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/

"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)

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."

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 judge Jerry Harmison, an Eric Greitens appointee, finds Carol guilty of an offense even the "victim" stated under oath that she did not commit

Jerry Harmison Jr.

Missouri Judge Jerry Harmison Jr., an appointee of scandal-plagued Gov. Eric Greitens, has found my wife, Carol, guilty of "assault on a law enforcement officer," in a ruling that defies fact, law, logic, and common sense. In the almost 11 years I've been writing this blog, Harmison's "judgment" might stand as the most blatant example of judicial corruption I've ever seen -- and as regular readers know, that's a mouthful.

Sentencing for the "crime" Carol did not commit -- and Harmison's findings show she didn't commit it -- is set for June 11. (Judgment is embedded at the end of this post.) The prosecution removed jail time from the table months ago for the misdemeanor offense, and that seems like a good thing. But that move took away Carol's right to a jury trial and forced her to a bench proceeding before a judge, who proved to be every bit as sleazy as the governor who appointed him.

Harmison, apparently looking to burnish his right-wing, pro-police street cred, was willing to turn a blind eye to a prosecution case that was filled with enough lies to make Donald Trump blush. All four prosecution witnesses lied under oath -- and Carol can prove some of the lies; she probably can prove all of them, with an opportunity to conduct the discovery she was denied prior to trial.

Get this: Harmison apparently based his "judgment" on the following statement: "This court finds the testimony of the state's witnesses more credible and persuasive than the defense witnesses (Carol and me). Is this guy serious? Is a witness "more credible" because he's wearing a uniform and has a gun strapped to his waist -- no matter the garbage he spews forth in court?

Speaking of credibility, every prosecution witness testified that Carol flailed about in the back seat of a patrol car, suggesting she broke her own arm -- and they had nothing to do with it. Never mind that Carol testified she was handcuffed and seat-belted while in the car. Never mind that I testified that an unknown deputy -- who was not present at the trial -- slammed Carol butt-first to the ground, grabbed both arms above the elbow while she was seated, and yanked on them in an upward and backward direction, breaking her left arm before she ever was placed in the patrol car.

But Jerry Harmison is dumb enough to believe a person can inflict a comminuted fracture in her own arm? This man isn't qualified to be a judge in a pissing contest. Does Harmison cite anything that caused him to conclude Carol and I were less credible than the cop witnesses? Nope, not one thing.

Here are a couple of nuggets of good news:

* Under Missouri law, Carol can file a number of post-trial motions -- seeking to have the judgment vacated or set aside for various reasons. She also can seek a judgment of acquittal or a new trial. She also can seek criminal charges for perjury and "deprivation of rights under color of law."

* Under Missouri law, a judgment based on "fraud and collusion" cannot stand and will not preclude Carol's federal, civil-rights claims. [See Kapp v. Naturelle, Inc., 611 F. 2d 703 (Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, 1979).]

What is wrong with Harmison's judgment? I don't have room to go into everything in one post. We will provide more analysis in upcoming posts, but here are several key points for now.

(1) Statute? What criminal statute?

You might expect a judge to make note of the statute that governs a criminal case he is deciding. But we did not get that with Jerry Harmison. His "judgment" makes no mention of RSMo 565.083 -- which was repealed, by the way, effective Jan. 1, 2017 -- the statute governing Carol's alleged offense. Here is the key language from the statute, saying a person commits the offense if:

Such person knowingly causes or attempts to cause physical contact with a law enforcement officer . . . without the consent of the law enforcement officer.

When that language is applied to the facts, as stated in Harmison's own "judgment," Carol is not close to being guilty. But Harmison makes no mention of the applicable law; it appears he did not even read it. If a judge is going to convict someone of a crime, doesn't he have an obligation to use the law under which she was charged? I kind of think he does? What do you think?


(2) Well, what law did Harmison use to convict Carol?

