Missouri deputy, in her own mixed-up lingo, admits we had filed a Notice of Appeal, which put a stay on the eviction that led to cops breaking Carol's arm

Debi Wade

A Missouri deputy admits in an investigative report that we had filed a notice of appeal, and under state law, that put a stay on our eviction -- as I've argued all along. That's just one of roughly a half dozen grounds upon which the eviction was unlawful, meaning deputies pointed an assault rifle at my head, caused most of our belongings to be stolen, and shattered Carol's left arm -- all with no grounds to be on our rented property.

Officer Debi Wade apparently was too ignorant of the law to get it correct in her statement. But she essentially admits that I was right -- the eviction was stayed. Here are her words, and we will straighten things out after that:

Mr. Shuler was being very argumentative and was adamant that there was a court ordered stay on the case but otherwise appeared to be following the deputies' directives once outside of the residence.

Although I had checked Case.net for any changes in the case earlier that morning, I told [Mr. Shuler] that I would check on it again to ensure nothing had changed. I looked up the case on Case.net and found no change to the case since I had last looked. Mr. Shuler had made a motion to stay, but the judge had not ruled on it yet. therefore there was no court ordered stay at that time. I called into the office and asked our paralegal to contact our attorney's office to verify that they were not aware of any changes to the case and was told to proceed with the execution. I came back and attempted to tell Mr. Shuler my findings, but he did not want to listen to reason, only to argue with us.

This is a textbook example of police ignorance and incompetence, so let's briefly address each highlighted section above:

(1) Wade confirms what I've reported on this blog multiple times -- that I stated repeatedly the execution was stayed because we had filed a Notice of Appeal;

(2)  Wade must have checked case.net while wearing a blind fold. Anyone can click on case.net, key in my name, and click on case number 1531-AC04535 (Trent Cowherd v. Roger Shuler). There is a docket entry on 9/8/15, the day BEFORE Wade checked, saying "Notice of Appeal Filed." There was an entry on 9/9/15,  "Correspondence Filed" -- stating the Missouri Court of Appeals had filed correspondence to acknowledge receipt of our notice of appeal. Based on Wade's statement and the docket, both of those items were present when she looked, clearly showing there WAS a significant change in the case. Debi Wade either didn't see it, or she never looked and is lying about that.

(3) I don't recall ever exchanging a word with Debi Wade. I communicated about the stay with Sheriff Jim Arnott, who repeatedly turned his palms upward and shrugged his shoulders -- doing a nice imitation of a baboon, although most baboons are smarter and better looking than he is.

(4) Wade says she found no changes when she double checked, but as we show in Item No. 2 above, two key changes were in the record. Jose Feliciano could have seen them.

(5) Wade claims "Mr. Shuler had filed a motion to stay," but that's not what I had done; I had filed a Notice of Appeal, and under Missouri law, such a notice (with a bond) stays execution. In our case, there was no money judgment, so there was no bond. This is a sickening lie on Wade's part, the kind that should put her behind bars. She couched it as a motion, upon which a judge typically must rule. But it was a notice of appeal, requiring no action from a judge. Once it's filed, execution is stayed, and no court order is required. Wade has proven she is a dim bulb, but I doubt this was an innocent mistake. It's an intentional effort to misstate Missouri law.

(6) Wade states she called a paralegal to check with an attorney in the office. No one made me aware of this, and I doubt it is true. All the attorney or paralegal had to do was look up RSMo. 534.350. Anyone who deals with evictions regularly should know that law by heart. Wade's own words indicate no one in the office was smart enough to even look up the correct law. And it's mind blowing that deputies who apparently work evictions regularly had to ask about the relevant law, and I had to make them aware that execution was stayed.

(7) Wade says someone in her office told her to proceed with the execution, even though the record at the time clearly showed we had filed a Notice of Appeal. Not only that, the record showed the Missouri Court of Appeals had received our notice and placed it on the docket. It's going to be fun to find out who instructed Wade to go ahead with the eviction; that person is going to have some splainin' to do.

(8) This last nugget tells us that many cops not only are stupid, they aren't very good people. Wade resorts to smart-aleck mode, claiming I didn't "want to listen to reason." It wasn't a matter for "reason" or "debate." I just wanted the facts (that we had filed a notice of appeal) and the law (that the notice had put a stay on execution) to be applied correctly. Debi Wade takes her own ignorance and frames it as my unwillingness to reason. Here we are, almost two years later, and Wade's own words prove I was right.

Other documents in the record show that we timely filed a Notice of Appeal, and Missouri deputies had every reason to know the eviction was stayed. We will examine them next.


(To be continued)

Liberty Duke's judgment lien fails to meet statutory requirements under state law, indicating she had no right to more than $7,000 of excess foreclosure funds

Liberty Duke

Alabama law requires a person seeking  a judgment lien on real property to give notice of the lien to the property owner. Lobbyist Liberty Duke gave no notice after having a lien placed on our home of 25 years in Birmingham.

Alabama law states that the filing of a notice of appeal and appeal bond destroys any lien growing from the challenged judgment. My wife, Carol, and I had no opportunity to file an appeal and destroy Duke's judgment because Duke and GOP thug Rob "Uday" Riley had caused me to be unlawfully incarcerated for five months in Shelby County, during which the time for appeal ran. It's hard to imagine a more grotesque violation of due-process rights.

Alabama law requires a certificate of judgment, which helps produce a lien, to include certain information. A check on court records in Shelby County shows that Duke's certificate does not include much of the required information. Alabama law has held that the required information is necessary to create a lien; it is clear that merely filing a copy of the judgment does not meet statutory requirements. That means Duke's lien, which she used to abscond with $7,112 of surplus foreclosure funds that otherwise belonged to us, was invalid.

We've already shown that Duke's judgment lien contained a number of flaws, and Chase Mortgage (which held the mortgage on our home) had an obligation as our trustee to ensure that we were treated fairly and in good faith.

The flaws mentioned previously derive mainly from case law. The flaws mentioned above come from statutory law. The bottom line? Liberty Duke's judgment lien misses the mark on multiple legal platforms. (Documents embedded at the end of this post provide specifics on some of the numbers involved with Duke's lien and our efforts to save our house from foreclosure.)

Let's take a close look at the issues that indicate Liberty Duke had no legal right to more than $7,000 of our funds. The record suggests she tried to benefit financially from having me kidnapped (arrested with no apparent warrant) and thrown in jail for five months. In my book, it's hard for an alleged "human" to stoop much lower than that:

(1) We don't notice the receipt of notice

The requirement of notice can be found at Code of Alabama 6-9-82. Here is how it reads:

Section 6-9-82

Notice where levy on real estate.

When the levy is on real estate, personal notice thereof must be given to the defendant or a notice thereof in writing left at his residence, if resident in the county; if not resident in the county, then by putting up a written notice at the courthouse door, and the manner of giving notice must be stated in the return.

