Contact The FBI When Those In Authority Violate Your Rights........... it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
For more information and to file a complaint with the FBI, go to the FBI's Website:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law
Color of Law Abuses ARE Crimes.
U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.
Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way.
Most of these crimes fall into five broad areas:
Excessive force;
Sexual assaults;
False arrest and fabrication of evidence;
Deprivation of property; and
Failure to keep from harm.
Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is “reasonably” necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully “unreasonable” or “excessive.”
Sexual assaults by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the person if he or she doesn’t comply.
False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person’s civil rights may occur.
Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.
The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.
Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.
For more information
Showing posts with label gary a phillips. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gary a phillips. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
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:
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.
Monday, September 13, 2010
CROOKED COPS? COVER-UPS? Who ELSE Has the True Information about Mr. Reppucci’s Termination? If Foote says it was Criminal and Phillips says it was Internal – Who is right and who is wrong? >>> New Links For Documents >>>>>>
Reppucci, as anyone would, Has a Right to His Career, His Integrity, His Livelihood, to Respect and His Good Name Untarnished by those that can't keep their stories straight. That is what is at stake for him. That is what he is fighting for.
There are others out there, besides Foote and Reppucci who know the investigation was criminal, such as Macie.
See the following links:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGGm0ZAEZCkqSNfLuuxVMZbQ1xcClVhoDp2rax2WTbRiWogTIJZSJrAlDstDTEloZQlmZL1Y3WcOXO8cp9_cBopdFu4_9sZN9UR_XMhb8HPyMzHPwKnhCzNYMXR8IUJK9_wtZEgCZGzwLI/s1600/1.jpg
and
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgg6mOLs60s62FdbGVRS4RN0Rr9pVuhDv2JADetZRRHqaQFt6ibcmrx373gMOGh3a-o4sSQ2sJNHizHbRq_aIzIJagk49xz_jsPLckOp3ETljhpQSiXu_MqgTycIovxbMqBRdWvAUUwNYVu/s1600/2.jpg
Why is Phillips and his police department being protected by so many?
This was a Comment posted recently and we decided that since this was so chocked full of relevant information we would post it on it’s own so that it doesn’t get lost and not read by those interested.
It raises legitimate questions and establishes legitimate points of concern about what Gary Phillips real intentions were and still are.
The BOS need to take a long, hard look at the WPD and the personnel managing it.
You can see the documents being referred to at the previous blogs. Double click on the documents, they will open in a new window and you will be able to view them full size to read them.
Casual Blog Reader said...
Part I
I don’t know if I am the only one who has picked up on this but I figured I’d throw it out there. According to the letter by Foote he wrote,
“The investigation in question is a criminal investigation. It is not an internal investigation.”
The meaning is very clear.
Foote then quotes the following paragraph in the same letter and he says it’s directly from the investigative report that Macie wrote,
“Sheriff Foote was very clear in his directive to me. He stated that the Sheriff’s Office was only interested in investigating the matter of the chain of custody of the so called grievance letter. We were not going to investigate …any other internal personnel matters.”
What Macie writes in his report shows he was clearly directed by Foote to conduct a criminal investigation AND that he clearly understood that “we – meaning the Sheriff’s Office” were not going to investigate any internal personnel matters.
That reference in his report shows his (Macie’s) understanding that he was not there to conduct any internal investigation.
Looking at the previous blog you can see that all the information being referred to is from the same report in that blog and the same investigation Foote is referring to in his letter – Note the Investigation #’s 09-63-OF.
If Macie knew he was “Directed” by Foote to conduct a Criminal Investigation and we know from Foote’s letter the investigation in question was started as a criminal investigation and ended as a criminal investigation, how is it that Macie is involved with Phillips and they are both saying the investigation was internal?
How did the Court get that information?
What about this “other” non-existent investigation? If Foote didn’t give a directive to Macie, who did?
So was Macie working on his own?
Was Macie working with any of the other members of the Sheriff’s Office?
Maybe Macie was working with Foote?
What about Croteau and Phillips?
Was Maice working with Croteau?
Was Macie working with Phillips?
Was Phillips working with the Sheriff’s Office?
Were Foote and Phillips working together?
You can see the tightly woven ball of a mess. Somebody has to know something. Or more likely quite a few know something. And more than likely quite a few are hiding what they know.
So what could really going on here? Something just doesn’t make sense with all of this, but it smells pretty bad.
How is it an investigation that supposedly never took place apparently made it’s way to Superior Court and was presented to the court as having taken place?
This internal investigation is so real a judge made a ruling based on it, yet it doesn't exist because the highest ranking Police Official in Cheshire County, Sheriff Foote said and this is a direct quote from his letter, “In 2009 the Cheshire County Sheriff’s Office was not requested to nor did it conduct any internal investigation on you or any member of the Winchester Police Department.”
He says with absolute specificity, there was NO Internal Investigation that came from his Agency that involved the Winchester Police Department in 2009.
September 11, 2010 9:26 PM
Casual Blog Reader - Part II said...
Part II
Dan Reppucci was fired from the Winchester Police Department in August of 2009 for Insubordination when he Failed to answer questions in an Internal Investigation, conducted by Deputy Macie of the Sheriff’s Office, according to Phillips, Macie, the Town and others.
In his appeal of that Town decision to the Superior Court of Cheshire County, the Judge found and ruled the following based on the information presented to the court:
“First, Mr. Reppucci failed to follow Chief Phillips order to answer Deputy Macie’s questions during the internal investigation.”
