Social Media
This area does not yet contain any content.

Entries in Mesa County Attorney's Office (3)


UPDATE: Iraq Combat Veteran's response from USDOJ regarding complaint filed against DA's Office

UPDATE: In this original Exclusive VetTheGov story regarding a complaint filed against Mesa County DA's office, DHS, and Colorado Supreme Court Attorney and the well known Catherine Burkey, a response from our wonderful protectionist office in Washington D.C's Ten square mile Jurisdiction has arrived. There are a couple of issues that are present in the letter with one being Jurisdiction and the other a very simple mistake made in the response.

Starting with Jurisdiction, Maria O'Rourke Victims' Rights Ombudsman, responds detailing what elements are required for her to further an investigation. First, you must be "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense." Second, an offense charged in the District of Columbia per 28 CFR 45.10(a). Lastly, you must be a "crime victim" in an offense charged in Federal District Court or the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. In other words, you must prove a crime was committed before you file a complaint to investigate a crime! 

James Hamilton 101st Airborne Div. King Fahd Base Camp

The USDOJ has no authority to investigate conduct of members in the judiciary, employees of state offices or law enforcement agencies in Mesa County, California. Well there is no such location as highly paid educated government officials obviously DON'T double check their work. Interesting to note that Mr. Hamilton has been abused by a system created by the Federal Government under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. How can the USDOJ close a blind eye? Well, when you make the rules you can simply break them with no very good reason provided. Then the Feds simply pull the Jurisdiction answer out of their back pocket. As a citizen of USA, Inc., try and use Jurisdiction as a personal defense and watch how quickly that motion is silenced. Couldn't be more clear where the Federal Jurisdictional authority lies and it is no where close to Colorado or California!

Title IV-D has a very interesting section 458 or [42 U.S.C. 658a] named INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO STATE. If you have been involved in an ugly divorce involving kids then you have more than likely been ruled against under this section. Let's just say the Feds and the States have a very cozy relationship. In following the money trail, it appears the State of Colorado on average keeps about 6% of the collected amounts annually plus Fees they are allowed to charge. So you can hopefully understand the game is to get children into the system as there is a Bounty/INCENTIVE on their heads for the State! See 2014 Colorado collections for Mesa County and the entire state along with Federal monies received under Child Support Grants in the below letters. In 2014, Colorado Family Support Registry collected over $347 Million and over $15 Million in Mesa County alone. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy of government job creation via breaking families apart is so strategic in the communist outcomes found in Karl Marx's Ten planks, is it no wonder that government is involved in child services? In this article, it equates the government involvement as state sponsored "child trafficking."

VetTheGov will continue to keep you informed of Mr. Hamilton's case and if you have had a similar experiences, please feel free to share in the comments section. If you have any evidence of the Colorado Courts funneling social security Title IV-4 monies back to the judges in family law cases, please use the Contact Us page and provide details.


BREAKING: Mesa County Email Scandal Heats Up! District Attorney Contacted along with Freedom of Information Coalition.

VetTheGov's October 12, 2016 CORA request has turned into quite the rabbit hole of late, and has at least so far exposed the lack of transparency often feared in local governments. Of the documents finally received from Mesa County Attorney's Office, a timeline of events surrounding an email drafted by the Clerk & Recorders manager Patti Inscho to the county commissioners and the Daily Sentinel, shed some interesting insight into county governments behavior when discussing budget constraints. VetTheGov will provide the timeline of interesting emails between the Mesa County elections division, county commissioners, and the Daily Sentinel. Is this email scandal a scheme of frustrated county employees trying to get more liberal minded big government spending individuals elected into contested county commissioner seats? Are there emails not being provided that would prove this probability? Is there a personal vendetta between county employees and county commissioners? You will see in the emails that were provided, that nothing else makes much sense of why the email made its way to the Daily Sentinel before the commissioners had any time to respond to Patti Inscho's email. 

Here are the emails in order by dates and times beginning with original CORA request to the received emails "responsive" to VetTheGov's request. 

Timeline of Email & Text Received

-Date August 16, 2016 at 2:52 PM, County Administrator Frank Whidden sends out county wide email to all department heads of an impending $400,000.00 shortfall in the county wide vacancy savings budget.

-Beginning at 3:27 PM on same day, Clerk & Recorder Sheila Reiner responds to Frank Whidden and all department heads asking if she missed a meeting and didn't think this year was looking bad. Sheila also asked, "So did the group agree on this strategy or are the Commissioners unexpectedly concerned and are pulling the emergency break?"

-McInnis responds at 3:38 PM on same day and have a couple of back and forth emails showing Sheila being surprised by the actions being implemented by the county.

-August 17, 2016 the Daily Sentinel publishes story, "Slump forces county into hiring freeze."

-August 18, 2016 at 2:27 PM, a text message from Jesse in the elections division to Sheila says, "Uh... This sounds terrible," with a clip of the vacancy portion shortfall mentioned in the Sentinel article is visible and then the words (From the Sentinel) are under the news clip. Sheila responds, "Yuk."

Interesting to Note: Clerk & Recorder Sheila Reiner already knew about this in the email received on August 16th from Frank Whidden. Why didn't Sheila Reiner immediately tell her staff about the hiring freeze? Did she purposely refuse to tell them so they would learn of this via local media? Did Sheila Reiner draft "Plan A" of using the media for communicating to her staff versus directly?

-August 23, 2016 at 3:23 PM an email from Patti Inscho (work email) to Sheila Reiner (work email) with an attached dear commissioners 2016.docx letter attached with Patti being unsettled by recent press from the county commissioners.  Patti is reaching out to Sheila asking her to review the letter in order to not shoot her foot off. Patti also states she is considering sending a copy to letters to the editor.

