There is a New Blog in Baker County!: Reclaim Baker County

[Edited, 3/16/12]
Gary Dielman, Baker City Historian par excellence, informed me the other day about a new website/blog in Baker County. It is called Reclaim Baker County.

After checking in to some of the pages there, and reading Gary's objections to their anonymity, I tried to track down the "owners" and principal writer. Reclaim Baker City gives a P.O. Box of 1157, in Baker City as their contact address. After some searching, I located an owner of P.O. Box 1157, but it is not clear as to whether the owner listed at the Oregon Secretary of State's office's Corporate Division's Business Name Search is still the owner of the P.O. Box. The owner listed at the Business Name Search is No Bull Communications, and the person listed as Authorized Representative is Edward Franklin Merriman. The address for the concern is 230 COURT STREET, P O BOX 1157. There is no County record of 230 Court Street, and as far as I can tell, the address does not exist. There was an Ed Merriman who worked as a reporter from 2008 to October, 2010, at the Baker City Herald, and who subsequently reported for the Bend Bulletin from October 2010 until october, 2011.

[Added 3/16/12] Yesterday, I neglected to mention the following:
On 2/20/12, PO Box number 1157 was also being listed under the name “Buck Sterling” (likely a pseudonym) for the website http://reclaimbakercounty.org/ (Reclaimbakercounty), with the registrar being listed as Wild West Domains, LLC, which is not registered in Oregon. The email address listed is bucksterling45@gmail.com and a phony phone number listed is (541) 523-0000. This information can be found at IP Address.com.

The website, Reclaim Baker County, has made several accusations against both the Baker County Sheriff's Department and its employees, including Mitch Southwick, and against Baker County District Attorney Matt Shirtcliff. For the most part, the allegations are unsubstantiated, with little actual evidence of wrongdoing having been produced on the website.

See for example:

DA Shirtcliff Commits Fraud in Child Support Prosecutions!

"Know anybody in Baker County being prosecuted for delinquent Child Support obligations? Better have him read this article. He is the victim of FRAUD.

Let us first make this “perfectly clear”. We at Reclaim Baker County do not condone any unlawful or immoral or deceptive practices by anyone in private or public conduct. We believe in traditional family values, and oppose legislation that tears us away from those values."

They go on to say that:

"Matthew Shirtcliff has signed an agreement entitled “DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT–CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT”, under the terms of which he has agreed that he will actively prosecute violators of federal and state law AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTING PARTY!"

Their conclusion is that DA Shirtcliff, in these cases, acts without any authority and that his actions are "an outright fraud!"

Are there problems with child support prosecutions? Probably. Is it fraud? Probably not.

I asked Tony Green, Communications & Policy Director at the Oregon Department of Justice to comment. Here is the relevant portion of the response:

ORS 25.080(1) provides DA offices with the responsibility for support enforcement. ORS 25.080(6) and (7) require all county governing bodies and district attorneys to enter into child support cooperative agreements with DOJ. Every county, whether they provide the child support services or not, enters into these agreements.

I.E.,

The primary enforcement authorities are The Division of Child Support of the Department of Justice, and the district attorney in cases other than those described in paragraph (a) of ORS 25.080(1).
AND

ORS 25.080 (6) & (7)
6) The district attorney of any county and the department may provide by agreement for assumption by the Division of Child Support of the functions of the district attorney under subsection (1) of this section or for redistribution between the district attorney and the Division of Child Support of all or any portion of the duties, responsibilities and functions set forth in subsections (1) and (4) of this section.

(7) All county governing bodies and all district attorneys shall enter into child support cooperative agreements with the department. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) The agreements shall contain appropriate terms and conditions sufficient for the state to comply with all child support enforcement service requirements under federal law; and

(b) If this state loses any federal funds due to the failure of a county governing body or district attorney to either enter into an agreement under this subsection or to provide sufficient support enforcement service, the county shall be liable to the department for, and the liability shall be limited to, the amount of money the state determines it lost because of the failure. The state shall offset the loss from any moneys the state is holding for or owes the county or from any moneys the state would pay to the county for any purpose.

DA Shirtcliff has said he will get back to me on this, and another inquiry has yet to be responded to.

Reclaim Baker County also posted the following about Sheriff Southwick and his department:

Sheriff’s employee “security issues” rip off the public!

Sheriff Deputies Intimidate Halfway Crab Feed Participants!