Say What? – Yes that is correct and a direct quote from Judge Arnold’s ruling.
But Foote said that their was NO internal investigation the Sheriff’s Office or Deputy Macie were involved with in 2009, didn’t he?
The Judge goes on to say, “Although Mr. Reppucci contends that it was erroneous for the Board to terminate him for this reason, the Court disagrees. First, due process does not require that a police officer be provided the opportunity to consult with an attorney before answering questions regarding an internal investigation.”
Bingo. Precisely correct, Judge Arnold. However, when the investigation is criminal and the US and NH Constitutions protect any citizens right to counsel during any criminal investigation, conducted by any police agency, regardless of and notwithstanding of their profession, including a Police Officer.
A problem here? Who’s lying here?
Was Perjury – a criminal and prosecutable offense committed by some members of the Cheshire County Law Enforcement community while knowingly testifying to or presenting false written statements to a court or in the course of Official Proceedings, while under sworn oath to tell the truth and all the facts?
RSA 641:1 Perjury.
Is there a civil conspiracy going on here?
Defamation?
False imprisonment?
Intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Fraud?
Vicarious liability?
And more?
I can see these very words as part of a lawsuit down the road.
I’m sure there is a law firm out there who would take a case like this on, on a contingency basis.
None of this is speculation but facts based on information presented here that when analyzed raise these legitimate questions about our area law enforcement.
Does anyone really believe that Cops have a right to break the law, just because they are cops?
Does anyone really believe that Cops have a right to break the law, any law?
Does anyone really believe that Cops shouldn’t be held to a higher standard and not a lower standard when it comes to following the law?
Does anyone really believe that if it is found that crimes have been committed they should go unpunished?
It’s been well documented that Reppucci has said he was targeted by Phillips and Roberts.
Is this what happened?
Was some sort of fake investigation used by Phillips to meet out the discipline that resulted in, an too real termination of an otherwise law abiding police officer?
Let’s not forget that the other blog, the Winchester Informer, has information that the AG’s office has already found that Phillips and Roberts and Platz ALL Conspired together to present false information to a bank so that, none other than Reppucci and Breau were removed from a bank account, Illegally and fraudulently, so we know they are capable of conspiring together to get what they want, even if it does break the law.
This Town and this County appear to have some real serious issues involving quite a few members of their respective police departments. It sure looks like there are enough people, with enough information and gumption and determination to make sure the truth gets to the public.
September 11, 2010 9:29 PM
There are others out there, besides Foote and Reppucci who know the investigation was criminal, such as Macie.
See the following links:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGGm0ZAEZCkqSNfLuuxVMZbQ1xcClVhoDp2rax2WTbRiWogTIJZSJrAlDstDTEloZQlmZL1Y3WcOXO8cp9_cBopdFu4_9sZN9UR_XMhb8HPyMzHPwKnhCzNYMXR8IUJK9_wtZEgCZGzwLI/s1600/1.jpg
and
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgg6mOLs60s62FdbGVRS4RN0Rr9pVuhDv2JADetZRRHqaQFt6ibcmrx373gMOGh3a-o4sSQ2sJNHizHbRq_aIzIJagk49xz_jsPLckOp3ETljhpQSiXu_MqgTycIovxbMqBRdWvAUUwNYVu/s1600/2.jpg
Why is Phillips and his police department being protected by so many?
This was a Comment posted recently and we decided that since this was so chocked full of relevant information we would post it on it’s own so that it doesn’t get lost and not read by those interested.
It raises legitimate questions and establishes legitimate points of concern about what Gary Phillips real intentions were and still are.
The BOS need to take a long, hard look at the WPD and the personnel managing it.
You can see the documents being referred to at the previous blogs. Double click on the documents, they will open in a new window and you will be able to view them full size to read them.
Casual Blog Reader said...
Part I
I don’t know if I am the only one who has picked up on this but I figured I’d throw it out there. According to the letter by Foote he wrote,
“The investigation in question is a criminal investigation. It is not an internal investigation.”
The meaning is very clear.
Foote then quotes the following paragraph in the same letter and he says it’s directly from the investigative report that Macie wrote,
“Sheriff Foote was very clear in his directive to me. He stated that the Sheriff’s Office was only interested in investigating the matter of the chain of custody of the so called grievance letter. We were not going to investigate …any other internal personnel matters.”
What Macie writes in his report shows he was clearly directed by Foote to conduct a criminal investigation AND that he clearly understood that “we – meaning the Sheriff’s Office” were not going to investigate any internal personnel matters.
That reference in his report shows his (Macie’s) understanding that he was not there to conduct any internal investigation.
Looking at the previous blog you can see that all the information being referred to is from the same report in that blog and the same investigation Foote is referring to in his letter – Note the Investigation #’s 09-63-OF.
If Macie knew he was “Directed” by Foote to conduct a Criminal Investigation and we know from Foote’s letter the investigation in question was started as a criminal investigation and ended as a criminal investigation, how is it that Macie is involved with Phillips and they are both saying the investigation was internal?
How did the Court get that information?
What about this “other” non-existent investigation? If Foote didn’t give a directive to Macie, who did?
So was Macie working on his own?
Was Macie working with any of the other members of the Sheriff’s Office?
Maybe Macie was working with Foote?
What about Croteau and Phillips?
Was Maice working with Croteau?
Was Macie working with Phillips?
Was Phillips working with the Sheriff’s Office?
Were Foote and Phillips working together?
You can see the tightly woven ball of a mess. Somebody has to know something. Or more likely quite a few know something. And more than likely quite a few are hiding what they know.
So what could really going on here? Something just doesn’t make sense with all of this, but it smells pretty bad.
How is it an investigation that supposedly never took place apparently made it’s way to Superior Court and was presented to the court as having taken place?
This internal investigation is so real a judge made a ruling based on it, yet it doesn't exist because the highest ranking Police Official in Cheshire County, Sheriff Foote said and this is a direct quote from his letter, “In 2009 the Cheshire County Sheriff’s Office was not requested to nor did it conduct any internal investigation on you or any member of the Winchester Police Department.”
He says with absolute specificity, there was NO Internal Investigation that came from his Agency that involved the Winchester Police Department in 2009.
September 11, 2010 9:26 PM
Casual Blog Reader - Part II said...
Part II
Dan Reppucci was fired from the Winchester Police Department in August of 2009 for Insubordination when he Failed to answer questions in an Internal Investigation, conducted by Deputy Macie of the Sheriff’s Office, according to Phillips, Macie, the Town and others.
In his appeal of that Town decision to the Superior Court of Cheshire County, the Judge found and ruled the following based on the information presented to the court:
“First, Mr. Reppucci failed to follow Chief Phillips order to answer Deputy Macie’s questions during the internal investigation.”
Say What? – Yes that is correct and a direct quote from Judge Arnold’s ruling.
But Foote said that their was NO internal investigation the Sheriff’s Office or Deputy Macie were involved with in 2009, didn’t he?
The Judge goes on to say, “Although Mr. Reppucci contends that it was erroneous for the Board to terminate him for this reason, the Court disagrees. First, due process does not require that a police officer be provided the opportunity to consult with an attorney before answering questions regarding an internal investigation.”
Bingo. Precisely correct, Judge Arnold. However, when the investigation is criminal and the US and NH Constitutions protect any citizens right to counsel during any criminal investigation, conducted by any police agency, regardless of and notwithstanding of their profession, including a Police Officer.
A problem here? Who’s lying here?
Was Perjury – a criminal and prosecutable offense committed by some members of the Cheshire County Law Enforcement community while knowingly testifying to or presenting false written statements to a court or in the course of Official Proceedings, while under sworn oath to tell the truth and all the facts?
RSA 641:1 Perjury.
Is there a civil conspiracy going on here?
Defamation?
False imprisonment?
Intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Fraud?
Vicarious liability?
And more?
I can see these very words as part of a lawsuit down the road.
I’m sure there is a law firm out there who would take a case like this on, on a contingency basis.
None of this is speculation but facts based on information presented here that when analyzed raise these legitimate questions about our area law enforcement.
Does anyone really believe that Cops have a right to break the law, just because they are cops?
Does anyone really believe that Cops have a right to break the law, any law?
Does anyone really believe that Cops shouldn’t be held to a higher standard and not a lower standard when it comes to following the law?
Does anyone really believe that if it is found that crimes have been committed they should go unpunished?
It’s been well documented that Reppucci has said he was targeted by Phillips and Roberts.
Is this what happened?
Was some sort of fake investigation used by Phillips to meet out the discipline that resulted in, an too real termination of an otherwise law abiding police officer?
Let’s not forget that the other blog, the Winchester Informer, has information that the AG’s office has already found that Phillips and Roberts and Platz ALL Conspired together to present false information to a bank so that, none other than Reppucci and Breau were removed from a bank account, Illegally and fraudulently, so we know they are capable of conspiring together to get what they want, even if it does break the law.
This Town and this County appear to have some real serious issues involving quite a few members of their respective police departments. It sure looks like there are enough people, with enough information and gumption and determination to make sure the truth gets to the public.
September 11, 2010 9:29 PM
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Read Copy of Letter from Foote stating Investigation was Criminal. Why does the WPD, Deputy Kelvin Macie of the Sheriff’s Office and the BOS keep saying it was an Internal Investigation Reppucci failed to cooperate in and not a Criminal Investigation like it really was? Why do they continue to try to hide this fact even though the evidence proves otherwise?
We have received a copy of the following letter and we interviewed Dan Reppucci about some of the events and circumstances revolving around his termination from the WPD.
We have transcribed the letter, the letter itself can be read by double clicking on it. It will then open in a new window.
Office of the Sheriff
Cheshire County
May 17, 2010
Dear Mr. Reppucci,
I am in receipt of your request for documents relating to investigation report #09-03-OF. The investigation in question is a criminal investigation. It is not an internal investigation. In 2009 the Cheshire County Sheriff’s Office was not requested to nor did it conduct any internal investigation on you or any member of the Winchester Police Department. The request of the Winchester Police Chief was to investigate how confidential information got from his office into the hands of Stanley Plifka. Your email of May 17, 2010 makes it clear that you have access to Deputy Macie’s report so I will refer to specific paragraphs to clarify what Deputy Macie’s assignment were in the investigation.
Narrative Page 1: Paragraph 4 in its entirety.
“Sheriff Foote was very clear in his directive to me. He stated that the Sheriff’s Office was only interested in investigating the matter of the chain of custody of the so called grievance letter. We were not going to investigate any allegations made by Sergeant Reppucci or any other internal personnel matters. The Sheriff gave me the documents listed above with exception of the Request Letter (that was given to me on 6/29/09 by Captain Croteau and came to the Sheriff’s Office separate from the other documents). I retained the documents at my home in a safe until 7/1/09.”
The investigation was never about you but how your document(s) got from the Chief’s office into the hands of Stanley Plifka. The interview of Stanley Plifka indicated he had at least seen the document(s) before Chief Phillips. Please refer to:
Narrative Page 2 and 3: Paragraph 7 starting on Page 2.
“I asked Mr. Plifka to tell me about the letter in question, written by Sergeant Reppucci. He said about two weeks to ten days ago, he was unsure of the exact day or date, Sergeant Reppucci came to see him. Sergeant Reppucci had a letter he had written and was going to give the Chief. The content of the letter and the ensuing conversation between Plifka and Reppucci concerned the recent promotional process at the Winchester Police Department.”
Lacking any evidence to prove who, if anyone took the document(s) from the Chief’s office the investigation was suspended until more information is developed.
I will say that it is my opinion and the opinion of the investigator that if during your interview with Deputy Macie had you substantiated Mr. Plifka’s statement and you gave him a copy of your document(s), the criminal investigation the criminal investigation would be over as there was no crime. The document(s) were yours and for the purpose of our investigation you could share them as you saw fit.
Your claim to need the report to defend yourself in a criminal proceeding is premature. There has never been any indication you are or ever were considered a suspect in our investigation.
Whereas this criminal investigation is still open it is not subject to the release. Should the case be closed or criminal prosecution commence the report will be made available in response to proper requests or in the course of criminal prosecution to the defendant in response motions requesting same through court proceedings.
Other requests for access to governmental records will reviewed in the light of RSA 91-A:5 Exemptions and answered in a routine administrative process.
Sincerely,
Richard A Foote
Sheriff
We have transcribed the letter, the letter itself can be read by double clicking on it. It will then open in a new window.
Office of the Sheriff
Cheshire County
May 17, 2010
Dear Mr. Reppucci,
I am in receipt of your request for documents relating to investigation report #09-03-OF. The investigation in question is a criminal investigation. It is not an internal investigation. In 2009 the Cheshire County Sheriff’s Office was not requested to nor did it conduct any internal investigation on you or any member of the Winchester Police Department. The request of the Winchester Police Chief was to investigate how confidential information got from his office into the hands of Stanley Plifka. Your email of May 17, 2010 makes it clear that you have access to Deputy Macie’s report so I will refer to specific paragraphs to clarify what Deputy Macie’s assignment were in the investigation.
Narrative Page 1: Paragraph 4 in its entirety.
“Sheriff Foote was very clear in his directive to me. He stated that the Sheriff’s Office was only interested in investigating the matter of the chain of custody of the so called grievance letter. We were not going to investigate any allegations made by Sergeant Reppucci or any other internal personnel matters. The Sheriff gave me the documents listed above with exception of the Request Letter (that was given to me on 6/29/09 by Captain Croteau and came to the Sheriff’s Office separate from the other documents). I retained the documents at my home in a safe until 7/1/09.”
The investigation was never about you but how your document(s) got from the Chief’s office into the hands of Stanley Plifka. The interview of Stanley Plifka indicated he had at least seen the document(s) before Chief Phillips. Please refer to:
Narrative Page 2 and 3: Paragraph 7 starting on Page 2.
“I asked Mr. Plifka to tell me about the letter in question, written by Sergeant Reppucci. He said about two weeks to ten days ago, he was unsure of the exact day or date, Sergeant Reppucci came to see him. Sergeant Reppucci had a letter he had written and was going to give the Chief. The content of the letter and the ensuing conversation between Plifka and Reppucci concerned the recent promotional process at the Winchester Police Department.”
Lacking any evidence to prove who, if anyone took the document(s) from the Chief’s office the investigation was suspended until more information is developed.
I will say that it is my opinion and the opinion of the investigator that if during your interview with Deputy Macie had you substantiated Mr. Plifka’s statement and you gave him a copy of your document(s), the criminal investigation the criminal investigation would be over as there was no crime. The document(s) were yours and for the purpose of our investigation you could share them as you saw fit.
Your claim to need the report to defend yourself in a criminal proceeding is premature. There has never been any indication you are or ever were considered a suspect in our investigation.
Whereas this criminal investigation is still open it is not subject to the release. Should the case be closed or criminal prosecution commence the report will be made available in response to proper requests or in the course of criminal prosecution to the defendant in response motions requesting same through court proceedings.
Other requests for access to governmental records will reviewed in the light of RSA 91-A:5 Exemptions and answered in a routine administrative process.
Sincerely,
Richard A Foote
Sheriff
The excerpts from this letter need some clarification or they could be taken out of context.
2nd sentence: “The investigation in question is a criminal investigation.”
3rd sentence: “It is not an internal investigation.”
It would appear by reading this letter it was a criminal investigation and not internal as Phillips and the BOS continue to maintain through the courts and other administrative hearings.
All citizens have rights during CRIMINAL investigations even police officers. Reppucci had an absolute Constitutional right to ask to speak to counsel prior to answering any questions in this or any other criminal investigation. Regardless if he was a suspect or not (Foote in his letter claimed that Reppucci was not a suspect but named a “Participant” which one would logically assume is another way of saying suspect). Especially since Reppucci maintains he had been reporting criminal and unethical activities within the WPD to Phillips, a member of the BOS, The County Attorney’s Office and the AG’s Office and it was apparent to Reppucci that he was being targeted for termination because of his reports. Reppucci maintains he is not the one who has done something wrong. Looking at the facts it appears the Sheriff’s Office, the BOS and the WPD are covering up the facts.
In the last paragraph 1st page see the following:
“Sergeant Reppucci had a letter he had written and was going to give to the Chief. The content of the letter and the ensuing conversation between Plifka and Reppucci concerned the recent promotional process at the Winchester Police Department.”
1. Butch Plifka was interviewed by Macie on July 1st, 15 days after Roberts was promoted to Lt.
2. Reppucci has never denied speaking with Plifka as he had done so 1,000’s of times during his career in Winchester.
3. Reppucci stated he went to see Plifka because he was invited down there to discuss issues Plifka was having with the police department.
4. Reppucci has never denied speaking with Plifka about the promotional process and who got promoted or how that happened. It was common knowledge Phillips decided to have an Oral Board which involved Three Chiefs of police, all from out of town.
5. At best, Macie’s report says Reppucci had a letter he wrote and was going to give it to Phillips. How come it doesn’t say in the report that Reppucci read it to Plifka or Plifka read it or that they both read a part of it? How come it doesn’t say Reppucci had the letter with him, in his hand, on his clipboard, in his car? In fact, it doesn’t state in any way that the letter is ever involved with the conversation or how it even fits into the questioning. It appears it’s nothing more than a statement that Macie already had knowledge of, that he inserted into the paragraph because it looks good. In fact nowhere in Macie’s seven page report does he state that anyone has any information about the contents of the letter or that anybody even read the letter. Yes, the report does state that some think they may have seen it, but come on, ask a question in a certain way and just about anyone can illicit a response they can manipulate into an agenda. On the other hand ask specific questions that require specific answers and that might not be so easy to accomplish. Anybody could have a letter they wrote that they were going to give to their boss and mention that to a million people but that doesn’t mean they carry it around with them or that they discuss the details or even if they do that they disclose anything they shouldn’t.
Macie’s report goes into the finest of details in many paragraphs depicting visions of hallways and offices and doors and desks and trophies and pictures all around and in Plifka’s office. Yet Macie can not get one sentence of definitive, absolute proof in his entire seven page report that shows that Reppucci did anything wrong. Imagine. Does this sound like a competent investigation by a competent investigator?
6. Maybe the reason for that is simple. Maybe this was all a rouse to target Reppucci. Phillips has a habit of doing things like this, didn't Phillips do this similar thing in Jaffrey.
7. At best, all that Kelvin Macie’s report has established is that he questioned Plifka and that at least part of a conversation between Plifka and Reppucci had involved the recent promotional process.
8. A reported crime is being committed and the investigator can’t be a little more specific when questioning someone about a possible break in and theft at the police dept?
9. Like so many other people around town who were talking about Phillips poor choice for a Lt. and the unfairness in how people in Winchester get promoted, it can be imagined that Reppucci’s letter to Phillips and half the conversations in town were about the recent promotional process.
10. Reppucci maintains and states he can prove no confidential information was released, no personnel records were released, no discipline records were released. In addition, he maintains the truth of the matter is that all information in the letter revolved around public information and information that involved the public or that the public participated in, anyway. Once the facts surrounding the letter come to light and are pointed out, it is very easy and clear to see. Lots of people have known about and complained about the problems in the WPD. Does Phillips think that the public’s perception of him is something that it’s not? We don’t hold him in high esteem. We suspect he is crooked and information like this confirms those suspicions.
11. The WPD has very specific policies on criminal investigations that involve the WPD personnel. Reppucci maintains that Phillips grossly violated his own written department policies when he manipulated this investigation and Reppucci states and maintains it was he who adhered to the written policies of the WPD that Phillips was violating.
It appears there is no evidence Reppucci did anything wrong. There is proof without doubt that the Sheriff’s Office and the WPD failed to disclose that Reppucci was being questioned in a criminal investigation. It is documented in Macie's report that all Reppucci asked, was that he be allowed to speak with counsel during a criminal investigation, as any citizen would be entitled to do. Reppucci felt this was most impportant simply because he was being targeted as a Whistleblower. Is this a cover up?
Dan Reppucci has stated that the other allegations about him stealing internal investigations through email are absolute nonsense. He was assigned internal investigations to work on and that information was not confidential to him, but the only emails he has, and he can prove it, are work product. Years ago Reppucci was assigned by the WPD to use an email program that was not web based. To access and work on investigations, reports and conduct any other work related duties outside of work, when needed, he used another email account as a work around. He as well as other officers did this with the permission of Phillips. He had been doing his work outside of the office that way for many years, has proof at this at this moment and he has emails to and from officers as he helped them do their own work, reports, affidavits etc. for the benefit of the town and not himself.
Had Reppucci really been in possession of confidential information that he was not entitled to and in possession of internal investigations as alleged by Phillips and Roberts, why was Reppucci not arrested for theft? Is it because the real reason is that the work he was doing was legitimate and Phiilips knew that? Since Phillips was so concerned about officers and their criminal conduct why didn’t he follow through on his knowingly defamatory allegations?
Is it that a proper and unbiased criminal investigation would have resulted in the truth?
It appears a conflict between the WPD and the Sheriff’s Office. Is Sheriff Foote not telling the truth that it is a criminal investigation or is Chief Phillips who is not telling the truth when he says the Sheriff's Office was conducting an internal investigation?
Was Reppucci caught up in the middle of this? Or was he set up?
Another consideration into whether Phillips has been truthful or not is that Reppucci was doing the job of the Lieutenants position as well the Sergeants position as well as the Detective work for almost a year and half, without any assistance. This had gone on from the time Thersea Sepe left, in March 2008, until the end of June 2009 when Roberts was promoted. Reppucci stated he had two fantastic reviews during this time, one in March of 2008 and the other in March of 2009 as well as fantastic reviews in all prior years of service. Phillips assigned Reppucci the duties of the Lieutenant and told him he was going to officially make him the Lieutenant in a few months. This few months ended up being substantially longer, he did not get protmoted and at no time did Reppucci get any compensation or recognition for assuming these additional responsibilities Phillips bestowed on him.
Interestingly, Reppucci maintaind he never asked Phillips, either in writing or verbally to reconsider his decision to promote Roberts to Lt. as Phillips has alleged. In fact, both verbally and in writing Reppucci has stated he told Phillips that since he now officially had the Lt's position filled he wanted to be relieved of any of the Lt’s responsibilities, at which Phillips told him he would devalue himself in the department if he were to do that and that Roberts didn’t know how to do what he did and therefore, Phillips, needed him to do those jobs.
Again, it appears to be a conflict between Phillips and Reppucci and someone must not be telling the truth.
There is a lot of corruption and cover up in the WPD, many of us are aware of that. The original players are still employed. Don't be fooled into thinking just because Jette is gone the problems are solved. His supervisors appear to be the ones who have covered for him. Make no mistake about the fact if you cover up a crime it is illegal. You can't ignore when a crime has occurred.
Reppucci has filed his appeal with the NH Supreme Court of Superior Court Judge Arnold's ruling and he is confident that the truth will be learned about the WPD.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Was former WPD Detective Sergeant Daniel Reppucci Terminated as a Retaliatory Move by the Chief of Police, Gary A. Phillips, in Response to Reppucci’s reporting to him Criminal and Unethical Activities engaged in by some of the Police Officer’s Employed by the Town of Winchester?
We have received some information surrounding the sudden termination last summer of Detective Sergeant Daniel Reppucci after allegations flew about town. While nothing has ever been substantiated, a recent court ruling has left many who know him scratching their head.
In 2009, former Winchester Police Officer, Detective Sergeant Daniel Reppucci said he was being targeted by Winchester Chief of Police, Gary A. Phillips, for termination for reporting incidents of criminal and unethical behavior in the Winchester Police Department.
According to a Cheshire County Sheriff’s Report #09-63-OF, which we recently received a copy of and is available under the Right to Know laws to anyone requesting it; it names Daniel Reppucci as a participant and Chief Gary A. Phillips the reporting party. It also lists Stanley Plifka and Robert Gray as witnesses.
The Chief originally contacted Cheshire County Captain Croteau of the Sheriff’s Office to report the crime of an unauthorized entry into to his office. Captain Croteau later went to Sheriff Foote on Chief Phillips behalf to explain the circumstances.
This investigation is classed as a Misdemeanor, which would equate to charge of criminal trespass or some charge to that effect, if a person were to be found guilty.
According to the investigation, the Chief reported to the Sheriff’s office that he was concerned that not only was an unauthorized entry into his office a concern but also that a personnel related document was removed from his desk. This would add an additional charge of theft if a person were to be found guilty.
The Chief has testified and publicly maintained that Daniel Reppucci failed to obey an order while being questioned in this investigation while maintaining the investigation was an internal investigation and not expressly stating that in fact it was a criminal investigation.
As we analyze and compile all of the information given we will start disseminating the information on this blog, including the documents.
Following are 3 documents, the first 3 pages of the investigation by the Sheriff's Office that are called the "Incident Report" and that are a part of the criminal investigation conducted by the CC Sheriff’s Office for the crime reported by Chief Phillips.
Again, this investigation was obtained through the Right to Know Laws of NH and that fact alone makes it perfectly clear that the investigation being conducted by the Sheriff’s Office was indeed a criminal investigation and not an internal investigation as Phillips continues to try to maintain.
Had this been an “internal investigation” as Phillips has testified to it being, it would NOT have been released as it would be protected information under the Right to Know Laws of NH.
For the purpose of clarification, the fact that an ‘internal investigation’ is being or has been conducted is not confidential information that the public can not obtain, what is protected and confidential is the investigation itself. The investigation consisting of, allegations, charges, witness statements, reports, findings and punishment if applicable.
The incident report that is part of this investigation clearly discloses some of those elements, and are as follows,
1. The Offense is listed as a Misdemeanor
2. Victim is listed as the Town of Winchester
3. Person Type lists;
a. Daniel Reppucci – Participant
b. Stanley Plifka – Witness
c. Robert Gray – Witness
and finally,
4. Confidential Person Report lists
a. Gary Phillips – The Reporting Party
So that it’s very clear, Phillips is the one who reported a crime to the CC Sheriff’s Office therefore he new that the ensuing investigation would be a “criminal investigation” and not an “internal investigation” as he has made statements to and has thus far allowed the courts to believe based on a recent ruling in Superior Court.