-Sheila responds to Patti at 5:14 PM stating, "You nailed the issue from an employees view point.  I would never discourage honest and direct communication."

Question: Honest and direct communication? Why didn't Sheila communicate the budget constraints directly to her staff??? Why didn't she fess up to Patti that she knew about this prior to the Sentinel story? Did Sheila help write the letter or change any wording so that it wouldn't get Patti feet shot off? Did Sheila between the 16th and 23rd orchestrate these media events?

-Patti responds back at 5:27 via iphone and at 5:37 PM Sheila tells Patti via iphone "thanks for giving me a heads up."

-August 23, 2016 at 6:41 AM Patti Inscho sends her letter to all three commissioners.

-August 23, 2016 at 7:46 AM Patti Inscho sends her letter to Mike Wiggens at the Daily Sentinel. Patti states to the Sentinel that commissioners failed to communicate with county employees. Patti continues on and states that she has only received communication from the media and is why she is using media to respond to the commissioners. Patti then states she would forward this email to the letters to the editor section.

From this point forward, VetTheGov did not receive any county commissioner responses to Patti's original email even though they existed. Why would the county attorney not release the commissioners responses from the county commissioners? Was "Plan A" in effect by the county attorney's office? On to Plan A...

-August 29, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Sheila sends email to entire staff about Patti's intent of responding to the commissioners since her entire staff found out via the Sentinel instead of Sheila. Sheila then mentions about 'Plan A" of not supporting communicating via press.

Questions: Sheila knew about the hiring freeze on August 16th, yet still sends email to her entire team acting as if she was sorry her staff had to learn about the freeze from the media instead of her? What is Plan B, C, D, or E??? Well if VetTheGov received all the related CORA responsive documents, we might have the answer. However, Pat Coleman suggest in the video below the county will take care of the county and his office doesn't even need to acknowledge the documents even exist!!!

VetTheGov received email documentation directly from Commissioner Pugliese proving that there were in fact communications from the commissioners back to Patti Inscho. See the email string below.

VetTheGov has contacted the District Attorney's office and requested an investigation into CORA violations within the county government under C.R.S. 24-72-206, additional elections rigging or fraud investigation to be conducted within the elections department, contacted the Freedom of Information Coalition and have their attorney's reviewing the documents, and have filed yet another CORA request with Mesa County in order to get all responsive documents originally requested on the 12th of October. Is this how county employees respond when they hear more budget cuts and no raises? Stay tuned....In the meantime reach out to your elected officials and demand an investigation and demand transparency!

Here is the original scandal being exposed at recent public hearing. Watch the video below.


Video Release of Sgt. Matt Lewis and Mesa County Sheriff's Office 4th Amendment Violation

In a previous story exposing the Illegal arrest and Neck tasing of victim Travis Brickey, VetTheGov laid the foundation for the videos you will now watch in horror.  In the two videos (Warning Explicit Language) you will watch the Mesa County Sheriff's Office deputies attempt to coerce the victim out of his house in order to search inside for a man named Donny.  You will hear the deputies get so fixated on a gun while the victim states multiple times he doesn't own or even know how to shoot one.  You will also hear the deputies state multiple times that they weren't even sure why they were there and the victim stating he was afraid of them because all their guns were pointed at him.

The videos show Lt. Wayne Weyler unafraid of a gun and both his hands exposed to the victim with no gun drawn and is standing directly in front of the victims door, which is a very poor tactical position for a man reported with a gun.  Multiple times Lt. Weyler tells the victim he doesn't even know why they are there but just trying to figure out why.  You can tell the game plan all along was to get the victim to the door and allow the takedown taser team to move in and zap the victim in the neck.  Once the takedown team tased the victim they quickly entered the home like a SWAT team performing a dynamic search of the residence while you can hear all along they were looking for a man named Donny inside.  They had to know at this point that the victim was not their intended target especially with all the communication to the victim they were just trying to figure this out. 

In the second part 2 video you will hear the deputies actually try to keep the victim agitated after tasing him by telling him they have to take him to the hospital to remove the taser probe from his neck because they were unable to remove it and telling the victim its another bill for him.  Unbelieveable! 

An interesting development has arisen which needs more explaining by Mesa County Attorney's Office.  In a recent CORA request to the County Attorney regarding this case, the response on Mesa County Attorney's Office letterhead states,  "Mesa County was not a party to this case.  Mesa County has no documents responsive to your request."  In a recent interview by Western Slope Watchdog reporter Jesse Nelson with Sgt. Matt Lewis regarding this Constitutional violation, Sgt. Lewis admits the County did settle with the victim for an undisclosed amount and also signed a confidentiality agreement on his behalf.  Sgt. Lewis also states he would not change the tactics used in this event.  This is not passing the smell test at this point and on face value it seems they don't want the citizens of Mesa County to know about this settlement.  The question remains why? 

Either Sgt. Matt Lewis is completely detached from relevant facts of who represented him in this civil case or the County is simply hiding this from public view.  Someone here isn't telling the TRUTH to Mesa County citizens and the TRUTH must come out!!!  VetTheGov recommends you contact your County Commissioners and ask for further investigation into what appears to be a cover up of illegal activities performed within the Mesa County Sheriff's Office and the Mesa County Attorney's Office.

Stay tuned as VetTheGov will continue digging deeper into who was ultimately responsible monetarily for the actions of the break down your doors guns a blazing and Tasers to the neck Mesa County Sheriff's Deputies.  VetTheGov must note that if you ever want a quick response to your 911 call just mention a gun might be involved and then prepare for the worst!