother David (the lawyer) isn't much better. He has sent a few e-mails, but we haven't seen him or talked with him at all. And substantial evidence suggests David was involved in setting up the bogus eviction that led to Carol's broken arm.

He, at least to some extent, is responsible for her injuries, so it's little wonder that he wants to have her (and me) declared incapacitated so we possibly would be precluded from pursuing legal claims against him. Gee, do you see a little self interest here in my brother's actions.

Here is the answer to another central questions:

What is the Legal Effect of a Judicial Determination of Incapacity or Disability?

The answer depends upon whether the court has made a finding of total disability and incapacity or only partial disability and incapacity. If the court finds that a person is only partially disabled and partially incapacitated, the person is still presumed competent and loses only those rights specified in the order. A person who has disappeared or is being detained does not lose any rights. On the other hand, if the court finds a person totally incapacitated or totally disabled (or both), the person is presumed to be incompetent for all legal purposes. A person who has been determined by a court to be disabled is referred to as a “protectee” and a person who has been determined by a court to be incapacitated is referred to as a “ward.”

We could be declared incompetent and essentially lose all our rights and even our freedom, becoming wards of the state--all at the request of two brothers who know virtually nothing about us or the numerous court cheat jobs that have caused us to lose our home and many of our possessions.

And finally, we have this:

Who May Be Appointed Guardian or Conservator?\

If no suitable person has been nominated by the incapacitated or disabled person, the court will consider appointing, in order: the spouse, parents, adult children, adult brothers and sisters and other close adult relatives.

As you can see, the No. 1 person on the list to be declared a guardian or conservator is "spouse"--and that would be Carol. That's a slight problem for my devious brothers, so they are trying to have her declared incapacitated, too--which I would guess is against the law.

As for "adult brothers and sisters," they are well down the list. That probably means my brother Paul does not even have standing to bring such a case. The Paul J. Shuler I used to know would not try to pull such a low-down stunt. But apparently, that person doesn't exist anymore.

And I'm starting to wonder if my lawyer brother ever was worth a crap. Since joining the legal tribe, he certainly is proving to be quite the "bottom feeder."

Documents show that former Alabama Congressman Artur Davis spent more than $2,100, on three different accounts, at Ashley Madison and then lied about it

Artur Davis and his wife, Tara Johnson Davis

Former Alabama Congressman Artur Davis used three different accounts and spent more than $2,100 at Ashley Madison, documents from the hacked extramarital-affair Web site show.

The Web site gotnews.com, led by publisher Charles C. Johnson, broke the story about Davis as an Ashley Madison customer on August 21. The site produced additional evidence in a pair of followup articles (see here and here), which drew denials from Davis spokespersons.

Davis, at first, claimed his name appeared at Ashley Madison because someone stole his credit cards. He later said the information came from operatives for the campaign of Todd Strange, against whom he was running for mayor of Montgomery. He eventually stated: "I have never been a customer of the Ashley Madison site."

Our research shows that Davis is flat-out lying about that. (See summary of his Ashley Madison activity at the end of this post.)

Data shows that the first Davis account was created on May 10, 2011, at SNR Dentons, the Washington, D.C. law firm where he went to work after Ron Sparks trounced him in the Alabama Democratic primary for governor in 2010. A payment in July 2015 was made from the Hotel Jerome in Aspen, Colorado, where Davis was speaking to a Republican group, after having switched parties.

The party switch didn't work out so well for Davis. After he moved to Virginia and became a Republican, there seemed to be little interest in his legal and political skills. He returned to his hometown, only to have Strange thump him in the race for mayor of Montgomery. Now, Davis wants to "return to his Democrats roots," which has drawn mostly yawns (or outrage) from party leaders, who remember that Davis alienated his liberal base in 2010 in order to side with the Business Council of Alabama and other conservative groups.

In fall 2007, Davis looked like a bright star on the Democratic horizon. He served on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and played a starring role when the committee investigated Bush-administration abuses of the justice system in late October of that year. Davis showed signs of being interested in addressing the firings of U.S. attorneys and unlawful political prosecutions, including the highly publicized case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

With his calm demeanor and smooth speaking style, Davis was seen by some as the "Obama of the South." It looked like Davis might prove to be a hero for those who believe in actual justice, the rule of law, and constitutional protections. But Davis let all of that slide, indicating he never was seriously interested in the issues to begin with. He gave up a safe Congressional seat to run a disastrous campaign for Alabama governor, and his political star has been in free fall ever since.

