Documents related to my wife's arrest in Missouri show she was locked up for nothing, based on probable cause statement that presents no evidence of a crime

Carol Shuler

The State of Missouri arrested my wife, Carol, based on a probable cause statement that includes not one sentence of admissible evidence that she committed a crime. Let me repeat: Carol's arrest was based on . . . nothing, no evidence that she committed any crime.

In a sense, that does not surprise us; over several dozen posts I've written about events during our unlawful eviction on Sept. 9, 2015, I've consistently reported that Carol did nothing unlawful, nothing wrong. I've reported that she was the victim of an assault, which left her with a shattered left arm, not the perpetrator of an assault. I witnessed every second of her interactions with Greene County Sheriff deputies that day, except when she was inside the apartment gathering our personal belongings -- and even the cops don't claim there was any physical encounter there.

I've known for more than 16 months that the only criminal actions were by the cops themselves. But even I did not expect their probable cause statement to, in essence, admit that Carol did nothing wrong. So, why was she arrested, finger printed, photographed (as in a mugshot) on Jan. 31? Why does she have a hearing at 9 a.m. today before Judge Margaret Holden Palmietto?

How could this happen? It certainly can't continue for very long, under the law, because Carol clearly was arrested without probable cause. Here's how we know:

A Misdemeanor Information (MI) filed by Greene County prosecuting attorney Dan Patterson reads, in part, as follows:

COUNT I
(Missouri Charge Code: 565.083-002Y20051313.)

The Prosecuting Attorney of the County of Greene, State of Missouri charges that the defendant, in violation of Section 565.083, RSMo, committed the class A misdemeanor of assault of a law enforcement officer in the third degree, punishable upon conviction under Sections 558.011 and 560.016, RSMo, in that on or about September 9, 2015, in the County of Greene, State of Missouri, the defendant knowingly cause physical contact with Jeremy Lynn, a law enforcement officer without the consent of Jeremy Lynn by pushing him.

That's it. That's the only allegation that Carol assaulted anyone. Now, let's look at the Probable Cause (PC) Statement. (The MI and PC Statement are embedded at the end of this post.)

Lt. Debi Wade, the only female officer on the scene that day, is author of the PC Statement. Wade seemed mostly on the periphery of events, and I don't recall her and Carol coming in contact with each other. So why, out of six to eight officers on the scene, was Debi Wade chosen to write the PC Statement? I have no idea, but it certainly wasn't for the sake of accuracy. This is from the PC Statement, beginning with the fourth sentence:

Upon initial contact in the entryway of the residence, Roger's wife Carol T. Shuler physically assaulted Capt. Jeremy Lynn. I was not witness to that assault, however, I was advised that Carol first pushed the door from inside when Capt. Lynn attempted entry with the key, then got physical with him once inside the threshold and pushed him repeatedly.

Those of you who read this closely might already have guffawed loud enough to wake the neighbors. Let's pause to gather ourselves before pondering the absurdity in this statement. Notice the part in yellow; it says Wade did not witness the assault -- someone else told her about it -- but she's swearing about it under oath anyway.

You could drive to downtown Birmingham right now, if you aren't already there, and find a wino under a bridge who would recognize that as hearsay. And the wino probably would know that hearsay generally is not admissible evidence in a court of law. Since that's the only statement about an "assault" on Jeremy Lynn -- and it's hearsay -- there was no probable cause to bring charges against Carol Shuler.

You could print out a copy of the PC Statement and show it to the wino, allowing him to read it thoroughly. And he probably would say, "They call this probable cause? Shiiiiiiii - ittttttttt. How dumb are them hillbillies in Missouri?"

Better yet, imagine this: You are the parent of a third grader at an elementary school in your neck of the woods. You get a call from the school saying you had better come quick, Billy Jones has alleged your child stole his lunch money. You arrive at the school to hear the following conversation:

Principal: "Now, Billy did you see little Johnny steal your money?"

"No sir, Mr. Principal, but someone advised me that he did."

"Who advised you of that?"

"I don't know his name. But he's a tall, green man -- sort of like the Jolly Green Giant. And he has wings, and sprinkles pixie dust everywhere, and then flies off."

"Billy, do your parents have a 'friend' they call 'Mr. LSD'?"

"Oh, yes, Mr. Principal, they talk about him all the time."

"I see. Billy, that explains a lot. Here's some good news: I think you've got a fine career ahead of you as a deputy with the Greene County Sheriff's Department."

"Thanks, Mr. Principal! That sounds like fun!"

"Oh, trust me. You'll have a blast."

What about the trespass charge against Carol? The MI says the "facts" that form the basis for the charge are contained in the PC Statement. When you read the PC Statement, you see that it says not one word about trespass, not one word about actions that even conceivably amount to trespass.

You've heard the phrase, "You can't make this stuff up," usually accompanied by a shake of the head? Well, the criminal charges against Carol certainly fit in that category. More on this subject in upcoming posts.

While serving as U.S. attorney in Alabama, Jeff Sessions developed a "hit list" of Democrats to target for political prosecutions -- and he used it often

Jeff Sessions
(From cnn.com)

International attention is focused on Jeff Sessions because of false statements the Trump attorney general made before Congress regarding his communications with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign. But the notion that Sessions, a former U.S. senator from Alabama, might be a shady character is not breaking news.