Notice that the law requires personal notice; you can't just stick it in the regular mail and hope it gets there. There is no question that Duke and her lawyer, Christina Crow of Union Springs, failed to meet this relatively simple requirement. Why did they drop the ball here? Our guess is that notice would have given us the opportunity to challenge both the lien and the judgment, and they knew both had no basis in law.


(2)  Jail is unappealing

If there is a way to file an appeal while in jail, I don't know what it would be. You likely would have a better chance if you were in a prison, which is designed to hold people for lengthy periods of time and generally includes access to some research materials and writing implements. Jails are holding facilities, for short-term stays, and I did not have even a functioning pencil or a decent sheet of paper while I was incarcerated. Filing an appeal is challenging under normal circumstances -- I know because I've filed several -- but it's darned near impossible to file one from jail. Even if it were possible, it's highly prejudicial (not to mention a violation of due process) for someone to be forced to file an appeal from jail.

Under Rule 4 of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure (ARAP), I had 42 days to appeal Judge Claud Neilson's bogus "final order" in the Riley/Duke lawsuit. That time period elapsed while I was locked up, depriving Carol and me of an opportunity to extinguish Duke's lien. State law on this subject can be found at Code of Alabama 6-9-61:

Section 6-9-61

Destruction of lien upon execution of bond for appeal, etc.

The execution of a bond for an appeal by which the judgment is suspended or the execution of a bond by the defendant upon the proper officer granting an injunction, stay of execution, or restraining order destroys the lien created by the recording of the certificate of the judgment or the levy of the execution upon personal property. The clerk of the court in which such bond, injunction, stay, or restraining order is granted shall, at the request of the party filing such bond or obtaining such order, note such fact on the margin of the record where the certificate of judgment is recorded in the event such certificate has been filed in the probate office.

You never know what to expect from Alabama's hideously corrupt appellate courts. But assuming someone actually reviewed our appeal before stamping it "Affirmed, No Opinion," there is no way, under the law, that Judge Neilson's judgment could hold up -- and no way for Duke's lien to escape the trash bin.


(3) A certificate of judgment that comes up short

An article titled "Alabama Collection Law" spells out the information that must be present in a certificate of judgment in order to create a lien. From the article, which includes citation to Code of Alabama 6-9-210:

A Judicial Lien is created by filing a certificate of judgment with the Office of the Judge of Probate. Recording the certificate of judgment creates a lien on all the debtor's property in that county. The certificate of judgment should contain the following information: 1. style of the case including the name of the court entering judgment; 2. amount of judgment; 3. judgment date; 4. amount of cost; 5. name of parties; 6. name of plaintiff’s attorney; 7. address of each defendant or respondent as shown in the court proceedings; 8. clerk's signature. Ala. Code § 6-9-210 (1975)

Of the eight items that must be present for a certificate of judgment to create a lien, at least two are missing on Liberty Duke's certificate -- No. 5, name of parties, and No. 7, address of defendants. (A copy of the certificate of judgment is embedded at the end of this post. We invite readers to check it for missing items.)

In fact, the name of my wife, Carol, who was sued as a defendant (just like me) is nowhere to be found on the certificate of judgment. How can Carol be forced out of a house she jointly owned because of a certificate of judgment that does not name her? How can either of us be forced out of property that is not identified by address on the certificate of judgment?

Do these missing items matter? Consider this from the "Alabama Collection Law: article:

Prior case decisions indicated that all the statutory requirements must be met to create a lien. The most recent cases regarding this issue have held that the requirements must be viewed in relation to the purpose of the requirement, to impart notice of a judgment lien to title searchers. Bowman v. SouthTrust, 551 So. 2d 984 (Ala. 1989); John Deere Co. v. Blevins, 696 So. 2d 1080 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996), but see AmSouth Bank v. Holberg, 789 So.2d 833 (Ala. 2001) for the proposition that merely filing a copy of the judgment does not meet statutory requirements.

The law apparently is murky on this subject, but Liberty Duke's certificate of judgment clearly does not meet all statutory requirements. That means she likely never had a valid lien at all. Our guess is that our addresses were not included on the certificate because someone did not want us to have notice of the lien, as required by law.

-----------------------------

Speaking of surplus foreclosure funds, we recently discovered documents that show the exact amount involved, plus other correspondence leading up to the foreclosure on our home. Some of those documents are embedded below.

Christina Crow

The exact debt remaining on our Birmingham property was $64,793.18. It was sold at foreclosure for $74,358.00. By subtracting the first number from the second number, you get $9,615.82. That's the amount of excess foreclosure funds that were due to us.

If you check Liberty Duke's certificate of judgment below, the amount listed is $9,450. Isn't it interesting that the amount owed to us, and the amount "owed to her" would wind up being almost identical. It's almost as if Judge Claud Neilson, when he unlawfully awarded attorney fees for Duke (and against a pro se parties, Carol and me) knew the amount someone wanted Duke to receive -- no matter how unlawful it might be.

Why did the figure dip to $7,112 when it went to Liberty Duke. I can only assume that Chase and its lawyers subtracted more than $2,500 in "fees." Mortgage companies and their law firms seem to extract such fees throughout the foreclosure process. Had the money gone to us, as it should have by law, it's not clear if those fees would have been applicable. But I'm guessing Stephens Millirons would have found a way to attach them anyway.

How does the law firm justify those fees? They certainly did not exert any energy to fulfill their trustee obligations to us.

Stephens Millirons Default Letter Re Foreclosure -- 3-20-14 by Roger Shuler on Scribd

Stephens Millirons Reinstatement Letter -- 4-2-14 by Roger Shuler on Scribd

Shuler--Foreclosure Deed (Spartan) by Roger Shuler on Scribd

Liberty Duke -- Certificate of Judgment2 (3) by Roger Shuler on Scribd

Records indicate our eviction, throwing us on the street and leading to Carol's shattered arm, was conducted without a valid court order from a judge

(From shreveportla.gov)

A Missouri deputy states in her written report about our September 2015 eviction that she and her colleagues were acting on a court order. That seems like a simple enough statement, but our research raises this question: Is it true?

We've seen significant evidence that the statement, made by Officer Debi Wade, isn't true. What does it mean if the officers who threw us out of an apartment that we lawfully occupied, causing us to lose most of our worldly possessions and breaking my wife, Carol's, arm . . . did all of that without a valid court order? That is a profound question, which we will examine at the end of this post, but first let's look at the evidence.

The Missouri Attorney General's Office has issued a pamphlet on landlord/tenant law that plainly states: A landlord may not evict a tenant without a court order. (See page 16 of 20-page pamphlet.) Here are Debi Wade's words from a written report, dated 9/10/15, the day after our eviction. (The report and related documents are embedded at the end of this post.)