Now the Ashley Madison debacle reveals Davis to be both a cheater and a liar. Data shows that he had three accounts at the site and paid to have all of them deleted. But they still showed up when the site was hacked, and information was placed at the dark Web for public examination.

Under "What Turns Me On," Davis wrote the following:

What Turns Me On: Aggressive/Take Charge Nature, Confidence, Discretion/Secrecy, Imagination, A professional/well groomed, Stylish/Classy, Long Hair, Not Possessive, Good Communicator

Open To: Conventional Sex, Sex Talk, Extended Foreplay/Teasing, Good With Hands, Kissing, Sensual Massage, Someone Who Can Teach Me

Perhaps, Davis deserves credit for one thing: Unlike other prominent Ashley Madison clients we've outed from Alabama--Bradley Arant lawyer Rob Campbell and al.com reporter Charles J. Dean--Davis does not claim to be single. Under relationship status, Davis describes himself as:

Attached Male Seeking Females

Davis, however, earns demerits for his description of his physical appearance. After stating that he is 5'10" and 160 pounds, Davis says his physique is:

Shapley Toned

Aside from the spelling problem here (we assume Davis means "shapely"), when have you ever heard a man describe himself as "shapely"?

We will leave that question for another day, but for now, this much seems clear: Artur Davis' political career, thanks to a series of self-inflicted wounds, is in a shambles. Now that he's been outed in the Ashley Madison scandal as a cheater and liar, that career should be over--with no hope for resuscitation.

Readers are missing out on a real treat if they don't click on the Artur Davis summary below. Members of our Legal Schnauzer Computer Forensics and Accuracy Research Team (C-FART) have outdone themselves with this one. It is awesome, if we do say so ourselves. And it unmasks a prominent Ashley Madison customer in a way that, to our knowledge, no other news organization has done.

That's also true of our summaries for Rob Campbell and Charles J. Dean, which hackers have removed multiple times from the document-storage site Scribd. But the Davis summary is filled with all kinds of special flourishes that should make it must reading, especially for anyone who has suspected that Artur Davis is a fraud and a truly creepy guy.

Artur Davis Ashley Madison Profile by Forensic Schnauzer

My family in Missouri is trying to have my wife and me declared incapacitated in the wake of assault by Missouri deputies that left her with a broken arm

Cowherd Construction in
Springfield, Missouri

My family in Missouri--specifically my two brothers--are trying to have my wife, Carol, and me declared incapacitated and disabled, an apparent first step toward taking away many of our rights that could end with physical commitment.

Documents have been filed in Greene County Probate Court, asking that a guardian or conservator (or both) be appointed for us. This area of the law is new to me, and I'm still researching it, but my understanding is that this can lead to the loss of many rights--the right to manage your financial affairs, the right to manage your own health care, the right to vote, the right to file a lawsuit . . . well, you get the idea.

Evidence suggests that last item--the right to file a lawsuit--is the real reason these cases have been filed. They were filed on September 29 and 30, roughly 20 days after Missouri sheriff's deputies conducted an unlawful eviction that left Carol with a broken left arm (which required repair from a trauma surgeon) and a badly bruised right arm. This blatant example of police brutality took place as Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott stood and watched, pointing a finger and claiming Carol had assaulted a police officer--when, in fact, all she had done was try to enter our apartment (as she had been given permission to do) to retrieve our cat's litter box.

By the way, Carol had a followup visit yesterday with her surgeon, and her recovery seems to be going well. We will have more details in a few days, hopefully with copies of X-rays that show the extensive damage to her arm and reflect the brutality that was involved in the assault. (A personal message from Carol's Facebook page about her recovery is at the end of this post.)

Who has reason to be worried about the events of September 9, 2015? The eviction had been schedule inside the 10-day window during which, under Missouri law, no execution (such as an eviction) can be levied. Court documents indicate the Lowther Johnson law firm of Springfield, Missouri, representing landlord Trent Cowherd and Cowherd Construction, unlawfully scheduled the eviction. That means both the firm and landlord stand to be liable for Carol's injuries--and other damages we suffered--so they have reason for concern.

