Police Commissioners

The Board of Commissioners Police Report




This report was the result of my personal meeting with Mr. Walker.
I presented the deposition of Mary, during the deposition she admitted I did not mail any letters to her.
Again law enforcement failed to investigate and the detective knowingly accepted from her material dated and recorded as to be in existence before the order was issued.
One such complaint did not generate the warrant she and her friends needed to further destroy my credibility (I have memo from attorney stating the Prosecutor declined to issue the warrant).
My attorney of record at the time and eventually one other attorney are aware the Prosecutor claimed that if something else happened they would then issue a warrant based on the complaint they declined to issue the warrant over.
Bottom line Mary's complaint I called her could not be proven, and Mary knew this as that is on tape as well.
Mary then became very creative.
She went back to the same detective she made the report to concerning alleged phone call, and provided him with several letters she claimed I mailed to her in violation of the order.
The detective was more than willing to accept such from her, even though he knew that one letter was dated before she left the home, before any order was issued.
She provided a copy of the order, so the detective knew when it was given to her.
The date on this report was September 16, 2001, the report included her phone call allegation as well as her letter claim and copies of letters.
The letter dated that was clearly not a violation should have been enough to cause the detective to understand the woman was lying.
Sadly that was not the case.
Remember I said she went back to that detective after Prosecutor declined to issue the warrant?
In fact she did in early October 2001, that is when she provided the letters, we know this due to a letter I sent to her family advising them what Mary had involved herself in, with whom etc.
The letter was approved by my attorney and in no way violated the order.
Mary did not live with her sister, the letter was for her family and was directed to such.
The letter to them was sent return receipt requested, I have the original receipt and the date signed for.
It was signed for September 27, 2001, therefore Mary could not have provided the letters to the detective on any date prior to that date, yet the report states that she in fact did.
Mary and the detective knowingly provided false information about myself after the warrant was declined in order to cause the 'something else that must happen before a warrant would issue over an alleged unproven phone call.'
Naturally there was no investigation into her claim, after all the detective knew she was lying when she did it.
 More than 90 days later this report including the letter claim was forwarded to the Prosecutor for a warrant.
No forwarded report has ever been discovered concerning the phone call allegation, yet there must have been one because on October 25, 2001, my attorney again called the prosecutor to ask if they were going to issue a warrant and again they declined to do so.
So, a report must have been forwarded to them before January date listed on the report, otherwise the prosecutor would not have been aware of any complaint prior to that date.
There is no evidence of a second report filed which would have been about the letters.
No evidence of a report filed before January which would have been about alleged phone call.
The two complaints were sent as one is the only conclusion possible, the return receipt proves the report that was forwarded was not taken before September 27, 2001, as the report indicates.
The two of them conspired to present false statements about myself and got away with it.
I was unaware of any of this until months later, and upon discovering such realized the police were in fact acting as Mary's personal vigilante against myself.
What else would one think at this time?
The police department has an internal policy, a policy that requires a person to file a complaint within 90 days of such activity.
Well, isn't that nice to know?
In my case I was not aware of such activity for several months after it happened.
Also this policy explains why the complaint she made was not forwarded for a warrant for Four months.
This way 90 days had come and gone, before case was presented to Prosecutor and the detective was in the clear with the department, because no action will be taken against an officer if complaint is not made within the 90 days.
I call this the 'Blank Check' policy; whereby as long as the police can conceal such activity for 90 days or longer the offending officer will not be disciplined.
Again a police official acted as a vigilante for her against myself and knowingly provided false information in the desire to gain a warrant.
Also the Prosecutors office did not require a police investigation to determine probable cause before issuing such a warrant.
Our Bill of Rights states 'No warrant shall issue unless upon probable cause.'
The word of Mary or any other person is not probable cause, investigations must take place to arrive at such a determination.
Sadly on her say so alone I have suffered needlessly, and those she has lied for remain free.

Previous Page

Next Page