Those who have lived in Alabama for years and are familiar with Sessions' underhanded nature, know it would be improper to compare him to a worm. Many worms probably live most of their lives without harming another living being. Based on a report last week from The Guardian, the same cannot be said of Jeff Sessions.

When Sessions was U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama (appointed by Ronald Reagan and serving from 1982 to 1991), he became known for prosecuting individuals based on politics. Perhaps the best known case involved the 1989 race for mayor of Mobile and a Democrat named Lambert Mims. From The Guardian article, by reporters Jon Swaine and Oliver Laughland:

Arthur Outlaw wanted a second term.

It was 1989 and Outlaw, the Republican mayor of Mobile, Alabama, was girding himself for his re-election campaign. Word was that Lambert Mims, a popular local Democrat, would run against him. Some Republicans were growing skittish.

But a close friend of Outlaw’s had something planned. The friend had been president of the state Young Republicans, chairman of the regional GOP, then a senior official in the Mobile County Republican party. And now he was the top federal prosecutor in southern Alabama.

“Jeff says that Mims won’t be around by that time,” an Outlaw aide said ominously, while discussing the election at a City Hall meeting that February, according to a sworn affidavit from an official who was in the room.

A few months later, Mims confirmed that he would be challenging Outlaw. Then Jeff Sessions made his move.

What move did Sessions make? He wielded his prosecutorial power for political reasons. If Americans are troubled by Sessions' apparent perjury before Congress, they should be worried out of their minds about his history as an unethical prosecutor. From The Guardian:

Sessions, then the US attorney for Alabama’s southern district, indicted Mims on criminal corruption charges relating to obscure four-year-old negotiations over a planned recycling plant. Mims was the ninth notable Democrat in the area to be indicted by Sessions since the young Republican was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. He would not be the last.

Opponents concluded that Sessions used his federal prosecutor’s office, and the FBI agents who worked for him, as political weapons, according to more than half a dozen veterans of Mobile’s 1980s legal and political circles. Some alleged in court filings that the ambitious young Republican actually worked from a “hit list” of Democratic targets.

“Sessions was a gun for hire,” said Tom Purvis, a former sheriff of Mobile County, “and he went after political enemies.” Purvis was acquitted of charges against him that Sessions oversaw after Purvis unseated another Outlaw ally from the elected sheriff’s position.

Let those two highlighted sections sink in for a moment. Mims was the ninth major Democrat in the Mobile area to be indicted by Sessions, and based on court pleadings, Sessions worked from a "hit list" of Democratic parties. Prosecutorial misconduct does not get much uglier than that.

Lambert Mims
(From theguardian.com)

Here's how The Guardian unearthed some of the nastiness in Sessions' reptilian past:

Bolstering the claims are the remarkably thin prosecution cases brought by Sessions against some of those Democrats he indicted, which are detailed across thousands of pages of archived court filings that were reviewed by the Guardian.

Sessions had no direct evidence that Mims had committed a crime. The recycling plant was never even built. “I’ve never seen such a flimsy, weak case as this against anybody,” Mims’s attorney said in court.

Still, Sessions’s office, which boasted a 95% conviction rate, persuaded a jury to find Mims guilty. Mims, a 60-year-old lay preacher, sobbed through his trial. He cried when he was convicted, then cried again when he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. “I will go to my grave proclaiming my innocence,” Mims told Judge Charles Butler.

The Guardian provides details on at least four other cases where Sessions made dubious use of his prosecutorial powers for political reasons. Reading about those cases should scare the living daylights out of any American, of any political persuasion, who cares about justice.

Much has been made of Donald Trump's apparent unfitness to serve as president. Jeff Sessions might be every bit as unfit to serve as attorney general.

Americans love lawyer jokes, I suspect, because many lawyers have proven to be brazenly dishonest -- and my brother, David Shuler, provides a classic example

David Shuler

How are an apple and a lawyer alike? They both look good hanging from a tree.

Now that's funny; in fact, I'm having trouble wiping the smile off my face. So why do we love lawyer jokes so much? Here is my best guess: Lawyers, or at least quite a few of them, have demonstrated a unique "talent" for dishonesty -- and they often charge us outlandish fees while they lie to us.

It's unfortunate to say this, but my own brother -- Springfield, Missouri, attorney David Shuler -- provides a classic example. I grew up in a family where I thought everyone had a strong sense of right and wrong. David has proven me wrong about that. Consider this from an e-mail he sent me, dated 8/25/15. It came after I had served him with a counterclaim I had filed in the eviction lawsuit filed against me by landlord Trent Cowherd. I only served David because Cowherd had filed a baseless lawsuit against our mother, Gondy Shuler, because she was co-signor on our lease, and David was (at least on the surface) representing her:

I appreciate you sending me a copy of your pleadings. Your counterclaim seems to indicate that I somehow want to be involved in your legal proceedings. Nothing could be further from the truth. For some reason, people keep contacting me regarding issues they are having with you. Maybe it is because I have a law degree and they think I will know what to do. . . . 

Roger, I have no hard feelings toward you and I wanted to make it clear that I have never wanted to be involved in your business. For some reason, people keep calling me about you and I am stupid and think I can help.

I will likely see you in court on Thursday, but unless absolutely necessary, you will have no further contact from me.

Again, I wish you the best.