On page 7 of Harmison's "judgment," we find this rationale: "The relevant evidence in this case is that the Greene County Deputies evicting Roger and Carol Shuler were acting in good faith."

Harmison is citing the so-called "good-faith exception," which defense lawyers routinely use in lawsuits alleging excessive force and Fourth Amendment violations against cops. In other words, Harmison decided a criminal case . . . with civil law. Carol's case is governed by the criminal statute mentioned in item No. 1 above. The charge is against her, and the statute is about her alleged actions; it has nothing to do with whether cops acted in "good faith" -- and there was overwhelming evidence at trial that they did not act in good faith, anyway.


(3) What about that key word, knowingly?

Under the statute, Carol had to act "knowingly" to be convicted, meaning "she was aware of the nature of her conduct or that those circumstances exist." Did the prosecution prove this? Nope. But it didn't matter because Harmison didn't apply the law and make them prove it. From page 5 of Harmison's "judgment":

The defendant, Carol Shuler, testified on her own behalf. She stated the judgment for possession was an interlocutory judgment in the landlord tenant case and did not authorize the Sheriff's Department to evict her and her husband. She stated that on September 9, she was napping and got up for some water. She heard loud noises outside the front door and looked through the peep hole, but it was covered. She saw the door knob moving, and she got scared and grabbed her cell phone. She said the door flew open, and she went flying against the wall. She felt hands grabbing her, and her head was pounded against the wall several times. She was placed in handcuffs, and then she saw it was the police.

Here are four points we can take from this:

(a) Carol was correct that the rent-and-possession judgment was interlocutory (non-final). Officer Scott Harrison admitted this under oath, on page 1 of the Harmison document. Under Missouri law, there cannot be execution on a judgment that is not final. (See State ex rel Turner v. Sloan [MO, 1980]) Neither Harrison nor Harmison could be bothered to look up the law. But Harrison inadvertently admitted that the cops had no grounds, under the law, to be on our rented property, much less to break into our home. Also, Carol believed (correctly) that the judgment was non-final, so there could be no eviction. She believed cops could not possibly be at her home, so she could not have "knowingly" assaulted one of them.

An X-ray of the arm a Missouri judge
apparently thinks Carol broke on her own.

(b) First, Carol did not testify that she heard "loud noises"; she said she heard noises, and that allergy problems caused her hearing to be off that day. Further, her testimony was that she looked out the peephole, and it was covered, so she could not see who was outside. Is this "good faith" in HarmisonWorld? For goodness sakes, the cops intentionally covered the peephole, so Carol could not see who they were, and that is good faith?

(c) Carol testified that she felt hands grabbing her, and she never said she "caused contact" with a cop; he caused contact with her, and the key prosecution witness admitted this. No kidding.

(d) Carol did not know she was dealing with cops until after her head had been pounded against the wall, and she was placed in handcuffs.

Did Carol "knowingly cause contact" with a cop? Hell, she did not even know they were cops, and they covered the peephole to ensure she would not know they were cops. The prosecution did not come close to proving Carol acted knowingly -- even if she did cause contact with a cop, and she did not.


(4) How can you be so sure Carol did not cause contact with a cop?

Because the "victim," Officer Jeremy Lynn, admits it -- as we've been reporting here for months. From page 3 of the Harmison document:

When [the door] was three-fourths open, resistance was experienced. Lynn used his left foot to block the door and forcefully opened the door. Lynn saw a male in the living room, approximately 15 feet away. The male was sitting in a chair with his hands palm down and his feet on the floor, apparently demonstrating he was not a threat. Lynn grabbed the person behind the door and pulled her out to apprehend her. Carol Shuler kept pushing Lynn and trying to pull away from him to resist custody.

Who caused contact here? Lynn admits he did, by grabbing Carol from behind the door. The statement goes on say to Carol "kept pushing Lynn," but that is different from Lynn's written incident report, where Lynn never says Carol pushed him or even touched him. And that goes to possible perjury -- or the filing of a false police report. Does Lynn say what Carol had done to merit being "apprehended"? Nope. Don't you have to do something wrong to have a cop grab and attempt to apprehend you? Not in Missouri, I guess.

