You are on page 1of 3

Gary Raney (graney@adaweb.

net) Add to contacts 3/14/14 To: WILLIAM GRIGG

Mr. Grigg,

Your history of trespassing on truth and reason causes me to have little interest in taking time away from my public duties to further your personal interests; however I will adamantly tell you that the actions by the Sheriff’s Office followed the law, including protecting personal information relevant to concealed weapons permits. We had a duty and followed it. Any suggestion otherwise, and any suggestion that our actions were politically motivated, is blatantly false.

As to Rep. Boyle, enough evidence of misconduct existed that we felt obligated to forward that information to the Speaker of the House and allow their ethics system determine if any action was warranted.

From: WILLIAM GRIGG [] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 10:56 AM To: Gary Raney Subject: Enduring questions about the Patterson case

Sheriff Raney, my name is William Grigg, and I'm writing a story about the Mark Patterson case. During an interview with Kevin Miller on KIDO last fall you said that the matter is "closed," but there are still pending matters that must be addressed.

1) You have claimed that the revocation of Patterson's CWL in 2013 came about because of a "tip" regarding information in his NCIC background check. Dan Popkey has confirmed that "No

additional NCIC checks were performed" subsequent to the one in April 2012 that resulted in your office *approving* Patterson's CWL application, as it had five years earlier. This means that you were aware of his withheld judgment no later than April 2012, roughly a year *before* this supposed discovery -- yet you didn't make an issue out of this until after Patterson had criticized you for lobbying against a gun-rights measure. This brings up two questions: * Were you delinquent in approving Patterson's CWL application twice before revoking it last year? * Since you were aware of the withheld judgment, why pretend that this was "discovered" as a result of a "tip" from an unnamed source?

2) It is against federal law to disclose information from an NCIC check; according to the Idaho AG's office, this is against state law, as well. Either you, or somebody in your office, was involved in making this information available to the public. Two more questions arise: *Are you investigating this criminal act, as you are legally and ethically required to do? *If not, shouldn't you be prosecuted as an accessory to a crime?

3) You have filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Judy Boyle for making an inquiry of the AG's office regarding the CWL law and this issue of a previous withheld judgment. She has explained to me that this question was raised by one of her constituents, who is in a situation broadly similar to that of Mark Patterson. Offering a remarkably contrived argument you claimed that Rep. Boyle "committed a crime" because her question would be of benefit to Patterson. Two questions (one of them compound) present themselves: * Are you seeking criminal prosecution of Rep. Boyle -- and, if not, why not? * If the answer to the question above is "no," isn't it reasonable to view this complaint as a purely retaliatory act?

4) Your email to Speaker Bedke on October 31 you seemed to suggest that it had been your intent to prosecute Mark Patterson for not mentioning his withheld judgment in his CWL application. Is that the case? If so, did this prove to be impossible because of the legal opinion provided by Brian Kane (in addition to the fact that your office twice approved Patterson's CWL, knowing about the withheld judgment from 40 years ago)?

5) What role, if any, did you play in the selection of Patrick McDonald, a former ISP officer, to replace Mark Patterson? I require answers to these questions, and they will be publicized -- as would a refusal to provide them. Very truly yours, William N. Grigg 208.642.8285