On September 9, 2015, we responded to 4070 S. Fort to execute a Writ of Execution and Court Order (1531-ACO4535) to remove lessee Roger Shuler from the rental. Mr. Shuler had made previous statements advising that he would not vacate the home as ordered by the judge to do so, and would have to be physically removed. After the posted deadline date of 09-09-15 @ 9:00 a.m., we received a call from the landlord advising that the Shulers were still there, and it was believed that they had made no effort to vacate the residence at all.

As an initial matter, let's note Wade's claim that I had made statements "advising" that I would not vacate the home "as ordered by the judge to do so." Does Wade provide any clue as to how she came up with that information, perhaps identifying the person I supposedly "advised" and pointing to any signs that might indicate said individual was credible? Nope, not a word.

Let's now focus on the back end of Wade's statement -- that I had been "ordered by a judge" to vacate. Wade references the case number (1531-AC04535) for Trent Cowherd v. Roger Shuler, the eviction lawsuit in question, so we can look that up at case.net. If you click on "docket entries" for the case, what do you learn? An entry on 8/27/15 states that Judge Kelly Halford Rose had found for Cowherd on possession only and issued an interlocutory order to that effect -- with other issues, including our counterclaim, set for hearing on 10/1/15. An entry on 8/31/15 shows the judge had formally filed an interlocutory judgment on the possession issue.

What does "interlocutory" mean? It means the judgment or order is not final and generally cannot be appealed. The docket indicates no final judgments would come until all issues had been heard, which would be some time after 10/1/15. Why would judge Rose sign an eviction order when she had not issued a final judgment on that, or any other issue, related to Cowherd v. Shuler? The answer: she wouldn't, and she didn't. That means Officer Wade likely is lying about having a court order.

Here is where this whole charade almost gets amusing. Officer Wade almost seems aghast -- verklempt, even -- that Carol and I had made no effort to vacate the property. Maybe that's because there had been no valid court order that we do so. But the silliness doesn't end there.

Our next step is to look at RSMo 534.350, which holds:

534.350. The judge rendering judgment in any such cause may issue execution at any time after judgment, but such execution shall not be levied until after the expiration of the time allowed for the taking of an appeal, except execution for the purpose of restoring possession shall be issued no sooner than ten days after the judgment. However, the execution for purposes of restoring possession shall be stayed pending an appeal if the losing party posts an appeal bond.

What does this tell us? (1) An eviction must be authorized by a judge; it's not something a landlord, his lawyer, and a sheriff can effectuate on their own; (2) An eviction cannot be executed until after the time allowed for taking an appeal has expired; (3) Execution for restoring possession shall be stayed if the losing party files a Notice of Appeal, with an appeal bond.

The docket shows that we timely filed a notice of appeal, with appropriate fees, and the Missouri Court of Appeals filed correspondence noticing receipt of our appeal on 9/9/15 -- the date our eviction had unlawfully been scheduled, inside the 10-day window. There was no appeal bond because there was no final judgment in our case, and no judgment amount (upon which an appeal bond is based) was entered.

The law is clear that our notice of appeal put a stay on execution, and we have addressed that already in multiple posts. But what about the notice we received regarding the eviction, via several documents that were attached to our door. They all were versions, filled out in a varying ways, of Greene County's form for "Execution in Landlord's Action for Possession of Premises for Non-Payment of Rent." (Several versions of the form are embedded at the end of this post.)

Craig Lowther

All of the forms are signed by Craig Lowther, attorney for landlord Trent Cowherd. Most are signed by Deputy Scott Harrison, of the Greene County Sheriff's Office. None is signed by a judge. On the form where someone (apparently Lowther) informs us of the eviction's time and date, the information was handwritten on an attached yellow sticky note. "This is a court order," the sticky note says. Is a judge's signature anywhere to be found? Nope. Who made the determination that this was a court order? The answer seems to be Craig Lowther.

Underneath the sticky note is the following information, in red type: "Note: The seal of the Greene County Circuit Court must be affixed for this Execution to be valid." Is the seal affixed anywhere on the document? If it is, it's sure well hidden from my eyes.

Let's review what all of this tells us:

(1) None of the documents "ordering" our eviction was signed by a judge;

(2) None of the documents "ordering" our eviction was affixed with the Greene County Circuit Court seal, as required by law. That means they were invalid;

(3) Attorney Craig Lowther, in an apparent act of fraud, essentially ordered our eviction, via a bogus sticky note that falsely claimed to be a court order. Trent Cowherd, Lowther's client, might have been involved in the fraud, too;

(4) Perhaps most importantly, the case docket clearly shows that Judge Kelly Halford Rose had issued an interlocutory order and judgment -- meaning there was no final judgment from which an appeal could be taken, no such final judgment was forthcoming until after all issues had been heard on 10/1/15, and our notice of appeal should not have been on file until a final judgment was entered.

What's the take-home point? Rose almost certainly did not sign any of the "court orders" because she knew no final judgment had been entered. That suggests Craig Lowther, perhaps under instructions from Trent Cowherd, fraudulently "ordered" us out of our home -- using authority he does not have. In other words, Lowther and perhaps Cowherd conned us into a bogus eviction, causing most of our worldly possessions to be stolen or lost -- and they broke Carol's arm, in the process.

So much for law and order, here in the Ozarks.

Speaking of "law and order," Sheriff Jim Arnott doesn't look so good in all of this either. This is from a December 2015 post about our eviction:

Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott was on hand for our eviction -- Why? I have no idea -- and as I tried to explain to him that we had filed a Notice of Appeal that put an automatic stay on execution of the eviction, he shrugged his shoulders and uttered the sheriff's usual phrase, "Well, I've got a court order."

"Is it signed by a judge?" I asked. "The notice that was attached to our door did not appear to be signed by a judge." (Our copy of the notice, like much of our important paperwork, was lost in the chaos of the eviction process. It should be in the official court file.)

"Well, it's in my car," Arnott said.

"Can I see it?"

"I'll show it to you before I leave."

Did I ever get to see it? Nope -- Arnott's deputies were too busy brutalizing my wife.

Did Arnott actually have a valid court order in his car? The answer almost certainly is no, seeing as how one apparently did not exist. Does that mean Arnott was acting in extrajudicial cahoots with Lowther and Cowherd? That's how it looks from here.

Was Debi Wade being truthful when when she claimed to have a court order, and that I had been "ordered by a judge" to vacate? The evidence suggests she was not.

What does all of this mean? Well, the circumstances are so bizarre that it's hard to find statutory or case law that is on point. This much is certain: Causing someone to be kicked out of their home based on fraudulent documents, unlawfully assuming the authority of a judge . . . well, that is ugly stuff. I'm guessing it is criminal, almost certainly violating 18 U.S. Code 242 -- "Deprivation of rights under color of law" -- and possibly other state or federal statutes.