He wishes me the best? He's never wanted to be involved in my business? Does this guy reside on Planet Lie-A-Tron? We invite you to check out the document embedded at the end of this post. It's a letter David wrote to Kelly Halford Rose, the judge in our eviction case. He wrote it four days before he wrote the e-mail noted above.

In the first paragraph, he trashes me repeatedly, falsely claiming I had refused to pay rent or move out of our duplex apartment. We now know that Cowherd could not commence eviction proceedings, under Missouri law, until our rent had been late for at least one month -- and ours was late by five days. Does David mention that to Judge Halford? Nope, he's too busy making my wife, Carol, and me sound like squatters.

In the second paragraph, David makes it clear that he really is not representing my mother. He is trying to help Cowherd regain possession of property that, by law, it is not entitled to regain. Translation: David wishes me "the best," but he's doing his damnedest to make Carol and me homeless; he doesn't want to be involved in my business, but he is making every effort to be involved in our business -- by aligning himself against us (and with an unethical landlord and a corrupt judge).

Most normal people cannot imagine lying like that, particularly about fairly important matters of shelter. Most normal people cannot imagine being that two-faced. But quite a few lawyers can do it -- and David Shuler is one of them.

Boston attorney J. Whitfield Larrabee files complaint with Alabama State Bar against Jeff Sessions, pointing to possible criminal acts that go way beyond perjury

Jeff Sessions

We wrote last Tuesday about the complications that might arise if someone filed a bar complaint against Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in light of his false statements to Congress about meetings with a Russian ambassador during the 2016 campaign. It didn't take long for someone to file that complaint.

Boston attorney J. Whitfield Larrabee filed a complaint against Sessions with the Alabama State Bar last Thursday (March 9), just two days after our report, based on statements from Western Michigan University law professor Victoria Vuletich. How's that for swift action? (The Larrabee complaint and attachments are embedded at the end of this post.)

On the same day, the ACLU also filed a bar complaint against Sessions. If the Trump AG thinks he isn't in hot water, perhaps he should check with domestic diva Martha Stewart. (More on that subject in a moment.)

Larrabee minces no words in his statements about Sessions' actions:

The complaint accuses Sessions of violating the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct by committing perjury and other crimes when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 10, 2017. The complaint alleges that Sessions committed crimes when he falsely testified that he had no communications with the Russians during the election campaign and when he subsequently engaged in a cover up. In my opinion, Sessions’ continuing service as Attorney General amounts to a serious conflict of interest, violates the integrity of the United States Department of Justice and is a form of corruption.

I've filed two or three complaints against various lawyers with the Alabama State Bar, and each time, I received nothing but a letter stating no investigation would even be conducted. I concluded the state bar is a corrupt right-wing outfit (which it is) that serves up protection, more than discipline, for Alabama lawyers -- at least those who are connected to major firms or the state's GOP noise machine. I decided to forego bar complaints and make more productive use of my time.

It might not be so easy for the bar to brush off Larrabee's complaint against Jeff Sessions. To be sure, Sessions is precisely the kind of lawyer the Alabama State Bar likes to protect. He has the right-wing bona fides, and he likely is the organization's best known member. But Larrabee is a lawyer himself, he clearly is not a lightweight, and Sessions' violations of the bar code came in public view, with a national and international audience. It's going to be hard to ignore them.

If the Alabama State Bar hasn't grown a spine, it might need to grow one in a hurry. Long-time general Counsel Anthony McLain died in January. Experience taught me that McLain was little more than an empty suit and an obstructionist. In fact, he was at the controls when Alabama's legal community spiraled into a mass of corruption and malfeasance, and there is little evidence to suggest McLain did anything about it. If Tony McLain were still alive, there is little doubt he would do his best to provide cover for Jeff Sessions.

What happens now that McLain is gone? According to the bar's Web site, it appears no one has been appointed to replace McLain, even on an interim basis. The bar has three assistant general counsels -- Jeremy McIntire, Mark Moody, and Tripp Vickers -- and they all probably are right-wingers without an ounce of integrity among them. The Sessions story could shine a glaring spotlight on the incompetence and corruption that has plagued the Alabama State Bar for years.

J. Whitfield Larrabee

As for Larrabee, he has demonstrated a willingness to step on powerful toes when they appear to have danced into unethical and perhaps criminal territory. He filed multiple complaints against candidate Donald Trump and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi over apparent bribery. (See here, here, here, and here.) From Larrabee's complaint against Sessions:

Beginning on or about January 10, 2017, Sessions engaged in unethical and criminal conduct in violation of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.

Sessions violated Rule 8.4(b) by committing a criminal act or criminal acts that reflect "adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects."

Sessions violated Rule 8.4(c) by engaging “in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”

Sessions violated Rule 8.4(d) of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging "in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."

Sessions violated other provisions of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct by giving false testimony to a legislative body, by failing to take reasonable and appropriate measures to remedy this misconduct, by affirmatively acting to cover up and conceal his misconduct, and by failing to avoid conflicts of interest in his activities as a lawyer and public official.

Larrabee provides background on events leading to Sessions' false statements, in response to questions from U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-MN):

On January 6, 2017, the United States government released a report expressing the conclusion of the FBI, CIA and NSA that Russia engaged in a campaign of cyberattacks, propaganda, and mis-information in order to aid Trump to win the presidential election. This report gained a great deal of coverage in the news media such that it very likely came to the attention of Sessions.

