Missouri deputy Jeremy Lynn admits he caused physical contact with my wife, Carol -- not the other way around -- meaning she is innocent of assault

Deputy Jeremy Lynn

The Missouri deputy my wife, Carol, allegedly assaulted during an eviction in September 2015 admits in his incident report that he initiated contact with Carol, not the other way around. Officer Jeremy Lynn, in his own words, reveals that Carol did not commit "Assault of a Law Enforcement Officer, Third Degree." as described by Missouri law.

This is significant for several reasons:

(1) The charge involving Jeremy Lynn is the only one remaining against Carol, but since Lynn admits Carol did not cause physical contact with him, the charge must be dropped and the case closed.

(2) Lynn's statement suggests Officer Debi Wade provided false information in her Probable Cause (PC) Statement when she claimed an unknown individual "advised" her that Carol pushed Lynn repeatedly. Lynn himself does not say Carol pushed him, repeatedly or at all, so one or more officers on the scene appear to be lying.

(3) As often happens when fabrications are in play, the liars can't keep their stories straight. Debi Wade claims Carol pushed Jeremy Lynn; Lynn says that did not happen. Oops!

It's undisputed there was contact between Carol and Jeremy Lynn. Carol says she was thrown face-first against a wall (possibly hard enough to cause a concussion) when Lynn burst through the front door of our rented duplex apartment. Lynn grabbed her arms from behind and someone (probably Lynn) slammed her head against the wall several more times while she was being placed in handcuffs.

Here is the key question under Missouri law: Did Carol "knowingly cause physical contact" with Jeremy Lynn?

Specifics can be found under Count 1 of the Misdemeanor Information (MI) filed against Carol by Greene County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson. (The MI and related documents are embedded at the end of this post.) Count 1 reads, in relevant part:

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 . . . in that on September 9, 2015, in the County of Greene, State of Missouri, the defendant knowingly caused physical contact with Jeremy Lynn, a law enforcement officer, without the consent of Jeremy Lynn, by pushing him.

Did that really happen? Let's consider a key section of Officer Lynn's statement from the incident report. (The report and related documents are embedded at the end of this post.) Lynn describes using a key to open the door and seeing me sitting calmly in a chair. He then states the following:

There was a female, however, that had been trying to force the door closed and she was standing just behind the door and trying again to force it closed. She was very aggressive and fighting against the door. She was grabbed by her arms and restrained to stop her from harming one of us or herself. During this process she was pulling her arms away from me and tried to push me back with her arms and body. She was told to calm down repeatedly and ignored those commands. She was eventually handcuffed and taken outside.

What do we learn here?

(1) Lynn says he grabbed Carol by the arms -- he caused physical contact with her.

(2) Lynn says Carol was trying to pull away from him; she didn't "get physical" with him or "push him repeatedly," as Debi Wade claims. Lynn grabbed Carol, and she tried to pull away.

(3) Lynn then claims Carol "tried to push [him] back with arms and body." This is pure nonsense. Lynn already has stated Carol pulled away, and now he's claiming she "tried" to push him. How can one pull and push at the same time? Those are contradictory terms, and indicate Lynn's whole statement is rubbish.

For the record, Lynn claims Carol "tried" to push him, but he never says that she did push him. Under the law, the "push" issue is irrelevant. Missouri law clearly frames the question: Who caused contact with whom, against whose will?

Jeremy Lynn admits that he grabbed Carol, that he caused physical contact, not the other way around.

It could not be more clear that this is a baseless charge. Jeremy Lynn, the supposed "victim," essentially admits that. So, why does Carol still have this joke of a criminal case hanging over her head? Why does she still have a court appearance on Sept. 20? Why did PA Dan Patterson bring these charges in the first place?

We will address those and other questions in upcoming posts. But for now, we know this for sure: Carol Tovich Shuler did not "assault" a law enforcement officer. The officer in question, Jeremy Lynn, admits she didn't/

If Carol "assaulted" a cop at the start of our Missouri eviction, why did officers wait until the end to make arrest, when "victim" admits he caused contact?

Jeremy Lynn, his wife, and a hay bale

Of the many perplexing questions surrounding our unlawful eviction in Missouri, one near the top of the list is this: If my wife, Carol, "assaulted" deputy Jeremy Lynn as he burst through the door of our rented apartment at the beginning of the eviction -- as officers and prosecutors claim -- why did they wait roughly 30 minutes to arrest her, near the end of the eviction?

We now know the answer to that question: Carol did not "assault" Jeremy Lynn by pushing him as he entered our apartment. In his own incident report, Lynn makes no mention of Carol pushing him. In fact, Lynn admits that he caused contact with Carol, not the other way around. And under Missouri law, the central question in an alleged case of "assault of a law enforcement officer" is: Who caused contact with whom, without that person's consent? In this case, Jeremy Lynn admits he was the one who caused contact, and that means Carol is innocent of the assault charge against her -- according to the alleged "victim's" own words.

That leads to a related perplexing question: Why did officers wait until near the end of the eviction to arrest Carol and claim she had committed a crime? Well, we now know the answer to that question, too. It wasn't until the end of the eviction, as Carol was trying to gather some of our personal belongings (which cops had given her permission to do), that they brutalized her -- slamming her butt-first to the ground and yanking on her arms in an upward and backward motion. She had not threatened them, she had not violated any directives -- but three cops surrounded her and participated in a group beat-down, with an unknown cop coming from behind (we call him "Mr. Blue Shirt" because that's what he wore, while others generally wore black) and doing most of the damage.

Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott saw all this from a few feet away and immediately pointed a finger at Carol and said, "She assaulted a law enforcement officer." Arnott likely knew this was a blatant case of police brutality, so he on-the-spot concocted a "cover charge," in a brazen attempt to place blame on Carol and deflect it from his officers. That's how the mind of a corrupt sheriff operates.

But it creates a problem for Arnott. Greene County Prosecuting Attorney (PA) Dan Patterson did not bring any charges against Carol from the end of the eviction. She is charged only with the alleged push of Jeremy Lynn -- and incident reports from four officers claim that took place near the beginning of the eviction. Never mind that Jeremy Lynn himself makes no mention of it, admitting that he "caused contact" with Carol. (Incident reports are embedded at the end of this post.)