Based on this information it would also seem logical and clear that there could be no confusion or misunderstanding on Phillips part about the reporting of the crime such as who, what, where, when or why because it was he who contacted the CC Sheriff’s Office and made the complaint and asked for the investigation, not someone on his behalf.
Questions remain that still need answers and others likely will come to light as we analyze this information:
1. What was Phillips motive to not be honest about the type of investigation being conducted?
2. Who else has knowledge of this dishonesty and misleading information?
3. Is this not an integrity problem for Phillips if he chooses to contine to be dishonest and misleading about something so significantly important?
4. One has to begin to wonder if Reppucci’s allegation of being targeted isn't true after all.
In 2009, former Winchester Police Officer, Detective Sergeant Daniel Reppucci said he was being targeted by Winchester Chief of Police, Gary A. Phillips, for termination for reporting incidents of criminal and unethical behavior in the Winchester Police Department.
According to a Cheshire County Sheriff’s Report #09-63-OF, which we recently received a copy of and is available under the Right to Know laws to anyone requesting it; it names Daniel Reppucci as a participant and Chief Gary A. Phillips the reporting party. It also lists Stanley Plifka and Robert Gray as witnesses.
The Chief originally contacted Cheshire County Captain Croteau of the Sheriff’s Office to report the crime of an unauthorized entry into to his office. Captain Croteau later went to Sheriff Foote on Chief Phillips behalf to explain the circumstances.
This investigation is classed as a Misdemeanor, which would equate to charge of criminal trespass or some charge to that effect, if a person were to be found guilty.
According to the investigation, the Chief reported to the Sheriff’s office that he was concerned that not only was an unauthorized entry into his office a concern but also that a personnel related document was removed from his desk. This would add an additional charge of theft if a person were to be found guilty.
The Chief has testified and publicly maintained that Daniel Reppucci failed to obey an order while being questioned in this investigation while maintaining the investigation was an internal investigation and not expressly stating that in fact it was a criminal investigation.
As we analyze and compile all of the information given we will start disseminating the information on this blog, including the documents.
Following are 3 documents, the first 3 pages of the investigation by the Sheriff's Office that are called the "Incident Report" and that are a part of the criminal investigation conducted by the CC Sheriff’s Office for the crime reported by Chief Phillips.
Again, this investigation was obtained through the Right to Know Laws of NH and that fact alone makes it perfectly clear that the investigation being conducted by the Sheriff’s Office was indeed a criminal investigation and not an internal investigation as Phillips continues to try to maintain.
Had this been an “internal investigation” as Phillips has testified to it being, it would NOT have been released as it would be protected information under the Right to Know Laws of NH.
For the purpose of clarification, the fact that an ‘internal investigation’ is being or has been conducted is not confidential information that the public can not obtain, what is protected and confidential is the investigation itself. The investigation consisting of, allegations, charges, witness statements, reports, findings and punishment if applicable.
The incident report that is part of this investigation clearly discloses some of those elements, and are as follows,
1. The Offense is listed as a Misdemeanor
2. Victim is listed as the Town of Winchester
3. Person Type lists;
a. Daniel Reppucci – Participant
b. Stanley Plifka – Witness
c. Robert Gray – Witness
and finally,
4. Confidential Person Report lists
a. Gary Phillips – The Reporting Party
So that it’s very clear, Phillips is the one who reported a crime to the CC Sheriff’s Office therefore he new that the ensuing investigation would be a “criminal investigation” and not an “internal investigation” as he has made statements to and has thus far allowed the courts to believe based on a recent ruling in Superior Court.
Based on this information it would also seem logical and clear that there could be no confusion or misunderstanding on Phillips part about the reporting of the crime such as who, what, where, when or why because it was he who contacted the CC Sheriff’s Office and made the complaint and asked for the investigation, not someone on his behalf.
Questions remain that still need answers and others likely will come to light as we analyze this information:
1. What was Phillips motive to not be honest about the type of investigation being conducted?
2. Who else has knowledge of this dishonesty and misleading information?
3. Is this not an integrity problem for Phillips if he chooses to contine to be dishonest and misleading about something so significantly important?
4. One has to begin to wonder if Reppucci’s allegation of being targeted isn't true after all.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Who's Protecting Nate Jette and Why???
How sad is it that the taxpayers have to continue to endure the slap in the face mentality of the Winchester Police Department? And if that is not the intention please let us hear from those of you who work there.
How sad is it that the Selectmen continue to support and condone bad behavior by this department.
Worse yet we have the luxary of having a retired Police Lt. and an Ex Police Lt. of the Winchester Police Department sitting on the current board of selectmen and they too do nothing.
How sad is it the best the Selectmen can do for us is to put up with this nonsense and vow to keep what they've got, as far as personnel, because there is nobody else who would want to be part of the Winchester Police Department?
We have again been subjected to Nate Jette sharing with the world his lack of any shred of loyalty to the taxpayers who employ him and pay his salary and benefits by openly and proudly telling all the world that he has his music playing in the background as he is "Writting" reports.
Not a typo - Jette does 'Writting" while most of the rest of us do our writing.
He must have been distracted when he wrote that.
Taking a break less than a half hour after starting his shift. Must not have been any work to do.