Not only was the eviction unlawfully scheduled, I timely filed a notice of appeal on September 8, which put an automatic stay on execution. Attorneys in the case--Gregory Lulich, of Lowther Johnson, and my brother, David Shuler of the Shuler law firm, who was representing our mother, Gondylyn ("Gondy") Shuler because Cowherd had included her as a defendant, with no grounds for doing so--were timely served with our Notice of Appeal and had every reason to know that execution was stayed. That Lulich and David Shuler, and their law firms, allowed a stayed eviction to take place means they stand to be liable for Carol's injuries--and other damages we've suffered--so they have reason for concern.

Finally, Sheriff Arnott and his deputies brutalized and seriously injured a 55-year-old woman who posed no threat to them--on a day, and under conditions, where law enforcement had no grounds to be on the property. In an environment of growing concern about police misconduct, which ironically started in August 2014 with the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Arnott and his crew have reason to be concerned.

Are Carol and I really incapacitated and disabled--and do we really need a guardian or conservator? Of course not--and while we have been the victims of 15 years worth of court-related abuse, and we both have been diagnosed with PTSD after my unlawful incarceration and (likely) wrongful foreclosure on our home of 25 years--the notion that we can't handle our affairs is preposterous. We have, however, refused to stay quiet about the abuses we've suffered--and similar abuses heaped on other litigants in Alabama and elsewhere--and my determination to continue such reporting on this blog likely is the reason someone wants to legally have me declared a "nut job." I've already been kidnapped and thrown in jail for five months in Alabama, and this appears to be a slightly different version of the same tactic. In fact, I would not be surprised if the idea originated in Alabama, with someone serving as "liaison" for conservative legal and political forces that want to do us harm in both that state and Missouri.

So what is going on with this effort to more or less turn us into wards of the state? I'm still trying to figure that out. But readers can check out the basics by going to this link, clicking on "litigant name search," and keying in either my name (Roger Alan Shuler) or my wife's name (Carol Tovich Shuler). The style on my case, for example, is "1531-PR00897 - ROGER ALAN SHULER INP and DIS." The style and docket entries on Carol's case are pretty much identical. "INP and DIS" apparently stand for incapacitated and disabled.

David Shuler of Shuler Law Firm

Curiously, the petitioner in both cases is listed as my brother Paul James Shuler, who works as a radiology technician at Mercy Hospital in Springfield. Last I heard, he now does imaging mostly in the hospital's Cardiac Cath Lab. What does Paul know about Carol and me, and our situation? What does he know about the long line of legal cheat jobs that have cost us just about everything we owned? The answer, best I can tell, is almost nothing.

That makes me think my other brother, lawyer David Shuler, is driving this slippery train--probably in an effort to protect his cronies in the legal, law-enforcement, and landlord communities. David has a company called Old Ivy Properties, which mainly seems to deal with rental units, so he's tied in with landlords. For good measure, he started another company less than a month ago, called G Shuler Properties, and I'm not sure what that's about. Our mother's name is Gondy, so does the "G" stand for her name? That would be my guess. Why, at age 86, does she suddenly need something called "G Shuler Properties"? I have no idea.

I'm still learning the law on all of this "INP and DIS" stuff, but it certainly is emitting a foul odor--the kind I grew to recognize quickly while living in Alabama. In fact, I'm learning that odors coming from Missouri courtrooms can be every bit as rank as the ones that come from the "halls of justice" in the Heart of Dixie. One big difference? In Missouri, I seem to have two brothers who are right in the thick of the sleaze.

Following is a message from my wife, Carol Tovich Shuler, about her recovery from the brutality heaped upon her by Missouri deputies. A special thank you to Dr. Brian Buck, and his trauma team at Cox Medical Center South in Springfield. Dr. Buck and his team also are affiliated with the University of Missouri in Columbia. They have provided Carol with top-notch care, and we deeply appreciate it.


From Carol Tovich Shuler:

Had a follow-up appt with my ortho trauma surgeon today. He was pleased with the results thus far, but I have a long way to go. They removed the stitches from ~8-10" long incision & took additional xrays. It was the first ones I've seen. It was rather horrifying seeing all the hardware in my arm...all the titanium plates, screws & pins. And my elbow looks like a jigsaw puzzle, it is in so many pieces. My arm was truly shattered by these maniac cops. Today they put me in a post-op compression sleeve to help with swelling & the healing process. However, I can't help but worry my arm will never be the same again. And that these freaks responsible will never be held accountable for all the trauma, loss & civil rights violations inflicted upon me & my family

Judge finds that e-bingo is legal in Macon County, and VictoryLand property is due to be returned unless state abides by provisions of U.S. equal-protection clause

Milton McGregor

Electronic bingo is legal in Macon County under a constitutional amendment approved by voters, and the VictoryLand casino is due to have its seized property returned unless the state follows equal-protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution, an Alabama circuit judge ruled last Friday.