Once again, the cop-witness and the judge seem to be clueless about the law. Missouri appellate courts have determined the key question in such cases is "Who initiated physical contact?" (See State v. Armstrong, 968 SW 2d 154 [Mo. Court of Appeals, 1998]) So, who initiated physical contact? Jeremy Lynn admits he did -- in order to apprehend someone who had done nothing unlawful.

Just how incompetent is this Missouri court? At case.net (1631-CR07731--ST V CAROL T SHULER) -- under charges, judgments, and sentences -- it has Carol being found guilty of trespass, first degree. The court bounced that charge almost one year ago. Again, I don't have the imagination to make this stuff up.

We'll stop for now with the above four primary points, but there is much more to examine in this horror show of a "judicial process."


(To be continued)

Missouri prosecutor Nicholas Jain goes silent when confronted with questions about his dubious judgment in bringing case against Carol without probable cause

Nicholas Jain

In answering our questions about his drunk-driving record, Missouri prosecutor Nicholas Jain raised the issue of individuals in his position showing good judgment. Jain is overseeing the case where bogus criminal charges have been brought in Greene County against my wife, Carol. Jain's statement about the integrity of prosecutors immediately raised more questions in my mind, so I posed them to Jain in an email.

I did not expect Jain to respond to these issues, but as a citizen who has been put through hell because of the corrupt acts of individuals in Jain's office, I thought it was important to raise them.

Mr. Jain:

Thanks for your response.

You mention the need for prosecutors to exercise sound judgment as it relates to each case you handle. As the husband of Carol Shuler, against whom you have been bringing a case for roughly 12-16 months, I have to ask this question: What does your handling of that case say about your judgment?

As a basis for that question, I point out this: Jeremy Lynn, the alleged "victim" in the "assault of a law enforcement officer" case, admits in his written statement that he grabbed Carol (inside her own home). In other words, Officer Lynn admits he "knowingly caused physical contact," that Carol Shuler did not. I'm sure you are aware that under RSMo 565.083 and case law, the issue of who knowingly caused/initiated physical contact is the central element to the offense. You've had information for months that shows Jeremy Lynn caused physical contact, and you don't even have probable cause against Carol Shuler, much less solid evidence of any offense. And yet, you have persisted in bringing a case that has no basis in fact or law. What does that say about your judgment? Has it really improved since 2011? (Statements of Jeremy Lynn and other officers are embedded at the end of this post.)

On top of that, Carol has been seeking discovery for months, and you have produced almost nothing -- you haven't even produced information you agreed in open court to produce, or information that you've been ordered by a court to produce. What does that say about your judgment?

Finally, you were present in open court when information about Carol's broken arm -- thanks to Missouri deputies beating her up -- was addressed, so it should be pretty apparent to you that the criminal case against Carol is nothing but a "cover charge," designed to protect rogue cops from being held accountable civilly. But you've gone along with it, so what does that say about your judgment?

In case you haven't seen it -- and on the off chance that you care -- I've attached copies of X-rays of Carol's arm, both pre- and post- trauma surgery. Perhaps you realize that you are helping to cover for the brutal cops who did this? Again, what about your judgment? [Items that were attached to the email are embedded at the end of this post.]

You are welcome to make any further response. But as a citizen and a journalist, I am appalled by the actions of you, Dan Patterson, and Jim Arnott in this case -- plus the officers on the scene, whom you have refused to identify. Do you really care about justice, or is your job about doing the corrupt bidding of those to whom you answer. As a fellow graduate of the University of Missouri (B.J., 1978), I'm sickened that you could go along with the scheme that has been heaped on Carol.


Roger Shuler

As expected, Nicholas Jain did not respond to these questions. After all, that would mean having to confront the notion that the same bad judgment that contributed to his drunk-driving convictions still is present in his taxpayer-funded public position. It also would have meant admitting that he was part of a process that brought a sham case against a citizen -- one where even the "victim's" own words prove no crime was committed.