Officer Debi Wade, in her Probable Cause (PC) Statement, claims Carol "barreled into [her] head first." But PA Patterson must not have thought too much of that claim, which purely is a product of Wade's vivid imagination, because he did not charge Carol with it in his Misdemeanor Information (MI). (The PC Statement and MI are embedded at the end of this post.)

What are the MI and PC Statement, and how do they work together under Missouri law? The MI is the charging document in misdemeanor cases, providing the defendant with notice of what he allegedly did. The PC Statement is evidentiary in nature. It, in theory, is to provide evidence to support the charges in the MI.

An attorney connected to Carol's case recently advised us, in so many words, that charges involving the alleged Debi Wade incident did not have to be in the MI because Wade wrote the PC Statement -- and that means her allegations are automatically incorporated into the MI.

This, like much of what attorneys say, is horse manure -- and it raises serious questions about this attorney's integrity, competence or both. We will explain why that contention is horse manure in an upcoming post.

But first, let's revisit Jeremy Lynn's own words about what happened as he entered our apartment, owned by landlord Trent Cowherd. Lynn describes using a key to open the door and seeing me sitting calmly in a chair. He then states the following:

There was a female, however, that had been trying to force the door closed and she was standing just behind the door and trying again to force it closed. She was very aggressive and fighting against the door. She was grabbed by her arms and restrained to stop her from harming one of us or herself. During this process she was pulling her arms away from me and tried to push me back with her arms and body. She was told to calm down repeatedly and ignored those commands. She was eventually handcuffed and taken outside.

The female in question was Carol, and we learn two key points here:

(1) Lynn admits he "caused contact" with Carol by grabbing her arms and restraining her;

(2) Lynn admits that Carol reacted by "pulling away" from him. How could Carol push him as she was trying to pull way. As a matter of common sense, she couldn't.


So, what is the reality here? Carol knew, because we had timely filed a Notice of Appeal (with appropriate fees) the day before, that the eviction was stayed, by law. In fact, we recently published a post that included multiple documents -- our Notice of Appeal, a document showing the Notice had been filed electronically filed and was available for attorneys via secure case.net, plus a letter that the Missouri Court of Appeals had received our notice.

There was a mountain of evidence in the docket, showing the eviction had been stayed. And yet, Carol has a strange man -- with no lawful grounds for being there -- entering her home and grabbing her. Did she push him? The strange man admits she did not. Did she instinctively try to pull away. Yes, she did, but that's not a crime under Missouri law.

So why did PA Dan Patterson bring the charges? Why has a clearly baseless case been hanging over our heads for roughly eight months? Why does Carol face another court appearance, on September 20, when she has filed multiple pro se documents that show there is no probable cause to support the one remaining charge against her -- that she pushed Jeremy Lynn, even though his own words show it didn't happen? Why has Judge Margaret Holden Palmietto apparently refused to read or consider Carol's filings, which should have brought this sham case to a close months ago?

We will examine those questions, and more, in upcoming posts.


(To be continued)

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

Jeremy Lynn

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

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

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

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

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

* Lynn has mostly horse feces between his ears;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Victim's" own words do not support assault charge against Carol, so prosecutors seem to be employing "clown commenters" to engage in pretzel logic

Jeremy Lynn

As a blogger, I know I've hit a nerve when anonymous comments start flying in, filled with twisted "facts" in an apparent effort to change the tone of conversation -- and maybe my reporting. My posts on Ashley Madison have been drawing attacks from such "comment squadrons" for months, and yet no one has come close to showing my AM posts are inaccurate. More recently, posts about criminal charges brought in Missouri against my wife, Carol, have come under such attacks. (See here and here.) They tend to leave me amazed and amused at the lengths some folks will go in an effort to con Legal Schnauzer readers. Be assured the attackers -- we've come to call them "clown commenters" or "CC" for short -- will not be successful. But it's comical to watch them try.

The CCs particularly have come unglued over posts showing that Officer Jeremy Lynn, the supposed "victim" in the assault of a law enforcement officer charge against Carol, admits in a written narrative that he caused contact with Carol, not the other way around. That's important because RSMo 565.083 holds that the central issue in the charge against Carol is whether she "knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical contact with a law enforcement officer." The Probable Cause Statement claims Carol "got physical" with Lynn and "pushed him repeatedly," even thought the statement's author -- Officer Debi Wade -- admits she did not witness such an event and only was "advised" of it by an unknown individual, who remains a "ghost" to this day.

Lynn resolves the matter when he writes in an incident report about his encounter with Carol as he broke into our home for an unlawful eviction on Sept. 9, 2015. These are Lynn's own words:

There was a female, however, that had been trying to force the door closed and she was standing just behind the door and trying again to force it closed. She was very aggressive and fighting against the door. She was grabbed by her arms and restrained to stop her from harming one of us or herself. During this process she was pulling her arms away from me and tried to push me back with her arms and body. She was told to calm down repeatedly and ignored those commands. She was eventually handcuffed and taken outside.

This, especially the part in yellow, tells us all we need to know, under Missouri law. In the first two sentences, Lynn claims Carol made contact with a door -- and that apparently is based on the word of a "ghost" -- but he doesn't say she made contact with him. Then come the key words: "She was grabbed by her arms and restrained . . . " That's the first human-to-human contact described, and it involves Lynn grabbing Carol. Since he "knowingly caused contact" with Carol, she could not have caused contact with him. She could not be guilty of "assault on a law enforcement officer" -- case closed. In fact, what Lynn describes is an assault against Carol, by a thug/cop who had no lawful grounds to be on our rented property, much less breaking into our living quarters.

Clown commenters -- we suspect they are connected to the Office of Greene County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson -- know Lynn's words don't look good for their side. So they have engaged in pretzel logic, twisting words in a way that produces utter nonsense. Here are the key goofy points they try to make:

(1) "Caused contact," under the Missouri statute, does not mean "initiated contact"; it has some mystical meaning that only the commenter knows -- even though he can't describe it.

(2) By Carol allegedly pushing on the door -- and no named accuser is known to have witnessed that -- it caused Lynn to restrain her. In other words, Carol forced Lynn to grab her. (I told you these folks can twist words!)

(3) Carol kicked and flailed against Lynn, words that aren't even present in the PC Statement or the Misdemeanor Information.

