grandcountyuncensored.com December 16, 2011 || Volume 1, Number 21 || FreePulling us out of the mainstream

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

TAXATIONWITHOUTREPRESENTATION?PAGE 2

TAKING TROPHIESSHERIFF J.FROM THE DEAD

Opinion and Commentary By Reggie PaulkWhat would the citizens of Jefferson County do if they discovered their sheriff not only

seized the weapons used by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in the Columbine Massacre, butregularly took them out to the range where deputies, county employees and members of the publiccould shoot them? What would the citizens do if they thought the sheriff seized those weapons forthe sole purpose of using them as trophies? Would it be dismissed as morbid fascination or reviledas a dispicable transgression by an elected official who must stand out as a symbol of integrity andgood judgement? We soon shall see.

After last week's paper, in which I pointed out that our dear sheriff was breaking the lawwith regard to document requests, I finally received a response to questions I'd been asking forweeks. His response, with my commentary in italics, below.

"Mr Paulk, After reading some of your writings I have come to you know you better and what I seeis very sad. It is apparent that you are a very troubled person with an unprepossessing paranoia towardsgovernment or just simply an ardent crackpot. Either way you have my sympathy and I will pray for you."

There are five conditions for a case of libel to be met sheriff. Can you spot how many ofthe above you just committed? Remember, you initially CC'd the undersheriff and your records­keeper in your response:

" 1) Actionable words, such as those imputing the injured party: is guilty of someoffense, suffers from a contagious disease or psychological disorder (paranoia anyone?), isunfit 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;3)That the charge must be articulated to a third person, verbally or in writing;4)That the words are not subject to legal protection, such as those uttered in

Congress; and5)That the charge must be motivated by malice." (Source: Wikipedia)We'll check off one through four for sure... Proving the malice would be a tough one, but

one could assume that was your intent since your e­mail wasn't just addressed to me."As for the records issue. After you pointed it out I did some research and Senate Bill 07­

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 turnsout you are right under House Bill 08­1076 which rewrote Colorado Revised Statute 24­72­306 itwas standardized and reads we are able to charge a fee for research, retrieval, and redaction inaddition to a fee not to exceed twenty five cents per standard page. I did not realize the law hadbeen changed, there is no excuse for my oversight and I will be setting a new records fee for myoffice. If you would like to restate your records request I would fulfill this request (one time only) forno charge."

So, you're the one not following the law, and even after numerous attempts to get you tocheck it out, I'm the one who's blundering? It is good to see you've changed the fee structure on thecounty website. Thank you.

"However I would ask you to be careful about making unfounded concoctions to furtheryour lunacy. I am not talking about what you say about me because I am aware it comes with thejob. What I am referring to is what you are saying about Michael Miniat and John Coors. I do notbelieve either of these gentlemen would say they are in a feud. I do not know them well personallybut they are successful businessmen. No one at the Sheriff’s Office or myself would characterizeanything they are doing as a feud. If you want to excoriate me then go ahead but to bring in MichaelMiniat and John Coors is not professional at all in my opinion even though coming from you, it doesnot surprise me."

I included communications I sent to your office which addressed the issues you mentionabove in last week's paper. Unfortunately, your office decided not to respond to my enquires, so itwent public. You only have yourself to blame for that sheriff.

"And yes it is unbelievable that you look at everything from both sides. As you state younever talked to me about any of this and you only talked to one rancher."

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 noreference in the report that my office or I was and/or is interested in disposing of evidence beforetrial. And furthermore there is no reference as to this handgun being evidence to an active case atthe time when it was turned back over to the Sheriff’s Office. The handgun you refer to wasevidence to a criminal case and when the case was closed by the courts the handgun was given toJack DiCola the defendant’s attorney in order to hold onto it because the defendant was on adeferred sentence for a felony and a convicted felon may not possess a firearm. Then at a laterdate Mr DiCola brought the handgun back to the Sheriffs Office after he decided he no longerwished hold it for his client. Now the Sheriff’s Office has a piece of property that is not evidence toan active case and will likely be stuck with it forever unless we can get a order to dispose of it fromthe court. The Sheriff’s Office never disposes of evidence before the case is closed. I did not usethe word trial because there are numerous times a case is closed without a trial. The Sheriff’sOffice must get rid of old evidence and property at times to make room for new evidence andproperty, since it would be impossible for any Sheriff’s Office to keep all the old evidence and/orproperty for ever from the beginning of time regardless whether the owner is known or not. The lastsentence is another disingenuous insinuation as we know this handgun did in fact belong to theaccused. And for the record this case had nothing to do with John Coors or Deputy Peschiera."

For the record sheriff, I've read the letter addressed to you on November 11, 2011 thatclearly states the accused is not the owner of the handgun. If you'd like me to forward you anothercopy, please let me know.