Similarly, Peggy Iler sent the following letter to the Baker City Herald yesterday, March 14, 2012.

Bail machine at jail is not fair

The similarities between the letter posted by Peggy Iler and those on Reclaim Baker County were close enough for me to look into cases involving Iler at the County Court House today. What I found prompted me to send in a reply on Reclaim Baker County today. I sent it in at 5:49 PM, and it is now 8:45 PM. It is still being looked at by the moderator and has not been posted.

On the other hand, Gary Dielman sent in a response around 6:40 PM and it was almost immediately posted.

Here was my reply to their posts about DA Shirtcliff and the Sheriff:

Christopher Christie
March 15, 2012 at 5:49 PM
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
You folks, whoever you are, may have a point that there are problems within the justice system, I believe that to be the case, but there are also glaring problems with your approach.

You say:
“We at Reclaim Baker County do not condone any unlawful or immoral or deceptive practices by anyone in private or public conduct.”

If that is so, why don’t you reveal who you are, as a writer, and as a committee? It is deceptive to present many serious claims against the Sheriff’s Office, the judicial system, and DA Shirtcliff without revealing who you are. FRAUD is a very serious charge.

It is also possibly immoral and certainly deceptive, to make the claims you have made without presenting evidence, such as the contract you refer to, along with the legal references in the federal code or the Oregon Revised Statutes. If you are serious in your claims, don’t leave it to the reader to prove you are wrong or right–-present your actual evidence, a real case. Words are cheap.

It appears to me that you, the writer, are engaged in a vendetta against DA Shirtcliff and the Sheriff’s department.

I noticed the letter to the editor in last night’s Baker City Herald from Peggy Iler.
See: Bail machine at jail is not fair , http://www.bakercityherald.com/Letters/Letters-to-the-Editor-for-March-14-2012.

The letter raises valid questions about the practice of using a cash bail machine with a 7% charge. I think it is wrong to charge an additional 7% of bail to hard-pressed people entangled in the justice system. Peggy also suggests voting for Dee Gorrell for Sheriff.

I also thought of the similarity between Peggy’s letter and the two posts on Reclaim Baker County about the Sheriff. On Reclaim Baker County, one talks about the problem of the bail machine, the other suggests voting for Dee Gorrell and speaks of honor (as did Peggy’s).

Questions:

Are you James Iler?

What are your political beliefs?

Have you had troubles with the Sheriff and the DA in the past?

Have you brought charges against, or filed civil injunctive relief petitions against the DA and Judge West in the past?

Have you filed other petitions for adjudication of claims and had them dismissed?

Have you changed your name to James Russell Iler in a civil name change petition?

Have you faced failure to appear charges?

Have you faced charges for failure to carry present license, driving uninsured, and failure to register a vehicle driven?

Have you faced charges of criminal trespass 2 and been convicted on any charges?

Are you engaged in a senseless vendetta against the Sheriff and the DA?

Anything else?

How about canning the deception and starting with a little transparency? How about toning down the wild charges and just sticking to a realistic, evidence based analysis of the problems within law enforcement and the justice system? A good mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Daniel Myers sentenced to 25 years to life in prison, with 2 years added for unlawful delivery of methamphetamine.

Defense attorney Mark Rader to file appeal today.
[Edited to add information from DA Shirtcliff, 3/7&8/12]

If not overturned on appeal, Meyers will, at the earliest, get out of prison at 81 years old on the murder conviction, and at age 83 after serving the consecutive two year sentence on delivery of methamphetamine charge.

With the agreement of defendant Myers, his attorney Mark Rader stated that he will file a petition for appeal today.

I admit that I have not attended the Myers trial before yesterday, but I was curious about what a sentencing hearing for murder looks and feels like, so I attended the sentencing in District Court. When hearing the sentence, I thought the DA and Judge Baxter were acting with leniency and compassion because I was under the impression that the sentence could include the death penalty. That impression was incorrect. After reading Oregon laws related to murder last night, I learned that a person in Oregon cannot be sentenced to death for any charge except "aggravated murder." ("Aggravated murder is the only crime subject to the penalty of death under Oregon law." ) See: "aggravated murder" (The list of qualifying offenses is below the list of links.)