Bringing a criminal case against a landlord, lawyer, or sheriff isn't easy. Our system is set up to protect such folks, and I'm guessing it is the rare prosecutor who is willing to hold them accountable. But we are going to look into the criminal implications of our eviction, and if I have my way, I few prominent folks in Springfield, Missouri, might discover down the line that "orange is the new black."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cowherd Quash Execution by Roger Shuler

Cowherd--Notice of Appeal by Roger Shuler

Missouri deputies break my wife's arm and aim an assault rifle at me during violent, terrifying "eviction"

This looks a lot like the assault rifle that was pointed at me.
It's called a BERYL 96.

Sheriff deputies broke my wife's arm and aimed what appeared to be an assault weapon at me during an "eviction" last Wednesday at the apartment where we've been living for the past year in Springfield, Mo.

Doctors told my wife, Carol, that the large bone in her upper left arm was broken when Greene County deputies assaulted her as she tried to retrieve some of our belongings from inside the apartment. She is scheduled for surgery tomorrow morning--and we are told it will be a five- or six-hour procedure--although it already has been postponed twice.

Damage to Carol's arm apparently is so severe that a trauma surgeon has been scheduled to operate. The procedure probably would have already been completed if doctors felt an orthopedic surgeon could handle it.

How severe are Carol's injuries? That's unclear at this point, but she was given oxygen, possibly because she was in danger of going into shock, and doctors treated her for possible blood clots. Her neck and shoulders are sore from apparent whiplash, and she shows signs of having a concussion from being thrown violently to the ground. At least three officers surrounded Carol during the assault, and I saw one officer yank both of her arms in an outward and upward motion. Her left arm, the broken one, is so badly bruised that doctors asked if she had been on blood thinners. Her right arm also is extensively bruised, and I'm still not sure how it wasn't broken, too.

The incident began when about six deputies burst through our door at about 1:45 p.m. on September 9. Jim Arnott, the sheriff of Greene County, was on the scene, and he yanked me out of a chair and placed handcuffs on me, even though I was sitting with my hands folded and posed no threat to anyone. Carol was looking out our peephole to see what was going on outside and was slammed against a wall when officers burst through the door.

One of the officers trained what appeared to be an assault weapon on me, and I think at least three or four handguns were pointed in my direction. A construction worker near the scene witnessed much of the incident and said he saw what appeared to be two AK-47s with officers on the premises. I'm not an expert on assault weapons, but I'm not certain this was an AK-47. It was, however, not your standard rifle, and it appeared to be the kind of automatic or semi-automatic weapon that is designed to blow away multiple people in quick order. The rifle looked a lot like the one shown above, which is a BERYL 96.

As officers mauled Carol on the ground, handcuffing her and breaking her arm, Arnott stood a few feet away and pointed at the violent scene and said, "She assaulted a police officer." That's a classic example of how far some law-enforcement officers will go to lie and cover up wrongdoing.

We're not aware of any charges filed against Carol, although she was taken to the Greene County Jail before someone finally realized that her complaints about soreness in her arm might be serious. She apparently was not booked into the jail, and she was transported to one hospital for X-rays that revealed the break and then to another, where the surgery is scheduled.

I witnessed the assault on Carol, and I feel certain none of the officers involved has a scratch on him (or her)--one of the officers was a woman. I was seated in our car in the driveway and could hear Carol say, "I'm trying to . . . . " I lost track of her words after that, but she told me that she was trying to get our cat's litter box. The notion that she assaulted anyone is preposterous.

Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott

We were renting the apartment from a company called Cowherd Construction. As officers were busy assaulting and handcuffing Carol and me, a crew from Cowherd removed our possessions and placed them at the edge of the street. A neighbor told us that he witnessed multiple Cowherd crew members placing various items, which belonged to us, in their vehicles. Based on the neighbor's words, we were the victims of rampant theft.

A number of good-hearted individuals helped us place furniture and some of our valuables in the neighbor's garage. But a lot of personal belongings--clothes, wedding photos, my wedding ring, and much more--seem to be gone. As I type this, I'm not sure what Carol and I have left--the clothes on our back, our kitty kat Baxter, miscellaneous furniture, and not much else.

I put the term eviction in quotation marks above because the entire procedure that led to Carol's injuries was unlawful. I will explain further in an upcoming post, but I was the defendant in a rent-and-possession lawsuit styled Trent Cowherd v. Roger Shuler. I had timely filed a notice of appeal, and under Missouri law, that puts a stay on execution of an eviction notice. Neither officers nor the Cowherd crew members had lawful grounds to be on the property last Wednesday (September 9), but they broke through our door, pointed multiple weapons at me, and broke Carol's arm anyway. And if our neighbor's words are on target, they also caused many of our personal belongings to be stolen.

All of this explains why Legal Schnauzer has been quiet in recent days. I will update readers on Carol's condition and related events, hopefully in a few days. My access to a computer right now is limited, so I will not be able to post comments and respond to e-mails as quickly as I usually do.

Information about Trent Cowherd v. Roger Shuler, the underlying "eviction" case that led to all of this, is available at the following link:

Your Missouri Courts

You can click on "Litigant Name Search" and type in my name to call up both the trial-court case and appellate case that, by law, put a stay on the eviction. Most of the case information can be viewed by clicking "Docket Entries."

Here is a portion of the docket entry for the trial-court case. It clearly shows that I filed a notice of appeal on 9/8/15, and the eviction took place anyway on 9/9/15:

09/10/2015 -- Return Service - Other
Landlord Execution returned served/posted by the GCSD. /st

09/09/2015 -- Correspondence Filed
Missouri Court of Appeals files Correspondence to acknowledge receipt of a notice of appeal./bh

09/08/2015 -- Motion to Quash
Defendant filing pro se files Motion to Quash Execution. /kbt
Certificate of Mailing
Notice of Appeal saved and attached in PDF format for Attorney(s) to retrieve from secure case.net. Notice of Appeal sent electronically to Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District/KC
Notice of Appeal Filed
Roger Shuler Defendant Pro Se Files Notice of Appeal. /KC
Filed By: ROGER SHULER
08/31/2015 -- Judgment Entered
Formal Interlocutory Judgment executed and filed. Rose/kj Judgment for possession. Rose/kj

I will explain the law behind this in an upcoming post. For now, I have a wife whose upper arm--in the words of her doctor--is "snapped in two." Getting her on the mend is priority No. 1. Meanwhile, many of our possessions have been lost or stolen, and the roof over our head might soon disappear.

Those familiar with my bogus arrest and incarceration in Alabama know that the price is high for journalists who dare to report accurately about legal and political corruption. The price has just gotten higher--and the terrorism campaign against us officially has crossed state borders.

Reports indicate Mississippi cops shot Ismael Lopez in the back of the head, adding a layer of vulgarity to Trump's police speech and reflecting the futility of seeking rational conversation with many cops

Ismael Lopez and his wife
(From cnn.com)

In a speech last week to law-enforcement officials, Donald Trump seemed to encourage police brutality. In the same speech, Trump made a reference to the Second Amendment, apparently suggesting that cops should feel free to open fire  on suspects at will.