Prior to January 10, 2017, the FBI and US government intelligence agencies concluded that Russian operatives were behind the hacking of the computers of Democratic National Committee and of the email account of John Podesta, chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

On January 10, 2017, Sessions gave sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing concerning his confirmation as Attorney General.

In the hearing, Sessions told Franken, "I did not have communications with the Russians," even though Franken never asked him if he had. On March 1, The Washington Post reported that Sessions had met at least twice with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the 2016 campaign:

Larrabee outlines the elements of perjury under U.S. law and then states:

Evidence establishes that Sessions is guilty of perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621.

After giving false, deceitful, dishonest, fraudulent and misleading testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sessions participated in a cover-up of his criminal, dishonest and unethical conduct.

On March 1, 2017, the Washington Post reported that Sessions met with Kislyak twice in 2016 and that he failed to disclose the meetings when asked by Franken.

On March 1, 2017, Sessions’ spokeswoman, Sarah Isgur Flores (“Flores”) responded to the Washington Post report. Referring to Sessions’ testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Flores stated: “there was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer." Flores is the Director of Public Affairs at the Department of Justice and is under Sessions supervision.

On March 1, 2017, in response to the Washington Post report, Sessions issued a statement through Flores: “I have never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.”

Sessions’ denials of the Washington Post report, and his assertion that the report was false, was itself false, misleading and dishonest. The Washington Post never reported that Sessions and Kislyak discussed issues of the campaign. Sessions’ statement about the Washington Post report included at least one lie.

Once the false statements before Congress became public knowledge, Sessions made the situation worse, Larrabee states:

Because Sessions’ testimony denying that he had communications with the Russians was false and misleading, it was dishonest for him to allow Flores to speak on his behalf and to assert that “there was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer."

On March 6, 2017, Sessions submitted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supplementing his testimony on January 10, 2017. (Letter from Sessions to Charles E. Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”)

Sessions claimed in the letter that his response to Franken, denying any communications with the Russians during the campaign, “was correct.” Rather than acknowledge the falsity of his prior testimony, Sessions willfully and deliberately insisted that his prior false testimony was correct. In doing so, Sessions made an additional material false statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee and attempted to conceal and cover up his prior false testimony and perjury.

This represents a violation of 18 U.S.C.  1001, Larrabee asserts. It's not unusual for individuals to go to prison for violating Sec. 1001, "Lying to Government Agents." The statute ensnared Martha Stewart, and Larrabee makes it clear that Sessions' issues go way beyond perjury. In fact, his issues go to the heart of possible criminality in the Trump administration:

The FBI and the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) are currently investigating links between associates of Trump, the Trump campaign and the Russian Government.

The individuals associated with the Trump campaign who were in contact with Russian officials include: Trump’s former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, Trump’s advisor and son in-law Jared Kushner, Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump’s foreign policy advisor Carter Page, Director of National Security for the Trump campaign J.D. Gordan and Sessions. None of these individuals were properly registered as agents of the Russian government under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 611, et. seq. Trump and his representatives repeatedly and falsely denied that these contacts with Russian officials occurred. . . .

All of this points to violations of United States Campaign Finance Act, 52 U.S.C. § 30121. Again, the Larrabee complaint goes way beyond Sessions and way beyond perjury:

Collusion with Russia by individuals associated with a political campaign, who are not registered as foreign agents of Russia, in order to aid Russia in influencing the election of the President of the United States, would be a criminal violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Kislyak and Sessions were likely in contact because of Sessions’ position and relationship with Trump and his campaign. Sessions was not part of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Except for his participation in the Trump campaign, there were few other reasons for the Russian ambassador to want to communicate with Sessions in the midst of an election. The primary reason Kislyak communicated with Sessions was his role in the Trump campaign, not his role as a Senator.

Sessions’ contacts with the Russian ambassador during the election campaign and his false and misleading statements denying these contacts are specific facts that give rise to a reasonable suspicion that Sessions was involved in criminal activity related to Russian interference with the 2016 election.

Let those words sink in for a moment: "Sessions was involved in criminal activity related to Russian interference with the 2016 election." This suggests a scandal that might dwarf Watergate in scope and seriousness.

And one of Alabama's senior political figures appears to be at the heart of it.

In light of our discovery about timing of evictions, a Missouri judge and a Show-Me lawyer (my brother, David Shuler) make a run up the "corruption Top 40"

David Shuler

Who is the most corrupt judge we have ever encountered? There is a lot of competition for that "honor," so it's hard to say, but Missouri Circuit Judge Kelly Halford Rose is making a strong push for the top spot. Who is the most corrupt lawyer we've seen? Again, the competition is stiff, but it's sad to say that my brother -- Springfield, Missouri-based David Shuler -- is moving up the charts, with a bullet.

Those are among the conclusions from our recent discovery that eviction proceedings in Missouri cannot start until the tenant is behind on rent by at least one month.

Why do we reach these conclusions, given the huge number of reptilian legal figures we've encountered over roughly 14 years in Alabama? To be sure, Alabama's legal dirt bags hold the lead based on volume of cheat jobs. But this stuff in Missouri, which Rose and David Shuler screwed up (with help from landlord Trent Cowherd and his lawyer, Craig Lowther), is so easy to get right. That they could not get the legal equivalent of 2 + 2 = 4 right, suggests an off-the-charts level of corruptness.