Meanwhile, VictoryLand owner Milton McGregor is taking steps to reopen the casino, possibly in a matter of weeks. And Macon County leaders said at a press conference yesterday that they intend to pursue a civil-rights lawsuit against the state for closing VictoryLand in 2013, costing the county more than 2,000 jobs and a significant amount of revenue--all in apparent violation of equal-protection provisions guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Tuskegee Mayor Johnny Ford said he has asked Governor Robert Bentley to intervene and stop Attorney General Luther Strange from appealing.

Judge William Shashy said in his Friday ruling that Strange was unlawfully "cherry picking" by seizing property at VictoryLand, while allowing similar facilities to operate freely in other parts of the state. Shashy gave Strange 45 days to enforce the AG's version of the law equally or return VictoryLand's machines, currency, and paperwork. (See the full ruling at the end of this post.)

Shashy issued an order in June that Strange's raids at VictoryLand were unfair and unconstitutional. That ruling, however, did not order the AG's office to return the casino's property, and both sides filed motions asking Shashy to clarify or amend. Friday's ruling did just that, with Shashy finding that e-bingo was legal in Macon County and Strange must return the casino's property unless he takes steps to enforce the state's anti-gambling laws equally.

While Friday's ruling clearly was welcome news for McGregor and VictoryLand, Shashy appears to contradict himself. If e-bingo is legal in Macon County--and Shashy's order clearly states that it is--then the AG's office has been in the wrong all along and, by law, should be forced to return seized property, regardless of any action it might take at other bingo facilities.

To no one's surprise, Strange vowed to appeal Shashy's ruling to the Alabama Supreme Court, which consistently has ignored its own precedents to rule in the AG's favor--and in favor of the state's previous anti-bingo crusader, former Governor Bob Riley. Will that tactic work again for Strange? It's hard to see how it can, given that his team presented no evidence to counter VictoryLand's evidence at the forfeiture hearing upon which Friday's order was based. From Shashy's order:

The Supreme Court of Alabama has recognized that it is proper to consider the intent and will of the people in interpreting the Constitution of the State of Alabama. "The object of all construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the people in the adoption of the [C]onstitution. The intention is collected from the words of the instrument, read and interpreted in the light of its history." State v. Sayre. . . . The use of evidence to aid the Court in its constitutional interpretation is also recognized in Cornerstone. . . . "[In] ascertaining the meaning of a constitutional provision, the primary duty of the courts is to look to the intention of the makers and adopters of that provision.

KCED, the parent company of VictoryLand, presented testimony from Ford, Myron Penn, Louis Maxwell, Mary Hicks, and Theodore Samuel. Writes Shashy:

Their testimony was that Amendment 744 was proposed to allow all forms of bingo in Macon County so that they could compete economically with other counties that allowed other forms of bingo, including electronic bingo. Sixteen exhibits offered by KCED, consisting of election flyers, advertisements, proclamations, and newspaper articles, either advocating for or against Amendment 744, were also admitted. These exhibits provided substantial evidence that the voters in Macon County understood bingo to mean all forms of bingo, including electronic. The State of Alabama did not produce any evidence in opposition. Based upon the evidence presented by KCED and the lack of any evidence from the State, the Court concludes that the Macon County voter when voting on the amendment understood it to be all forms of bingo.

Additional evidence made the scenario even more grim for Strange. Writes Shashy:

In addition, KCED submitted evidence that on July 29-30, 2015, the casinos in Greene and Lowndes Counties had in operation 1,798 electronic bingo machines at six casinos. . . .

The State did not deny the existence of these casinos or the electronic bingo machines. Thus, the Court reiterates its ruling that the State of Alabama is cherry picking which facilities should remain open or closed, and this Court will not be used as an instrument to perpetuate this unfair treatment. It is interesting to note that since the Court's Order of June 25, 2015, and the last hearing on August 4, 2015, the number of casinos and machines in Alabama has increased. The Lowndes County casinos began operation between these time periods. The State obviously is not enforcing the law equally.