It would be interesting to ask Ismael Lopez, of Southaven, Mississippi, what he thinks about these developments. Unfortunately, Lopez is not available for comment. Just a few days before Trump's speech, he was shot and killed by police trying to serve a warrant . . . at the wrong house.

Yep, some of the cops we entrust with mega doses of lethal weaponry are not capable of reading house addresses correctly. And the Lopez shooting appears to be another case of cops trying to blame a victim of their brutality. It also shows that it often is futile to attempt rational communication with a cop. Carol and I know that from firsthand experience.

According to initial reports, Lopez answered the door and pointed a gun out the crack, prompting officers to yell at him to drop the gun, firing when he did not immediately do so. That, of course, is the law-enforcement version of events. Family members and witnesses now are saying Lopez had no gun, and that police fired through a closed door, not one that was open, as Desoto County District Attorney John Champion had claimed. From a report at CBS News:

Wednesday, however, Lopez family attorney Murray Wells painted a starkly different picture of the events leading up to Lopez's death. Speaking to reporters, Wells said Lopez's wife was in the bedroom with Lopez and insists her husband did not have a gun when he walked towards the door.

Wells said Lopez's wife never heard any verbal commands or instructions before the officer opened fire, and Lopez's body fell "many feet" from the door.

Wells shared pictures with WREG-TV of the home's door marred with bullet holes. He said investigators he hired concluded that the door was closed when three shots were fired through it, not open as Champion said.

"You can track the trace of the bullets. Three bullets went into that door and the door was shut when those bullets went into the door," Wells said. "My investigative team has concluded it was direct line. ... There is no way the door was cracked open and someone was there."

According to a report at the Memphis Commercial-Appeal, police shot Lopez in the back of the head:

An attorney for the family of Ismael Lopez, the auto mechanic fatally shot by police in Southaven, says he was killed by a single gunshot to the back of the head.

The attorney, Murray Wells, said Friday that the lawyers got permission from family members and from the coroner's office to view the body at the morgue. There, a lawyer for the firm discovered an obvious gunshot wound to the back of the head, Wells said.

Wells wouldn't say which of the firm's lawyers went to the morgue, but said it wasn't him, and that there are only four attorneys at the law firm, Horne and Wells.

The family attorneys and a close friend of the family had previously raised concerns about bullet holes in the front door of the home and drew the conclusion that Lopez had been shot through the closed door.

Wells called for the resignations of Southaven officials involved, as well as a Department of Justice inquiry.

Wells told The Los Angeles Times that officers involved in the shooting should face criminal charges. From The Times report:

"We think it was an execution," Wells said at a news conference Friday at his Memphis office. "Now, when you're firing through a door, we think it complicates things. Physical evidence says their story isn't true. . . .

"This man died running away from people who were trespassing on his premises."

A reasonable citizen might ask, "Couldn't this have been avoided if Lopez had tried to talk with police and explain that they were at the wrong house?" Experience has taught me that such an effort almost surely would have failed.  No. 1, a lot of cops aren't very bright and don't seem capable of rational discussion or any form of reason. No. 2, many cops are ignorant of the facts and law surrounding a case, and they like it that way. They aren't about to listen to anyone who tries to interject reality into a situation.

Consider our experience with Missouri deputies who conducted an unlawful eviction that led to Carol's broken arm. I repeatedly tried to explain to them that we had filed a Notice of Appeal, and under Missouri law, that placed a stay on the eviction. In essence, I said: "You're at the right house, but you've got the facts and the law all wrong -- and with the eviction stayed -- you have no lawful grounds to be here."

Statements from cops in an investigative report show that they knew I was right -- I had filed a Notice of Appeal. Unfortunately, the cops' own words show they were clueless about Missouri law on the subject. Here are the words of Officer Debi Wade:

Mr. Shuler was being very argumentative and was adamant that there was a court ordered stay on the case but otherwise appeared to be following the deputies' directives once outside of the residence.

Although I had checked case.net for any changes in the case earlier that morning, I told [Mr. Shuler] that I would check on it again to ensure nothing had changed. I looked up the case on case.net and found no change to the case since I had last looked. Mr. Shuler had made a motion to stay, but the judge had not ruled on it yet. therefore there was no court ordered stay at that time. I called into the office and asked our paralegal to contact our attorney's office to verify that they were not aware of any changes to the case and was told to proceed with the execution. I came back and attempted to tell Mr. Shuler my findings, but he did not want to listen to reason, only to argue with us.

First, I should note that much of what Wade says is a lie. She never said a word to me about checking with her office. I suspect her claim about contacting a paralegal is false. I repeatedly raised the issue with Sheriff Jim Arnott on the scene, and his response was to turn his palms upward and shrug his shoulders. I'm not sure he ever uttered a word about it, and certainly no other officer did.

Most importantly, Wade got the law wrong, on multiple grounds. Under RSMo 534.350, the eviction was unlawfully scheduled inside the 10-day window for filing an appeal. And the filing of a Notice of Appeal, plus payment of an appeal bond, puts an automatic stay on execution. (Our case did not involve an appeal bond because there were no money damages, and we paid appropriate appellate fees. We have documents that show the Missouri Court of Appeals had received our Notice of Appeal, and all attorneys in the case had electronic access to that information -- in addition to the notice I had provided to opposing lawyers.)

By law, a stay does not have to be "court ordered." It is in place when the Notice of Appeal is filed. Wade admits I filed the notice, but she is too stupid to know the law. Then she claims I didn't "want to listen to reason, only to argue" with her. She didn't provide any "reason"; she only proved that, like all other officers on the scene that day, she is dumb as a frickin' post.

Officer Jeremy Lynn fits into the same category. Here are his words about what happened after he and 6-8 other officers burst into our home:

The male was being verbally confrontational and resisting by non compliance to commands. Based on his actions, he was secured in handcuffs and removed from the home. He was identified as Robert (sic) Shuler.

Once outside, both parties [Carol and me] continued to scream and yell at us uncontrollably. Once we were able to calm them down, we advised them they were being evicted per a court order. Both parties continued to debate the legalities and justification of our actions. It was then explained that they were leaving per the court order, and if they wanted any property from in the home, they would need to calm down, then they would be allowed to get it.

The home had been posted before the eviction and neither party had made any effort to pack the home.

How stupid is Lynn? One, there is zero evidence that he or anyone else had a valid court order to evict us. Two, the court docket shows judgment in the case clearly is labeled "interlocutory" (non-final), with a followup hearing set for 10/1/15. There could be no valid court order, authorized by a judge, based on a non-final order. Of course, Jeremy Lynn is too stupid to know that.