Why do we think these comments might come from someone in the Greene County prosecutor's office? Well, they started with an Oct. 18 post titled "What was Prosecutor Dan Patterson thinking when he brought State v. Carol Shuler, a criminal case that provides no evidence of a crime being committed." Is someone trying to protect Patterson's reputation from blow back for bringing a case that, even the "victim" admits, has no basis in fact? That's how it looks from here. Let's take a look at the first clown comment:

FYI "caused contact" does not mean "initiated contact" - even if it did, which it doesn't, Carol pushing a door against the officer led to him restraining her or attempting to. The complaint lays out that when he did this, she fought him. She pushed pulled, flailed against him, kicking, using her body to bump him, etc. IOW fighting the restraint instead of submitting or being still. He describes that contact in sufficient detail to support the charge.

If there is a defense (such as his illegal presence, etc.) for that fighting against the officer with kick and body blows, that is a different issue. If she was justified in resisting, attempting to push the officer away or to escape his grasp would not be a crime.

She did cause contact. The relevant contact in the complaint to support the charge is distinct from the contact he decided to make with her (to grab her arms IIRC)

Here is my response to this example of brilliant legal "reasoning":

Nice try, but you are wrong. Caused contact means exactly what it says. The cop grabbed Carol, not the other way around. Try actually reading the Probable Cause Statement. Debi Wade, the author of it, admits she didn't witness Carol do anything -- rather, she was "advised" by an unnamed person. You say. "He [Lynn?] describes that contact in sufficient detail to support the charge." Lynn doesn't describe it at all. Debi Wade describes it, based on the word of an unknown "adviser." That does not come close to supporting probable cause, and it violates Carol's Sixth Amendment right to confront her accuser.

In essence there is no accuser in this case. Jeremy Lynn doesn't accuse Carol of assault and neither does Debi Wade. No known person accuses Carol of anything. No named person says Carol pushed against a door, touched Jeremy Lynn, or did anything that remotely constitutes a crime. On top of that, you are just pulling a lot of stuff out of your ass. Even the "adviser" doesn't claim Carol "flailed," or "kicked," or "bumped" anyone. You must be a cop because you sure lie and make stuff up like one.

Finally, Carol is charged with assaulting an officer, not "fighting the restraint" or "failing to submit" or whatever else you can find in your anal cavity. She's not charged with "resisting" because she wasn't under arrest. You should apply at the Greene County Sheriff's Office because your utter lack of knowledge about the law matches theirs. Even if she touched a door, and no named person claims she did, she made contact with her own door, not Jeremy Lynn. If you think that qualifies as an "assault" under Missouri law, you truly are out to lunch.

The essence of the assault claim, under Missouri law, is who caused contact with whom. Jeremy Lynn admits he grabbed Carol, and you seem to admit the same thing -- that he grabbed her and tried to restrain her, even though his own words show she was trying to get away from him.

I notice that you don't cite any law to support your contentions, and that's because there isn't any.

Here are two words to describe you and your comment -- weak and pathetic (and pitiful, make that three words). If you want to try to defend your position, contact me by private email or phone, and I will be glad to discuss. Look forward to hearing from you.

Did the commenter contact me to directly to discuss these matters? Of course not. But that didn't stop him from trying to twist the discussion to fit his own agenda. Here's a follow-up comment, which was attached to the same post on Oct. 19:

Yes, trying to push an officer back by whacking him with a door can be a crime. But after gaining entry, and making the choice to restrain Carol, even if he makes "first contact" if she kicks, pushes, or throws her body weight against him in an attempt to get away, that is "causing contact." This is what is alleged to have occurred, and it is a sufficient basis to charge. Causing contact isn't limited to initiating contact, and the officer initiating contact doesn't excuse any pushing, kicking, or bumping or other fighting on Carol's part. If the officer had a good faith basis to enter the premises and restrain Carol, her fighting back in the ways described is a crime, even if the officer isn't hurt.

Here's a question that changes nothing, but which you have never fully explained. What did Carol,think she was going to accomplish by pushing, kicking, and throwing her weight against the officer attempting to restrain her? Or even fighting against the door, for that matter? She had to have understood that the officers would gain entry and that barricading or shutting the door against the officers was of no practical use. These are officers who believed they were there to carry out a court ordered eviction, and who had received information that you were potentially dangerous. What was the rational, practical benefit to be gained by her reaction? A better way to deal with the situation would have been to begin preparing to move, since it was clear the landlord wanted you to leave (and you weren't even paying rent.) You could have sued for damages after the fact if they breached your lease, you know.

The "clown commenter" quickly followed up with this:

Caused contact does not mean initiated, it means caused. You cause contact if you deliberately push someone, or put your hands on them. Every time she threw her weight against him or pushed him would be "causing contact." It's not a game of who started, it's did she deliberately make contact with the officer. You can ask her public defender.

As you can see, he's starting to repeat himself, so it was not hard for me to respond:

Back for more, I see, and still no citations to law to support anything you say. Gee, that's a surprise. A few points:

(1) You admit the officer initiated (caused) contact. Good deal. For those who know Missouri law, that means case closed.

(2) You describe Carol pushing, kicking, putting force on door etc. Please give the name of the person who witnessed this and put it in the Probable Cause Statement.

(3) You ask about why Carol "fought against the door," etc. You seem to accept that as true. Please provide the name of the person who witnessed those events and provided that information?

(4) Why do I need to ask a public defender anything? You've made no citation to law to ask about. Give me a citation to law, and I'll be glad to ask about it.

(5) Why haven't you contacted me for discussion? I made that good-faith offer, but it's been "crickets" from you. Why?

In the wake of this back and forth, we've presented case law that proves this clown has no clue on the matters at hand:

(1) There is no difference between "causing contact" and "initiating contact" 

Under Missouri law, per State v. Armstrong, 968 SW 2d 154 (Mo. Court of Appeals, 1998), these two terms mean the same thing. From the Armstrong ruling:

There was evidence indicating that the victim of the assault had arrested or was attempting to arrest Appellant when Appellant launched himself backwards into the deputy, knocking him off his feet and into a ditch. It is certainly reasonable to infer that the officer did not give his consent to being knocked down, as well as consent to other physical contact upon himself.

We do not view the State's two witnesses as being in direct contradiction, as one was not sure how the contact was initiated, but the other witness was.

The key question under Armstrong? Who initiated contact with whom? The answer in Carol's case? According to Jeremy Lynn's own words, it was him.