Then like an addict who knows no boundaries, he provides us with his take on what role women should have in the world, sharing his sexist, racist comments about how the world was better off when ........women did all the work.
This hours after his 'Writting".
A sexist comment that only one person responded to, a woman, and her response was Ouch!
This is a perfect example of why he should never have been promoted to supervise and instead should have been being supervised.
All this during his May 14th shift.
Several days before that entry, just 5 minutes after his shift starts he's on Facebook, counting down the hours til he's done.........?
He doesn't give reason to feel comfort or dedication to this town and the more proof there is more protection that Nate Jette seems to be recieving than he should be getting.
How sad is it that the Selectmen continue to support and condone bad behavior by this department.
Worse yet we have the luxary of having a retired Police Lt. and an Ex Police Lt. of the Winchester Police Department sitting on the current board of selectmen and they too do nothing.
How sad is it the best the Selectmen can do for us is to put up with this nonsense and vow to keep what they've got, as far as personnel, because there is nobody else who would want to be part of the Winchester Police Department?
We have again been subjected to Nate Jette sharing with the world his lack of any shred of loyalty to the taxpayers who employ him and pay his salary and benefits by openly and proudly telling all the world that he has his music playing in the background as he is "Writting" reports.
Not a typo - Jette does 'Writting" while most of the rest of us do our writing.
He must have been distracted when he wrote that.
Taking a break less than a half hour after starting his shift. Must not have been any work to do.
Then like an addict who knows no boundaries, he provides us with his take on what role women should have in the world, sharing his sexist, racist comments about how the world was better off when ........women did all the work.
This hours after his 'Writting".
A sexist comment that only one person responded to, a woman, and her response was Ouch!
This is a perfect example of why he should never have been promoted to supervise and instead should have been being supervised.
All this during his May 14th shift.
Several days before that entry, just 5 minutes after his shift starts he's on Facebook, counting down the hours til he's done.........?
He doesn't give reason to feel comfort or dedication to this town and the more proof there is more protection that Nate Jette seems to be recieving than he should be getting.
What's up with that?
Friday, June 18, 2010
For Those Who Continue to Defend Officer Jette
For those of you that think that Officer Jette is being picked on, singled out, or used as a scapegoat here is a letter of complaint made against him by a citizen of Fitzwilliam.
This is public information under the RTK laws and can be requested from Chief Kassotis of the Fitzwilliam Police Department.
You decide whether this was a false complaint made against an officer or not.
Were the Town's of Richmond and Winchester made aware of this complaint? If so when? This complaint was written more than a year ago at the end of April 2009.
If they weren't they are being made aware now and will hopefully do a full investigation to get to the bottom of it.
If they did investigate this, what was done?
Are there any witnesses who have information?
The type of behavior alleged in the complaint is the same type of behavior that keeps coming up with Officer Jette.
He keeps getting accused of targeting people and of violating their rights.
According to the letter Officer Jette - who was not an on duty police officer at the time, not in uniform, not in a police vehicle but his own personal truck - followed this person to their home in a town he Neither Works in or Lives in. He had NO jurisdiction.
What was his business to do this?
Why not call the police department or dispatch? Wouldn't that have been the appropriate thing to do?
It seems Officer Jette wanted to take the law into his own hands.
This is public information under the RTK laws and can be requested from Chief Kassotis of the Fitzwilliam Police Department.
You decide whether this was a false complaint made against an officer or not.
Were the Town's of Richmond and Winchester made aware of this complaint? If so when? This complaint was written more than a year ago at the end of April 2009.
If they weren't they are being made aware now and will hopefully do a full investigation to get to the bottom of it.
If they did investigate this, what was done?
Are there any witnesses who have information?
The type of behavior alleged in the complaint is the same type of behavior that keeps coming up with Officer Jette.
He keeps getting accused of targeting people and of violating their rights.
According to the letter Officer Jette - who was not an on duty police officer at the time, not in uniform, not in a police vehicle but his own personal truck - followed this person to their home in a town he Neither Works in or Lives in. He had NO jurisdiction.
What was his business to do this?
Why not call the police department or dispatch? Wouldn't that have been the appropriate thing to do?
It seems Officer Jette wanted to take the law into his own hands.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Police Secretary Maryan Platz and her Facebook
Three entries on Facebook made by Maryan Platz while she was supposed to be working at her job at the Winchester Police Department:
Maryan Platz uses the picture of the black cat.
Post # 1 – Lawrence Moore on Wednesday March 31st @ 11:24 am
Post # 2 – Chris Parker on Wednesday March 31st @ 11:33 am
Post # 3 – Lawrence Moore on Wednesday March 31st @ 1:49 am
Maryan Platz uses the picture of the black cat.
Post # 1 – Lawrence Moore on Wednesday March 31st @ 11:24 am
Post # 2 – Chris Parker on Wednesday March 31st @ 11:33 am
Post # 3 – Lawrence Moore on Wednesday March 31st @ 1:49 am
This is just a sampling of the many other posts that have surfaced.
The selectmen need to address this blatant misuse of taxpayer’s money. The Chief of Police and the Lieutenant need to be held accountable, this is occurring on their watch. If they are unable to follow and enforce simple rules how can you expect they have followed more complex rules as that very precise question has come up numerous times? When Selectmen are you going to order an investigation of your Police Department because it has been shown over and over there is no rule there in that building and there is no law? You continue to allow the charade of competency when time and again proof shows that NONE exists. 