"Deputy Pamela Peschiera resides on property and in a house owned by John Coors.Deputy Peschiera does work for Mr Coors in trade for rent of the residence. She resided therebefore Coors owned the property as well. I have several Deputies that have off duty agreementswith private parties and this is in many situations the only way they can afford to live up here. Ipersonally think it is unreasonable to think that employees of the Sheriff’s Office would neverbecome friends or have business relations with any one in the county. I think it is a benefit to thecitizens to have Deputies that are willing to become part of our community. Your paranoidconcoction of stating that Mr Coors is receiving the benefit of a personal Sheriff’s Deputy on thepublic’s dime is ludicrous. One of the down sides to entering a career in law enforcement is you area peace officer 24 hours a day but only on duty when you scheduled so. The law does not draw adifference between the two conditions."

You've got a deputy involved in multiple disputes with an adjacent property owner, wholives on the complainents property, works for the owner, and you're defending that as a legitimatearrangement? 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 reporta criminal mischief and Deputy Peschiera took the call and did her best to investigate the incident.It would be a great luxury if I had enough budget to be able to assign a Deputy to each call that hasnever met or has never known the individuals but that sounds just as ludicrous as your writings."

There's no doubt she did her best. My question was if it is normal to spend nine hourslooking for evidence in cases of vandilism when there's absolutely no hint of an actual suspect?

Contact the editor: reggie.paulk@gmail.com(303)552­7963

"In reference to case number 09­001115­1 Deputy Peschiera was offduty and on the ranch when she observed circumstances that later becameinvolved in a criminal trespass. She reported them as a Deputy and put downshe was the complainant because she was the initial observer. DeputyPeschiera would have called and had a Deputy respond at the time if shewould have known it was a crime but she did not have enough information untilshe talked with Mr Coors. The particular software we are using requires thatsomeone be the complainant and for an example you will find a peace officerlisted for a lot of cases such as almost all DUIs have the name of thecomplainant as a peace officer and the same peace officer is the reportingofficer. I can only imagine the out cry from you if a Deputy who was working fora citizen part time and would not report a crime because they had a relationshipwith the victim. She did not file the charges or serve the summons as youstate."

I didn't state any of the above. Here's the quote: "Please refer toIncident Narrative 09­001115­1: Sargeant Pamela Peschiera is listed as boththe complainant and reporting officer. Seriously?" There's no mention of filingcharges or serving summons sheriff.

"The issue with respect to .50 caliber rifle formally belonging to MarvinHeemeyer. All the property to include the 50 caliber that was used in thedestruction 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 nodefendant to charge. I seized the property to prevent the return of it intoHeemeyer’s estate and later into the hands of the family/next of kin if they wereto be designated as the personal representatives of the estate. By law theproperty that is seized for a public nuisance must either be sold and theproceeds go to the victims or destroyed. I ask the Judge to order it destroyedso 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 50caliber rifle has been fired by many people not just Sheriff’s Office employees.This has not cost the tax payers anything as all the ammo was either part of thedestruct order or has been provided by me personally in counter diction to whatyou have accused me of which I liken to a school boy throwing a spit wad at thewall with hopes that it will stick."

Heemeyer's rampage occurred seven years ago. You siezed a gun thatwas only inches away from a man who killed himself after committing one ofthe most notorious crimes in Grand County history. Instead of selling ordestroying it, you and others have insulted both Heemeyer's victims and hisfamily by continuing to play with it as your personal trophy. You represent thepeople sheriff. That gun belongs to the citizens of Grand County. You liken meto a schoolboy, but you fail to understand the implications of your behavior. Doyou really think our citizens care who pays for the ammunition? That gun needsto 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 yougave me the benefit of the doubt by waiting for a month to have a meeting withmy deputies and me. You have never asked for a meeting with me, ever. Thento make a statement that the Deputy in your story violates citizen’s right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness has no place in law enforcement withoutany facts to back them is right down your alley and I would not expect any thingless."

I did give you the benefit of the doubt, and I only said I waited a monthfor 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. Wenever got that far, and I doubt you ever would have answered me had I notgone to print.

"It is obvious to me that you never let the truth get in the way of yourpractice of yellow journalism. If this was just about you and me I would not eventake the time to answer you. You and I know most of what you write is a largepile of excrement from the male bovine species; however there are goodcitizens who rely on the ethics in journalism to put truth in what they read. Iwould strongly urge you to read the Canons of Journalism since it is obviousyou have not seen them. I will pray for you."

Didn't you take an oath to uphold the Constitution sheriff? The FirstAmendment doesn't mention the Canons of Journalism, and the mark of a truestatesman is one who respects views who differ from their own and the lawsthat protect them. You've revealed a lot about yourself to the citizens of GrandCounty.

TAXES FROM NON­TAXING AUTHORITIESBy Reggie Paulk

Grand County Uncensored thrives on your generosity.Your non tax­deductible donations may be sent to:

Uncensored Media, LLCP.O. Box 1738

Fraser, CO 80442

I love taxes. Anyone who's read this paper for any length of timeknows 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 tenantsbased on receipts.

Not one to go on rumor alone, I went to a restaurant in the villageto see for myself. Sure enough, those sneaky little rascals stuck a 1.6percent "WPV sales assessment" to the end of my bill. But did you knowthey're not the only ones collecting fees in the area?

Tenants of Cooper Creek Square also assess a "shipping tax" thatgoes to the building manager. It's voluntary, and the customer may optout­­if they know about. Boy, that trip across the counter must be brutal!Now you know.