Then, note his tough-guy language, highlighted in yellow. This is classic "copspeak" -- you are going to do what we say, regardless of the facts and the law and whether we have a valid court order or not. Notice Lynn's last sentence: He claims the home "had been posted," but were the postings lawful? No, they were not -- and given the judge's non-final order -- they couldn't have been.

This is almost certainly the kind of response Ismael Lopez would have gotten if he had tried to explain to cops that they were at the wrong house. Consider the words of Lopez' lawyer; they apply to his case and to ours. This from a report at The Washington Post:

The family’s attorney, Murray Wells told reporters the house officers should have gone to, had a large ‘P’ on the door. [According to the arrest warrant, cops were looking for a man named Samuel Pearman -- hence, the 'P' on his house. Did the cops bother to ask Ismael Lopez if his name was Samuel Pearman? Did the cops wonder why a man with a Europe-based name like Pearman looked Hispanic? The answers apparently are nope and nope. It's easier to shoot first and ponder such issues later.]

“They should have never been on the [Lopez] property in the first place,” he told the Commercial Appeal.

The lawyer nails it with this: "[Police] should have never been on the property in the first place." The same applies to our case, and cops admit I tried to tell them they had no lawful grounds to be on our property -- and it did absolutely no good because they are resistant to listening. In fact, cops seem to be resistant to thought, period.

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 2)

How could Carol and I tell Missouri public defender Patty Poe was lying to us, over and over? We'll start by examining our communications with her on a central question in Carol's case: Was our eviction legal? In other words, did the cops who broke Carol's arm have lawful grounds to be on our rented property, much less to be breaking into our residence?

If you have an Internet connection, conducting legal research is much easier than it was 15-20 years ago, when it generally required a trip to a law library and the ability to sort through shelves full of reporters, law reviews, treatises, etc. In our case, Carol made Google her friend and sent Poe information about Missouri eviction law, a topic Poe admitted she knew almost nothing about. (Carol's five emails, and Poe's responses are embedded at the end of this post.) Here is Carol's email on eviction law. (My name was on the email because the eviction also involved me.) Because the subject is so central to the case, it's the longest email in the series:


CAROL'S ASSERTIONS 

Patty:

Our research shows cops had no lawful grounds to be on the rented property on 9/9/15, which means Carol was the victim of an unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment -- and all evidence gathered during such an event must be excluded, with charges against Carol dismissed. Understanding Missouri tenant/landlord law is central to describing the Fourth Amendment violations. Here are the key points:

(1) Eviction was unlawful because rent was not late for one month – Under Missouri law, eviction proceedings cannot begin in a rent-and-possession case until rent is late for one month (RSMo 535.120). Rent for Roger and Carol Shuler was paid through July 31, 2015. Landlord Trent Cowherd initiated eviction proceedings by filing a rent-and-possession petition on Aug. 5, 2015. (See docket for Trent Cowherd v. Roger Shuler, et al, case no. 1531-AC04535 at case.net.) The Shulers’ rent was only five days late at this point, and eviction proceedings could not begin until Sept. 1 or shortly thereafter. The actual eviction took place on Sept. 9, but the proceedings were initiated 25 days too early, under Missouri law.

(2) Eviction was unlawfully scheduled – Judgment was entered in the underlying eviction case on Aug. 31. (See docket for Trent Cowherd v. Roger Shuler, et al, case no. 1531-AC04535.) That started a 10-day window (ending on Sept. 10) when execution could not take place under Missouri law (RSMo. 534.350). But the eviction was scheduled for Sept. 9, unlawfully inside the 10-day window.

(3) Eviction was stayed by the Shulers’ timely filed notice of appeal -- A notice of appeal, with proper payment of fees and bond, puts a stay on eviction, under Missouri law (RSMo. 534.350). There was no money judgment against the Shulers, so there was no bond. (See RSMo. 534.380.) The Shulers filed their notice and paid their fees on Sept. 8, and it appears in the case docket. (See docket for Trent Cowherd v. Roger Shuler, et al, case no. 1531-AC04535.) All lawyers in the case were notified on Sept. 8 -- via email from Roger Shuler, plus documents in the file show the notice of appeal was available to them via secure, electronic case.net file, and the Mo. Court of Appeals had sent correspondence, noting receipt of the appeal. The eviction was stayed, as a matter of law, but it took place the next day anyway. There is no excuse for the attorneys, the landlord and the sheriff to allow this to happen. It represents gross negligence -- Fourth Amendment violations.

(4) Judgment in eviction lawsuit was interlocutory (non-final) and could not support execution -- The judgment on Aug. 27 was listed in the docket as an “interlocutory judgment,” and contained the same description when it was entered and filed on Aug. 31. (See docket for Trent Cowherd v. Roger Shuler, et al, case no. 1531-AC04535.) This apparently is because the Shulers’ counterclaim, and other issues, were set for hearing on Oct. 1, 2015. With very few exceptions, none of which applied in the underlying eviction case, interlocutory judgments are not appealable. The Shulers, at the time, did not realize it was an interlocutory judgment and went ahead and filed their notice of appeal. But based on the docket and the designation “interlocutory judgment,” the 10-day window for appeal could not have begun until sometime after Oct. 1. That means the eviction on Sept. 9 was even more premature, and more unlawful, than was originally thought.

(5) There was no valid court order, signed by a judge and authorized by a court, allowing the eviction -- None of the eviction notices left on the Shulers' door was signed by a judge, as required by RSMo. 534.350. They were signed by Deputy Scott Harrison or Cowherd attorney Craig Lowther (or both), with a notation that “this is a court order.” Without the signature and authorization of a judge (and without a stamped Greene County seal, as required by law), the notice was not a lawful court order and suggests that Harrison and Lowther may have committed a fraud on the court, and perhaps even a crime – one that caused severe physical, emotional, and financial damages for the Shulers. Since the underlying judgment was interlocutory, it's unlikely Judge Kelly Halford Rose signed a court order because she had not issued a final judgment yet in the Cowherd lawsuit.

(6) Even if it were true (and it isn't) the allegation of an "assault" by Carol Shuler actually involved lawful conduct under Missouri's Castle Doctrine Law -- Carol is allowed under Missouri Castle Doctrine Law (RSMo. 563.031) to protect her home and herself and loved ones from what she “reasonably believes” to be unlawful intruders. There is no question that Carol Shuler had a reasonable belief that Officer Jeremy Lynn was an unlawful intruder. And evidence shows that Lynn was, in fact, an unlawful intruder -- and police officers are not exempted under the Castle Doctrine; if they are going to break into someone's home, they need to make sure they are doing it lawfully. Carol did not push Lynn, as alleged, but it would have been lawful if she had. In short, the GCSO and PA's office brought a criminal charge against Carol for alleged behavior that, even if it happened, is lawful under Missouri's Castle Doctrine.

