04-20-2010
To the Candidates running for Sheriffs
Office in
Newton and
Jasper Counties Indiana!
Since many of your campaigns do NOT address the REAL ISSUES that
our Counties, of Jasper and Newton
face... we will ask a few questions that are the true PROBLEMS at front and
center!
(Nothing is worse then a Top Cop who is evasive, placates or
turns a blind eye and neglects his duties!)
What promises do you make to the citizens of the County to
ASSURE that their Constitutional Rights WILL NOT be violated?
Do you and your Deputies to be, “know and
understand” our Constitutional Rights?
What plans do you have to thwart renegade police officers
from writing frivolous tickets, exaggerating violations, and harassing people
as they travel to and fro?
What efforts will you make to assure that Judges and the
Prosecuting Attorneys / Attorneys are doing their jobs in accordance? ( in
another words seeing to it that due process is not being abused, so that
attorneys make more money, handing out kickbacks)
What efforts will be put forth that Judges and Attorneys are
penalized equally as the citizens are?
Have you read the book The County Sheriff, America’s Last Hope, By Sheriff Richard Mack?
(Then you probably do not belong in the race, unless you, o
so ironically, are on the same page as this “Real” Sheriff is!!!)
Do you think our Counties need a “de Facto”
Sheriff?
Will your Officers “respond” to our needs and write
Police Reports and will Police Reports be made readily available?
Will your Officers protect the residents of the entire
County, or only the select few?
Will you gladly resign from your position if you cannot obey
the simple rules of being a Sheriff?
Is the “truth” about traffic enforcement that
there are no quotas, only to selfishly feed the Sheriff and or his Department
and or a reason to harass the citizens of our fair Counties?
(as we understand, one candidate believes that coercion, harassment and pay
offs of this sort is acceptable)
Will you, "End all prosecutions which lack an injured party?"
Are you aware that if you default on your duty (causing
someone unnecessary stress and harm or financial damage, as described in the
link below) as Sheriff that you are no longer protected by the County or State
and civil litigation can be brought forth upon you personally?
Is it fair to say that that you have been formally served with
this information and are aware of what the citizens expect and that you are now
aware of the travesties that have taken place, (as we see it, clearly resulting
from negligence on the Sheriffs part) documented at http://countycrusaders.wordpress.com/ ?
Will this documented activity STOP?
The FACT is: If Newton and Jasper County
had reputable Sheriff’s this website
http://countycrusaders.wordpress.com/
would have NEVER came to be!
So far only one candidates website says anything about
Constitutional Rights www.lawsonforsheriff.com
Please respond to these questions by 04-27-2010 otherwise you
will be listed as a “No Response Candidate”
Candidates response will be posted below their web address
or name as we receive them.
Candidates Response:
Jasper
County
http://www.cainforsheriff.com/
:
A "No Response Candidate"
http://www.rickerforsheriff.com/
:
"No Response Candidate"
www.risnerforsheriff.com :
"No Response Candidate"
David
Huckabay has no website that we know of yet or way for us to contact him
He can contact us with his response at discrimination4@hotmail.com :
Dave Huckabay replies: i plan on running a dept. where all officers and citizens are treated equal. i will not get in the way of officers doing their job properly. i was a police officer many years and was very active in traffic enforcement and i was never aware of any ticket quotas. i am most definitely concerned about everyones constitutional rights and and i will assure you all citizens will be treated fairly.
Newton
County
http://www.hartmanforsheriff.com/
:
"No Response Candidate"
http://www.lawsonforsheriff.com/index.html
:
Thank you for your concern for your county. I will answer as best as I can.
1. Not only will I obey my oath of office, should I be elected, I will ensure that all government within the county obeys their oath of office.
2. I have over 120 hrs of Constitutional law class time study, not to mention personal research. As sheriff it will be a requirement for all deputies to know and understand the Constitution.
3. As stated on my website, I will not restrict the lawful Citizens right to travel freely.
4. The Indiana Code charges the Sheriff with suppressing all breeches of the peace in the courts.
5. Our State Constitution forbids privileges to certain classes of people, that all class of people can't enjoy. The law will be enforced equally across the board with me as Sheriff.
6. Yes.
7. No.
8. All calls in which there is a party that request a report be made will get one. The Sheriff is a service to the People. All police reports should be public.