Consider Rose, the judge in our eviction case. The record before her showed that Lowther had filed a rent-and-possession petition on Cowherd's behalf on August 5, 2015. Someone tried to serve a summons on us the next day. When we appeared in court on August 27, the first words out of Rose's mouth, directed to Cowherd's lawyer, should have been, "How much were these folks behind on rent when you filed the petition?"

"Uh, five days, Your Honor."

"You didn't know they have to be late by at least one month before you can seek an eviction?"

"We were sorta hoping you wouldn't notice that."

"Well, I did notice it. And you will notice significant sanctions attached to your fannies if you don't learn to follow the law in this courtroom. Case dismissed."

That's all Rose had to say, but abiding by the law apparently is too much to ask of her. Same thing for David Shuler. My "Brilliant Lawyer Brother" (BLB) knew we were not remotely close to being one month late on rent when the petition was filed. Consider this e-mail he sent to me on 6/2/15:

Hi Roger: 

I hope you and Carol are doing well. Mom asked me to contact you regarding the lease on your duplex. She said she tried to talk to you about it when she recently stopped by to visit, but was unable to do so. She talked to the people at Cowherd Construction and they are willing to extend your lease without a co-signor in that the rent has always been paid in full and on time. The lady suggested that you meet Mom at their office on 6/29 and they would allow you to execute a new lease. This lease would be in your name and would be your responsibility. I do not know if they would require Carol to be on the lease. I would think that they would also want her to sign since she would be living there. I also do not know how they would handle the deposit and pet deposit since those were paid by Mom.

Mom will make the last rent payment on 6/29 which will cover the month of July. You have the option to renew and stay there or of course, you could vacate and pick some place else to live.

Again, I hope you guys are doing well. Mom just wanted me to e-mail this information to you to avoid any confusion.

This all sounds nice and sweet, right? But there is something important my brother failed to mention: There was no provision in the original lease that we had to execute a new lease if the co-signor wanted to back out; it said the original lease simply went month to month -- unless one of the parties gave proper notice that it did not plan to go month to month. Of course, any such decision by either party had to be based on provisions in the lease. If either party tried to act outside the lease -- as Cowherd did -- that becomes a legal issue called breach of contract.

Now, let's examine the ex parte letter my brother wrote to Judge Halford as our case was about to go to trial. The full letter is embedded at the end of this post, and here are the contents:

Dear Judge Halford:

I am writing regarding the above referenced case. Roger Shuler is my brother who has been estranged from my family for approximately 25 years. Recently, a family friend helped him relocate to the Missouri area. Unfortunately, my 85 year old mother made the mistake of agreeing to co-sign a lease for Roger with Trent Cowherd Construction. She agreed to pay his moving expenses and his rent for thirteen months to help him get back on his feet. She never dreamed that Roger Shuler would then refuse to pay his rent and/or vacate the property.

My purpose in writing this letter is to let you know that I intend to appear on behalf of my mother. Gondolyn Shuler intends to cooperate with the Petitioner (Trent Cowherd) in the matter and assist in any way to help them regain possession of the rental property currently occupied by Mr. Shuler.

You will notice that this is the unvarnished David Shuler, with all the phony sweetness and light removed. He says our mother made a mistake by trying to help Carol and me, as if that's a decision for him to make. Has our mother (and our father, when he was living) provided financial assistance to David and his family when they encountered rocky waters? I strongly suspect the answer is yes. But to help Carol and me? What a dreadful thought.

David then falsely claims I had refused to pay the rent or vacate the property. David's letter was dated August 21, 2015, meaning Cowherd still was at least 10 days short of being able to initiate eviction proceedings, much less have a court date. David Shuler conveniently ignores this little matter of law.

The second paragraph is so crooked that is makes the mind swim. From one side of his mouth, David claims to be representing our mother. From the other side, he admits that he (and our mother) are working on behalf of Trent Cowherd, trying to make sure Cowherd regained property that he was not entitled to regain because he untimely filed his rent-and-possession case.

"Fraud on the court" is a legal term that is more complex than most lay folks realize. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but this probably comes pretty close to a "fraud on the court." David Shuler admits he was representing one person when his real interest was in assisting another -- and he even roped our elderly mother in on such a crooked act.

I used to think Alabama was home to a special breed of corrupt legal animal. But I've discovered you can find the same sort of animals in Missouri and probably many other states -- they have no problem crossing state lines.

Despite multiple requests, David never served the below letter on me -- as he is required by law to do. I guess David wasn't so proud of his handiwork once he knew it had seen the light of day. Isn't that how cockroaches behave, constantly trying to avoid the light?

Washington Post story on Jeff Sessions' meetings with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak proves anonymous sources play a key role in unmasking corruption

Jeff Sessions
(From slate.com)

The Jeff Sessions Russia scandal has been portrayed largely as a story of politics and national security. But it also is a story of journalism -- and that angle has gone mostly unnoticed.

What stands out about the journalism that broke Sessions' communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak? It was based on anonymous sources, and if it brings down the Trump administration, it will be one of the biggest political stories of the past 100 years. Its likely strongest competitor, Watergate, also was based largely on anonymous sources.

We can't help but notice the irony in that. We have taken considerable criticism here at Legal Schnauzer for our infrequent use of anonymous sources. In fact, our use of anonymous sources has been limited mainly to reports on the Rob Riley/Liberty Duke and Luther Strange/Jessica Medeiros Garrison extramarital affairs.