(2) Making contact with an inanimate object does not mean one has made contact with a living being

Our clown commenter claims that pushing on a door -- which no specific witness claims Carol did -- is the same as pushing on Jeremy Lynn. Missouri's appellate courts disagree, per a case styled JDB v. Juvenile Officer, 2 SW 3d 150 (Mo. Court of Appeals, 1999). JDB involved a juvenile who decided it would be fun to circle and then chase after the car of a woman (Ms. Hord) who lived nearby. In a roundabout chain of events, the juvenile was charged with third-degree assault. From the JDB opinion:

Ms. Hord testified that, at some time during the late afternoon or evening hours on that day, J.D.B. and two of his friends, wearing Halloween masks, surrounded her car and "gyrat[ed] their hips in a sexual manner." Ms. Hord became "upset" and left to run errands. Later that evening, at approximately 8:20, Ms. Hord again encountered the three teens while she was outside near her mailbox. When she saw them approaching, Ms. Hord got in her car and locked the doors. She testified that the boys again surrounded her car, this time holding the masks in their hands and also one of the boys "[n]ot J.D.B., [a]nother one" was carrying a plastic "machete." Ms. Hord testified the boys were again gyrating their hips and that J.D.B. was right next to her driver's side window "pumping his hips right into the car, so the car was moving."

Did the juveniles contact with Ms. Hord's car amount to an assault, even though he never touched her? The court answered in the negative:

This court has previously defined physical contact sufficient to constitute an assault as "the touching of the person of another or something so intimately associated with, or attached to his person to be regarded as a part thereof." State v. Greathouse, 789 S.W.2d 50, 52 (Mo.App., 1990).

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, the only possible evidence of contact between Ms. Hord and J.D.B. was Ms. Hord's testimony that the juvenile was pushing against her car in such a manner that the car was moving. There is also J.D.B.'s testimony that he would apologize for scratching Ms. Hord's vehicle, which he then claimed was done not by him but by another of the juveniles. There is no evidence in the record of any contact that J.D.B. had with Ms. Hord's actual person. In order to support a conviction under this theory of assault, it must be found that the juvenile's contact with Ms. Hord's car was with something so intimately associated with or attached to her as to be considered a part of her person. The juvenile officer cites to no authority that would support such a finding, and this court can find no such Missouri authority.

As in J.D.B., there is no evidence that Carol made contact with Jeremy Lynn's actual person; in fact, he admits he initiated contact with her person. There is no admissible evidence -- other than hearsay of the highest order, from a "ghost" -- that Carol even made contact with the door. Once again, our clown commenter makes an argument that has no support under Missouri law.

(3) He who grabs first, commits the crime

Finally, we have State v. Raymond, (Mo. Court of Appeals, Eastern Dist., 2004), which involved a district attorney who became upset with two state troopers over the way they handled money seized in a pending case and wound up physically throwing one of the troopers out of his office. Before flying out the door, the trooper momentarily grabbed the DA in a headlock before deciding that was a bad idea and released him. This was a case of both parties making contact, but the trial court found the DA initiated contact and pronounced him guilty of assault of a law enforcement officer, third degree -- the same offense facing Carol. The verdict was upheld on appeal.

Even if you accept the clown commenter's assertions as true -- and they are not supported by statements from anyone on the scene that day -- Jeremy Lynn admits to causing physical contact with Carol. Even if she made incidental contact with him after being grabbed -- and there is no evidence that she did -- that does not amount to assault of a law enforcement officer, as a matter of law.


It's always interesting when someone makes a claim regarding a legal matter, but they can't make a single citation to law that supports their contention. That's the case with this clown. But we have pointed to plenty of citations that show he is wrong.

Corruption among cops and correctional officers is a hot topic after Jeffrey Epstein's "suicide," but we've seen this disturbing reality play out in an up-close way

Debi Wade

Corruption among law-enforcement and correctional officers has become a hot topic since the so-called suicide of alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein in New York City.

It's not a new subject here at Legal Schnauzer because we've seen the corruption firsthand, perhaps most glaringly in the case where Greene County (MO) deputies broke my wife Carol's arm during an unlawful eviction and then hit HER with the bogus charge of "assaulting a law-enforcement officer."

Why should this be a particularly troubling topic for anyone living in the US of A? Countless Americans wind up behind bars, based almost totally on the words and observations of law-enforcement officers (LEOs). Because of that, many of our countrymen tend to view LEOs as exceptionally honest people, who take their authority seriously. Those who hold that viewpoint might want to give it a second thought after examining the actions of Missouri deputies in the "assault on an LEO" case against Carol.

We've already shown that Judge Jerry Harmison Jr.'s guilty verdict against Carol was procured via perjured testimony from Deputy Scott Harrison -- and we will have more on that subject in an upcoming post. The perjured testimony, under Missouri law, is a fraud on the court and requires that the judgment be set aside -- or, based on U.S. Supreme Court law -- vacated. (More on that in an upcoming post.)

Harrison was not the only cop-witness in Carol's case to play fast and loose with the truth. In fact, his three colleagues -- Jeremy Lynn, Debi Wade, and Christian Conrad -- all made statements under oath at trial that conflicted with their written statements in incident reports or the Probable Cause Statement (which Wade wrote). That means they, too, committed perjury or they filed false police reports -- both of which are crimes -- and like Harrison, they are subject to criminal prosecution.

In her Motion to Vacate Judgment That Was Procured by Fraud, Perjury, etc., Carol examines the dishonest statements of cops under oath. This all presents disturbing evidence that cops -- despite their ability to deprive citizens of freedom -- are less truthful than the average person. (Carol's motion is embedded at the end of this post, along with video evidence that Deputy Harrison committed perjury.) We'll start with Debi Wade, and Carol's motion is supported with relevant exhibits:

DEBI WADE (Exh. C, No. 2) 

Per Probable Cause Statement (9/22/15): “Just as [Carol] appeared to be getting into the passenger side door to the car, she started screaming that she needed her cat’s litter box. I was trying to tell her that I would go back into the residence for it, when she suddenly took off on a dead run toward the front door to the residence. Knowing that Deputy Harrison would be exiting that door any moment, I feared that she would catch him off guard, so I jogged up behind Carol and attempted to tell her that I would get the litter box for her. Just as I caught up to her, she suddenly pivoted and barreled into me head first. I was caught off guard . . .” 