That, however, did not end our discourse with Mr. Jain. We had other issues to address with him.


(To be continued)

In screwy postmodern America, a crooked judge like Jerry Harmison Jr, of Missouri, can convict you of a "crime" without even saying what law you've broken

Jerry Harmison Jr.

Is it possible to be convicted of a crime in an American court for doing . . . well, nothing? Based on our experience with my wife Carol's "assault of a law enforcement officer (LEO)" case in Missouri, the answer is yes.

To examine that question, let's look at Judge Jerry Hamison Jr.'s judgment in Carol's case. (The judgment is embedded at the end of this post.) We invite you to check out Harmison's first paragraph. Does it say one word about what Carol is charged with? Nope.

Harmison spends the better part of six pages regurgitating the testimony of various witnesses (including Carol and me) and begins his analysis in the final paragraph on page 7. Best we can tell, this includes his primary reasons for reaching a guilty verdict:

The relevant evidence in this case is that the Greene County Deputies evicting Roger and Carol Shuler were acting in good faith. . . . [Note: Harmison is citing the so-called "good-faith exception," which defense lawyers routinely use in lawsuits alleging excessive force and Fourth Amendment violations against cops. Harmison cites civil law, which has nothing to do with this criminal case.] Captain Lynn keyed the door and started to push it open, announcing the identity of officers again. Carol Shuler resisted the door, but it was pushed open. Lieutenant [Christian] Conrad announced the identity of the deputies again. Regardless, Carol Shuler continued to push Lynn multiple times and tried to pull away from him to resist detention. Lynn eventually handcuffed Carol Shuler. Consequently, the court finds the defendant guilty of Count I beyond a reasonable doubt. Sentencing is scheduled for June 11, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. [Note: Sentencing, and the hearing of post-judgment motions has been continued to 10:30 a.m. on June 19.]

So, Harmison pronounces Carol guilty, but of what? He doesn't say. He makes no mention of the governing statute -- RSMo 565.083 (Assault of a law enforcement officer . . .  in the third degree.) He doesn't even describe the offense with which Carol was charged. So, we will do it for him:

A person commits the offense if:

Such person knowingly causes or attempts to cause physical contact with a law enforcement officer . . . without the consent of the law enforcement officer.

Harmison also does not bother to address Missouri case law, which has held that the key question is: Who initiated contact? (See State v. Armstrong, 968 SW 2d 154, Mo. Court of Appeals, 1998.) Jeremy Lynn stated twice -- in his written incident report and under oath on the courtroom stand -- that he caused and initiated contact with Carol, by grabbing her as he burst through the front door of our rented duplex apartment.

From reading the final paragraph of Harmison's judgment, you would think the central element of the offense was: Did the subject push the officer? But neither the statute nor the case law says a word about pushing someone. It's all about who "knowingly caused -- or initiated -- physical contact."

Well, Jeremy Lynn admits that he knowingly grabbed Carol, and in his written report, never said a word about her pushing him. In fact, he said she tried to pull away from him. Last time I checked, it is impossible to push someone and try to pull away from them at the same time.

So, we are left with this question: Is it a crime to push a police officer -- which Carol testified she did not do -- especially in this situation?

We will examine that in an upcoming post.


(To be continued)

Lies my Missouri public defender told me: With Carol's freedom at stake in bogus "assault" case, Patty Poe cooked up some double whoppers, with cheese (Part 5)

Patty Poe

Trying to quantify the outrageous nature of lies Missouri public defender Patty Poe told Carol and me over the past four or five months is a difficult task. But on a scale of 1-10, the following lie about a key element in the "assault of a law enforcement officer" case against Carol probably ranks at 9.98.

