Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Why are Dan Reppucci's Due Process Rights Violated Over and Over? Is Sheriff Foote Covering Up for Macie and Phillips? And why did Reppucci have to go Directly to the Commissioners to Get Their Assistance?

What's up with the Corruption going on in the Town of Winchester and Cheshire County?

What’s the connection between Gary Phillips of the WPD and Sheriff Foote of the Cheshire County Sheriff’s Office?

What about Macie?

How come the WPD and Sheriff’s Office have been allowed to manipulate “Official Proceedings” by having untruthful testimony entered into the records?

What about the Attorneys that know of these lies?

Does this bode well for the community as a whole?

Is it acceptable that the police in our communities are dishonest and will stoop to lies and coverups to protect each other? 

Who’s watching out for the civil and legal rights of the average person when the Police break the law and those in charge look the other way?

Can any member of the police who is so devious that that he believes setting up a fellow officer is acceptable, deserving of the title “Officer of the Law”?

Is any member of the police who stands by and knowingly participates in or from the sidelines watches as a fellow officer is set up for termination for no reason other than wanting fairness and equity for ALL deserving of the title “Officer of the Law”?

What kinds of cowards stand by and allow that to happen?

Is the ego more important than “I swear to uphold the laws of the land and to serve and protect?

The proof is there that, Both, Macie and Phillips broke the law – they lied, misstated and misrepresented the truth while under oath and violated the Constitutional Rights of Dan Reppucci.

Mr. Roberts also lied, misstated, and misrepresented the truth during his testimony, alleging that Reppucci somehow stole confidential information through his email. Mr. Reppucci states he has evidence to prove that Roberts lied.

Reppucci, in order to defend himself against testimony that was untruthful, requested documents that would prove his “Audio Recorded” testimony was truthful and that the “Audio Recorded” testimony of both Philips and Macie’s was riddled with lies.

Unfortunately, Mr. Reppucci cannot release to the public at this time, the testimony from these hearings because of ongoing appeals. If at any time he gets the green light to publish verbatim this information, it will be posted.

Mr. Reppucci requested all information that was part of the Criminal Investigation conducted by Macie and included Macie’s report, the documents Phillips gave to Macie, letters from the AG’s office etc.

Reppucci first requested this information from Barton Mayer, verified in emails, sent by Reppucci to Barton, days before his termination hearing, last August, where very clearly Reppucci asks for and very clearly Barton Mayer tells him he can’t have it. Time was of the essence as Reppucci only had a few days to prepare for his termination hearing, didn’t have an attorney at the time and was doing this on his own.

Time Line of Facts

Aug 5, 2009 – Ellen Cole tapes to outside door of Reppucci's house a notice of a termination hearing scheduled for August 17, 2009.

Dan is out of state for his mother’s funeral services at that time. His mother passed away a few days before on August 1, 2009.

Phillips knew Reppucci’s mother lived out of state and that Dan would be out of state fore her serives and he knew that his mother had passed away because he sent Not 1 Condolence card but 2. One signed by him from Reppucci’s fellow officers and one signed from himself personally.

Aug 6, 2009 – Reppucci arrives home early evening from out of state – finds the letter, unsealed and taped to the door with instructions to pick up a file at Town Hall. Town Hall is closed. Town Hall is not open again until Monday August 10, 2009 because they are closed on Fridays.

Aug 10, 11, 12, 13 – Town Hall opens so Reppucci spends that time running back and forth trying to gather information that he needs or that they said was included in the files but that he was not provided with and are not there.

Also, during this time Reppucci told Barton Mayer that he would be using Attorney J. Joseph McKittrick to represent him, but he could not make the hearig scheduled for Monday August 17th as he had a prior commitment. Reppucci relayed to Barton Mayer that Attorney McKittrick wanted Reppucci to ask for a continuance, unpaid leave would be fine, so that he could go over the case and prepare a defense. Barton Mayer told Reppucci that wouldn't be possible and instead tried to bribe Reppucci into taking a $6,000 payout to go away, to which Reppucci said that he wanted an opportunity to clear his name and prove what Phillips and Macie were really doing and why.

And what about these emails allegedly containing confidential information but that couldn’t be opened because they were password protected so they just guessed they stolen confidential material?

Imagine being given 4 days to prepare for a hearing on the termination from your job, a week after your mother passed away and having to be out of state for her services?

Then to add insult to injury you are told by the Town’s Attorney you can’t even have information you are requesting and that you believe would help you to defend yourself.

Biron Bedard, the Attorney that represented Phillips had access to all this information. Doesn’t that distort the playing field? What Reppucci requested is part of discovery and should have been provided and not denied.

