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