Poe's nutty response grew from emails No. 4 and 5, in which Carol showed that both the Misdemeanor Information (MI) and Probable Cause (PC) Statement in her case were wildly defective, meaning the charges must be dismissed. (All of Carol's emails, plus Poe's responses, are embedded at the end of this post.)

Poe responded with the following drivel to email No. 4 regarding the defective MI:

The information is sufficient as to count I, it states: caused physical contact with Jeremy Lynn, a law enforcement officer without the consent of Jeremy Lynn by pushing him" and those allegations are contained in the probable cause statement. Often probable cause statements contain information that is not relevant or that is uncharged, such as the "barreling head first" is not charged. At trial, I would argue it is irrelevant and therefore should be excluded.

Here is how Poe responds to email No. 5 regarding the off-the-charts defective PC Statement:

Again, the probable cause statement and the information is sufficient to support count I.

In both of these responses, you will note that Poe resorts to one of her standard "literary techniques." She makes zero citations to law that might support her point. Even in the rare instances when she does throw in a citation, it's almost always wildly off target.

Why do the issues here matter? Taken together, the MI and the PC Statement are the charging documents against Carol. Under Missouri law, the MI shall "“[s]tate plainly, concisely, and definitely the essential facts constituting the elements of the offense charged." If done properly, this should fulfill the defendant's Sixth Amendment right "“to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation."

The PC Statement is supposed to provide evidence that supports the MI. Missouri law requires a PC Statement to set forth sufficient facts to "support a finding of probable cause to believe a crime was committed and the accused committed it." In short, a PC Statement is a document of facts, which is supposed to support the MI, which is a document of law.

In Carol's case, both fail miserably. As we have shown, the PC Statement includes numerous false statements, plus multiple omission of facts that point toward Carol being not guilty. Either shortcoming, under Missouri law, is grounds for the charges to be dismissed. But we have not even touched on perhaps the most grave shortcoming of all.

That goes back to Poe's claim that the MI and PC Statement are sufficient. Well, no they aren't -- not even close. That's probably why Poe included no citations to law to support her claim. Carol and I most certainly can cite law to show that both charging documents are deficient.

Our law comes from a case styled State v. Kirby (MO Ct. of App., 2004), which involved a detective named Kirk Rose, who swore in an affidavit about evidence pointing to alleged possession of a controlled substance. The affidavit stated that a "cooperative individual" had informed Rose that the defendant possessed marijuana at his residence.

This is almost identical to what happened in Carol's case. Debi Wade, author of the PC Statement, claims Carol made physical contact with Officer Jeremy Lynn by pushing him after he burst into our duplex apartment for an unlawful eviction on Sept. 9, 2015. Wade admits that she did not witness the alleged pushing incident but was "advised" of it by . . . well, we have no idea. Like the "cooperative individual" in Kirby, this person has no name or identifying characteristics. It could have been another cop, it could have been landlord Trent Cowherd or one of his associates, it could have been one of the thieves that serve on Cowherd's eviction crew (which helped steal almost all of our personal belongings), it could have been a ground squirrel out in the front yard. (The PC Statement and MI are embedded at the end of this post.)

The court in Kirby made it clear that the use of such an unidentified source, with no effort to corroborate the source's account, will not support a finding of probable cause. From the Kirby opinion:

In the present case, although the affidavit included facts which indicated the personal knowledge of the “cooperative individual,” there was no reference to any corroboration of this information by Detective Rose in the affidavit. Detective Rose did testify at the suppression hearing that he took steps to corroborate the information given to him; however, this testimony was not presented to the issuing court in support of the application for the search warrant.

Here, there was no discussion in the application or affidavits of Detective Rose's verification or corroboration of the information provided to him by the “cooperative individual.” Thus, there was no substantial basis for the issuing court's conclusion that probable cause existed to issue the warrant, and the trial court did not err in granting the motion to suppress.

Are there any signs of verification or corroboration in Debi Wade's PC Statement? Nope, not even close. That means Patty Poe, when claiming the charging documents were sufficient, was full of horse feces.