Winchester has NO Leadership in the Winchester Police Department .....
Leadership in Winchester is just below the surface of the roads we travel on. That’s not good for any of us.
The complaint written and signed by Chris Roberts himself.
Showing posts with label christopher k roberts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label christopher k roberts. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Leadership in the Winchester Police Department ..... Chris Roberts makes a formal complaint against himself and asks that he be investigated.....the Chief honors the request and agrees to an investigation...........
The Chief of Police, Phillips orders an investigation after Roberts makes a complaint about himself, specifically the complaint was that he was rude. (See letter.) Roberts made this complaint after he accused another officer of spreading lies and rumors about him.
Bizarre? You bet. Waste of taxpayer money? You bet. Unprofessional police department making too much money? You bet.
Both an embarrassment to Winchester and the Law Enforcement profession as a whole? You bet.
Here’s how it all goes down.
Roberts accuses one of the officers of spreading lies and rumors about him.
Phillips decides a formal internal investigation is appropriate under the circumstances and initiates the process.
Another concocted story by Phillips and Roberts to target an employee.
Another example of a corrupt Winchester police department. Excuse upon excuse upon excuse for bad cops covering up for each other.
Bizarre?
Here is the complaint written by Chris Roberts about himself.
Leadership in Winchester is just below the surface of the roads we travel on. That’s not good for any of us.
Bizarre? You bet. Waste of taxpayer money? You bet. Unprofessional police department making too much money? You bet.
Both an embarrassment to Winchester and the Law Enforcement profession as a whole? You bet.
Here’s how it all goes down.
Roberts accuses one of the officers of spreading lies and rumors about him.
Phillips decides a formal internal investigation is appropriate under the circumstances and initiates the process.
Another concocted story by Phillips and Roberts to target an employee.
Another example of a corrupt Winchester police department. Excuse upon excuse upon excuse for bad cops covering up for each other.
Bizarre?
Here is the complaint written by Chris Roberts about himself.
Leadership in Winchester is just below the surface of the roads we travel on. That’s not good for any of us.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Cheshire County NH’s Judge John P Arnold’s Retirement announcement comes just ahead of Hearings on his Impeachment…..
Accepted by The House Rules Committee, a Petition naming Judge John P Arnold, Marital Master David Forrest and the Cheshire County Superior Court, filed by Rep. Jeff Oligny on behalf of Dr. David D. Vandenberg has been accepted and will now go to the Redress Committee.
May 10, 2011 Rep. Jeffrey Oligny appeared on behalf of Dr. David D. Vandenberg with a grievance against a Superior Court justice allowing a guardian ad litem to move the court, failing to provide due process or findings of harm, and other complaints…
http://www.timothyhorrigan.com/documents/house-rules.110510.html
From the decisions coming out of the Courthouse and from the Judges and Marital Masters to Arnold’s decision to ban….. across the board, all recording devices in Keene’s Court buildings, against the laws of open access to government, having the intended and chilling effect of creating a wall of secrecy and unaccountability within the Courthouses, violating the Constitution, the Rights of those appearing before him and his other officials within his courts, as well as the rights of those who can not or choose not to be in his Courtrooms but wish to know how the courts and the other court officers are performing and want to keep an eye on what the Judges are doing as the NH Laws and Constitution affords is the right of the people, there is questions of this judges ability to properly conduct himself in the Courtroom and there are questions about his ability to properly oversee other court business to the detriment of the people.
Intending to hide the Judges and their sins behind closed doors will not make those sins go away but instead will help strengthen the commitment and resolve of those who are fighting to change the inequities this system has brought upon the people and innocent children it continues to try to destroy.
The following Petition is one of but many already presented to the NH Redress Committee. One example of the controversy surrounding the NH Judiciary and the People they are entrusted to serve in a fair, equitable and lawful manner.
Ed Kelly asks, where does this end? It ends when the courts and the courts officers make fair and impartial rulings based on the laws and the constitution and not based how much money can be made by those involved with the courts. It ends when stories like the following story no longer exist.
NH: Legislature Holds Impeachment Proceedings for Master in Family Court
May 27th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
The following was contributed by Fathers and Families Reader, David D. Vandenberg.
Anyone who has been forced to deal with the Alice-in-Wonderland procedures of family courts knows that one enters a totally different world than what we expect American jurisprudence is to be. One federal appellate judge, after reviewing a case in New Hampshire family court stated, “This must be what courts in Bolivia do.”
But it appears that at least one group, the New Hampshire General Court, or legislature, is taking real steps to end the abuse of families in family court. They are impeaching judges and marital masters, who have failed to comply with state and federal statutes and ignored constitutional protections.
Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution provides for the Accountability of Magistrates and Officers. To that end, the legislature, instituted a procedure for the Redress of Grievances. About 150 years ago, this committee was retired, until now.
In November 2010, a supermajority of constitutional Republicans was swept into office by popular discontent with the lawlessness and arrogance of state officers violating the rights of citizens. And where better to begin, but in a venue in which certain rights were summarily suspended decades ago: family court?
However, even before hearings of the Committee for Redress of Grievances began, opponents came forward with calls to disband the committee, claiming that the family courts were just fine. The Manchester Union-Leader, the Concord Monitor, and the Nashua Telegraph published editorials to disband the committee.
Still, supporters of the committee point out that the Judicial Branch has no independent oversight provision by the people and few complaints to the Judicial Conduct Committee have ever been successful. As one legislator put it, the General Court has a responsibility to ensure proper procedures are in place in the form of laws and that state magistrates and officers comply with law. If the magistrates fail to follow the law, then the will of the people, as expressed through the legislature, will be corrupted, as is now the case in New Hampshire family court.
David Johnson says his daughter was removed from him almost completely–he can see her in supervised visits only–contrary to independent assessments of the mother’s abuse. Mr. Johnson provides the following narrative of his last ten years in family court:
The child’s primary care physician testified twice about the mother’s abuses and neglect. In addition, the child’s psychologist testified that the father should be the primary custodial parent, because of mental cruelty endured by the child, being coached by the mother to make false statements about the father. The child’s physician also testified on behalf of the father. The mother told the court she left the child and her young cousin in a vehicle with the keys in the ignition with a loaded revolver in the unlocked console.
Parenting time was divided fifty/fifty, the father voluntarily paid for private school and after-school care, and supported the mother after the separation, including all the expenses of the home, yet he was ordered to pay so much spousal and child support that he could no longer afford his own home for himself and his daughter.
Within 24 hours of the father’s motion for primary parenting authority, the mother counterclaimed alleging the father’s sexual abuse of the daughter. Twenty-four hours after that the mother made the same false allegations to the police and was ignored. At the next hearing, the physician and psychologist testified a third time and reported still more abuses by the mother. The court ordered primary parenting responsibility for the father, yet ordered him to pay child support, contrary to federal law.
The court appointed a new marital master, Phillip Cross, who is now the subject of impeachment. Mr. Cross started to incrementally take parenting time away from the father, violating his right to due process each time in preliminary hearings.
At the final evidentiary hearing, the father still retained primary parenting authority, yet was unlawfully ordered to increase his child support requirement. Medical authority was granted to the mother, even though she had refused to provide prescribed medication. Mr. Cross refused reports from the child protection agency and human services with additional abuses of the mother.
Mr. Cross held a criminal contempt hearing against the father, hearings for which a marital master has no authority and in which the father was denied a criminal defense. Mr. Cross later termed the hearing a civil contempt hearing. Yet the father had primary custody of the daughter, not the mother. The father was convicted and jailed for nearly ten weeks, resulting in the loss of his second home, most of the father’s and daughter’s personal belongings, and the transfer of the daughter to the abusive mother.
New Hampshire family courts are filled with such cases, which the judiciary has misruled on. The New Hampshire newspapers have come out specifically against hearings in this case, after these facts were made public. Marital Master Cross may provide testimony about this matter, or the judiciary may send counsel to the supreme court to represent Mr. Cross. Who arrives for testimony remains to be seen.
The chair of the committee, Paul Ingbretson, is Mr. Johnson’s representative and neighbor and apparently drove Mr. Johnson, who became homeless, to visit his daughter. Critics cite the driving of David Johnson, paying for lunch, and sitting with the father and daughter as indicative of Mr. Ingbretson’s loss of objectivity, requiring the entire committee to be shut down. Speaker of the House, William O’Brien, and other attorneys have reviewed the matter and determined no conflict of interest exists. Still, Mr. Ingbretson has recused himself from this one case. Yet, the calls for disbanding are still coming.
