Legal Magazine

Missouri Deputy Jeremy Lynn Deems Me an "anti-government" Blogger During Carol's Trial, and Judge Jerry Harmison Allows the Absurd Statement to Stand

Posted on the 11 June 2018 by Rogershuler @RogerShuler

Missouri Deputy Jeremy Lynn Deems

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."

You Might Also Like :

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog

These articles might interest you :