I attempted to talk to someone in the DA's office this morning so as to clarify this, but after being inadvertently hung-up on in the first call, I was unable to reach a human being in several subsequent calls. District Attorney Shirtcliff did call back this afternoon and confirmed for me that my understanding of the law was correct. Meyers' crime was not defined as "aggravated murder," but was instead, "murder." The charge in fact was originally "manslaughter," but was subsequently changed to "murder," neither of which are punishable by death. Thus the sentence of life in prison and 25 for murder, which translates to the possibility of parole after 25 years served.

During the hearing, Mr.Meyers seemed composed and well behaved, staring directly into the camera, which was at a room in the Baker County Jail. He was in handcuffs and attended to by the Undersheriff (Thompson). Judge Baxter explained to those present that Mr. Meyers had said that once again he did not wish to be in the courtroom or next to Defense Attorney Rader, and also that Mr. Meyers had stated that he would cause a "ruckus" in the courtroom if he was forced to be present. Judge Baxter explained the law, including the relevant Oregon Revised Statutes and that, if needed, Mr. Meyers would be afforded the opportunity to speak with his attorney privately via the video link. When asked if he understood, Mr. Meyers responded with "Yes, I understand, thank you."

Defense Attorney Rader once again asked for a mistrial, citing all the reasons cited previously. (See Herald: "Murder suspect refuses to attend his trial") DA Shirtcliff objected and Judge Baxter denied the motion for all the previously cited reasons.

DA Shirtcliff called the murder a "senseless act" on a sleeping person and cited the affect of the murder on the Weems family and others. (District Attorney Shirtcliff told me today that although Mr. Weems had a leatherman tool on his person, and a bowie knife behind the seat, he had no weapon in his hands at the time of the shooting.) DA Shirtcliff then read the letters of family members telling of the toll the killing had taken on the families. Weems younger sister wrote that Travis Weems would be the "first to forgive" as he was a "peacemaker."

DA Shirtcliff reminded the court that a family member was present during the shooting and that the then 55 year old Mr. Meyers had victimized a nineteen year old woman to run drugs for him so as to shield himself from discovery as the actual dealer. He also noted that the case serves to show what can happen when people become involved with methamphetamine, and detailed the involvement of Meyers in other drug crimes in Oregon, as well as an assault. He stated that Mr. Meyers was a criminal, a drug dealer and a dangerous person who kept an assault rifle on his property, and had committed intentional murder over a debt of a relatively small amount of money ($1,650 owed to Mr. Weems). He also asserted that Mr. Meyers deserves every year of the 27 year sentence.

Defense Attorney Rader then reiterated his view of the violation of Mr. Meyers' rights according to the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution, as well as Article 1 of the Oregon Constitution. He stated that the sentence was "exceedingly excessive," and that the additional sentence for meth delivery should run concurrently with the sentence for murder.

Interestingly, Mr. Rader noted that the victim and some witnesses were also involved in this, a possible reference to methamphetamine usage or worse, and that Mr. Weems wouldn't have been at the scene otherwise.

DA Shirtcliff objected to Attorney Rader's interpretation.

When asked by Judge Baxter, Mr. Myers stated "I have nothing to say, your Honor. Thank you."

Judge Baxter then explained to Mr. Meyers that if he intended to appeal, he must do so within 30 days. Defense Attorney Rader stated that he intended to file an appeal today (3/7/12). Mr. Meyers said he would agree to that. (At about 3:20 PM yesterday, I observed Attorney Rader asking a court clerk for appeal petition papers.)

DA Shirtcliff stated to the Court that Mr. Meyers had made the choices not to attend the trial and that they were his choices.

Judge Baxter then sentenced Mr. Meyers to:

Count 1, Murder; Life imprisonment which has a minimum of 25 years at the Department of Corrections.

Count 2, Unlawful use of a weapon; 5 years concurrent at the Department of Corrections.

Count 3, Felon in possession of a firearm; 90 days in County Jail, concurrent

Count 4, Unlawful delivery of methamphetamine; 24 months consecutive with two years post prison supervision

Count 5, Unlawful possession of methamphetamine; 24 months concurrent, 36 months post prison supervision.

No financial obligations were imposed.
__

After I left the courtroom, I spoke with one person who had read the press accounts, and she told me that the verdict was a "slam-dunk."

As I noted previously, I haven't been studiously following this case, and additionally, I haven't listened to the court recordings. I did though take notice earlier of the fact that Mr. Meyers objected to Attorney Rader handling the case, citing his view that Mr. Rader had not called witnesses to refute evidence produced against him. It seems odd that an indigent defendant wouldn't be allowed at least one or two changes in attorney's when facing a potential sentence of life imprisonment in a murder case. A person of greater means would certainly be able to do that. Would Mr. Meyers have participated more productively in his defense if he had been granted a change in defense attorneys? Is denying him that change equal protection under the law?