Why did it take so long for an Alabama judge to come to his senses and recognize what has been obvious for months, for years--that both Strange and Riley have been targeting certain large casinos (in Macon County and Houston County) because they are the primary threats to the market share of the Indian tribes that have paid millions of dollars to help get Strange and Riley elected?

Shashy finally seems to be admitting the likelihood of a quid pro quo involving Strange/Riley and Indian tribes in Mississippi and Alabama. Such an arrangement, of course, is a federal crime, and if proven, would constitute federal-funds bribery.

That is a subject for another day. But for now, it's hard to see how the Alabama Supreme Court--perhaps the most corrupt judicial body in the country (and there is a lot of competition for that "honor') can rule in Luther Strange's favor this time.

At the trial level, VictoryLand essentially pitched a shutout (an appropriate metaphor, we think, with the MLB playoffs starting tonight)--and the final score was something like 16-0. If the Alabama Supreme Court overturns this lopsided e-bingo ruling, it might be inviting a federal investigation that could lead to a number of justices winding up in orange jumpsuits--where they probably should have been some time ago.

VictoryLand Ruling--Legal by Roger Shuler

Al.com reporter Charles J. Dean quotes Mark Twain in effort to spark affair via Ashley Madison Web site

Charles J. Dean

A veteran reporter for Alabama's largest news-gathering organization quotes Mark Twain in an effort to attract a woman (other than his wife) on the Ashley Madison extramarital-affair Web site.

We reported on September 9 that Charles J. Dean was one of numerous prominent Alabamians whose names appear at Ashley Madison, which was hacked by a group that took offense at the site's efforts to encourage spouses to cheat on each other.

Dean joins Bradley Arant lawyer Rob Campbell, the son-in-law of former governor Bob Riley, as the two Alabama Ashley Madison users we have outed so far. But never fear, there are more big names where those two came from--many of them corporate, legal, and financial types. They will be exposed shortly, as will similar types in Missouri, where my wife and I now live--and where deputies unlawfully evicted us and left Carol with a shattered left arm and horribly bruised right arm.

As for Chuck Dean, he apparently was quite eager to cheat on his wife, and we now have a summary of his account activity at Ashley Madison. Those of a literary bent will be impressed that Dean borrowed words from one of America's best and most beloved writers to further his extramarital activities.

In fact, we have to admit that Dean's come-on lines are quite well written--better than anything we've seen from him at al.com. Here is Dean's description of himself and his desires, which comes under the clever caption of  "Hi, Baby":

I like a woman who knows that less is often more, whether in how she dresses or in the words she uses, or in the kisses she gives. And I like some indication that a brain is at work. What is between the ears is every bit as important, maybe more important, than what is between . . . well, you know. I try to take the advice Mark Twain offered: "Life is short. Break the rules. Forgive quickly. Kiss slowly. Love truly. Laugh uncontrollably and never regret anything that makes you smile." Some of these I have failed at, and some I have succeeded in. Life is a work in progress, if you are interested!"

Got to admit that I'm impressed with Dean's use of the language here. Most of it is stolen from Mark Twain, but if you are going to steal, you might as well steal from one of the greats. If I were a woman, Old Chuck might have me out my drawers in no time--at least until I saw his picture.

At least one Alabama journalist, Rob Holbert of Langiappe Mobile, has questioned the accuracy of the Ashley Madison information and taken me to task for reporting on the subject, especially in regards to Chuck Dean. Well, here is some information for Holbert to chew on; it's data straight from Chuck Dean's AM account: (The full summary can be viewed at the end of this post).

* Account number -- 27665102

* Last name/first name -- Dean, Charles J.

* Account creating date/time -- 08/07/2014 12:05 PM

* User name -- flyby25

* Account email -- cjpdean@gmail.com

* Sign-up IP address -- 71.14.61.61

* Geographic location -- 33.4602, -86.8092

* Gender -- male

* City/state -- Birmingham, AL

* Initially seeking -- Whatever excites me

* Weight -- 195

* Height -- 6 foot

* Body type -- Fit

* Date of birth -- 07/17/1960

* Relationship status -- single male seeking female (This surely would be news to Dean's wife, Laurie O. Dean, who is listed as co-owner of their $284,000 house in Homewood; we can find no record in Alabama court files that they have divorced.)