(7) The eviction was an unlawful forcible entry and detainer -- RSMo. 534.020 states as follows: "If any person shall enter upon or into any lands, tenements, or other possessions, with force or strong hand, or with weapons, or by breaking open the doors or windows or other parts of a house, whether any person be in it or not, or by threatening to kill, maim or beat the party in possession, or by such words or actions as have a natural tendency to excite fear or apprehension of danger, or by putting out of doors or carrying away the goods of the party in possession, or by entering peaceably and then turning out by force or frightening by threats of other circumstances of terror, the party out of possession, and detain and hold the same in every such case, the person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a "forcible entry and detainer" within the meaning of this chapter." The actions of the landlord and GCSO personnel clearly represent a "forcible entry and detainer," making this an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

(8) Evidence obtained from an unlawful search must be excluded -- Under longstanding Fourth Amendment law, evidence obtained during an unreasonable search and seizure must be excluded. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). In the instant case, all evidence was obtained during a search and seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, it all must be suppressed, and there is no factual basis for Carol Shuler’s arrest, incarceration, or a trial. The "assault" charge must be dismissed.

POE'S RESPONSES 

(1) Patty Poe sez: My interpretation of RSMo 535.120 allows for an action to be brought whenever 1 months rent is arrear, it does not contain any information as to how late the rent must be.

The Reality: I'm not sure what Poe is trying to say here. Her response seems to be an accurate statement of the law. But in our final in-person meeting with her, she tried to take a simple issue and make it complicated, by saying that when rent is one day late, the entire month is late. This was her way of claiming that landlord Trent Cowherd, by bringing an eviction proceeding against us when our rent was only five days late, was within the law.

Unfortunately for Poe and Cowherd, that's not what Missouri law says. First, language from House Bill 481, which ushered in the one-month provision in 2009: "(30) Changes when an eviction proceeding can commence from when the rent is six months in arrearage to when it is one month in arrearage. (Section 535.120)"

Until eight years ago, rent had to be six months late before a landlord could bring an eviction proceeding. Under the previous law, Poe's version of calculating time obviously was not correct. And there is nothing in the new law that indicates the calculation of time has changed; it simply says a landlord can proceed with an eviction claim when rent is late by one month, rather than six months.

On top of that, Wikipedia makes clear that the term "arrear" and "arrears," when used properly, don't mean quite the same thing: "Payment in arrear is a payment made after a service has been provided, as distinct from in advance, which are payments made at the start of a period. For instance, rent is usually paid in advance, but mortgages in arrear (the interest for the period is due at the end of the period). . . . Payment at the end of a period is referred to by the singular arrear, to distinguish from past due payments. For example, a housing tenant who is obliged to pay rent at the end of each month, is said to pay rent in arrear, while a tenant who has not paid rental due for 30 days is said to be one month in arrears."

Our rent, like most rent, was due in advance -- and it could not be one month late until it had not been paid for 30 days. That means Cowherd jumped the gun on eviction by 25 days.


(2) Patty Poe sez: Under RSMo 534.350 the 10 days of execution begins to run the day of the judgment. The execution may be timely based on the partial judgment, but may not be based on the formal interlocutory judgment. Unfortunately, as to the criminal charge, it doesn't matter. What matters is were the officers acting in good faith, did they believe they were executing a judgment. I disagree with your interpretation of bond, if you wanted to stay the execution of the judgment an appeal bond needed to be posted.

The Reality: Lies don't come much bigger than this. The statute Poe cites simply does not say what she claims. The governing law is Missouri Supreme Court Rule 74.01, which holds "A judgment is rendered when entered. A judgment is entered when a writing signed by the judge and denominated "judgment" or "decree" is filed." The docket in our eviction case at case.net shows the judge issued an order on the date of our hearing, Aug. 27, 2015. But it was not entered with the court until four days later, Aug. 31. That set the beginning of our 10-day period for appeal, which ended on Sept. 10. Our eviction, however, was scheduled for (and carried out on) Sept. 9. This might be the single most unreal issue in our eviction -- it actually was scheduled on a date when, by law, it absolutely could not be scheduled. (We later learned some complicating issues that made the scheduled eviction even more unlawful than we thought. For example, the eviction judgment was an interlocutory order and could not be final until after a scheduled hearing on Oct. 1, 2015. Plus, no judgment -- other than a default judgment -- becomes final in Missouri for 30 days. So Cowherd jumped the gun even more than we originally thought.)

The rest of Poe's response here is pure rubbish, as we have shown in previous posts.


(3) Patty Poe sez: See above. Poe is referring to the final sentence of her response No. 2, which reads: "I disagree with your interpretation of bond, if you wanted to stay the execution of the judgment an appeal bond needed to be posted."

The Reality: Poe is wrong, and she probably knows it because she makes no citation to law to support her claim. RSMo 534.380 spells out the reality, under Missouri law: "Applications for appeals shall be allowed and conducted in the manner provided as in other civil cases. Application for appeal shall not stay execution for restitution of the premises unless the defendant gives bond within the time for appeal. The bond shall be for the amount of the judgment . . . "

Anyone can view the docket in our eviction case at case.net, check the judgment and see there was no money judgment against us -- no "amount" is listed. Thus, there is no bond to pay. Patty Poe can "disagree" all she wants, but she is wrong.


(4) Patty Poe sez: See above. Poe is referring to the second sentence in her response No. 2: "The execution may be timely based on the partial judgment, but may not be based on the formal interlocutory judgment."

The Reality: As usual, Poe makes no citation to law, so it's hard to determine what she's trying to say. Even she seems to admit execution of an eviction cannot be based on an interlocutory judgment, so that agrees with Carol. Not sure why she just didn't say, "I agree."


(5) Patty Poe sez: "A judgment was entered, signed by a judge, which allowed the landlord to execute a notice to vacate which was signed by the clerk."

The Reality: Poe is thoroughly screwed up here. Yes, a judgment was entered and signed by a judge, but that has nothing to do with a Notice to Vacate. It can involve a Writ of Execution, but that must be authorized and signed by a judge (per RSMo 534.350), and Poe essentially admits that wasn't done. It also must be stamped with the Greene County seal -- apparently to prevent corrupt landlords and lawyers from conducting self-evictions -- and that wasn't done either.


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

The Reality: We've already shown Poe is filled with copious amounts of horse manure on the Castle Doctrine issue, which doesn't even apply in Carol's case because "victim" Jeremy Lynn admits he "caused physical contact" with Carol, so she could not have assaulted him under the central element in the Missouri statute. I have no idea where Poe gets the notion that deputies thought they reasonably were executing an arrest for trespass. We have received written statements from four deputies on the scene, and none of them has claimed they were on the scene for any reason having to do with alleged trespass.


(7) Patty Poe sez: Nothing.

The Reality: It can't be seriously disputed that the eviction was an unlawful forcible entry and detainer (per RSMo. 534.020), so Poe doesn't want to go there.


(8) Patty Poe sez: Nothing.

