You are on page 1of 2

TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION?

Pulling us out of the mainstream

TAKING TROPHIES

PAGE 2

SHERIFF J.
Opinion and Commentary By Reggie Paulk
went public. You only have yourself to blame for that sheriff.

grandcountyuncensored.com

December 16, 2011 || Volume 1, Number 21 || Free

FROM THE DEAD


above in last week's paper. Unfortunately, your office decided not to respond to my enquires, so it I included communications I sent to your office which addressed the issues you mention never talked to me about any of this and you only talked to one rancher." "And yes it is unbelievable that you look at everything from both sides. As you state you How was I going to talk to you about something your office refused to discuss sheriff? "You mention case number 11000736 and the handgun. You make reference the standard practice of the Grand County Sheriff disposing of evidence before trial. There is no reference in the report that my office or I was and/or is interested in disposing of evidence before the time when it was turned back over to the Sheriffs Office. The handgun you refer to was

seized the weapons used by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in the Columbine Massacre, but

What would the citizens of Jefferson County do if they discovered their sheriff not only

regularly took them out to the range where deputies, county employees and members of the public could shoot them? What would the citizens do if they thought the sheriff seized those weapons for the sole purpose of using them as trophies? Would it be dismissed as morbid fascination or reviled good judgement? We soon shall see.

as a dispicable transgression by an elected official who must stand out as a symbol of integrity and After last week's paper, in which I pointed out that our dear sheriff was breaking the law

with regard to document requests, I finally received a response to questions I'd been asking for weeks. His response, with my commentary in italics, below.

is very sad. It is apparent that you are a very troubled person with an unprepossessing paranoia towards

"Mr Paulk, After reading some of your writings I have come to you know you better and what I see

trial. And furthermore there is no reference as to this handgun being evidence to an active case at evidence to a criminal case and when the case was closed by the courts the handgun was given to Jack DiCola the defendants attorney in order to hold onto it because the defendant was on a deferred sentence for a felony and a convicted felon may not possess a firearm. Then at a later date Mr DiCola brought the handgun back to the Sheriffs Office after he decided he no longer wished hold it for his client. Now the Sheriffs Office has a piece of property that is not evidence to the court. The Sheriffs Office never disposes of evidence before the case is closed. I did not use the word trial because there are numerous times a case is closed without a trial. The Sheriffs Office must get rid of old evidence and property at times to make room for new evidence and

government or just simply an ardent crackpot. Either way you have my sympathy and I will pray for you." the above you just committed? Remember, you initially CC'd the undersheriff and your records keeper in your response:

There are five conditions for a case of libel to be met sheriff. Can you spot how many of

offense, suffers from a contagious disease or psychological disorder (paranoia anyone?), is unfit for public office because of moral failings or an inability to discharge his or her duties, or lacks integrity in profession, trade or business 2)That the charge must be false

" 1) Actionable words, such as those imputing the injured party: is guilty of some

an active case and will likely be stuck with it forever unless we can get a order to dispose of it from

3)That the charge must be articulated to a third person, verbally or in writing Congress and 4)That the words are not subject to legal protection, such as those uttered in 5)That the charge must be motivated by malice." (Source: Wikipedia)

property, since it would be impossible for any Sheriffs Office to keep all the old evidence and/or

property for ever from the beginning of time regardless whether the owner is known or not. The last accused. And for the record this case had nothing to do with John Coors or Deputy Peschiera."

sentence is another disingenuous insinuation as we know this handgun did in fact belong to the For the record sheriff, I've read the letter addressed to you on November 11, 2011 that

one could assume that was your intent since your email wasn't just addressed to me.

We'll check off one through four for sure... Proving the malice would be a tough one, but "As for the records issue. After you pointed it out I did some research and Senate Bill 07

clearly states the accused is not the owner of the handgun. If you'd like me to forward you another copy, please let me know. "Deputy Pamela Peschiera resides on property and in a house owned by John Coors.

045 which rewrote Colorado Revised Statute 2472205 does not apply to the records you mention. However in your blundering you have given me motivation to follow up on this matter. And it turns out you are right under House Bill 081076 which rewrote Colorado Revised Statute 2472306 it was standardized and reads we are able to charge a fee for research, retrieval, and redaction in addition to a fee not to exceed twenty five cents per standard page. I did not realize the law had

Deputy Peschiera does work for Mr Coors in trade for rent of the residence. She resided there

before Coors owned the property as well. I have several Deputies that have off duty agreements with private parties and this is in many situations the only way they can afford to live up here. I personally think it is unreasonable to think that employees of the Sheriffs Office would never citizens to have Deputies that are willing to become part of our community. Your paranoid

been changed, there is no excuse for my oversight and I will be setting a new records fee for my no charge."

become friends or have business relations with any one in the county. I think it is a benefit to the concoction of stating that Mr Coors is receiving the benefit of a personal Sheriffs Deputy on the

office. If you would like to restate your records request I would fulfill this request (one time only) for So, you're the one not following the law, and even after numerous attempts to get you to

publics dime is ludicrous. One of the down sides to entering a career in law enforcement is you are a peace officer 24 hours a day but only on duty when you scheduled so. The law does not draw a difference between the two conditions." You've got a deputy involved in multiple disputes with an adjacent property owner, who

check it out, I'm the one who's blundering? It is good to see you've changed the fee structure on the county website. Thank you. "However I would ask you to be careful about making unfounded concoctions to further

your lunacy. I am not talking about what you say about me because I am aware it comes with the job. What I am referring to is what you are saying about Michael Miniat and John Coors. I do not

lives on the complainents property, works for the owner, and you're defending that as a legitimate arrangement? You'd have to be crazy to not see a problem with that! "In reference to case number 09001043_1 and 09001043_2 Mr Coors called in to report

believe either of these gentlemen would say they are in a feud. I do not know them well personally but they are successful businessmen. No one at the Sheriffs Office or myself would characterize anything they are doing as a feud. If you want to excoriate me then go ahead but to bring in Michael Miniat and John Coors is not professional at all in my opinion even though coming from you, it does not surprise me."