* What turns me on -- Sense of Humor, Confidence, Discretion/Secrecy, Casual Jeans/T-shirt Type (Discretion/secrecy is a turn on? Sounds like Old Chuck is serious about this cheating thing.)

Payment history --

(a) Date: 01/23/2015

(b) Credit card: AMEX 1003

(c) Amount: $19.99

(d) Billing Address: 328 Lathrop Avenue, Birmingham AL 35209

Ashley Madison might be a slipshod operation--and it is a scam that anyone with three functioning brain cells should have seen from the outset--but, by God, the company knows how to keep detailed records on its paying customers.

Chuck Dean's full summary can be viewed below. And we have more such summaries coming on prominent professionals in multiple states--Alabama, Missouri, and perhaps others.

(Note: We have to give major props to our Legal Schnauzer Computer Forensics and Accuracy Research Team--we call them C-FART, for short. Seriously, we have some extremely talented tech-savvy individuals who are helping us gather data from the Ashley Madison info that hackers placed on the dark Web. These reports would not be possible without the helping hands of individuals who know their way around many corners of the digital world. We are deeply grateful for their expertise and support.)

Charles J. Dean Ashley Madison Profile by Forensic Schnauzer

Missouri deputies shatter my wife's arm when records show they had no grounds to be on rental property

How wildly unlawful was the "eviction" that led Missouri deputies to brutalize my wife and leave her with a shattered left arm that required trauma surgery? Well, the deputies had no lawful grounds to be at the apartment we were renting, much less to handcuff Carol and me, point multiple handguns and at least one assault rifle at us, and cause many of our personal belongings to be stolen.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate that point is with two documents--a Motion to Quash Execution and a Notice of Appeal. Both were timely filed in Trent Cowherd v. Roger Shuler, a case where landlord Cowherd Construction, of Springfield, Missouri, tried to evict us contrary to state law. Both documents are embedded at the end of this post.

With Jim Arnott, the sheriff of Greene County, Missouri, on hand to supervise a half dozen deputies or so, you might think that someone would have a clue about the law applicable to such situations. But you would be wrong. And Arnott certainly did nothing to keep his underlings from engaging in blatant police brutality.

We will go into more detail in upcoming posts, but here is the simplest way to understand that this eviction--which really was an orchestrated act of terrorism--was off-the-charts unlawful.

If you check item No. 4 in the Motion to Quash Execution, you see that the eviction was scheduled for 9 a.m. on September 9. But Revised Missouri Statues 534.350 (RSMo. 534.350) says no execution shall be levied until the time for appeal has expired. Missouri Supreme Court Rule 81.04 sets the time for filing a Notice of Appeal at 10 days from the time a judgment becomes final.

Rule 74.01 states that "a judgment is rendered when entered. A judgment is entered when a writing signed by the judge and denominated "judgment" or "decree" is filed." The docket for Cowherd v. Shuler can be found by going to this link, typing my name into the litigant search and clicking on the entry for the case title. The docket shows judgment was entered on August 31, 2015.

Missouri Rule 44.01 states that the first day of "an act, event, or default" is not to be included in computation of time, but the final day of the period is included. That means our 10-day period for filing an appeal ended on Sept. 10, 2015. Our Notice of Appeal was filed on the morning of Sept. 8, so we were more than two full days inside the window for filing an appeal.

That put a stay on execution of the notice of eviction (per RSMo. 534.350 noted above), which had been scheduled for September 9. Attorneys for all parties were served via e-mail with both the Motion to Quash and Notice of Appeal at 4:44 p.m. on September 8, so they had plenty of time to notify Cowherd Construction and the Sheriff's Department that the eviction could not take place.

As a matter of fact and law, it was improper for the eviction to be schedule for September 9 in the first place, which even without a notice of appeal, was inside the window when execution could not be levied.

The eviction raised a number of other legal issues, and we will address those in future posts. But for now, this is the most direct way to show that law-enforcement had no grounds to be at or in our apartment on September 9, 2015. And they sure as heck had no grounds to burst through the door, point guns at us, handcuff us and brutalize Carol to the point that her arm was broken.

Cowherd Quash Execution by Roger Shuler

Cowherd--Notice of Appeal by Roger Shuler