The Reality: Again, it can't be seriously disputed that evidence gathered during an unlawful seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment must be excluded (per Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 1961). Even Poe knows she can't win this argument, so she doesn't go there.

(To be continued)


Previously:

Lies my Missouri public defender told me (Part 1) -- 1/3/18

My wife, Carol, goes back before a judge tomorrow in her "assault" case, as evidence surfaces that Missouri eviction was even more unlawful than we thought

Carol Tovich Shuler

It recently came to our attention that we made a mistake in handling the eviction lawsuit that led to Missouri deputies breaking my wife Carol's arm. The good news is our mistake caused us to realize the eviction was even more unlawful than we thought.

Issues related to this discovery should be in play when Carol returns to court at 9 a.m. tomorrow (6/7/17) in an effort to get dismissal of bogus "assault on a law enforcement officer" charges. Insight generated from our mistake adds to the mountain of evidence that there were no lawful grounds for an eviction and no lawful grounds for deputies to be on the property. In fact, there now is doubt that a legitimate eviction notice ever was filed in our case, and we see evidence that at least one deputy and one attorney might have engaged in what appears to be gross court-related fraud.

What was our mistake? After Judge Kelly Halford Rose ruled for landlord Trent Cowherd in his rent-and-possession case, we timely filed a notice of appeal, inside the 10-day window for doing so. On the surface, there was no mistake in that. But we failed to realize that the docket entries when Rose issued the order (on 8/27/15) and filed the order with the court (on 8/31/15) are designated as "interlocutory judgments." (Note: You can view the docket entries by going to case.net and searching for Trent Cowherd v. Roger Shuler, case no. 1531-AC04535.)

The term interlocutory means the judgment was not final -- and that means it was not appealable. Why not? Judge Rose only heard a portion of the case -- the landlord's rent-and-possession claim -- on August 27, 2015. She scheduled a hearing for October 1, 2015 to hear all other aspects of the case, including our counterclaim for breach of contract and other torts.

Interlocutory judgments can be appealed only in limited circumstances, none of which applied to our eviction case. That means we jumped the gun when we filed our notice of appeal. We should have waited until a final judgment was issued and filed, sometime after October 1.

More importantly, this means Cowherd, his lawyers, and Sheriff Jim Arnott jumped the gun -- big time -- on the eviction. As we've reported multiple times, Missouri law provides a 10-day window in which execution of an eviction cannot take place. The window starts on the date judgment is filed with the court; in our case that was on August 31, with the 10 days expiring on Sept. 10. (Amazingly, our eviction was scheduled on Sept. 9, inside the 10-day window. That is one of at least six grounds that make the eviction unlawful.)

The 10-day window gives the defendant (us, in this case) time to file a notice of appeal, and if that happens, it puts a stay on execution. But the 10-day window, we now realize, never started in our case because there was no final judgment. That means we filed our notice of appeal too soon, and the eviction was conducted way too soon, long before there was a final judgment that gave Cowherd the right to evict.

Trent and Sharon Cowherd

How did this happen? Well, we are non-lawyers, and while I was familiar with the term interlocutory and knew what it meant, I never noticed it on the docket entries (until recently). In my defense, the process was confusing because Rose chose to split the case, hearing part of it in late August and holding the rest for early October. My research indicates a judge can do that in rent-and-possession cases, but it sure raises confusion for pro se defendants. Finally, Judge Rose -- while she apparently acted lawfully (that's a shocker!) -- made no effort to explain the interlocutory nature of her judgment to us.

Rose could have said something like this: "Mr. and Mrs. Shuler, I want to make sure you understand that I have ruled in favor of Mr. Cowherd in the rent-and-possession portion of this case. And I have set other issues, including your counterclaim, for hearing on Oct.1. That means my findings here today are interlocutory; they are not final. I've determined that Mr. Cowherd has a right to regain possession of the apartment, but I have not made a determination on other issues in this case. And execution of any eviction cannot take place until I have filed a final judgment, which will be sometime after Oct. 1. Also, the 10-day window for you to file a notice of appeal, which would place a stay on execution, will not start until I file a final judgment after Oct. 1."

Words to that effect would have cleared things up for us. But we learned long ago that judges aren't in the helping business. Most of them aren't in the justice business, either. In fact, I'm not sure what business they are in, other than making easy money for themselves and providing unlawful favors for their friends and fellow members of the legal tribe.

As for tomorrow's hearing, Carol has filed three new motions, one of which deals directly with the issues outlined above. (Those motions are embedded at the end of this post. The first document below -- Amended Motion to Dismiss Charges Under Missouri's Castle Doctrine Law . . . -- deals most directly with issues raised in this post.)

What about the deputy and attorney who might have engaged in serious chicanery related to this case? We will address them and their actions in an upcoming post.

Court docket shows that multiple documents were on file to stay our eviction, but dumb-ass Missouri cops went ahead with it anyway, breaking Carol's arm

Debi Wade

A Missouri deputy claims in an investigative report that, on the day of our eviction, she could find no changes in the record that would stay execution. Officer Debi Wade even claims to have spoken to individuals in the sheriff's legal office, and they told her to proceed with the eviction. But a simple check of the docket reveals at least three documents were filed, all dated Sept. 8 or 9, 2015, and all proving that we timely filed a notice of appeal that put a stay on the eviction.

All three documents are embedded at the end of this post, and we also link to them in the text of this post. Let's briefly examine each one, knowing that together, they provide a mountain of evidence that the eviction leading to Carol's broken arm was unlawful:

(1) Notice of Appeal -- This shows that we timely filed the Notice of Appeal, inside the 10-day window allowed by Missouri law. It was filed at 11:56 a.m. on Sept. 8, 2015, roughly 27 hours before cops arrived to evict us. It also shows we paid the $70 filing fee -- and a copy of the court order we were appealing shows there was no money judgment, so no bond was required. This one document shows the eviction was unlawful, and Wade admits she saw it. So how did we get thrown out of our home? I can think of only one explanation -- cops are stupid, incompetent, and dishonest.

(2) Case.net Retrieval Notice -- The date on this document is not clear, but it apparently was filed on Sept. 8, 2015. The notice states: "Notice of Appeal saved and attached in PDF format for Attorney(s) to retrieve from secure case.net. Notice of Appeal sent electronically to Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District." I sent notice via e-mail to all lawyers involved in the eviction case -- Gregory Lulich, of Johnson Lowther firm, and my own corrupt brother, David Shuler. So they had two forms of notice -- the one I sent, and the one noted in this document via secure case.net. Is there any excuse for two attorneys to allow a clearly unlawful eviction to proceed? I can't think of one.

(3) Missouri Court of Appeals Correspondence -- This document, dated Sept. 9, 2015, shows that not only had we filed a Notice of Appeal, but the Missouri Court of Appeals had received it.

Debi Wade stated that she could find nothing that stayed our eviction, and no one in the sheriff's legal office could find it either. These documents show she was lying or was blazingly incompetent.