More cases are in the pipeline and will be reviewed by the committee. While newspaper editors have come out against these hearings, the people of New Hampshire, through their legislators, expressed their serious concern about the inexplicable and lawless behavior of many judges and marital masters.
These hearings will go forward and cases like David Johnson’s and others will be given a public airing, so that the people will know just exactly what kind of judiciary they have, whether it’s up to the standards we expect in the US, or whether it is more like what one expects in a Bolivian court of law.
See link:
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=16107
And from the opposition, Judge Edwin Kelly and his commentary follow. Mr. Kelly, a court officer who wants to continue with business as usual and continue keeping the public in the dark by disbanding the NH Redress of Grievance Committee, an illogical argument for NO OVERSIGHT in the Judiciary.
With all due respect, this wouldn’t be an issue if the facts weren’t true that time and again, it’s the Courts that have crossed the line. There needs to be accountability and transparency within our legal system. At this time that does not exist. There is a documentable, repeated history of bias and disregard coming from the NH Courts.
It’s not until 2/3’s through Mr. Kelly’s commentary that he finally acknowledges that he is one of the Judges against whom the Petition was filed.
A vested interest in the outcome? Would that cloud his judgment and cause a reaction to the Redress Committee that is less than impartial, such that it should be disbanded as he writes in his commentary?
A reason to undermine the process of the people? Make the illogical argument that there is recourse for bad decisions in the appellate system? For instance, a trip to Supreme Court that is out of the reach for far too many, due to the sheer cost it takes to pay an attorney to get you there? It’s not a valid argument for desiring closed courts with no oversight.
Mr. Kelly would like all to believe this illogical argument is sufficient enough oversight of a corrupt judicial system. Mr. Kelly would like all to believe that the wolfs watching the sheep, do so with the sheep’s best interest at heart.
Our constitution requires that judges be "as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit." It also provides for three separate branches of government that are as independent of each other "as is consistent with the chain of connection that binds the whole fabric of the constitution in one indissoluble bond of union and amity."
Curious 18th-century phrases? Or pithy prescriptions for a healthy democracy?
I choose to believe the latter.
The founders called for neither a system of justice where judges were expected to be above the people or perfect in their decisions. Rather, they called for judges who reflected the people, judges as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit.
And recognizing that judges will err, our founders also established the mechanics of judicial review or, in modern parlance, an appellate system.
As for the relationship between and among the branches of government, our state constitution clearly stated that the executive, legislative and judicial branches function as a single unit, but retain strict independence from one another in those areas of government given exclusively to each.
From time to time, the natural tension among the branches, (also anticipated by our founders) can increase to the point where it threatens the delicate balance so necessary to our democratic form of government.
In my opinion, the newly created House Committee on Redress of Grievances has begun to move dangerously close to that imbalance. The committee has the exclusive authority to determine if any petition brought by a member of the House of Representatives will receive a public hearing.
Petition 5 seeks, on behalf of a litigant in a long-standing divorce matter, to override a court parenting order and return custody of the litigant's child to the petitioner through legislation; legislatively remove the court-appointed guardian; remove from office three sitting judges and two marital masters who had some involvement in the case, and order those judges to pay triple damages to the litigant for his losses, including child support arrearages and attorney's fees.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am one of the judicial officers against whom this petition is filed.
After approving the petition for a public hearing and chairing the first day of hearing, the committee chairman, Rep. Paul Ingbretson, of Pike, announced to the committee that he thought he may have a conflict because he has served for an extended period of time as the supervisor of court-ordered child visitation for the litigant at the litigant's request.
The judicial branch also reminded Ingbretson of a letter he had written to me almost two years ago in which he stated that he had listened "at great length to (the litigant) and other knowledgeable witnesses" and had "read extensively the documents pertaining to his case" and had, as of September 2009, formed a conclusion about what he saw as "obvious failures to act in the best interest of the child."
Ingbretson finally agreed to step down in that case. But the proceedings on Petition 5 will continue, even though this litigant has had, at his request, a number of judges and masters removed from his case; hearings before at least four different family division judges, two family division marital masters, and a superior court judge, and has filed an appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, resulting in a decision against his position.
When does this stop?
The committee, which is scheduled to hold its next meeting in Concord on June 9, also has before it two petitions in which Rep. Peter Silva, of Nashua, says the committee should consider impeachment proceedings against a Nashua judge for rulings he made in two cases involving children.
Like Petition 5, any review of these rulings should be conducted at the New Hampshire Supreme Court, not, I would submit, in a legislative committee room.
Our system of justice was not designed to allow those people who bring cases to the courts for resolution to continue these matters ad infinitum. At some point in time, the parties have to accept the final judgment of the courts. To do otherwise makes a mockery of the constitutional responsibilities and authority of the courts and the clearly stated constitutional demand that the branches operate independent from one another in issues given to their exclusive authority.
A process established by the Legislature that allows a case such as this to be brought to hearing by a clearly conflicted chairman, seeking legislative action to overturn valid court orders and make judges pay damages to a party who feels aggrieved, not only threatens the delicate balance between the branches, it completely upends it.
Judge Edwin W. Kelly is the administrative judge of the District Court and Family Division in New Hampshire.
May 10, 2011 Rep. Jeffrey Oligny appeared on behalf of Dr. David D. Vandenberg with a grievance against a Superior Court justice allowing a guardian ad litem to move the court, failing to provide due process or findings of harm, and other complaints…
http://www.timothyhorrigan.com/documents/house-rules.110510.html
From the decisions coming out of the Courthouse and from the Judges and Marital Masters to Arnold’s decision to ban….. across the board, all recording devices in Keene’s Court buildings, against the laws of open access to government, having the intended and chilling effect of creating a wall of secrecy and unaccountability within the Courthouses, violating the Constitution, the Rights of those appearing before him and his other officials within his courts, as well as the rights of those who can not or choose not to be in his Courtrooms but wish to know how the courts and the other court officers are performing and want to keep an eye on what the Judges are doing as the NH Laws and Constitution affords is the right of the people, there is questions of this judges ability to properly conduct himself in the Courtroom and there are questions about his ability to properly oversee other court business to the detriment of the people.
Intending to hide the Judges and their sins behind closed doors will not make those sins go away but instead will help strengthen the commitment and resolve of those who are fighting to change the inequities this system has brought upon the people and innocent children it continues to try to destroy.
The following Petition is one of but many already presented to the NH Redress Committee. One example of the controversy surrounding the NH Judiciary and the People they are entrusted to serve in a fair, equitable and lawful manner.
Ed Kelly asks, where does this end? It ends when the courts and the courts officers make fair and impartial rulings based on the laws and the constitution and not based how much money can be made by those involved with the courts. It ends when stories like the following story no longer exist.
NH: Legislature Holds Impeachment Proceedings for Master in Family Court
May 27th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
The following was contributed by Fathers and Families Reader, David D. Vandenberg.
Anyone who has been forced to deal with the Alice-in-Wonderland procedures of family courts knows that one enters a totally different world than what we expect American jurisprudence is to be. One federal appellate judge, after reviewing a case in New Hampshire family court stated, “This must be what courts in Bolivia do.”
But it appears that at least one group, the New Hampshire General Court, or legislature, is taking real steps to end the abuse of families in family court. They are impeaching judges and marital masters, who have failed to comply with state and federal statutes and ignored constitutional protections.
Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution provides for the Accountability of Magistrates and Officers. To that end, the legislature, instituted a procedure for the Redress of Grievances. About 150 years ago, this committee was retired, until now.
In November 2010, a supermajority of constitutional Republicans was swept into office by popular discontent with the lawlessness and arrogance of state officers violating the rights of citizens. And where better to begin, but in a venue in which certain rights were summarily suspended decades ago: family court?
However, even before hearings of the Committee for Redress of Grievances began, opponents came forward with calls to disband the committee, claiming that the family courts were just fine. The Manchester Union-Leader, the Concord Monitor, and the Nashua Telegraph published editorials to disband the committee.
Still, supporters of the committee point out that the Judicial Branch has no independent oversight provision by the people and few complaints to the Judicial Conduct Committee have ever been successful. As one legislator put it, the General Court has a responsibility to ensure proper procedures are in place in the form of laws and that state magistrates and officers comply with law. If the magistrates fail to follow the law, then the will of the people, as expressed through the legislature, will be corrupted, as is now the case in New Hampshire family court.