Per Incident Report (9/10/15):“I came up on her right side from behind her and was making an attempt to calm her down when she suddenly pivoted around on me and immediately charged into me head first. It happened so fast that it caught me off guard . . .” 

Per trial testimony (5/17/18): “Carol Shuler than charged Wade like a bull since she wanted in the residence, but the doors were being locked. Carol Shuler was handcuffed and placed in Harrison’s car. She threw herself against the cage and car door once in the vehicle.”

Summary: In her previous statements, Wade said she came up from behind Carol Shuler, and described Carol turning around and the two running into each other. Both Carol and Roger Shuler testified at trial that Wade and Carol never made contact with each other – that Wade was in front of Carol on the porch, and they were talking in a fairly standard manner, when “Mr. Blue Shirt” brutalized Carol and broke her arm. Neither version of Wade’s story actually happened, but assuming something like that did occur, Wade’s earlier statements describe an accident, where Carol Shuler turned around, not knowing Wade was there, and a collision ensued. Wade is describing an accident, which is not a crime and might be the reason even DA Dan Patterson did not charge it. At trial, Wade changes her tune, placing herself in front of Carol and making Carol’s alleged act seem more intentional. Also, Wade repeats the “throwing herself against the cage” canard, even though Dep. Harrison admits Carol might have been seat-belted the whole time, making it impossible for her to throw herself about.

Debi Wade wrote the Probable Cause Statement, so Carol's arrest and prosecution was based totally on her word. And yet, you can see that Wade is so reckless with the truth that she makes no discernible effort to ensure her accounts match each other. What about Jeremy Lynn, the guy Carol supposedly pushed as he unlawfully entered our residence, amounting to an "assault"? He's no better than Wade:

JEREMY LYNN (Exh. C, No. 1)

Per incident report (9/21/15): “Mrs. Shuler then grew very upset and became emotional and charged towards the front door. Lt. Wade tried to explain to her that she would get something if she needed it. Mrs. Shuler then tried to force her way past Lt. Wade with her head dropped. She intentionally ran directly into Lt. Wade. Lt. Wade then backed up and bladed herself away from her.”

Per trial testimony (5/17/18): “After backing her car back, [Carol Shuler] started back in the residence and was told she could not go in again. At this point, she lowered her head and charged Lieutenant Wade.” Lynn proceeds to say he “observed her thrusting around in all four directions and yelling loudly,” even though Harrison admitted Ms. Shuler may have been seat belted throughout her stay in the patrol car, which would have made such action impossible.

Summary: Lynn appears to have Lt. Wade in front of Ms. Shuler throughout this incident and insists Ms. Shuler engaged in a thrusting motion in the patrol car, even though Officer Harrison admits she may have been seat-belted the entire time.

The key point, regarding Lynn's statements, is that he has Wade in front of Carol throughout the "bulling incident" (which didn't happen) -- and that is consistent with testimony from Carol and me, and it directly contradicts Waid. These Keystone Cops can't even support each other's version of events.

Lynn's trial testimony regarding the alleged push also differed from his written incident report. This is from Harmison's judgment, about Lynn's trial statement: "Lynn grabbed the person behind the door [Carol] and pulled her out to apprehend her. Carol Shuler kept pushing Lynn and trying to pull away from him to resist custody."

Here are Lynn's own words from his incident report: "She was grabbed by her arms and restrained to stop her from harming one of us or herself. During this process she was pulling her arms away from me and tried to push me back with her arms and body."

We summarized Lynn's written statement in an earlier post:

What do we learn here?

(1) Lynn says he grabbed Carol by the arms -- he caused physical contact with her.

(2) Lynn says Carol was trying to pull away from him; she didn't "get physical" with him or "push him repeatedly," as Debi Wade claims. Lynn grabbed Carol, and she tried to pull away.

(3) Lynn then claims Carol "tried to push [him] back with arms and body." This is pure nonsense. Lynn already has stated Carol pulled away, and now he's claiming she "tried" to push him. How can one pull and push at the same time? Those are contradictory terms, and indicate Lynn's whole statement is rubbish.

For the record, Lynn claims Carol "tried" to push him, but he never says that she did push him. Under the law, the "push" issue is irrelevant. Missouri law clearly frames the question: Who caused contact with whom, against whose will?

Jeremy Lynn admits that he grabbed Carol, that he caused physical contact, not the other way around.

The bottom line: Officer Lynn said in his original written statement that Carol did not push him. At trial, under oath, he changed his tune and claimed she did push him -- even though, in both instances, he said Carol was trying to pull away from him. How can someone pull away and push someone at the same time? I took enough high-school physics to know that can't be done. One of Jeremy Lynn's statements is false, and either way, he committed a crime for which he is subject to prosecution.

What about Officer Christian Conrad? Well, he has a fractured relationship with the truth, too:

CHRISTIAN CONRAD (Exh C, No. 3)

Per Incident Report (9/22/15): “Carol then went out to their vehicle and placed another bag in the trunk. She then began walking back towards the house and took off running towards the front door. Carol ran toward Lt. Wade on the front side walk . . . “

Per Trial Testimony (5/17/18): “Conrad later saw Carol Shuler charge Wade and run into her . . . On cross-examination Conrad verified he saw Carol Shuler “out of control” in the back of Harrison’s vehicle, as she was thrashing and screaming loudly.

Summary: Conrad contradicts Debi Wade’s original statement in every way. He has Wade in front of Carol, on the sidewalk and near the porch, and says nothing about Wade coming up from behind Carol. How could Carol be “out of control” in the back seat of Harrison’s vehicle, when Harrison himself admitted she might have been seat-belted the whole time (and Carol testified she was seat-belted the whole time.) The answer is “she couldn’t,” which suggests Conrad, Wade, and Lynn all committed perjury or filed false police reports.

We will repeat this point because it's profoundly important. Debi Wade was author of the Probable Cause Statement, so Carol's arrest was based entirely on Wade's word. That means it's kind of important that Wade get things accurately. And yet two of her cop colleagues -- Jeremy Lynn and Christian Conrad -- contradict her account on almost every point.

Prosecutors ultimately took jail off the table in Carol's case, so loss of freedom was not a possible punishment. But she's on two years of unsupervised probation -- with a guilty finding (unsupported by fact or law) on her record -- based on the word of cops who can't even agree with each other on what happened.