I also tried to think about Mr. Rader's idea that the victim and the witnesses were also involved, and that Mr. Weems wouldn't have been at the scene otherwise.

The validity of that thought is left to the justice system. I did though look up previous criminal involvement in the Baker County records (only Baker County) by the victim, Mr. Weems. His criminal record was not included in previous press reports.

Mr. Travis Weems was charged on May 18, 2001, with being a felon in possession of a firearm and for possession of a controlled substance. The charges were dismissed without prejudice on May 25th, 2001, with the statement to the effect that the matter will be taken up with a grand jury later.

On July 9, 2001, Mr. Weems was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a controlled substance-2, C felony. Mr. Weems plead guilty to the firearms charge on April 22, 2002 and was convicted. The other charge was dismissed, perhaps on the condition of the completion of 36 months probation. The probation was later revoked and associated with case # CR99200 in Wasco County.

On August 31, 2001, there was a Domestic Relations Abuse Prevention Restraining Order.

On August 6, 2002 there were other charges against Mr. Weems:
1) Offense felony Manufacturing/Delivery of a controlled Substance-SC2
2) Same as above
3) Possession of a Controlled Substance 2 - C/Felony; 18 Mo. Probation
4) Felon in Possession of a Firearm - C Felony, probation later revoked
5) Attempt to Allude Police - A Misdemeanor, probation later revoked
6) Attempt to Allude Police - A Misdemeanor
7) Reckless Driving - A Misdemeanor
8) Probation Violation - 18 Months probation, revoked

Charges 1, 2, and 6 were dismissed. Charges 3, 4, 5, and 7 involved guilty pleas and convictions.

In a world of illicit drugs, unpaid debts, and guns, I can't help but ask--What might have been going on in the likely meth addicted mind of Mr. Meyers that night, when he walked out to Mr. Weems vehicle, parked in his driveway, and shot a sleeping man to death?

Harney County DA Tim Colahan Declines to Prosecute--AGAIN....

Tim Colahan, Baker County DA Matt Shirtcliff's Go-To guy for possible Brocato prosecutions has once again declined to pursue a prosecution of Steve Brocato, Harassment in this case, or any other possible charge related to Mr. Brocato's aggressive behavior across the street from the Yervasi and Pope law office back on August 24th of this year. This is the second time in a row that DA Shirtcliff, citing a conflict of interest, has farmed out an investigation of Steve Brocato for Harassment, both of which have ended up with the Harney County DA, who declined to prosecute.

The first incident, you may remember, was when Colahan declined to prosecute Mr. Brocato after witnesses said he had seized an 8 year old disabled girl by the face back on May 19th, 2008. See: D.A. won't pursue claim against Brocato

See also:

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2008
Harney County DA Declines to Prosecute City Manager

Read DA Colahan's review of the latest incident on Scribd.

This time around, while seeming to avoid any mention of the charge "Harassment," which happens to be the possible charge referred to in the police report, DA Colahan clearly errors with a blatant and incomprehensible misstatement of the facts found within it. With reference to what he read in the "report" he states that "No other person is identified as witnessing this incident . . . ." Because the Police Report is readily available, anyone who is interested can see that there are four witnesses who stated that they saw Steve Brocato knock Jason Bland's hat off: Jason, Andrew Bryan, Milo Pope and myself. Given DA Colahan's inaccurate statement about a lone witness, I called Matt Shirtcliff's office to find out if there is another police report that DA Colahan might be referring to. His secretary asked him personally and told me he said that "He is aware of only one police report." The only other possible explanation I can think of is that for some reason, DA Colahan only read the first three pages of a six page police report. (The entirety of the above issue was not reported in yesterday's (9/29/10) offline Herald article, and they do not question the discrepancy between Colahan's erroneous statement and what's in the police report.)

In his review, DA Colahan declines to prosecute. He then begins to outline his reasoning with the sentence "Based on the report, there is no evidence of an assault having occurred." During the short discussion that follows, concerning Steve Brocato knocking Jason Bland's hat off, Colahan never once uses the word "harassment," even though it is the charge that is specifically mentioned in the Police Report by Officer Plaza ( "I told Bland he could file a harassment report if he wanted." ) Both of our local papers, while mentioning that DA Colahan wrote that there was no evidence of an assault, neglected to mention that no one ever said there was. The charge of harassment, which happens to be the offense mentioned in the police report, was ignored in DA Colahan's review. Another potential charge, such as "Initiating a false report" was not mentioned and apparently was not investigated.

I previously filed a complaint with the Baker City Police Department claiming that Milo Pope had violated City Ordinance 130.045 Public Urination. It can be found on Scribd.com.

DA Colahan, agreeing with the local police department, states that "It also appears prosecution cannot be made under Baker City Ordinance 130.043 because the incident was not observed by a police officer." and later:
"It is clear that a private citizen may only commence violation proceedings for boating violations, traffic violations, wildlife, commercial fishing and certain agricultural weight violations. ORS 153.058(8). I am unaware of any provision in the Baker City Ordinance Code which allows for violations to be commenced by a private oitizen."

I too believe, after reading the statute, that it is clear that state law does not allow a private citizen to "commence" violation proceedings for a Public Urination violation in Baker City.(Seems pretty wacky to me, considering you can commence a proceeding alleging that someone ran a stop light or has violated any one of numerous city ordinances.) The use of the word "appears" by DA Colahan earlier leaves me to wonder if perhaps a prosecution could proceed if an appropriate officer were to "commence" a complaint. Chapter 40 of the Oregon evidence Code does allow photographs to be submitted as evidence under many circumstances, and it seems reasonable that if a citizen shows a police officer photographic evidence of a violation, that the police officer could then "commence" proceedings for a violation of the ordinance. Additionally, people file complaints about violations of the Property Maintenance Ordinance and point out evidence of the violation to officers all the time, and they quite often "commence" proceedings against the alleged violator.

In yesterday's (9/29/10) Herald article, Councilor Milo Pope, the great spinmeister, tries to say his behavior wasn't a violation of the public urination ordinance. According to the paper, Councilor Pope said: "it
wasn't public urination in the first place," he said. "It was in the dark."

You would think that a former Circuit Court judge and lawyer, Milo Pope, would know the Oregon laws, and the Baker City public urination ordinance in particular. Here it is (again):

Chapter 130: General Offenses

130.045 Public Urination

It shall be unlawful for any person to urinate or defecate in or upon any street, alley, public place, or in any place open to public view. [emphasis added]

- Milo Takes a Break

The important clause in the ordinance for Milo's case is "in any place open to public view." Milo was in plain sight of anyone walking by on either sidewalk, and could also be seen clearly by anyone in the alley or on the street in that often frequented downtown area across from Ace Hardware.. The photograph shows that his behavior was in fact "open to public view," and anyone familiar with the scene, like, for example, Milo Pope, knows that.

So. . . it was "public urination" as defined by the ordinance. Milo implies then that it is of no consequence, because, hey--"It was in the dark." But was it?

On August 24, 2010, the U. S. Naval Observatory sunrise/sunset table for Baker City, says that the sun set at 6:42 PM. Dusk or twilight begins at that time. As any one who has been out after sunset knows, the period of ambient light can continue for 30 minutes or more, but it varies with location and time of year. When this period of ambient light ends, it is officially "dark," as in "It was in the dark."

The photo of Councilor Pope taking a break in public view was taken at 7:04 PM, 22 minutes after sunset. The following photo, of Milo checking his cell phone was taken 8 minutes later, at 7:12 PM. It is clearly not "dark." In addition, even if it had of been "dark," which it wasn't, there are two street lights along 3rd at the Ace Hardware Parking lot, and a powerful lamp near the south west corner of the same store. There is an additional street light at 2nd and Washington. It is a fairly well lit up place--that is why Milo and friends could easily see me on the sidewalk across the street, and I them, even when it did become "dark."

- Milo Checks Cell

Why did former Circuit Court judge and still lawyer and Councilor Milo Pope apparently tell the Herald "it wasn't public urination in the first place," "It was in the dark."???

In today's Record Courier article on the subject, Mr. Pope states that "Those two village spies had no legitimate interest in knowing where I was during that time. That I was absent was obvious."

Just more spin. As both Jason Bland and myself have said previously, a major concern of ours was whether Councilor Pope was skipping a Council meeting to meet with former City Manager Steve Brocato, who happens to be suing the City and the four Councilors to whom Mr. Pope appears to have shown contempt. A lot of people think that is worth checking into and reporting on.