a criminal mischief and Deputy Peschiera took the call and did her best to investigate the incident. never met or has never known the individuals but that sounds just as ludicrous as your writings." looking for evidence in cases of vandilism when there's absolutely no hint of an actual suspect? There's no doubt she did her best. My question was if it is normal to spend nine hours

It would be a great luxury if I had enough budget to be able to assign a Deputy to each call that has

The Grand County Uncensored logo and grandcountyuncensored.com are trademarks of Uncensored Media, LLC. All content copyright 2011, Uncensored Media, LLC.

"In reference to case number 090011151 Deputy Peschiera was off duty and on the ranch when she observed circumstances that later became involved in a criminal trespass. She reported them as a Deputy and put down she was the complainant because she was the initial observer. Deputy Peschiera would have called and had a Deputy respond at the time if she would have known it was a crime but she did not have enough information until she talked with Mr Coors. The particular software we are using requires that someone be the complainant and for an example you will find a peace officer listed for a lot of cases such as almost all DUIs have the name of the complainant as a peace officer and the same peace officer is the reporting officer. I can only imagine the out cry from you if a Deputy who was working for a citizen part time and would not report a crime because they had a relationship with the victim. She did not file the charges or serve the summons as you state." I didn't state any of the above. Here's the quote: "Please refer to Incident Narrative 090011151: Sargeant Pamela Peschiera is listed as both the complainant and reporting officer. Seriously?" There's no mention of filing charges or serving summons sheriff. "The issue with respect to .50 caliber rifle formally belonging to Marvin Heemeyer. All the property to include the 50 caliber that was used in the destruction of property by Heemeyer was seized by me as a public nuisance. There never was an active criminal case on the incident because there was no defendant to charge. I seized the property to prevent the return of it into Heemeyers estate and later into the hands of the family/next of kin if they were to be designated as the personal representatives of the estate. By law the property that is seized for a public nuisance must either be sold and the proceeds go to the victims or destroyed. I ask the Judge to order it destroyed so that it would not be bought by someone for other than the best of intentions. The destruct order has no deadline to on it and is left to my discretion. The 50 caliber rifle has been fired by many people not just Sheriffs Office employees. This has not cost the tax payers anything as all the ammo was either part of the destruct order or has been provided by me personally in counter diction to what you have accused me of which I liken to a school boy throwing a spit wad at the wall with hopes that it will stick." Heemeyer's rampage occurred seven years ago. You siezed a gun that was only inches away from a man who killed himself after committing one of the most notorious crimes in Grand County history. Instead of selling or destroying it, you and others have insulted both Heemeyer's victims and his family by continuing to play with it as your personal trophy. You represent the people sheriff. That gun belongs to the citizens of Grand County. You liken me to a schoolboy, but you fail to understand the implications of your behavior. Do you really think our citizens care who pays for the ammunition? That gun needs to be fired and then destroyed, in front of the public, once and for all. "You have told your readers through the aspersion of your pen you gave me the benefit of the doubt by waiting for a month to have a meeting with my deputies and me. You have never asked for a meeting with me, ever. Then to make a statement that the Deputy in your story violates citizens right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has no place in law enforcement without any facts to back them is right down your alley and I would not expect any thing less." I did give you the benefit of the doubt, and I only said I waited a month for documents. Had I received the documents I'd requested in a timely manner, and priced in accordance with the law, I would have scheduled a meeting. We never got that far, and I doubt you ever would have answered me had I not gone to print. "It is obvious to me that you never let the truth get in the way of your practice of yellow journalism. If this was just about you and me I would not even take the time to answer you. You and I know most of what you write is a large pile of excrement from the male bovine species however there are good citizens who rely on the ethics in journalism to put truth in what they read. I would strongly urge you to read the Canons of Journalism since it is obvious you have not seen them. I will pray for you." Didn't you take an oath to uphold the Constitution sheriff? The First Amendment doesn't mention the Canons of Journalism, and the mark of a true statesman is one who respects views who differ from their own and the laws that protect them. You've revealed a lot about yourself to the citizens of Grand County.

TAXES FROM NONTAXING AUTHORITIES


By Reggie Paulk

I love taxes. Anyone who's read this paper for any length of time knows just how much. I recently heard a rumor that Winter Park Village, at the base of the ski area, was charging an assessment on its tenants based on receipts. Not one to go on rumor alone, I went to a restaurant in the village to see for myself. Sure enough, those sneaky little rascals stuck a 1.6 percent "WPV sales assessment" to the end of my bill. But did you know they're not the only ones collecting fees in the area? Tenants of Cooper Creek Square also assess a "shipping tax" that goes to the building manager. It's voluntary, and the customer may opt outif they know about. Boy, that trip across the counter must be brutal! Now you know.

Grand County Uncensored thrives on your generosity. Your non taxdeductible donations may be sent to: Uncensored Media, LLC P.O. Box 1738 Fraser, CO 80442

Contact the editor: reggie.paulk@gmail.com (303)5527963

You might also like