These documents and attachments were all part of an investigation that named Reppucci a Participant. No other member of the WPD is named as a “Participant” or suspect or anything else and no other member of the WPD was ever questioned.

It seems Phillips had a target for this investigation. Since Reppucci didn’t answer any questions how come the Sheriff’s Office didn’t try to find out who broke into Phillips office? Phillips reported the crime.

Didn’t he believe a crime had been committed?

Didn't he want to ensure that the Police Department was safe?

Why did Macie start his questioning and end his questioning at the WPD with Reppucci?

What if there was another WPD Officer who had information about the breakin? About the letter?

Or was this really a False Report to Law Enforcment so that Phillips could "legitimately" go after Reppucci?

Phillips and Macie were pretty quick to stop the investigation at Reppucci. Why was that?

Isn’t this really beginning to look like something like “targeting”.

Phillips has done this before, he did it in Jaffrey to Aaron Thompson and he discussed this openly and with pride.

Roadblocks and Stall Tactics – A year later the same thing. Why?

They’ve been caught and exposed. A spotlight needs to shine on them and they need to be questioned and scrutinized for their conduct. They need to be punished and held accountable for their actions.

Here are the numerous requests – 9 correspondences in all and hoops that Reppucci was forced to go through to try to get information related to the Macie’s Criminal Investigation. Again, these requested documents directly impact Reppucci's ability to defend himself against false accusations. Theu also would allow him to prove the stories of Macie, Phillips, Foote and Roberts just don’t jive with the facts. The emails to and from Barton Mayer will be on the back burner.

You be the judge. Does it sound like the deck was being dealt fairly or is it a situation of the dealer controlling who gets what card?

Click on the pages to zoom in on them to make it easy to read.

1st Letter - Very Explicit
            Request for Upcoming
Appeals Hearing for Unemployment 
needed by Reppucci to defend 
against untruthful testimony
by Macie at the original Hearing.

Foote Denying Reppucci's Request

Repucci's second letter to Foote, clarifying for 
Foote what he needs and why  

Another evasive letter by Foote with excuses,
excuses, excuses

Reppucci's request to the Cheshire County
Commissioners to intervene and assist in his
request for information from Foote
and Foote's response to that request

Reppucci's request for the Appellate Board
to request the information Reppucci needs 
to defend himself at the Appeals hearing -
that hearing had to be postponed  due to
Reppucci not having the inforamtion 

The letter by the Appellate Board informing Reppucci
that the board was unable to request any
documentation from the Sheriff's Office for him -
But Reppucci already knew that -
Whoever heard of a judge who requested 
the discovery material for
a defendant at a trial?  

Finally, after almost 3 months, Foote still would 
not provide all the documents requested
and Reppucci had to have his attorney 


Because of the delay tactics that hearing was postponed 3 times. The Town's Attorney delayed the date by another 2 or 3 months because of his unavailibility. 

If these people had nothing to hide and nothing to worry about you would think they would have turned everything over in a heartbeat - just to get it over and done with. 

But NO, instead they are still making things difficult and they are still very uncooperative. They all must have something to hide. 

There must be a reason why they are being so protective.     


Anonymous said...

From Facebook Entry:

Concernedcitizens Winchesternh

Commission Votes To Reinstate Fired Hooksett Police Officer
HOOKSETT, N.H. -- A Hooksett police commission Tuesday voted to overturn the decision to fire a school resource officer more than a year ago. Tuesday, September 28, 2010.From Facebook entry:

Concernedcitizens Winchesternh (Winchester-nh Concerned-Citizens)

Reppucci's Due Process Rights Were Violated Too. CC Sup. Ct. Judge John Arnold, ruled he FAILED to cooperate in a Criminal Investigation(break-in & theft at WPD) after Phillips “Ordered” him to answer questions. He was given 5days prepare for a hearing stacked with bogus charges of improper behavior & not following the policies. He asked for an unpaid continuance to prepare a defense & was refused.

Maybe Channel 9 would be interested.

Anonymous said...

See Link:

Maybe Channel 9 would be interested in Winchester?

Anonymous said...

Let's see, you have a police officer who knew a criminal investigation was going on.

The officer has aparently gone through the ranks with not prior problems.

He is told by a County Deputy that he is conducting an investigation into who broke into the police dept where he works and stole some confidential paper and then handed it out.

The police chief who reported this actually had the very same thing happen in some other town where he was a is chief.

I've never heard of something like this happening before.

How many of your other police chief's have reported this problem? It may be an epidemic if that is happening.