(To be continued)

Jerry Harmison, the new Missouri judge in "assault" case against my wife, Carol, has connections to Eric Greitens, who might be the nation's sleaziest governor

Jerry Harmison Jr.

The new judge in the bogus "assault on a law enforcement officer" case against my wife, Carol, has ties to a politician who seems to be earning the title of "the nation's sleaziest governor."

Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, in September 2017, appointed Jerry Harmison Jr. as an associate circuit judge in Greene County. Harmison was assigned Carol's case last Friday after original judge Margaret Palmietto granted a motion for change of judge and Becky Borthwick recused without explanation. Palmietto stepped down, at Carol's request, after a string of unlawful rulings on pre-trial motions.

Will Harmison be an improvement over Palmietto? If his "integrity" is anything like that of the governor who appointed him, the answer is no. And Harmison already made some highly questionable decisions on the case. (More on that in an upcoming post.)

An invasion-of-privacy criminal charge against Greitens was dropped on Monday -- after an "unprecedented" ruling, allowing the prosecutor to be called as a witness, by a judge with close ties to Greitens' defense lawyers -- but it still might be refiled and handled by a special prosecutor or member of St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner's staff. That charge stems from an extramarital affair Greitens had with his hair stylist.

Greitens remains charged with a second felony in St. Louis for allegedly misusing a donor list from a St. Louis-based veterans' charity for campaign purposes. No trial date has been set for that case.

As sewage stacks up around Greitens, a Missouri House committee announced yesterday that it is investigating Greitens' possible use of shell companies to conceal the identity of donors to his 2016 campaign. From a report at stltoday.com:

The Missouri House committee investigating Gov. Eric Greitens is probing whether Greitens’ 2016 campaign used so-called “shell companies” to conceal the identity of donors.

The revelation came Tuesday morning as Rep. Jay Barnes, who chairs the panel, announced that the committee was releasing two email strings it had obtained from Michael Hafner, a former Greitens campaign adviser who later worked for businessman John Brunner during the 2016 GOP primary.

In one email dated July 2016, Will Scharf, who at the time was working for GOP gubernatorial contender Catherine Hanaway, wrote to Hafner about research he had done suggesting the Greitens campaign worked to conceal donors.

Scharf now works for Greitens as his policy director.

The new allegations are reminiscent of Sean Hannity's forays into real estate:

At issue were two companies — White Impala LLC and ELX83 LLC — that were formed in December 2015 and subsequently donated a combined $30,000 to Greitens for Missouri at the time of the email string on July 9, 2016.

“By all appearances, these two entities were created to channel contributions to the Greitens campaign from an anonymous donor or donors,” reads a memorandum attached to an email Scharf sent to Hafner. “Missouri law explicitly prohibits campaign contributions made ‘in such a manner as to conceal the identity of the actual source of the contribution.’

“The use of this arrangement to hide donors certainly runs counter to Greitens’s repeated attacks on ‘corruption’ and ‘insider political games’ in Missouri,” the memo states.

Barnes said Tuesday that the committee would seek Scharf’s testimony.

As for Harmison, his task with Carol's case should be simple -- if he has the slightest bit of integrity (always a big "if" with a judge). Here are four straightforward reasons the case cannot go to trial and must be dismissed. These all are issues that Palmietto got wrong:

(1) The "victim" admits there was no crime -- Officer Jeremy Lynn is the "victim," the guy Carol supposedly pushed as he burst into our duplex apartment. But Lynn admits in his own incident report that he grabbed Carol first, not the other way around, and he never says she pushed him or even touched him. In fact, Lynn says Carol tried to pull away from him, which last time I checked, is the opposite of a push. The central element in the statute is "knowingly causes or attempts to cause physical contact." Missouri appellate courts have determined the key question is "Who initiated physical contact?" (See State v. Armstrong, 968 SW 2d 154 [Mo. Court of Appeals, 1998]) Lynn admits that he initiated physical contact. I don't call the case bogus because the defendant is my wife. I call it bogus because the words of the "victim" prove it's bogus.

(2) Accuser? What accuser -- Officer Debi Wade, author of the Probable Cause Statement, admits she did not see Carol push Jeremy Lynn. But she states that an unnamed person "advised" her of such. This is sub-hearsay, and the PC Statement includes none of the corroboration or verification required in such a case. (See State v. Kirby [MO Ct. of App., 2004]) Carol has been fighting this charge for almost 16 months, based on the word of . . . well, nobody. The lack of an accuser makes the PC Statement defective, meaning there never was probable cause to arrest Carol, much less prosecute her.

Trent and Sharon Cowherd

(3) An eviction without a court order -- The state's two witnesses in the original suppression hearing -- Officers Scott Harrison and Jeremy Lynn -- could not point to a judge-signed writ of execution that gave them authority to evict. A prosecutor gave Harrison a copy of the writ, and Harrison admitted under oath and cross-examination that it did not have a judge's signature or any other form of authorization. Lynn stated he had never even seen a court order in our case -- but that didn't stop him from being the first to break into our home. An eviction without a court order is unlawful, and means all evidence illegally obtained under the Fourth Amendment must be suppressed.

(4) Why bother getting a final judgment? -- The docket in our rent-and-possession case shows in at least two places that the ruling was interlocutory, meaning it was non-final, with issues still to be determined at a hearing set one month from entry of the judgment. Under Missouri law, there cannot be execution on a judgment that is not final. (See State ex rel Turner v. Sloan [MO, 1980]) That means we were the victims of an illegal "self eviction," perpetrated by landlord Trent Cowherd and his lawyer, Craig Lowther, and any evidence gathered must be suppressed.

By law, Carol's case cannot go to trial, and she cannot be found guilty. But that requires a judge with integrity, and it would be a shocker if Harmison shows he has any.

Missouri judge orders prosecution to produce excessive-force complaints against deputies who were present for eviction that led to Carol's broken arm

Judge Margaret Holden Palmietto

Prosecutors must produce all citizen complaints from the past three years alleging excessive force against deputies who were on the scene for our unlawful eviction in September 2015, a Missouri judge ruled yesterday.

The prosecution had argued that such information was not material to the "assault of a law enforcement officer" charge against my wife, Carol. But Public Defender Patty Poe argued that the encounter with police left Carol with a broken arm that required hospitalization and surgery, making the histories of involved officers material to the pending criminal case.