David Johnson says his daughter was removed from him almost completely–he can see her in supervised visits only–contrary to independent assessments of the mother’s abuse. Mr. Johnson provides the following narrative of his last ten years in family court:
The child’s primary care physician testified twice about the mother’s abuses and neglect. In addition, the child’s psychologist testified that the father should be the primary custodial parent, because of mental cruelty endured by the child, being coached by the mother to make false statements about the father. The child’s physician also testified on behalf of the father. The mother told the court she left the child and her young cousin in a vehicle with the keys in the ignition with a loaded revolver in the unlocked console.
Parenting time was divided fifty/fifty, the father voluntarily paid for private school and after-school care, and supported the mother after the separation, including all the expenses of the home, yet he was ordered to pay so much spousal and child support that he could no longer afford his own home for himself and his daughter.
Within 24 hours of the father’s motion for primary parenting authority, the mother counterclaimed alleging the father’s sexual abuse of the daughter. Twenty-four hours after that the mother made the same false allegations to the police and was ignored. At the next hearing, the physician and psychologist testified a third time and reported still more abuses by the mother. The court ordered primary parenting responsibility for the father, yet ordered him to pay child support, contrary to federal law.
The court appointed a new marital master, Phillip Cross, who is now the subject of impeachment. Mr. Cross started to incrementally take parenting time away from the father, violating his right to due process each time in preliminary hearings.
At the final evidentiary hearing, the father still retained primary parenting authority, yet was unlawfully ordered to increase his child support requirement. Medical authority was granted to the mother, even though she had refused to provide prescribed medication. Mr. Cross refused reports from the child protection agency and human services with additional abuses of the mother.
Mr. Cross held a criminal contempt hearing against the father, hearings for which a marital master has no authority and in which the father was denied a criminal defense. Mr. Cross later termed the hearing a civil contempt hearing. Yet the father had primary custody of the daughter, not the mother. The father was convicted and jailed for nearly ten weeks, resulting in the loss of his second home, most of the father’s and daughter’s personal belongings, and the transfer of the daughter to the abusive mother.
New Hampshire family courts are filled with such cases, which the judiciary has misruled on. The New Hampshire newspapers have come out specifically against hearings in this case, after these facts were made public. Marital Master Cross may provide testimony about this matter, or the judiciary may send counsel to the supreme court to represent Mr. Cross. Who arrives for testimony remains to be seen.
The chair of the committee, Paul Ingbretson, is Mr. Johnson’s representative and neighbor and apparently drove Mr. Johnson, who became homeless, to visit his daughter. Critics cite the driving of David Johnson, paying for lunch, and sitting with the father and daughter as indicative of Mr. Ingbretson’s loss of objectivity, requiring the entire committee to be shut down. Speaker of the House, William O’Brien, and other attorneys have reviewed the matter and determined no conflict of interest exists. Still, Mr. Ingbretson has recused himself from this one case. Yet, the calls for disbanding are still coming.
More cases are in the pipeline and will be reviewed by the committee. While newspaper editors have come out against these hearings, the people of New Hampshire, through their legislators, expressed their serious concern about the inexplicable and lawless behavior of many judges and marital masters.
These hearings will go forward and cases like David Johnson’s and others will be given a public airing, so that the people will know just exactly what kind of judiciary they have, whether it’s up to the standards we expect in the US, or whether it is more like what one expects in a Bolivian court of law.
See link:
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=16107
And from the opposition, Judge Edwin Kelly and his commentary follow. Mr. Kelly, a court officer who wants to continue with business as usual and continue keeping the public in the dark by disbanding the NH Redress of Grievance Committee, an illogical argument for NO OVERSIGHT in the Judiciary.
With all due respect, this wouldn’t be an issue if the facts weren’t true that time and again, it’s the Courts that have crossed the line. There needs to be accountability and transparency within our legal system. At this time that does not exist. There is a documentable, repeated history of bias and disregard coming from the NH Courts.
It’s not until 2/3’s through Mr. Kelly’s commentary that he finally acknowledges that he is one of the Judges against whom the Petition was filed.
A vested interest in the outcome? Would that cloud his judgment and cause a reaction to the Redress Committee that is less than impartial, such that it should be disbanded as he writes in his commentary?
A reason to undermine the process of the people? Make the illogical argument that there is recourse for bad decisions in the appellate system? For instance, a trip to Supreme Court that is out of the reach for far too many, due to the sheer cost it takes to pay an attorney to get you there? It’s not a valid argument for desiring closed courts with no oversight.
Mr. Kelly would like all to believe this illogical argument is sufficient enough oversight of a corrupt judicial system. Mr. Kelly would like all to believe that the wolfs watching the sheep, do so with the sheep’s best interest at heart.
Instead, Kelly's argument points precisely to the need of the Redress of Grievance Committee and points precisely to why the people are demanding the courts to get it's act together, make it's decisions right the first time or be subjected to scrutiny and oversight if they are not capable of handling the power that has been entrusted to them.
I pose these questions to Mr. Kelly……If the system is as fair and impartial as you purport, why would you or any of the courts officers be so opposed to the idea of transparency?
Why would you assert that somehow the parties have to accept the final judgment of the courts, when clearly you acknowledge that there is an appeals process that some never get to? An appeals process that could right wrongs for those forced to walk away due to a lack of money for lawyers.
The appeals process is available only to those that can afford it. Lacking the expertise to go Pro Se affords no viable option to those without it.
Mr. Kelly why would you so arrogantly suggest that those affected by bad decisions should just accept them and walk away?
Why would you so arrogantly suggest that accepting a wrong is right?
And is it a mockery of the system to question those in authority who have a motive and wish to hinder transparency and oversight?
Or is the mockery made by those that hinder transparency and oversight because they believe they are better than the rest of us?
And will the Judges and Marital Masters that go before the committee require that rules of evidence and the laws be applied in their defense of allegations made against them, which is a right not afforded to all who go before them?
Or is that the double standard?
Or will the ultimate decisions on whether to impeach or not be based on who tells the best story? The most convincing story, has the most witnesses, as is in the same tone they use in their own courts when making their decisions.
Are the scales going to be balanced? Or will they require the panel take seriously their evidence, likely to be in the form of documents, testimony and other evidence as they present it, so that fair and impartial decisions will be made?
Kelly fought hard and testified before the NH Senate in his efforts to squash HB259, a bill eventually killed by the Senate.
HB259 was a bill that would have made it a law in NH Family Courts to include that Rules of Evidence be followed uniformly by the judicial branch family division based on the New Hampshire rules of evidence for other courts in the state.
At this time NO Rules of Evidence apply in Family Courts.
Can Mr. Kelly be considered impartial in this discussion? Or is he trying hard to keep from the public what really goes on in his courts and what only those that have seen it first hand know of?
In answer to Mr. Kelly’s question “When does this stop?” It stops when the courts act in a fair and impartial manner to all who go before it and not until then.
In conclusion, if you have been wronged by ANY of the NH Courts Report It and Petition the House Redress Committee.
Judge Edwin W. Kelly his commentary and his argument and motivation to keep in check, the Status Quo:
Sunday, June 5, 2011 – Nashua Telegraph
See link for article:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinionperspectives/921760-263/redress-panel-threatens-autonomy-of-three-branches.html
Sunday, June 5, 2011 – Nashua Telegraph
See link for article:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinionperspectives/921760-263/redress-panel-threatens-autonomy-of-three-branches.html
Redress panel threatens autonomy of three branches
By EDWIN W. KELLY
Guest Commentary Our constitution requires that judges be "as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit." It also provides for three separate branches of government that are as independent of each other "as is consistent with the chain of connection that binds the whole fabric of the constitution in one indissoluble bond of union and amity."
Curious 18th-century phrases? Or pithy prescriptions for a healthy democracy?
I choose to believe the latter.
The founders called for neither a system of justice where judges were expected to be above the people or perfect in their decisions. Rather, they called for judges who reflected the people, judges as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit.
And recognizing that judges will err, our founders also established the mechanics of judicial review or, in modern parlance, an appellate system.
As for the relationship between and among the branches of government, our state constitution clearly stated that the executive, legislative and judicial branches function as a single unit, but retain strict independence from one another in those areas of government given exclusively to each.
From time to time, the natural tension among the branches, (also anticipated by our founders) can increase to the point where it threatens the delicate balance so necessary to our democratic form of government.
In my opinion, the newly created House Committee on Redress of Grievances has begun to move dangerously close to that imbalance. The committee has the exclusive authority to determine if any petition brought by a member of the House of Representatives will receive a public hearing.
Petition 5 seeks, on behalf of a litigant in a long-standing divorce matter, to override a court parenting order and return custody of the litigant's child to the petitioner through legislation; legislatively remove the court-appointed guardian; remove from office three sitting judges and two marital masters who had some involvement in the case, and order those judges to pay triple damages to the litigant for his losses, including child support arrearages and attorney's fees.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am one of the judicial officers against whom this petition is filed.
After approving the petition for a public hearing and chairing the first day of hearing, the committee chairman, Rep. Paul Ingbretson, of Pike, announced to the committee that he thought he may have a conflict because he has served for an extended period of time as the supervisor of court-ordered child visitation for the litigant at the litigant's request.
The judicial branch also reminded Ingbretson of a letter he had written to me almost two years ago in which he stated that he had listened "at great length to (the litigant) and other knowledgeable witnesses" and had "read extensively the documents pertaining to his case" and had, as of September 2009, formed a conclusion about what he saw as "obvious failures to act in the best interest of the child."
Ingbretson finally agreed to step down in that case. But the proceedings on Petition 5 will continue, even though this litigant has had, at his request, a number of judges and masters removed from his case; hearings before at least four different family division judges, two family division marital masters, and a superior court judge, and has filed an appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, resulting in a decision against his position.
When does this stop?
The committee, which is scheduled to hold its next meeting in Concord on June 9, also has before it two petitions in which Rep. Peter Silva, of Nashua, says the committee should consider impeachment proceedings against a Nashua judge for rulings he made in two cases involving children.
Like Petition 5, any review of these rulings should be conducted at the New Hampshire Supreme Court, not, I would submit, in a legislative committee room.
Our system of justice was not designed to allow those people who bring cases to the courts for resolution to continue these matters ad infinitum. At some point in time, the parties have to accept the final judgment of the courts. To do otherwise makes a mockery of the constitutional responsibilities and authority of the courts and the clearly stated constitutional demand that the branches operate independent from one another in issues given to their exclusive authority.
A process established by the Legislature that allows a case such as this to be brought to hearing by a clearly conflicted chairman, seeking legislative action to overturn valid court orders and make judges pay damages to a party who feels aggrieved, not only threatens the delicate balance between the branches, it completely upends it.
Judge Edwin W. Kelly is the administrative judge of the District Court and Family Division in New Hampshire.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
What was Cheshire County Deputy Sheriff Kelvin Macie Thinking???????? I Swear, I Swear, I Swear under Oath I told the Truth…….I just had to keep changing the story when the questions got harder? Was he thinking – after all I don't have to worry about being Caught lying – I’m a Cop – EVERYONE WILL BELIEVE ME?
12 Bogus, trumped up and untrue Administrative Charges - most a duplication to make it look more complicated and make it appear Reppucci was a serious threat to the Town and Police Department.
The only people Reppucci was a threat to was Phillips, Roberts and Jette and exposing their crimes and unethical activity to the public.
Now that we have more information, like reports for the Cheshire County Sheriff's Office and the AG's Office, it's easy to see why Phillips had to scramble to make up a story about Reppucci, based on nothing more than his fear of getting caught, punished and ridiculed.
Too bad the CC Sheriff's department and NH AG's helped to cover up Phillips acts.
If Macie knew his testimony was not supported by documents, including his own document - his police report, why did he Alter the Truth when he testified?
What was Cheshire County Deputy Sheriff Kelvin Macie Thinking? That he was better than the rest of us? Immune from breaking laws? Protected because of his badge? Protected by Phillips? Why and How? Macie was a seasoned cop - he knows the law - or should.
Was it Kelvin Macie's job to get involved in a criminal investigation as he was directed to do or was it to get involved in a scheme Phillips was putting together to oust some of the cops in his department?
After all, The good cops who were exposing the corruption Phillips and Roberts were wallowing in and covering up.
Just for your clarification - Macie - your testimony isn't supported by documents and facts.
A glaring discrepancy:
Macie, in case you missed it - because we haven't - Your boss – the Sheriff of Cheshire County, Dick Foote – states in a letter that YOU NEVER conducted any Internal Investigations at the Town of Winchester. He also makes it clear that you were well aware of that fact.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGGm0ZAEZCkqSNfLuuxVMZbQ1xcClVhoDp2rax2WTbRiWogTIJZSJrAlDstDTEloZQlmZL1Y3WcOXO8cp9_cBopdFu4_9sZN9UR_XMhb8HPyMzHPwKnhCzNYMXR8IUJK9_wtZEgCZGzwLI/s1600/1.jpg
Just to make things easier and to clarify for Macie -His boss - Dick Foote was very clear when he wrote – no one from the Sheriff’s Department conducted ANY investigations at the Town of Winchester – EXCEPT the criminal investigation you conducted.
Interestingly Macie, His letter (Your boss Foote's) - And your report (presumably in your words) both state and inform the reader you were there (in the Town of Winchester) for the sole purpose of conducting a Criminal Investigation.....
This AFTER – Gary Phillips reported to your boss - Foote - a Break-In AND Theft at the Winchester Police Department – specifically occurring in his (Phillips) office.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC8DGEk1oYncgaB_zKtzTdPWynXI8S7RV1FSgLl9qAK9jNbdcmH-Lk-hUhSpOswwubDYoQS2jSG9s9mV6u8_Kqse7zmF6YTO6ML4pvqoCr6kCgv8YQPF9CyN3o4fF79e8hHTw4wv1b1Ehg/s1600/1.jpg
Which interestingly, you state in your report you found no evidence of having occurred.
So why were you deceptive in your testimony? Why evasive?
Why didn’t you just testify to the simple truth as it was written? Why not testify in simple accurate, clear concise sentences instead of sounding like you are covering something up just as you were?
Why did you testify first that you were conducting an internal investigation, when asked by Erik Moskowitz, Atty for the town and then later testify that you weren't?
Why did you testify that you were there to investigate an internal matter and then testify that you weren't there for that purpose?
Why did you confuse your story and testify that you were there to conduct a criminal matter that led into an internal matter?
Why were you so deceptive and misleading? What were you hiding? What are you still hiding?
You could have testified to the truth such as:
1. I was sent to Winchester to investigate a crime reported by the chief – Gary Phillips.
2. I was there to conduct that criminal investigation and I was in fact conducting that criminal investigation.
3. No! I was not there to conduct an internal investigation. It started as a criminal investigation and it ended as a criminal investigation. You can't mix investigations anyway - besides I was not the employer. I was called in after a crime was reported to our department.
4. It was my job to investigate whether a crime occrred or not. Nothing more, nothing less.
5. If during the course of my investigation I had evidence to support a crime occurred that would have been in my report and an arrest would have been made based on that evidence.
6. Phillips reported that his office was broken into and that some documents were stolen and I was there to investigate if that did or did not happen.
7. No. There was no evidence a crime had occrred.
8. I interviewed a few people but there was no evidence a crime was committed and my job was done.
9. Under NH State and the US law – since this was a criminal investigation - no one was obligated to answer ANY of my questions AND yest it is correct, if someone or anyone or everyone chose to first speak to an attorney they were well within their legal right to do so and I was obligated to not interfere with that constitutional right as I was a criminal investigator conducting a criminal investigation.
10. So yes it is true since Reppucci wanted to speak with an attorney first he was absolutely protected under the constitution and entitled to and I was obligated to not stand in his way.
11. As Reppucci stated to me he was being targeted for temination by Phillips. He didn't trust Phillips. He told me he felt Phillips and Roberts were going to try to pin something on him and since this was a criminal investigation – when Phillips ordered Reppucci to cooperate and ordered him to answer my questions - I informed Phillips that it would violate Reppucci's Constitutional Rights if I kept questioning him, so I choose to stop the questioning at that point to allow him the opportunity to speak with an attorney as he requested.
12. Had I not done that I would have violated his Constitutional Rights under Miranda because I was investiating a crime and I was conducting a criminal investigation and I was a criminal investigator.
13. It is correct that continuing to question him would have been the same as violating any other persons right to Miranda.
14. If His boss, Phillips, wanted to question him independantly as his employer he had every legal right to do so.
15. No, Phillips never questioned him himself. He only "ordered' that Reppucci answer my questions in my criminal investigation, which I already testified Reppucci had a right to not answer at that time.
16. The only investigation that I am aware Reppucci did not cooperate in was the criminal investigation that I was conducting.
17. To my knowledge Phillips was not conducting his own Internal Investigation on the matter.
18. Garrity has no bearing, nor does it protect any individual as far as criminal investigations go.
19. Garrity only applies when your boss or the company you work for is doing their own investigation.
20. For instance, your employer sells TV's and 2 are missing. They suspect two employees. They start an investigation, let everyone involved know it is an internal investigation, give a Garrity Warning which simply states that they will not use that information in any criminal proceeding.
21. At the conclusion of the investigation the company finds that the 2 employees stole the TV's. It is now their option how they wish to handle it.
22. Yes they can fire them, forgive them or call in the authoriteis to report the theft. But in any case the internal investigation would have nothing to do with us.
23. No you can not lump a criminal investigation and internal investigation together. That is why they are called by different names. They have different consequences and diferent outcomes.
How come your testimony sounds nothing like this? Testimony which would have been and is supported by your police report, in your own words?
Your testimony changes frequently, you only think, as opposed to know what you are investigating and why. You only think as opposed to know many things which can be construed as interfering with facts.
How simple, clean and straightforward your testimony could have been, but more important – it would have stuck to the facts of the documents in the case – police reports and a letter from the Sheriff, information that can be verified and validated.
Hmmmmm………so it comes down to covering up the fact that you not only botched an investigation you violated the rights of a citizen in the process and apparently did so willingly and intentionally as you changed your story and testimony.
A good reason to try to cover your tracks or in police business what they like to say – A MOTIVE to commit a crime?
Perjury is a crime. Macie, did you know perjury is a crime?
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Phillips allows Nate Jette to access Porn Sites - Internal Investigation involving Nate Jette - Phillips Tells Many People that Jette is One of His Best Officers – Acts Surprised When Confronted with Facts Otherwise – Covers Up and Says – Many, Many, Many Times and says No – Not Jette – He’s one of my best officers - All the While Knowing Otherwise for Many, Many, Many Years
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Coincidence or by Design?
Is this Coincidence or Design?
This letter is dated June 25, 2009.
Written to Chief Gary Phillips, it appears to be informing him and documenting in writing the possibility Nate Jette falsified and improperly handled evidence and then covered up that fact up.
On June 25, 2009, the very same day Phillips gets this letter, Phillips contacted and spoke with Captain Trevor Croteau of the Cheshire County Sheriff’s Office. Phillips reported to him and the Sheriff's Office that a couple of crimes were committed at the Town of Winchester Police Department.
The crimes according to Phillips: based on what he presented to the Sheriff’s Department. He was concerned about a possible unauthorized entry and the removal of a document from his office. That document then being duplicated and dispersed to the public. Page 1 of narrative. https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC8DGEk1oYncgaB_zKtzTdPWynXI8S7RV1FSgLl9qAK9jNbdcmH-Lk-hUhSpOswwubDYoQS2jSG9s9mV6u8_Kqse7zmF6YTO6ML4pvqoCr6kCgv8YQPF9CyN3o4fF79e8hHTw4wv1b1Ehg/s1600/1.jpg
So Phillips was accusing someone or someone’s of breaking into his office and stealing a letter, making copies and then putting it back thus the description of Misdemeanor, page 1, under type of investigation.
Note the reporting party Phillips, page 3 and participant Reppucci, page 1. https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigTm5Oc9ErAgnz5KI4YN9CghIPfUJKM7IifsnlvBTAlVitXxjsO_xjf-Y1_e7JA0o-tRGzSy8QmLAOKTccHX0kLfSPk6oPqcefr83Lf7pGOu1WiodPyLKOWc6uYIxqvpNW2TtVMoMHJyQH/s1600/8.jpg
No bias there. No mistake either about what kind of investigation was taking place. A criminal investigation. Not an Internal Investigation.
Interestingly, this letter is contained as an attachment in one of the emails Reppucci has been accused of stealing. Equally interesting is that Phillips assigned Chris Roberts to investigate these allegations or potential criminal activity by ordering him to conduct an internal investigation into the matter.
No bias there.
Why Phillips, didn’t feel it was a matter of great enough importance to have the Sheriff’s Office investigate is a big question mark?
No bias there.
After all, how much more convenient could it have been, since he was already on the phone, the very same day, reporting a crime and asking them to investigate a break in and theft that happened in his office.
I mean really, how hard can it be to add a couple more allegations of wrongdoing going on in your police department? I'm sure the Sheriff's Department wouldn't have been too bothered by the request. After all they were quite accommodating when he reported your office was broken into.
We don't have the answeres but we can speculate.
I mean really, how hard can it be to add a couple more allegations of wrongdoing going on in your police department? I'm sure the Sheriff's Department wouldn't have been too bothered by the request. After all they were quite accommodating when he reported your office was broken into.
We don't have the answeres but we can speculate.
Oh, and based on the investigation done by Roberts – he didn’t find any wrongdoing by Jette and in fact he reported that to the AG’s office.
No bias there.
But then again did he present the AG's office with the facts or a story he made up?
Phillips is it really a coincidence you called the Sheriff’s Office on June 25, 2009 to report a real crime involving Reppucci or was it by design?
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Winchester Police Department Lieutenant makes a formal complaint against himself and asks that he be investigated and the Chief honors the request and agrees to an investigation..............
Chris Roberts makes a complaint against himself and Chief Phillips orders an investigation into his (Roberts) allegations against himself.
Bizarre?
Here's the facts and documents to prove it:
The Lieutenant of the Winchester Police Department made a formal written complaint against himself and requested that he be investigated for being in a "pissy mood" in front of a group of US Marshall's.
The results of that investigation determined that he was in a "pissy mood".
Why you ask, would Roberts make a complaint about himself?
What could the Reason be?
To target another police officer he didn't like and to try to get that officer in trouble, that's the real reason.
Another concocted story by Phillips and Roberts to target an employee.
Another example of a corrupt Winchester police department and that corruption being covered up by those who abuse their power.
Adding to the mounds of evidence already shown as factual here is the complaint written by Chris Roberts about himself:
Bizarre?
Here's the facts and documents to prove it:
The Lieutenant of the Winchester Police Department made a formal written complaint against himself and requested that he be investigated for being in a "pissy mood" in front of a group of US Marshall's.
The results of that investigation determined that he was in a "pissy mood".
Why you ask, would Roberts make a complaint about himself?
What could the Reason be?
To target another police officer he didn't like and to try to get that officer in trouble, that's the real reason.
Another concocted story by Phillips and Roberts to target an employee.
Another example of a corrupt Winchester police department and that corruption being covered up by those who abuse their power.
Adding to the mounds of evidence already shown as factual here is the complaint written by Chris Roberts about himself:
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
DEMAND ANSWERS: Formal Complaints filed by Dan Reppucci to County Commissioners against Deputy Kelvin Macie and Winchester BOS against Cheif Gary Phillips & Lt Christopher Roberts
Unethical Police and Police Corruption – Don’t Look the Other Way - DEMAND ANSWERS, ASK QUESTIOINS AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.
Why is Hinsdale Police Officer, Theresa Sepe, now a Board member, helping to cover up these crimes and protecting the CHIEF?
Why is former Lt. Sherman Tedford helping to cover up these crimes, now that he is a Board of Selectmen?
Why don’t they DEMAND answers from the CHIEF?
They KNOW the LAW, they know the DEPARTMENT Policies and THEY KNOW their CHIEF lied and manipulated and twisted the TRUTH to get rid of REPPUCCI.
Why do they hide from the TRUTH?
Have you ever been accused of doing something you didn't do? Have you ever had to defend yourself against a lie? accusation? mistruth?
Have you ever had to STAND up for yourself because someone doesn’t like what you stand for?
When the police do it, the stakes are higher.
The police are trusted because we are taught they aren’t supposed to break the law.
But they CAN and all too often they Do.
And when BAD Cops do it to GOOD people they try to cover it up and make the GOOD people look BAD.
This is what happens when the GOOD people have the proof and Stand Up to the COPS who are BAD.
Sometimes Good people get to speak out and give evidence and they show the world that there really are BAD Cops in the world and we need to know about them.
JUST think what could happen to you, if you get accused of doing something wrong, when you didn’t, but the police accuse you anyway, just because they can.
Because they don’t like what you stand for.
Just think what can happen to honest, law abiding people, if we keep letting them get away with it?
We all must all do our part to expose and stop BAD COPS so the GOOD COPS can do their job.
It’s time to fight back against BAD COPS. There is NO room for people who misuse their power and then lie through their teeth that they don't.
If you can’t be an honest cop and Follow the Laws and uphold the Constitution then there is no room for you as a cop in this Country.
We will be vigilant and we will expose you and all your dirty deeds, because that’s what GOOD people do to protect other GOOD people when BAD Cops don’t.
Dan Reppucci, wrongfully and unlawfully terminated, after Gary Phillips, Chief of Police and Cheshire County Deputy Kelvin Macie BOTH TESTIFY UNDER OATH he was "insubordinate" when he failed to answer questions during an "internal investigation".
Neither has told the truth, under oath, that it was a CRIMINAL investigation and by law and department policy, Reppucci has a LEGAL right to NOT answer questions and TO speak with an Attorney as he requested to do – BEFORE answering questions.
Instead of complying with that request, THEY chose to VIOLATE his Constitutional Rights to consult with an attorney.
The REASON is Simple: Reppucci was being TARGETED by the Chief for HIS information and knowledge of criminal and unethical activities going on in the police department.
Activity that the Chief wanted COVERED UP. The way to accomplish that was to discredit and silence REPPUCCI.
Facts:
The Chief of Police reported to Sheriff Foote a break in and theft at the Police Department.
Deputy Kelvin Macie was sent by Sheriff Foote to investigate.
Kelvin Macie - Investigator for Cheshire County NH Deputy Sheriff.
Repucci knew they were conducting a criminal investigation and asked to consult with an attorney BEFORE answering questions because he felt he was being targeted, it was HIS legal RIGHT, IT was THEIR Obligation to obey that request.
A legal right to counsel is afforded to anyone in the country in criminal investigations conducted by the police and that included Reppucci.
Phillips and Macie violated the 5th and 6th Amendments of the US Constitution, when they did not allow Reppucci to exercise his Constitutional Right to Counsel.
Neither are NEW to LAW ENFORECEMENT and BOTH have many years of experience.
Reppucci was concerned he was being SET UP by the Chief.
Reppucci has stated and it is recorded in Kelvin Macie's report he felt he was being targeted for termination for reporting illegal and unethical activities going on at the Winchester Police Department.
Both Deputy Kelvin Macie and Chief Gary Phillips testified Reppucci was being questioned during an internal investigation and during that questioning he failed to cooperate.
Why would they testify that it was an internal investigation and not a criminal investigation?
Simple, if it was internal investigation, he was insubordinate; if it was a criminal investigation, he wasn't, as he was exercising his constitutional right to speak with counsel under the law and the department policies he was employed under.
In order to discredit and go after Reppucci, the Chief with the help of Kelvin Macie had to tell everyone AND also testify that Reppucci was bad and wasn't following orders. That he was being insubordinate and he had to be disposed of, immediately, that he was a threat to the department.
The Chief and Deputy colluded to successfully violate his constitutional rights.
They lied about the fact it was a criminal investigation. They hid and covered up that very important fact up making people believe that they did nothing wrong but that Reppucci was the one who was wrong. Including to the courts.
Both try to discredit Reppucci saying he's just a disgruntled employee who is mad he didn't get a promotion.
Dan Reppucci's story makes sense, a pretend break in and a person fired are just too coincidental and a history with this Chief.
Those who know Reppucci know he wouldn't have given up a 15 year career because he didn't get a promotion. He has an extensive and accomplished background and his yearly reviews were near perfect year after year, including the one he got just a few months before this entire matter. The Chief going on and on for pages about Reppucci's accomplishments, self sacriface, availability even after hours, with NO EXTRA pay, to the department and officers and his importance to both the agency and the Chief and how his professionalism carries over into the rest of the police community.
Reppucci: Sergeant, Detective, Police Prosecutor for several years, educated, disciplined.
Realistically, even if there was some problem, you would think that the Chief wouldn't just "throw away" such a loyal employee whom he relied on and who was always there for both him and the Department.
The Chief's story makes no sense.
Those who know Reppucci know the real story know that the problem is that he had information the Chief didn't and still doesn't want out in public. Information he doesn't want the public to know about.
The Chief TRIED to VIOLATE this Officer's Constitutional Rights when he ordered him, demanded the Officer immediately cooperate and immediately answer questions in the Deputy's criminal investigation.
Reppucci held firm, stood his ground and honored the Oath of Office he took to not violate the law and to Uphold the Constitution.
The Chief couldn't find anything else this Officer had done wrong so he had his Lt. Chris Roberts check his emails and fabricate yet another story.
They both tell a story about how he was stealing confidential documents.
Reppucci says that's a ridiculous lie. Reppucci has proof that Roberts lied under oath and fabricated his story because the only emails he ever had were work related and turned in when complete and nothing was ever stolen.
Reppucci said that the emails he had were emails that there show there were problems with some of the employees at the police department, including Roberts.
Reppucci has said he was given an assignment to investigate some goings on at the police department and it's not his fault that the truth ended up being negative for Roberts and the Chief wanted it covered up.
Reppucci had been bringing forward knowledge of Criminal and Unethical Activity going on and is still going on in the police department. So far it's swept under carpets. Sooner or later that will stop happening.
Reppucci wants to see Justice done and these people properly disciplined and removed from their poistions for what they have done to him and to others.
Reppucci wants the opportunity to clear his name. He has said he will continue that fight until the truth comes out. We will continue to help him.
Phillips, Macie and Roberts have ALL violated their Oath of Office and should be ashamed of themselves for even thinking they fall into the same class as real, honest and hardworking Law Enforcement Professionals.
Police Corruption Needs to be Exposed and Needs to be Dealt with Legally.
The THIN BLUE LINE needs to be CROSSED.
Please feel free to share your stories and comments.
Christopher Roberts - Lt, Winchester NH Police Department
Gary Phillips - Chief, Winchester Police NH Department
http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/p/complaints-filed-to-bos-by-dan-reppucci.html
http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/p/complaint-filed-to-cheshire-county.html
Why is Hinsdale Police Officer, Theresa Sepe, now a Board member, helping to cover up these crimes and protecting the CHIEF?
Why is former Lt. Sherman Tedford helping to cover up these crimes, now that he is a Board of Selectmen?
Why don’t they DEMAND answers from the CHIEF?
They KNOW the LAW, they know the DEPARTMENT Policies and THEY KNOW their CHIEF lied and manipulated and twisted the TRUTH to get rid of REPPUCCI.
Why do they hide from the TRUTH?
Have you ever been accused of doing something you didn't do? Have you ever had to defend yourself against a lie? accusation? mistruth?
Have you ever had to STAND up for yourself because someone doesn’t like what you stand for?
When the police do it, the stakes are higher.
The police are trusted because we are taught they aren’t supposed to break the law.
But they CAN and all too often they Do.
And when BAD Cops do it to GOOD people they try to cover it up and make the GOOD people look BAD.
This is what happens when the GOOD people have the proof and Stand Up to the COPS who are BAD.
Sometimes Good people get to speak out and give evidence and they show the world that there really are BAD Cops in the world and we need to know about them.
JUST think what could happen to you, if you get accused of doing something wrong, when you didn’t, but the police accuse you anyway, just because they can.
Because they don’t like what you stand for.
Just think what can happen to honest, law abiding people, if we keep letting them get away with it?
We all must all do our part to expose and stop BAD COPS so the GOOD COPS can do their job.
It’s time to fight back against BAD COPS. There is NO room for people who misuse their power and then lie through their teeth that they don't.
If you can’t be an honest cop and Follow the Laws and uphold the Constitution then there is no room for you as a cop in this Country.
We will be vigilant and we will expose you and all your dirty deeds, because that’s what GOOD people do to protect other GOOD people when BAD Cops don’t.
Dan Reppucci, wrongfully and unlawfully terminated, after Gary Phillips, Chief of Police and Cheshire County Deputy Kelvin Macie BOTH TESTIFY UNDER OATH he was "insubordinate" when he failed to answer questions during an "internal investigation".
Neither has told the truth, under oath, that it was a CRIMINAL investigation and by law and department policy, Reppucci has a LEGAL right to NOT answer questions and TO speak with an Attorney as he requested to do – BEFORE answering questions.
Instead of complying with that request, THEY chose to VIOLATE his Constitutional Rights to consult with an attorney.
The REASON is Simple: Reppucci was being TARGETED by the Chief for HIS information and knowledge of criminal and unethical activities going on in the police department.
Activity that the Chief wanted COVERED UP. The way to accomplish that was to discredit and silence REPPUCCI.
Facts:
The Chief of Police reported to Sheriff Foote a break in and theft at the Police Department.
Deputy Kelvin Macie was sent by Sheriff Foote to investigate.
Kelvin Macie - Investigator for Cheshire County NH Deputy Sheriff.
Repucci knew they were conducting a criminal investigation and asked to consult with an attorney BEFORE answering questions because he felt he was being targeted, it was HIS legal RIGHT, IT was THEIR Obligation to obey that request.
A legal right to counsel is afforded to anyone in the country in criminal investigations conducted by the police and that included Reppucci.
Phillips and Macie violated the 5th and 6th Amendments of the US Constitution, when they did not allow Reppucci to exercise his Constitutional Right to Counsel.
Neither are NEW to LAW ENFORECEMENT and BOTH have many years of experience.
Reppucci was concerned he was being SET UP by the Chief.
Reppucci has stated and it is recorded in Kelvin Macie's report he felt he was being targeted for termination for reporting illegal and unethical activities going on at the Winchester Police Department.
Both Deputy Kelvin Macie and Chief Gary Phillips testified Reppucci was being questioned during an internal investigation and during that questioning he failed to cooperate.
Why would they testify that it was an internal investigation and not a criminal investigation?
Simple, if it was internal investigation, he was insubordinate; if it was a criminal investigation, he wasn't, as he was exercising his constitutional right to speak with counsel under the law and the department policies he was employed under.
In order to discredit and go after Reppucci, the Chief with the help of Kelvin Macie had to tell everyone AND also testify that Reppucci was bad and wasn't following orders. That he was being insubordinate and he had to be disposed of, immediately, that he was a threat to the department.
The Chief and Deputy colluded to successfully violate his constitutional rights.
They lied about the fact it was a criminal investigation. They hid and covered up that very important fact up making people believe that they did nothing wrong but that Reppucci was the one who was wrong. Including to the courts.
Both try to discredit Reppucci saying he's just a disgruntled employee who is mad he didn't get a promotion.
Dan Reppucci's story makes sense, a pretend break in and a person fired are just too coincidental and a history with this Chief.
Those who know Reppucci know he wouldn't have given up a 15 year career because he didn't get a promotion. He has an extensive and accomplished background and his yearly reviews were near perfect year after year, including the one he got just a few months before this entire matter. The Chief going on and on for pages about Reppucci's accomplishments, self sacriface, availability even after hours, with NO EXTRA pay, to the department and officers and his importance to both the agency and the Chief and how his professionalism carries over into the rest of the police community.
Reppucci: Sergeant, Detective, Police Prosecutor for several years, educated, disciplined.
Realistically, even if there was some problem, you would think that the Chief wouldn't just "throw away" such a loyal employee whom he relied on and who was always there for both him and the Department.
The Chief's story makes no sense.
Those who know Reppucci know the real story know that the problem is that he had information the Chief didn't and still doesn't want out in public. Information he doesn't want the public to know about.
The Chief TRIED to VIOLATE this Officer's Constitutional Rights when he ordered him, demanded the Officer immediately cooperate and immediately answer questions in the Deputy's criminal investigation.
Reppucci held firm, stood his ground and honored the Oath of Office he took to not violate the law and to Uphold the Constitution.
The Chief couldn't find anything else this Officer had done wrong so he had his Lt. Chris Roberts check his emails and fabricate yet another story.
They both tell a story about how he was stealing confidential documents.
Reppucci says that's a ridiculous lie. Reppucci has proof that Roberts lied under oath and fabricated his story because the only emails he ever had were work related and turned in when complete and nothing was ever stolen.
Reppucci said that the emails he had were emails that there show there were problems with some of the employees at the police department, including Roberts.
Reppucci has said he was given an assignment to investigate some goings on at the police department and it's not his fault that the truth ended up being negative for Roberts and the Chief wanted it covered up.
Reppucci had been bringing forward knowledge of Criminal and Unethical Activity going on and is still going on in the police department. So far it's swept under carpets. Sooner or later that will stop happening.
Reppucci wants to see Justice done and these people properly disciplined and removed from their poistions for what they have done to him and to others.
Reppucci wants the opportunity to clear his name. He has said he will continue that fight until the truth comes out. We will continue to help him.
Phillips, Macie and Roberts have ALL violated their Oath of Office and should be ashamed of themselves for even thinking they fall into the same class as real, honest and hardworking Law Enforcement Professionals.
Police Corruption Needs to be Exposed and Needs to be Dealt with Legally.
The THIN BLUE LINE needs to be CROSSED.
Please feel free to share your stories and comments.
Christopher Roberts - Lt, Winchester NH Police Department
Gary Phillips - Chief, Winchester Police NH Department
http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/p/complaints-filed-to-bos-by-dan-reppucci.html
http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/p/complaint-filed-to-cheshire-county.html
Monday, November 1, 2010
Help Stop the Public Corruption in Cheshire County
Former Winchester Police Officer, Daniel Reppucci has asked that we share his story and give him an opportunity to present his side of the story as to how and why he was termintated.
Documents sent with this email are available by request to the concnernedcitisensofwinchester@gmail.com email address and are in pdf format.
These documents will be converted to a format that will allow them to be posted on the blog and when they are available they will be located to the right of this blog under the heading, Documents and Other Reference Material - Double Click Document to Enlarge and they will be entitled Dan Reppucci Documents.
October 27, 2010
To Whom it may concern,
Last year I was terminated from the NH Winchester Police Department for allegedly not answering questions and cooperating in an internal investigation. I was the Detective Sergeant of the agency and had worked there for more than 10 years and had a personnel file to be proud of.
The State and Local Politicians and Officials of NH as well as the Media need to know that public corruption is a serious problem and how it happens.
I had MY Constitutional Rights violated when I was accused of not cooperating in an internal investigation.
I have spent more than a year gathering evidence in my defense, to be able to clear my name against false allegations made against me by my former employer. I now have physical proof and evidence the investigation was a Criminal Investigation, that I had a Constitutional right to speak with an attorney during that investigation and I have physical proof and evidence that the other allegations were also false allegations and I did not do the things I was accused of.
I have provided a copy of a letter dated May 17, 2010, in which Cheshire County Sheriff Foote specifically states:
“The investigation in question is a criminal investigation. It is not an internal investigation.”
He goes on to further state that NO internal investigations had been conducted in Winchester in 2009 by the CC Sheriff’s Dept , PERIOD.
Proving my Constitutional Rights were violated.
Since that initial time when I was first terminated from my employment, I was receiving and then had been denied unemployment benefits, I lost a Cheshire County Superior Court ruling, filed on my behalf by my attorney J. Joseph McKittrick of McKittrick Law Offices, Northampton, NH, in which Judge Arnold ruled, based on false information provided, the Town was in it’s legal rights to terminate my employment, my case now with the Supreme Court after failing to get a reconsideration on that ruling.
I’ve lost every Administrative and Judicial proceeding because I have been accused of having not cooperated in an internal investigation.
It is this misrepresented and false information that the investigation itself was an internal investigation that has even given credence to any of the other false allegations and information they have lied about.
No physical proof has ever been provided to show I did any of things I was accused of doing.
I have recently filed formal written complaints to the Cheshire County Commissioners and the Town of Winchester Board of Selectmen asking for complete and thorough criminal and internal investigations on the “Participants” who have conspired together to hide this information from the public and from these “Official Proceedings”.
I have attached the complaints that were made to both the Commissioners and the BOS, all confidential information blacked out, copies of the actual Cheshire County Sheriff’s Criminal Investigation Report, #09-63-OF, a copy of a letter from Cheshire County Sheriff Foote, stating he directed the Deputy to conduct a criminal investigation at the Winchester Police Department after a crime had been reported, and finally the Superior Court ruling.
My constitutional rights were violated by both these agencies when they failed to allow me to an attorney as I had made it very clear, I was being targeted for termination for being a whistleblower.
I would love the opportunity and would appreciate having a chance to speak to someone to tell my side of the story, backed up with evidence, so the public knows what goes on behind closed doors and the extent some will go to, to keep those doors shut while hiding the truth.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 518-772-2652 or at my email.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Daniel Reppucci
Documents sent with this email are available by request to the concnernedcitisensofwinchester@gmail.com email address and are in pdf format.
These documents will be converted to a format that will allow them to be posted on the blog and when they are available they will be located to the right of this blog under the heading, Documents and Other Reference Material - Double Click Document to Enlarge and they will be entitled Dan Reppucci Documents.
October 27, 2010
To Whom it may concern,
Last year I was terminated from the NH Winchester Police Department for allegedly not answering questions and cooperating in an internal investigation. I was the Detective Sergeant of the agency and had worked there for more than 10 years and had a personnel file to be proud of.
The State and Local Politicians and Officials of NH as well as the Media need to know that public corruption is a serious problem and how it happens.
I had MY Constitutional Rights violated when I was accused of not cooperating in an internal investigation.
I have spent more than a year gathering evidence in my defense, to be able to clear my name against false allegations made against me by my former employer. I now have physical proof and evidence the investigation was a Criminal Investigation, that I had a Constitutional right to speak with an attorney during that investigation and I have physical proof and evidence that the other allegations were also false allegations and I did not do the things I was accused of.
I have provided a copy of a letter dated May 17, 2010, in which Cheshire County Sheriff Foote specifically states:
“The investigation in question is a criminal investigation. It is not an internal investigation.”
He goes on to further state that NO internal investigations had been conducted in Winchester in 2009 by the CC Sheriff’s Dept , PERIOD.
Proving my Constitutional Rights were violated.
Since that initial time when I was first terminated from my employment, I was receiving and then had been denied unemployment benefits, I lost a Cheshire County Superior Court ruling, filed on my behalf by my attorney J. Joseph McKittrick of McKittrick Law Offices, Northampton, NH, in which Judge Arnold ruled, based on false information provided, the Town was in it’s legal rights to terminate my employment, my case now with the Supreme Court after failing to get a reconsideration on that ruling.
I’ve lost every Administrative and Judicial proceeding because I have been accused of having not cooperated in an internal investigation.
It is this misrepresented and false information that the investigation itself was an internal investigation that has even given credence to any of the other false allegations and information they have lied about.
No physical proof has ever been provided to show I did any of things I was accused of doing.
I have recently filed formal written complaints to the Cheshire County Commissioners and the Town of Winchester Board of Selectmen asking for complete and thorough criminal and internal investigations on the “Participants” who have conspired together to hide this information from the public and from these “Official Proceedings”.
I have attached the complaints that were made to both the Commissioners and the BOS, all confidential information blacked out, copies of the actual Cheshire County Sheriff’s Criminal Investigation Report, #09-63-OF, a copy of a letter from Cheshire County Sheriff Foote, stating he directed the Deputy to conduct a criminal investigation at the Winchester Police Department after a crime had been reported, and finally the Superior Court ruling.
My constitutional rights were violated by both these agencies when they failed to allow me to an attorney as I had made it very clear, I was being targeted for termination for being a whistleblower.
I would love the opportunity and would appreciate having a chance to speak to someone to tell my side of the story, backed up with evidence, so the public knows what goes on behind closed doors and the extent some will go to, to keep those doors shut while hiding the truth.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 518-772-2652 or at my email.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Daniel Reppucci
Thursday, October 21, 2010
New Documents: Kelvin Macie Criminal Investigation and Court Ruling
If this all sounds confusing, it's because it is. If this doesn't sound logical, it's because it's not.
See NEW documents on right, CC Sheriff investigation 09-63-OF and CC Superior Court Judge decision in Reppucci lawsuit with Town. The continued lies have now forced him to APPEAL that Decision in the Supreme Court.
What's been presented by the Chief, Town, Deputy, Sheriff's Office and Court is absolute nonsense and if this involved anybody other than a police officer - It Would Not Be Going On.
Click on New Links : >>>>>>>>>>>
Don't be fooled into thinking - he was Cop so he had to cooperate. That's not true by any stretch. Dan Reppucci was not a cop in this investigation - he was an ordinary citizen, like you or me and he was entitled to HIS Constitutional Rights and he was entitled to an Attorney.
No truth could ever be this distorted and maligned.
Who provided the judge with the information he based his decision on?
Judge Arnold states Reppucci didn't provide evidence or even dispute the facts? So who provided this undisputed evidence? Where did it come from? Or were the facts provided by Reppucci simply overlooked because the Town's story was more believable?
How did the judge come to the conclusion that it was Mr. Reppucci's refusal to answer Deputy Kelvin Macie's questions that led to sufficient grounds for his termination? See 2nd paragraph, 2nd page. It was a criminal investigation and in fact that criminal investigation was provided as evidence to the Court.
The Judge states Reppucci refused to answer Deputy Kelvin Macie's questions. He had a right to refuse - he was being questioned in a criminal investigation - not the internal investigation the judge refers to in his ruling. See 1st page, paragraph 2.
The Judge states that Reppucci provides no factual support to his allegation that neither the WPD or Sheriff's Office followed proper rules and regulations during their investigation.
Well, is it normal and customary for the Sheriff's Department to show up at someones house for criminal investigations with an Administrative Warning for the people to sign?
Is that the protocol for police departments across our land?
If they showed up knocking on Judge Arnold's door with one, would he have willingly answered questions about anything they were asking?
How about a Chief of Police who reported a crime to that agency? Do the criminal investigations magically become internal investigations?
Hasn't the judge ever heard of due process? Or maybe he was persuaded to believe that there were so many who were against Reppucci that it must have been true he did something wrong?
See NEW documents on right, CC investigation 09-63-OF and Superior Court decision or use links below:
http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/p/cheshire-county-sheriff-investigation.html
http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/p/cc-superior-court-decision-reppucci.html
See NEW documents on right, CC Sheriff investigation 09-63-OF and CC Superior Court Judge decision in Reppucci lawsuit with Town. The continued lies have now forced him to APPEAL that Decision in the Supreme Court.
What's been presented by the Chief, Town, Deputy, Sheriff's Office and Court is absolute nonsense and if this involved anybody other than a police officer - It Would Not Be Going On.
Click on New Links : >>>>>>>>>>>
Don't be fooled into thinking - he was Cop so he had to cooperate. That's not true by any stretch. Dan Reppucci was not a cop in this investigation - he was an ordinary citizen, like you or me and he was entitled to HIS Constitutional Rights and he was entitled to an Attorney.
No truth could ever be this distorted and maligned.
Who provided the judge with the information he based his decision on?
Judge Arnold states Reppucci didn't provide evidence or even dispute the facts? So who provided this undisputed evidence? Where did it come from? Or were the facts provided by Reppucci simply overlooked because the Town's story was more believable?
How did the judge come to the conclusion that it was Mr. Reppucci's refusal to answer Deputy Kelvin Macie's questions that led to sufficient grounds for his termination? See 2nd paragraph, 2nd page. It was a criminal investigation and in fact that criminal investigation was provided as evidence to the Court.
The Judge states Reppucci refused to answer Deputy Kelvin Macie's questions. He had a right to refuse - he was being questioned in a criminal investigation - not the internal investigation the judge refers to in his ruling. See 1st page, paragraph 2.
The Judge states that Reppucci provides no factual support to his allegation that neither the WPD or Sheriff's Office followed proper rules and regulations during their investigation.
Well, is it normal and customary for the Sheriff's Department to show up at someones house for criminal investigations with an Administrative Warning for the people to sign?
Is that the protocol for police departments across our land?
If they showed up knocking on Judge Arnold's door with one, would he have willingly answered questions about anything they were asking?
How about a Chief of Police who reported a crime to that agency? Do the criminal investigations magically become internal investigations?
Hasn't the judge ever heard of due process? Or maybe he was persuaded to believe that there were so many who were against Reppucci that it must have been true he did something wrong?
See NEW documents on right, CC investigation 09-63-OF and Superior Court decision or use links below:
http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/p/cheshire-county-sheriff-investigation.html
http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/p/cc-superior-court-decision-reppucci.html
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?
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 intervene. |
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.