The criticism, especially after we were sued for defamation on both stories, went something like this: "Well, Legal Schnauzer presented no evidence to back up his claims about the affairs." Even The New York Times, in reporting on my unlawful incarceration from the Riley/Duke case, went down that slippery slope. Wrote reporter Campbell Robertson:

For over six years, Roger Shuler has hounded figures of the state legal and political establishment on his blog, Legal Schnauzer, a hothouse of furious but often fuzzily sourced allegations of deep corruption and wide-ranging conspiracy. . . .

Starting in January 2013, Mr. Shuler, citing unidentified sources, began writing that Robert Riley Jr., the son of the former governor, had impregnated a lobbyist named Liberty Duke and secretly paid for an abortion. Both denied it, and Ms. Duke swore in an affidavit that they had never even been alone in the same room.

Fuzzily sourced? Robertson failed to note his own newspaper's regular use of anonymous sources. He also failed to follow up with a report that my reporting, as a matter of law, was found to be neither false nor defamatory in both the Riley/Duke and Strange/Garrison lawsuits.

My sourcing, and the evidence presented, was at the same level of that in the Jeff Sessions reporting. This is the first paragraph from The Washington Post article that broke the Sessions story:

Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said, encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow during Sessions’s confirmation hearing to become attorney general.

Bottom line: Post reporters based their story on anonymous sources. And no one, not even Jeff Sessions, has questioned the accuracy of their story.

Why did the Post grant anonymity to its sources? Probably because the sources, if they were named, would put their careers, maybe their lives, on the line. That's the same reason I've used anonymous sources on certain stories in Alabama's toxic political stew.

Those who are quick to criticize the use of anonymous sources might be wise to remember the Sessions story. It undoubtedly is accurate, and it likely would have never gotten to the public without anonymous sources -- and reporters who were willing to use them.

The bogus criminal counts against my wife, Carol, are called "cover charges," and they are designed to intimidate her from filing a police-brutality lawsuit

X-ray of Carol Shuler's broken arm

There is a name for the bogus assault charge Missouri officials have brought against my wife, Carol, related to our unlawful eviction in September 2015. It's called a "cover charge," and I wrote about the subject almost exactly one year before Carol was arrested based on cover charges.

A cover charge can happen when a corrupt law-enforcement agency, like the sheriff's department here in Greene County Missouri, has abused a citizen and needs a way to ward off a civil-rights lawsuit. The idea is to bring false criminal charges against the victim, hoping that will intimidate her into avoiding civil remedies.

A reasonable person might say, "My God, I can't believe cops would be underhanded enough to do that!" But quite a few of them are, and published reports indicate cover charges are not uncommon. From our post on the matter, published on February 11, 2016; Carol's arrest, based on cover charges for assault on a law enforcement officer and trespass, came on January 30, 2017:

An Occupy Wall Street activist named Cecily McMillan was the apparent victim of a "cover charge" in May 2014 in New York City. Aviva Shen also covered the McMillan story for Think Progress:

"Occupy Wall Street activist Cecily McMillan has been sentenced to 3 months in jail and five years probation for assaulting a police officer, a charge that sparked outrage and protests earlier this month. McMillan, who said she threw her elbow up behind her instinctively after the officer groped her breast, faced up to seven years in prison for felony assault. The perceived injustice inspired multiple petitions on McMillan’s behalf and close public scrutiny — but could the 25-year-old graduate student’s case help bring attention to others like her?

"Despite medical photographs of McMillan’s bruises, including a hand-shaped mark on her breast, Officer Grantley Bovell said McMillan attacked him unprovoked, and prosecutor Erin Choi said McMillan’s claims were “so utterly ridiculous and unbelievable that she might as well have said that aliens came down that night and assaulted her.” Grainy cell phone footage of the altercation makes it unclear whose version of events is accurate."

McMillan almost certainly was the victim of a cover charge, but she likely was convicted because the officer did suffer an injury when her elbow made contact near his eye -- and she had the misfortune of drawing a clueless jury and a prosecution-friendly judge. In Carol's case, no one has alleged an officer suffered the slightest scratch -- not even in Deputy Debi Wade's probable cause statement, which is a work straight out of Fantasy Island. (More on that in a series of upcoming posts.)

Missori deputy Debi Wade
(From Facebook)

So how is it that my wife, the victim of an assault, is facing charges for assault? According to Aviva Shen, of Think Progress, it happens quite often. Our guess is that the worse the cops abuse you, the more likely they are to bring charges that you abused them. From our "cover charge" post, quoting Shen's work:

McMillan’s conviction sparked a flurry of media coverage and a protest in Zuccotti Park. But her predicament is unfortunately quite common. Police often charge victims of brutality with anything from assault to disorderly conduct to discredit their claims of police misconduct. While it is nearly impossible to compile exact statistics on this practice, sometimes called “cover” arrests, video recording has helped expose a number of cases where police have wrongfully charged people or fabricated police reports to justify violence.

For instance, another Occupy activist was cleared last year of charges that he “charged the police like a linebacker” after video footage showed cops tackling him as he was trying to get up. In another high profile case, police charged two University of Maryland students with felony assault, claiming they attacked officers on horses after a basketball game. A month later, a video emerged showing the cops beating an unarmed student with batons over a dozen times for no apparent reason.

Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott knows he has problems for what was done to Carol. He's only heightened his problems by causing her to be falsely arrested and imprisoned. Landlord Trent Cowherd and his lawyer, Craig Lowther, likely know they have problems -- especially since Missouri law requires rent to be late by at least one month before eviction proceedings begin, and our rent was behind by five days. That means Cowherd and Lowther had no lawful grounds to seek an eviction when they did (via a rent and possession petition), and Arnott's gang had no grounds to be on the property when they were.

Have cops and their associates ever paid a dear price for bringing a "cover charge"? We don't know, but we intend to make sure those responsible for Carol's cover charge pay a dear price, indeed.

U.S. Sen. Al Franken comes to the clear conclusion, that Trump AG Jeff Sessions, of Alabama, committed perjury in making false statement to Congress

U.S. Senator Al Franken (D-MN) said last night he could reach no other conclusion than Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions committed perjury when he falsely stated under other that he had not communicated with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign.

Franken, who asked the questions that led to Sessions' false statement in a confirmation hearing, raised the perjury issue in interviews with CNN and MSNBC. In both interviews, Franken noted that Sessions (a former U.S. senator from Alabama) on Monday had filed a letter and supplemental answer to Congress, stating that his oral statement to Franken was "correct."

Franken called Sessions' letter "ridiculous" and "absurd." From an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper (see full interview at top of this post):

That's a ridiculous response. It's not a clarification at all. . . . He answered a question that he asked himself . . . and he answered it falsely.

I've been cutting him a lot of slack, refusing to say he lied, I wanted to wait for this letter to come out. It's hard to come to any other conclusion but he perjured himself. . . .

I think he should come before the committee and explain it. No one asked him about the Russian ambassador; he's the one who volunteered that information, that he didn't speak to anybody, and it turned out he had met twice with Russian ambassador, once in a private meeting.

He had seven weeks to notify us. This is about Russian government hijacking our election, and whether there was any collusion in that interference with the Trump campaign. . . .

It's very clear I did not push [Sessions] into saying, "I didn't meet with the Russians."

In his amendment letter to Congress, Sessions said he answered the Franken question "honestly." In an interview with MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, Franken wasn't buying it (Full interview is at end of this post):

Democrats on the committee asked why he didn't, in seven weeks after he misled us there, why he didn't correct it, and the response was absurd. He said, "Having considered my answer responsive and no one having suggested otherwise, there was no need for a supplemental answer. . . ." 

This is serious stuff. He is the second administration official who has lied about contact with the Russians, and it all goes to the fact Russians interfered with our elections. And the question is: Did the Trump campaign and its people collude with Russians?

What do Russians have on Trump? Why does he say all of these positive things about Putin? Why lie about taxes. Getting more and more disturbing all the time.

Franken first came to widespread public notice as a comedian. But he sees nothing funny about the evolving KremlinGate scandal:

I don't think it was gotcha question. Would you recuse yourself was basically what I was asking. Instead, he said he hadn't met with Russians, and of course, he had.

I think clear it's that something is desperately wrong.

The letter just sort of insults the intelligence in a way that is mind-boggling. That's why I say there is no other conclusion but that he committed perjury.

I would like him to come testify before the committee so he can explain it. This letter is ridiculous and insults the intelligence. . . . This is getting stranger and stranger. The clock is ticking. Was Trump campaign colluding to change our election?

According to its own policies, Missouri sheriff in our eviction case was supposed to be on "stand by" to preserve the peace while landlord actually evicted

Trent Cowherd and his wife, Sharon
(From Facebook)

Deputies who caused my wife's broken arm during an unlawful eviction in September 2015, according to their department's policies, were supposed to "stand by" while the landlord evicted us and regained the property.

That's how it's supposed to work in a normal eviction. In our situation, landlord Trent Cowherd had no grounds to evict at all, under at least four provisions of Missouri law -- including the fact he violated state law by initiating eviction proceedings before rent was late at least one month.

Policies of the Greene County Sheriff's Office make it clear that deputies are to play a passive role in an eviction, providing a presence to help ensure a potentially flammable situation does not catch fire. In our situation, Cowherd, or his representative, had the duty to evict.

So why did more than a half dozen deputies barge into our apartment, with assault weapons and handguns drawn? They probably would claim ours was a special situation because I allegedly had called 911 and threatened to shoot anyone who attempted to unlawfully evict us. Except I never made any such call, and an investigation will prove that.

Did someone place such a fake call under my name? Did someone falsely tell law enforcement I had made such a call? If so, said person soon will have serious legal issues, including possible criminal sanctions. The issues might be particularly thorny when you consider that deputies broke my wife Carol's arm so severely that it required trauma surgery -- and she's facing bogus criminal charges in an effort to cover up police misconduct.

Aside from that, it's clear the deputies who evicted us violated their own policies. This is from the "Civil Division -- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) " section of the Greene County Sheriff's Department Web site:

The tenant should be served with, or the property posted with, a summons and petition notifying them that a lawsuit has been filed and will have the opportunity to be heard in court before any eviction. Upon the Landlord receiving a judgment for possession and filing for a Writ to Execute on the judgment for possession, the GCSO will schedule a date and time with the plaintiff/Landlord within five business days to stand by while the Landlord evicts the Tenant and regains possession of the property. The Landlord has the responsibility of scheduling for a locksmith and staff required for moving of property if needed. 