So the deputy wants to question the officer but the officer says I want to talk to a lawyer first because I'm being targeted.

Whether he felt targeted or not, it was a criminal investigaiton and he had every right to talk to a lawyer or anyone else before answering any questions.

That the deputy and chief don't let that happen is very suspicious and raises some interesting points.

Why not?

The officer says he knew about a lot of problems going on in the police dept.

Let him speak, for the love of humankind, that is something I have heard of. Police being corrupt and other police reporting them.

Chief, Sheriff, Deputy if you aren't going after someone, why not let that person exercise their Constitutial rights?

What's the problem with the people in charge?

Really, they are the ones with the problems then and now.

Were the deputy and chief afraid that if they let the officer talk to someone he might spill the beans on them? People might find out a truth they don't want known?

Icing on the cake and you have the Sheriff write in a letter that he and the deputy think that for their purposes if the officer would have just answered the questions their investigation would have been complete.

Huh, I can see why the officer did what he did to protect himself. Sounds like they were trying to pin him with a crime. And quite frankly, I doubt all this would be public if the officer really did do something wrong because he wouldn't have wanted that to be found out.

So the question is: What part do they not get?

It wasn't up to them to think about how easy their job should have been.

Their job is to collect inforamtion while protecting peoples rights.

Not breaking the law to get the information.

The deputy who knew he was conducting a crimianl investigation and the chief who knew it was a criminal investigation, because he reported a crime, colluded with each other by attempting to mispresent that the investigation was not a criminal investigation.

And they even try to use an Administrative Warning, as if that is worth anything, and then the deputy and chief sign it.

col·lude (k-ld)
intr.v. col·lud·ed, col·lud·ing, col·ludes
To act together secretly to achieve a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose; conspire

I hope this makes national news. That would be good for the people.

Anonymous said...

Time for change in Cheshire County!! I for one will not be voting to re-elect Foote for Sheriff.

Eli Rivera for SHERRIFF in Chehsire County!!!


Janes said...

Shouldn't Foote have questioned why anyone thought the Macie investigation was internal to begin with? Isn't it his job to know what his people are doing? Doesn't sound to good on their end.

I Vote said...

Give Foote the boot in 2 weeks

Anonymous said...

Seeing this bottom line is - Foote was there to investigate a crime reported by Phillips.Phillips has lied through his teeth to cover that up. Phillips needs to get the boot now.

A Chief that lies to cover his own butt shouldn't be getting a paycheck.

Anonymous said...


Foote’s July 15th letter.

Reppucci must have mentioned either by phone or correspondence that he was a “suspected participant”.

Sounds like Foote got a little irritated at his misinformed understanding.

Foote writes - “I will clarify false information that you were a suspect”.

Clarify false information? Does Foote really know false information from truthful information anyway? That is debatable at this point.

Anyway, he goes on to say -

“You are considered a participant – not a suspected participant”. Sounds like Reppucci thought he was only a suspected participant.

OK so the determination has been made by Foote and Co., Reppucci was a “participant” and not a suspected participant.

Maybe that’s what happened and why Reppucci got fired – Reppucci didn’t understand or follow their gibberish.

It also sounds like all the more reason he had a right to talk to anyone he wanted – BEFORE – answering any questions, including a lawyer.

It sounds like they had him convicted of the crime reported.

Isn’t what Foote said like saying – I know YOU didn’t rob the rank, you participated in it though.

Anybody out there willing to clarify that?

It sounds like Reppucci was down right labeled a participant in the crime and the suspect part was overlooked.

Maybe the new Sheriff will be able to explain how persons are classified during investigations. He wants transparency for the department.

Some definitions for Foote to lookup because Reppucci probably thought you “Suspected” him of having “Participated” in the reported crime.

But, you “clarified his false information” – he was never suspected of participating, because you knew he was a participant.

sus•pect (s -sp kt )
v. sus•pect•ed, sus•pect•ing, sus•pects
1. To surmise to be true or probable; imagine: I suspect they are very disappointed.
2. To have doubts about; distrust: I suspect his motives.
3. To think (a person) guilty without proof: The police suspect her of murder.
To have suspicion.
n. (s s p kt )
One who is suspected, especially of having committed a crime.
adj. (s s p kt , s -sp kt )
Open to or viewed with suspicion: a suspect policy; suspect motives.

participate [pɑːˈtɪsɪˌpeɪt]
(intr; often foll by in) to take part, be or become actively involved, or share (in)
[from Latin participāre, from pars PART + capere to take]
participant adj & n
participation n