9. Again as Sheriff everyone has equal protection.
10. Yes.
11. As Sheriff I will not use traffic regulation falsely generate revenue.
12. That is a question for the prosecutor.
13. Yes, but the Sheriff also has a right to trial by jury.
14. A good Sheriff could have prevented a great deal of those alleged problems.
Jeremy Lawson
http://www.whaleyforsheriff.com/index.htm :
"No Response Candidate"
Charles C Roof has no website that we know of yet or way for
us to contact him
He can contact us with his response at discrimination4@hotmail.com :
Charles C Roof has not responded yet!
-----------------------------------------
Take careful notes! A "Sheriff" whether any of these candidates want to believe it or not, is a Public Servant, Not to be a Public Menace! (Obviously those who responded do understand!) We do NOT need A Sheriff who is going to impose "more" ill will upon the "people" or treat our fair Counties like a "Military State" as some have promised. Example:(By acquiring more equipment to "ticket" the citizens!) Is this what we really want? It is fair to say, The Answer is NO! A "man" who cannot answer a simple questionnaire for "the people" is a shady character and someone we do NOT need in ANY "Office"! A man who cannot "protect" the people from menacing ways is not our "answer"!
We believe, If a "mistake" is made, we will pay and so will he! AND... Our Constitutional Rights will bring this to trial, if he so begs! Only his "actions" or lack of, will dictate what will follow!
-----------------------------------------
Our Disclaimer:
As County Sheriff:
We do NOT care how many years the Sheriff's Department has been a "revenue generator" ! WE BELIEVE the Sheriffs Department was NEVER meant to be used and abused in such fashion!!! PERIOD. Just because they have been brained washed into believing that is why they exist and that they are "doing a good job" is a Major Deception,a FRAUD, as we believe this to be, the TRUTH of the matter. IN FACT, if the Sheriffs Department is SUPPOSE to do just that, (generate income) BEFORE they pick on the "good citizens" through "frivolous violations" and what is known as "victimless crimes" they SHOULD arrest and cease the assets and property of the corrupt judges, attorneys and other officials in these Counties.(Start with SERIOUS CRIMES!) Otherwise they are discriminating and ruling through coercion and instilling fear, all in the name of their own financial gain! In fact, working in collusion with these criminals!
The Sheriff is "suppose" to be a "Public Servant"! (He is accountable to "us" NOT visa versa!) Our belief of the TRUTH, is that The Sheriff is SUPPOSE to "protect us" and "work with us" against these criminals, crimes and attacks brought on upon the citizens by the State, Federal Governments and any other "entity" (like lawyers and other officials) which fraudulently takes our money and property! People need to become educated to these FACTS! So far he is not doing a good job of "educating the people"!
No, instead he is serving himself through frivolous tickets, instilling fear into the people by advising them to pay or serve jail time and or lose their license! Does that sound like someone who's ON YOUR SIDE?
If a Sheriff cannot make these promises to defend us and our Constitutional Rights and change the BAD HABITS that have been established, he or she does NOT belong in Office...EVER! Regardless of how many dollars he throws at his campaign or who he "buys"! ..or EVEN if he gets voted in...through deception!
Let this stand as our testimony from this day on of April 25, 2010 for any of the negligent actions that the Sheriffs Department, including "using" his Deputies as "tools" to cause intentional hardships towards ANY citizens of our fair Counties,will be a "Direct Attack" because we are trying to establish a peaceful community in which we all can co-habitat under the law (Constitutional Law) as it was meant to be! We will be able to go to store ...for milk...without harassment and or to have to answer to you (Sheriff or Deputy)! If not, you address this issue immediately! Let your Constituents(Citizens) know now, or forever KEEP PEACE!
It appears through their own actions and demeanor, the harder we try to correct these pitfalls, the harder they resist as if their actions are compelled and driven by some warped ego and or the devil!
We Believe, The implications cited here are not only, "Getting caught with your pants down", but also "having your picture taken, with your hand on it!"
Let it be made perfectly clear, no one is "giving" any one a bad name here. THEY established that for themselves!
--------------------------------------------------
Notes: Does anyone know what "Silent Fraud" is ? (posted 04/25/2010)
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/fraud.html
:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/569973/how_to_prove_a_lawsuit_for_silent_fraud.html
:
Intelligent Voters will respond to this, in the most appropriate way!
-------------------------------------------------------
The Fraud of Silence
Suppose a public official has the duty to answer your questions, deny your allegations, or give you notice or fair warning of an impending penalty. And suppose that official remains silent. And suppose that when challenged, the official says "we have done it this way for years." You might find a path to remedy in these references:
1. "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." [U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977), (quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970))]
2. "Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of the state of facts in question, and the estoppel is accordingly a species of estoppel by misrepresentation. [cite omitted] When silence is of such a character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud upon the other party to permit the party who has kept silent to deny what his silence has induced the other to believe and act upon, it will operate as an estoppel." [Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906)]
3. "A practice condemned by the Constitution cannot be saved by historical acceptance and present convenience." [U.S. v. Woodley, 726 F.2d 1328, 1338 (1983)]
4. "It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence and indeed predates it." [Walz v. Tax Commission of New York City, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970)]
5. Party having superior knowledge who takes advantage of another's ignorance of the law to deceive him by studied concealment or misrepresentation can be held responsible for that conduct. Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 1987.
6. Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under Texas law. Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990.
7. Party in interest may become liable for fraud by mere silent acquiescence and partaking of benefits of fraud. Bransom v. Standard Hardware, Inc., 874 S.W.2d 919, 1994.
8. When circumstances impose duty to speak and one deliberately remains silent, silence is equivalent to false representation. Fisher Controls International, Inc. v. Gibbons, 911 S.W. 2d 135, 1995.
9. When a person sustains to another a position of trust and confidence, his failure to disclose facts that he has a duty to disclose is as much a fraud as an actual misrepresentation. Blanton v. Sherman Compress Co., 256 S.W. 2d 884, 1953.
10. Silence. The state of a person who does not speak, or of one who refrains from speaking. In the law of estoppel, "silence" implies knowledge and an opportunity to act upon it. Pence v. Langdon, 99 U.S. 578, 581, 25 L.Ed. 420; Stewart v. Wyoming Cattle Ranch Co., 128 U.S. 383, 9 S.Ct. 101, 32 L.Ed. 439.
11. Fraud - "A false representation of a matter of fact- whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed-that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury." "A statement need not be affirmative to be fraudulent. When a person has a duty to speak, silence may be treated as a false statement. This can arise if a party who has knowledge of a fact fails to disclose it to another party who is justified in assuming its nonexistence." "All states allow a plaintiff to seek PUNITIVE DAMAGES in addition to actual damages." West's Encyclopedia of American Law, 2nd Edition (2005), Vol. IV, 487, 489
12. "Unquestionably, the concealment of material facts that one, under the circumstance, is bound to disclose may constitute fraud. Indeed, one of the fundamental tenets of the Anglo-Saxon law of fraud is that fraud may be committed by a suppression of the truth, (suppressio veri) as well as by the suggestion of falsehood. , (suggestio falsi)." 37 AM JUR 2nd, 144
13. "The principle in the law of fraud as it relates to nondisclosure, that a charge of fraud is maintainable where a party knows material facts, is under the duty, under the circumstances, to speak and disclose his information, but remains silent." 37 AM JUR 2nd, 146
14. "Default is a failure to discharge a duty, to one's own disadvantage; anything wrongful--some omission to do that which ought to have been done by one of the parties." 90 N.Y.S. 589, 590.
15. Default - "The term is most often used to describe the occurrence of an event which cuts short the rights or remedies of one of the parties to an agreement or a legal dispute." Barrons's Law Dictionary, Third Edition.
We encourage everyone to copy and paste all the documentation you just read including the other clickable links at this site and save them in a safe place. Also print out and keep yourself a hard copy! Of EACH LINK! In the event you need to refer to this vital information, especialy if you EVER, need to appear in Court for ANY reason! Always refer to our documentation and reference it so that you try your best from falling vitim from the same ruthless activities, pain and suffering, we endured!
In the event you NEED an Attorney: There is NO REASON why you should NOT be able to hand this information to him or her and request them to assure that this will not happen to you, via their signature! Also request or demand that your name is not to be plastered on ANY documents in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS! You are a CITIZEN and you plan on remaining one, through out all litigations! Otherwise you may relinquishing all your Constituitonal Rights and may be viewed as an object or subject! We believe, ONLY,the first letter in your name is to be capitalized! When asked to,"state your name"? We believe your best response may be, "They call me ..... ......!" AGAIN they are trying to get you to admit that you are an object or subject! If you do NOT believe this, do your homework!