Missouri State Statutes reference Landlord/Tenant Law RSMo. Chapters 441, 534 and 535

A law firm that represents landlords in Missouri eviction cases states on its Web site that it's standard for only one deputy to be present, and he usually remains in his vehicle during the eviction. This is from the FAQ section of the firm's Web site:

Q. Do I need to be present at the eviction?

Yes. On the day of the eviction, you must be available to “greet” the Deputy Sheriff. The Deputy will usually pull up to the location of the eviction in a marked patrol car. Typically, the Deputy will not leave the car. It is up to you to go to the car and identify yourself as the landlord or landlord’s representative. You will then need to identify the entry door to the rental property and will sign a document authorizing the Deputy to use force to enter if necessary. Generally, you either need to have a key to the rental property so that the Deputy can enter or have a locksmith available to provide access.

Deputies hardly were on "stand-by" mode during our eviction. My wife, Carol, has the hardware in her arm to prove it.

Russia scandal and false statements to Congress could lead to discipline for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, possibly putting Alabama State Bar in the spotlight

Victoria Vuletich
(From cooley.edu)

The Russia scandal engulfing the Donald Trump administration could put Attorney General Jeff Sessions' law license in jeopardy and provide possible grounds for his removal from office, according to a Michigan law professor.

Victoria V. Vuletich, professor at Western Michigan University's Cooley Law School, said Sessions' statements to Congress, failing to disclose his communications with a Russian ambassador, could make him subject to bar discipline. That means the Alabama State Bar could play a central role in a scandal that threatens to bring Sessions' political life to an ignominious close.

The Alabama State Bar is known for its rightward political leanings and lack of strong ethical underpinnings. We have seen evidence, though, that the bar will suspend a lawyer for making false statements under oath. Would the organization impose discipline on perhaps its most prominent member? We have doubts, but Vuletich says the bar could wind up with an obligation to examine Sessions' statements to the U.S. Senate during his confirmation hearings. Says Vuletich:

As a licensed attorney, Attorney General Sessions must adhere to Alabama Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c), which states that it is professional misconduct for an attorney to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Failing to disclose material information can be deemed fraudulent and dishonest if the statement would lead the listener to a different conclusion than if the information had been disclosed. If a complaint is filed with the Alabama legal disciplinary agency, it is likely that Attorney General Sessions would be subject to, at minimum, a pubic reprimand and possibly suspension of his license to practice law. It would be highly inappropriate to have a sitting Attorney General be the subject of professional discipline.

Could Sessions serve as attorney general without a law license? We have not been able to find a clear-cut answer to that question, but it appears the answer is yes. Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon had their law licenses removed and remained as president. Members of the U.S. Supreme Court are not required to be lawyers. We suspect Sessions could remain as AG, even without a law license. But how bad would it look?

Attorney Bill Swatek, who has family
ties to Jeff Sessions

Vuletich suggests she would find such an outcome deeply troubling -- and she is not a lightweight on such matters. From her bio:

She is a frequent presenter on legal ethics issues. Professor Vuletich is former chairperson of the American Bar Association (ABA) Center for Professional Responsibility Continuing Legal Education Committee. She was a member of the ABA Standing Committee on Client Protection 2004-2008. She is a member of the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility Policy Implementation Committee.

Most recently, Professor Vuletich was a guest lecturer at Hertford College, Oxford University, United Kingdom.

As for the Alabama State Bar's history of imposing discipline on a lawyer for making false statements under oath, we are most familiar with a case from the early 1980s involving Shelby County attorney William E. Swatek. Here's how we described issues in the Swatek case:

In the late 1970s, Swatek represented a Pelham policeman named Johnny Bailey in an employment case. During depositions, Swatek allowed opposing counsel to use his office for what they thought was a private meeting. But Swatek surreptitiously tape recorded them. The opposing attorneys found the running tape recorder and confronted Swatek with it. He eventually told multiple bar committees that he knew nothing about the recorder, it had been his client's idea to use it. Swatek was charged with perjury, and somehow was acquitted at trial, even though the following section from the audiotape was presented to the jury:

William E. Swatek and Johnny Bailey on cassette tape taken by Paul G. Smith from Swatek's office on May 30, 1979:

Swatek: "Testing . . . one . . . two . . . three . . . four . . . five . . . "

Bailey: ". . . 'cause that's the one probably to use, or do you want to use that one?"

Swatek: "I'd rather use this one, 'cause you can't hear it at all, and I can stick it down under the desk and . . . "

Swatek obviously knew about the tape recording. He decided which recorder to use, where to place it, and he tested it. He clearly lied under oath to the bar committees about it. But still a jury -- which almost had to somehow be tainted--found him not guilty.

Swatek, in a criminal case that had to be fixed, was found not guilty of perjury. But the Alabama State Bar did suspend his license for acts of "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation." -- one of at least three times the bar has publicly disciplined Swatek. You will note the "dishonesty, fraud . . . " language is the same provision Prof. Vuletich cites from Sec. 8.4(c).

How is this for irony? Swatek's son, Dax Swatek, is a GOP operative who has worked for . . . Jeff Sessions, among others. And Bill Swatek, more than any other "human," has caused the legal agony my wife, Carol, and I have suffered for roughly 17 years -- mainly by unethically representing Mike McGarity, our criminally inclined neighbor in Birmingham.

Maybe karma will bring down Sessions, along with some of the Alabama dirt bags who have ridden his coat tails.

Below are two videos about Bill Swatek's disciplinary history: