The only objective of Ms. Morel is to ensure she uses whatever means possible to keep information from "leaking" out of Town Hall.
After being forced to deal with an inept, incompetent police chief, for 2 weeks at the insistence of Ms. Morel, this email had to be sent to that inept, incompetent Town Administrator, Ms. Morel and the Board of Selectmen to force them to deal with their inept, incompetent police chief and tell him he needs to follow the law.
What else are we going to find out about?
Crime reported by Phillips to Sheriff Dept
fromConcerned Citizens
tojmorel@winchester.nh.gov,
selectmen@winchester.nh.gov
dateTue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:51 PM
subjectCrime reported by Phillips to Sheriff Dept
Due to the hostility of the chief in our attempts to get information we no longer feel it is in our best interest to go to the police station to inspect records. Instead we have chosen to exercise our right to pay for the material requested. We suggested he tell us the fee and after it was received by him, he could have it faxed. He refused.
You sent us to the police chief for information about crimes occurring on town property.
A specific request for information involving a crime he reported to the Sheriff's department in June of 2009 has previously been submitted and ignored.
The request was and still is for any documents he has or the BOS have or that other departments have that involve the reporting of break in he said occurred in June of 2009 and that he said he reported to the Sheriff's. Additionally, what documents are in his or the towns possession sent to or received from any other agencies such as police agencies and insurance agencies, including by email.
Any invoices for the purpose of shoring up securtiy were also requested.
There is been no sensible response from him and he has avoiding answering the request in it's totality.
Your chief is in violation of the RTK laws and has not exhibited any desire to be cooperative in this matter., Since we are having no response from him we are throwing it back to you to figure out how to get us the documents.
Per right to know laws it is expected one of three responses will be given.
Either that the records are available.
They arent' available and the reason why they aren't available.
Or. That they will be available after such and such date.
Again, because of the hostile attitude the chief has displayed, we want the documents mailed or faxed if there are any.
Thank you
fromJoan Morel jmorel@winchester.nh.gov
toConcerned Citizens
dateWed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:55 PM
subjectRE: Crime reported by Phillips to Sheriff Dept
Dear Concerned Citizens:
Any reasonably described non-exempt record is made available for review during the regular business hours of all public bodies or agencies, and on the regular business premises of such public bodies or agencies.
Winchester has confidence in its Police Department. That department determines what can be released from files regarding any criminal activity. This request seems to refer to records possibly related to an on-going court case, as Chief Phillips has written.
Sincerely,
Joan Morel
About Us
- Concerned Citizens of Winchester NH
- say: Police have an OBLIGATION to UPHOLD the LAW & NOT BREAK THE LAW. As Concerned Citizens we want to bring TO THE PEOPLE the truth about what really goes on inside the Corrupt Winchester NH PD & the “ROGUE COPS” who work there. ***To show you what “ROGUE COPS” do to violate “YOUR” rights. ***To show you how these “ROGUE COPS” break the law & get away with it. ***To show you how these “ROGUE COPS” acts are repeatedly covered-up, including their criminal activity & how wide spread the conspiracy to cover-up really is. ***To show how because of these “ROGUE COPS” innocent people get hurt. ***To show the arrogance of these “ROGUE COPS”, how they believe they are above the law, how they believe they are untouchable & can do what they please. ***To show that if citizens don’t stand up together & “QUESTION AUTHORITY” then “Authority” runs the risk of becoming ‘CORRUPT, DECEPTIVE & VIOLATES PEOPLES RIGHTS & THE LAW” & you have “ROGUE COPS” . ***To try to stop “How someday somebody is going to get hurt because of these “ROGUE COPS” from having to be said. Corruption in NH exists and it exists today.
9 comments:
Reposted by Blog Admin
Anonymous said...
He should be fired and charges brought against him. Here's another example of a bad cop manipulating the system and getting away with it.
March 20, 2011 8:15 AM
Reposted by Blog Admin
Anonymous said...
Hey Phillips is this why you never had a tape recorder going when Macie was there? Dan's word against yours and you'd win by default?
March 20, 2011 6:15 PM
Reposted by Blog Admin
Anonymous said...
Funny this Inv. Macie never bothered to confirm or get something in writing and only has what he reports from the supposed witness Stanley Plifka. The witness offers no information about anything. Especially since when he went to see Robert Gray, all Gray said to Inv Macie is that he saw something in Plifka’s hand the day he stopped by. Inv Macie says Gray uses words like appeared to be and assumed in describing a document Plifka was holding. He assumed but didn’t bother to ask to see so that makes it something even it's nothing. Then to seal the deal, is offered proof positive, no room for confusion, when offered a copy and he refused?
Didn’t this Inv. Macie find it odd that Plifka who he interviewed just moments before said he never had a copy of whatever letter he was inquiring about but this Town employee Gray was now saying a few minutes later that not only did Plifka say he had a copy and according to him Plifka offered him a copy but he declined.
But he declined?
Maybe that’s why Inv. Macie uses the phrase I saw no reason to be adversarial with Mr. Plifka. Well, according to Macie the guy already told him he didn’t know anything about any letter. Inv Macie strung together a few facts he found out before hand, from a very unreliable source, the Chief of Police, to make it look good.
The two stories are so far apart a newly certified, one hour on the job cop, could have figured this one out. Or any person who isn’t a cop but has common sense and wants truth and not fiction.
LOL. You guys need to get a good swift kick of what you deserve. I hope you get what you deserve 10 times over, make that 1,000 over, because you are an embarrassment to the profession.
Setting people up, no matter who they are is not what we do.
March 21, 2011 8:09 PM
Reposted by Blog Admin
Anonymous said...
Phillips you should have left years ago like you said you were gonna.
March 21, 2011 8:11 AM
Reposted by Blog Admin
Anonymous said...
Quite a bit of info. It seems Phillips lies and Macie’s lies and Roberts lies muddied the water so we believe them instead of relying on the facts that tell the truth. Shame on them all. And they call themselves officers of the law.
March 22, 2011 8:51 AM
Reposted by Blog Admin
Anonymous said...
Garrity and Administrative Warnings, are one in the same and only used when an employer is investigating some particular incident involving an employee(s) and that investigation must pertain to that employee(s) work performance and fitness for work duties. It involves a violation of work policy.
Garrity and Administrative Warnings have nothing to do with reports of a crime by an employer to a police agency and then their request of that police agency to investigate that crime.
Two separate issues.
Phillips reported to another agency a crime occurred at his police department and asked them to investigate. Period.
Once the employer gets the police involved and the police are asking the questions it’s no longer administrative and now becomes criminal. Period.
In this case, in particular, all sides absolutely agree and testify that Reppucci was ordered to answer the questions that Macie was asking him.
According to the testimony Reppucci was never asked to or ordered to answer any questions Phillips had.
Proof again, there was no internal investigation.
Macie was a criminal investigator, investigating a crime that was reported by Phillips.
Assuming Phillips wasn’t targeting anyone or trying to set people up, as he seems to want people to believe, why didn’t he just let the police do their business and not interfere?
He already said his concern was for the appearance of having a proper and unbiased investigation. Why didn’t he let Macie conduct that investigation without his interference and why was it such a big deal that Reppucci wasn’t allowed to exercise his Constitutional Right when he asked to? Why was it so important Phillips sabatoge that Constitutional Right?
The employer can by all means start, continue or end any of their own internal investigation, if that is what they chose to do but, they can’t combine the two investigations.
It’s an absolute violation of a persons constitutional rights to do so. That’s why there are laws to protect people. Both Phillips and Macie know that.
Sheriff Foote or Captain Croteau could verify that. Phillips would never be truthful in his explanation as he has already lied and misrepresented everything thus far so don’t bother asking him.
March 23, 2011 9:30 AM
Reposted by Blog Admin
Anonymous said...
There were two separate investigations. One, the criminal investigation, being conducted by Macie 09-63-OF, signed off on by Macie and the Sheriff’s Dept. It has no finding.
And IV09-7 that states it’s an Internal Investigation and it is signed off on by Phillips. That internal investigation states that prior to Phillips going to the Sheriff’s dept., Ken Berthiaume, then a selectmen had been made aware of problems at the police department. It says Phillips contacted Captain Croteau on June 25, 2009, which happens to be the same day that Reppucci gave Phillips a written report with documentation on how Nate Jette falsified evidence on a case he was working on.
Then there is IV09-11 another document that states it is an Internal Investigation and is signed off on by Phillips. That document states that Phillips informed Sergeant Reppucci that “Deputy Macie was conducting an internal investigation for the Winchester Police Dept”.
He goes on to state that he informed Sgt. Reppucci that as the Winchester Police Chief he had the authority to order him to answer Deputy Macie’s questions about the investigation and then did so by giving him a “direct verbal order” to do so. He states “Sgt Reppucci looked directly at him and said I will answer the questions after I talk to a lawyer.”
After telling Sgt Reppucci it was an “administrative investigation” he goes on to state he was “being ordered to answer the questions ,NOW”.
Phillips found Reppucci guilty of the administrative charge of “Insubordination, in that he refused to obey a lawful order issued by a superior officer, (myself) to immediately answer questions during an internal affairs investigation after he was given an Administrative Warning.”
So there you have it. Two separate investigators – two separate investigations.
The criminal investigation was the one that Reppucci was ordered to cooperate in and that in the words of Macie and Phillips themselves.
No doubt that Phillips was targeting his employees by using investigations and tactics he never thought would get uncovered.
March 23, 2011 9:55 AM
Reposted by Blog Admin
Anonymous said...
If Phillips were serious about conducting a proper internal investigation all he had to do was ask the questions himself and order Reppucci to answer his questions. Simple. That's an internal investigation.
Phillips - don't you think it looks a little stacked?
You and Macie BOTH knew you reported a crime and you even talked to Dick Foote about it, Reppucci didn’t. Why not just tell him.
Don't you find it a little hinky that you and Macie think it’s OK to LIE and change a criminal investigation into an internal investigation, just on your word?
And the only reason for doing so was to pretend it wasn't a criminal investigation?
Don't you find a Chief of Police lying a problem, Unethical and against what you are supposed to stand for?
It's not like you or Macie said Reppucci wouldn't answer questions. Just the opposite.
And if it's not a criminal investigation as you want to keep pretending, isn’t that a False Report to Law Enforcement? You reported a crime.
Do you want everyone to believe it was a mistake and you didn’t mean to?
If you were on the UP and UP why didn't you disclose your facts?
Since you are the one who gave the order to Reppucci and since it was you who went to the Sheriff’s Dept for help, shouldn’t you of all people have known exactly what was going on?
Oh - you didn't want anyone to hear what Reppucci had to say that's right.
Phillips your just another bad cop.
You should have left years ago like you said you were going to.
March 25, 2011 11:14 AM
Reposted by Blog Admin
Anonymous said...
Garrity and Administrative Warnings, are one in the same and only used when an employer is investigating some particular incident involving an employee(s) and that investigation must pertain to that employee(s) work performance and fitness for work duties. It involves a violation of work policy.
Garrity and Administrative Warnings have nothing to do with reports of a crime by an employer to a police agency and then their request of that police agency to investigate that crime.
Two separate issues.
Phillips reported to another agency a crime occurred at his police department and asked them to investigate. Period.
Once the employer gets the police involved and the police are asking the questions it’s no longer administrative and now becomes criminal. Period.
In this case, in particular, all sides absolutely agree and testify that Reppucci was ordered to answer the questions that Macie was asking him.
According to the testimony Reppucci was never asked to or ordered to answer any questions Phillips had.
Proof again, there was no internal investigation.
Macie was a criminal investigator, investigating a crime that was reported by Phillips.
Assuming Phillips wasn’t targeting anyone or trying to set people up, as he seems to want people to believe, why didn’t he just let the police do their business and not interfere?
He already said his concern was for the appearance of having a proper and unbiased investigation. Why didn’t he let Macie conduct that investigation without his interference and why was it such a big deal that Reppucci wasn’t allowed to exercise his Constitutional Right when he asked to? Why was it so important Phillips sabatoge that Constitutional Right?
The employer can by all means start, continue or end any of their own internal investigation, if that is what they chose to do but, they can’t combine the two investigations.
It’s an absolute violation of a persons constitutional rights to do so. That’s why there are laws to protect people. Both Phillips and Macie know that.
Sheriff Foote or Captain Croteau could verify that. Phillips would never be truthful in his explanation as he has already lied and misrepresented everything thus far so don’t bother asking him.
March 23, 2011 9:30 AM
Post a Comment