Poe had asked in her Motion to Compel for such complaints against all Greene County Sheriff deputies over the past five years, but she acknowledged at oral argument that request might be a bit much. Judge Margaret Holden Palmietto agreed that it was overbroad, but she narrowed it to complaints over the past three years, against all officers who were present for our eviction. (Motion to Compel is embedded at the end of this post.)

Either way, we take the ruling as a significant victory for Carol. It appears to be an acknowledgement from the judge that this case is at least as much about violence committed against Carol as it is any alleged criminal act on her part. In fact, the case is 100 percent about violence against Carol because evidence shows that the victim, Officer Jeremy Lynn, acknowledges he "caused physical contact" with Carol -- and that is the central element in RSMo 565.083, Assault of a Law Enforcement Officer, Third Degree. That Lynn admits causing physical contact means Carol is innocent of the charge against her.

From Carol's arrest on Jan. 30, 2017, until Sept. 20, 2017, this case ambled along under the false assertion that Carol had perpetrated an assault, rather than being the victim of police brutality. The tone of the case began to shift during the September hearing -- away from a "cover charge," created by cops to discourage a federal civil complaint, and toward reality -- when Poe raised the issue of Carol's injuries in open court for the first time.

Prosecutor Nicholas Jain vigorously objected to any notion that he must produce citizen excessive-force complaints against deputies. But Judge Palmietto's ruling yesterday means he will have to do it, at least for officers who were on the scene of our eviction -- and that includes Sheriff Jim Arnott.

One issue is getting the prosecution to identify all of the officers on the scene that day. So far, they have identified only four deputies -- Debi Wade, Jeremy Lynn, Scott Harrison, and Christian Conrad. But more officers than that were present, so it appears prosecutors, cops, or both are trying to protect somebody.

Our understanding is that Jain is digging for other material -- dispatch logs, dash-cam recordings, electronic communications between and among officers -- that both sides have agreed he must produce.

Carol's hearing yesterday -- part of a "cattle call," with numerous other cases being heard -- was brief. But Judge Palmietto did ask the public defender about information regarding the eviction itself. I took that to mean the judge has some interest in whether the eviction was lawful, whether cops had any lawful grounds to be on the property. The answer, of course, is they did not. (See here, here, here, here, and here.) In my view, that is a critical aspect of this case, so I'm hopeful the judge sees it that way, too. Apparently the prosecution is gathering information on that issue.

The veil of corruption that has shrouded this case from the outset slowly is being peeled back. Will that process continue, and if so, what will it reveal?

That question is particularly intriguing because the issue of whether Carol assaulted an officer, in essence, already has been determined; the "victim," Jeremy Lynn, admits in his incident report that he "caused physical contact" with Carol, and under relevant Missouri law, that means she could not have assaulted him. Here are Lynn's own words:

There was a female, however, that had been trying to force the door closed and she was standing just behind the door and trying again to force it closed. She was very aggressive and fighting against the door. She was grabbed by her arms and restrained to stop her from harming one of us or herself. During this process she was pulling her arms away from me and tried to push me back with her arms and body. She was told to calm down repeatedly and ignored those commands. She was eventually handcuffed and taken outside.

Carol and her attorney have not yet filed a motion regarding Lynn's statement, but when they do, it will mark about the sixth ground upon which the charge against Carol must be dropped. Lynn's statement shows that he initiated contact with Carol, and she tried to get away from him, as opposed to "getting physical" by pushing him, as alleged in charging documents.

As it becomes clear to the court that the prosecution has no case, attention should turn fully to what this matter is really all about -- gross physical abuse against Carol and creation of a "cover charge" to help cover up that abuse.

Missouri deputy creates fairy tale about my wife barreling into her during eviction, but even prosecutor doesn't buy it because he did not charge Carol with it

Deputy Debi Wade
(From facebook.com)

A Missouri deputy claims in a Probable Cause (PC) Statement that my wife, Carol, "barreled into [her] head first" in the moments before another officer broke Carol's arm during an unlawful eviction in September 2015. The claim, from deputy Debi Wade, is preposterous -- and it apparently was designed to buttress a bogus "assault on a law enforcement officer" charge against Carol, which led to her arrest in January.

I use the term "preposterous" to describe Wade's claim for two reasons: (1) She places the "barreling" event near the front door of our duplex apartment, and I saw everything that happened in that area, from the front seat of our car, parked about 15 feet away in the driveway. Carol never initiated contact with Wade, and I never saw Wade make contact with Carol, unless it was to help her off the ground after another officer had body slammed Carol and broken her left arm by yanking on both arms in an upward and back motion; (2) Greene County Prosecuting Attorney (PA) Dan Patterson apparently does not believe Wade's account because, in his Misdemeanor Information (MI) filed with the court, he charged Carol with only one count of assault on an officer -- and that allegedly was against a male officer named Jeremy Lynn, and it was inside our apartment, just as officers had thrust open the door.

Carol is not charged with assaulting Wade, so one has to wonder why Wade included false information that even the PA does not believe -- or at least, he does not believe it amounted to a criminal offense. It also raises questions about Wade's credibility, especially when you consider all the other hokum in her PC Statement. (More on that in upcoming posts.)

What really happened? Carol spells that out in a Motion to Dismiss Charges filed on March 14. (The Motion to Dismiss, PC Statement and MI are embedded at the end of this post.)

Note: Wade admits in the first paragraph of her PC Statement that she did not witness Carol push Officer Lynn, but an unknown person "advised" her that it happened. That, of course, is blatant hearsay, which is inadmissible in court and means, as a procedural matter, there is nothing to support probable cause that Carol committed any offense involving assault. As a factual matter, Wade's account is pure fantasy and should put her at risk of criminal sanctions for filing a false PC statement.

Carol's account starts with Jeremy Lynn and other officers bursting through our door, even though we had filed a Notice of Appeal the day before that placed an automatic stay on eviction. Given that we were in lawful possession of the apartment on Sept. 9, 2015, every action by the cops amounts to "forcible entry and detainer," a charge they will face (among others) in our upcoming police brutality/civil rights lawsuit. Here are Carol's words from the Motion to Dismiss:

I heard noise outside our apartment and looked out the peephole to see what was going on. We had filed a notice of appeal the day before, with appropriate fees, and we knew that put an automatic stay on the eviction. I knew there was no way, under the law, that anyone could be attempting an eviction. When I heard noise outside, I thought we had a possible prowler or someone attempting a home invasion. That’s why I looked out the peephole, and I had my cell phone in my hand, thinking I might need to call 911 any moment. Next thing I knew, the door was thrown open, and I was slammed up against the wall, behind the open door, hard enough to possibly cause a concussion. My glasses were knocked off, the cell phone was knocked out of my hand, and I was disoriented. But I never caused physical contact with Officer Lynn or anyone else on 9/9/15. While I was facing the wall, someone (I assume it was Officer Lynn) grabbed both of my arms, pulled them behind my back and placed them in handcuffs. As Lynn was applying the handcuffs, he caused my head to bang against the wall another 2 or 3 times. Also, someone put his hand on top of my head, as handcuffs were being applied, forcing my head violently into the wall several more times. Once in handcuffs, I wasn’t capable of pushing anyone, and I did not do so. I did not push anyone before being placed in handcuffs, either. I would be glad to file an affidavit if the court deems it necessary. If Jeremy Lynn is the officer I think he was, he’s a large fellow – maybe 6-4 or 6-5 and 270 pounds or more. The notion that I would push him is absurd.

So, Jeremy Lynn caused Carol's head to bang against the wall ("2 or 3 times"), and as Lynn was handcuffing her, someone put his hand on top of her head and violently pushed it into the wall several more times. And the cops are claiming Carol assaulted them? Is it any wonder I've seen signs that Carol is suffering from post-concussion symptoms, especially when you consider she also was slammed butt-first to the ground that day, outside the apartment? Carol has one of the sharpest minds I've encountered -- she made straight A's in school through K-12 and college -- but I now regularly see signs of jumbled thinking, an inability to express thoughts in a concise, direct manner. Is this the result of her brain being battered about inside her skull during an eviction that never should have happened?

In the days immediately after the eviction, our No. 1 concern was about trying to get Carol's arm pieced back together via trauma surgery. I'm not aware of medical personnel conducting any concussion tests on her, but there is no doubt her brain took a beating at the beginning and the end of our eviction.

As for Wade's claim that Carol "barreled" into her, it's pure nonsense -- and it should earn Wade time behind bars, depending on the penalties for filing a false PC Statement . Here are Carol's words on the subject:

I did not take off on a dead run for the door, and Officer Wade did not help me put items in our car. I did that on my own. Officer Wade already was at the front of the residence, so she did not jog up behind me, and I did not pivot and barrel into her head first. I wear glasses, I have scoliosis, and I have never been in a physical encounter with anyone. The notion that I would “barrel into” Debi Wade, likely breaking my glasses and injuring my neck and back, is nonsensical. I did not initiate contact with Officer Wade, and I do not recall her making contact with me.

This fantasy about Carol barreling into her, tells me that Debi Wade was not even trying to get things accurate in her PC Statement; she apparently was assigned to concoct a document that would terrorize us -- causing Carol to be falsely arrested and imprisoned -- and that's what she did.


(To be continued)

Missouri deputy admits she did not witness my wife push anyone, so that means Carol was arrested on the word of a nameless "ghost," who was not under oath

Carol Shuler

My wife, Carol, holds the distinction of probably being the only person in U.S. history to be arrested and imprisoned based on the word of . . . a ghost.

I'm not making this up. Follow us on a three-step path that shows what we mean:

(1) Carol is charged, per a Misdemeanor Information (MI) from Greene County, Missouri, Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson, with trespass. The MI states that particulars about the trespass charge are in a Probable Cause (PC) Statement from Deputy Debi Wade. The PC Statement, however, says not one word about trespass. That means the charge is based on . . . nothing -- and it must be dismissed, as a matter of law.

(2) Wade claims in her PC Statement that Carol "barreled into [her] head first," apparently supporting a count of assault on a law enforcement officer. Wade's claim has a couple of problems: (a) It didn't happen, as Carol has shown in her Motion to Dismiss; (b) Even Patterson seems to acknowledge that it didn't happen because he filed no charge against Carol based on the alleged Debi Wade incident. That count, essentially, already has been dismissed as a matter of law.

(3) The only remaining claim is that Carol "assaulted" Deputy Jeremy Lynn by pushing him after he had forced his way into our apartment during an unlawful eviction on Sept. 9, 2015. But Wade admits in her PC Statement that she did not witness this event. Specifically, Wade states: "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.”

(Note: The PC Statement, MI, and Motion to Dismiss are embedded at the end of this post.)

If you believe that arresting and imprisoning someone is serious business -- and you agree with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which holds that no seizure of a person shall happen without probable cause -- this should scare you death.

Consider what Wade is saying here: She did not witness Carol do anything wrong regarding Jeremy Lynn, but someone "advised" her that Carol pushed the officer. Well, who advised her on the subject? Was it another officer, a squirrel out on the lawn, a passing meter reader, a golden retriever taking a poop across the street?

You might think I'm being ridiculous, but get this -- the "adviser" has no name. We don't even know if he's human.

That's why I say Carol was arrested on the word of a ghost. Based on Wade's statement, the "adviser" might as well be from the spirit world. Whoever he is, and wherever he's from, he provides no probable cause to arrest my wife.

How many people -- with names and swearing under oath -- claim Carol Tovich Shuler did anything wrong regarding Officer Jeremy Lynn? Zero.

That means two things:

(1) All of the criminal charges against Carol are not based in probable cause and must be dismissed;

(2) Carol's arrest and imprisonment were based on zero probable cause, constituting a false arrest and false imprisonment -- and a Fourth Amendment violation -- that are about as blatant as they can come.

We are left with this glaring question: If someone on the scene witnessed Carol push Officer Lynn, and advised Debi Wade of such, why was that officer not chosen to submit the Probable Cause Statement? Why have Officer Wade make a statement under oath about events she admits she did not see?

With those questions hanging in the air, the credibility of the Greene County "justice apparatus" is emitting the smell of a rotting fish. In fact, it might not even smell that good.

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

Deputy Scott Harrison

Corruption and incompetence among law-enforcement and correctional officers has become a hot topic since the so-called suicide of alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein in New York City. But it's not a new topic here at Legal Schnauzer, and we've seen a shocking level of dishonesty play out under oath in a court of law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perjury is defined at RSMo. 575.040:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


(To be continued)