July 2009 Archives

Chief Muir Contradicts Himself...

|
For starters: here is what Conspiracy Against Rights is. It has nothing to do with space aliens or black helicopters.

It's always scary when people in positions of authority give different explanations for their procedures based on what is most convenient at the moment, all while trying to blame you for their choices.

I'm not sure what all occurred in the conversation that just took place between Chief Muir and my mom. She's summarizing it, and she asked him to put his strange contentions in written form so that there would be a record of them. Though he refused to take an official statement from my mother when she offered, he is going to take one from Alain Goodman. Yay for impartial police work.

In response to my inquiry about the report that she filed about Alain Goodman accosting her, Muir told me in writing that he could not comment because it was reported by her. Fine.

Today, he told her that he never responded to her because he was waiting for "corroborating evidence as to how [her] complaint fits into [my] overall conspiracy theory." (Though I specifically said we were waiting for action on her complaint and wanted to know the process of obtaining a restraining order...) He didn't want to stir up the neighborhood with "unsubstantiated claims." He also said to her that he had requested more information about the incident from me but I had refused to supply it.

So... when I am interested in knowing when the police are going to follow up with my mother about an assault, responding would violate her privacy. Yet, they can't follow up with her because they're waiting for something from me?

And -- her complaint just ended up on Muir's desk without any official record of her having filed it. My understanding is that no action can be taken on an issue unless there is a recorded complaint filed. Though she did not file it in relation to the overall harassment situation (indeed, until recently Chief Muir hadn't even agreed that he would examine evidence in that light -- I'm not yet sure he has), he just left it on his desk and awaited more info from me? Rather than following up on an assault? And when I asked him about it he said (on official police stationary) that he couldn't respond?

Clearly, this is some sort of backfill explaining.

Even better: apparently, he has heard from a third party that the incident did not occur out of the blue as my mother was walking down the street with croissants, but the frightening encounter was somehow a response to my mom's taking a picture. That's not the case (mom didn't have a camera with her), but even if it were, since when is someone allowed to assault someone else because he or she is being photographed? And why would a police officer decide to omit any official record of a complaint based on some third party claim? Aren't they still obligated to follow up and get a statement from the complainant about what occurred?

This third party called and complained about Mom's having taken a picture before he received her complaint. But -- I called Sergeant Richardson immediately after it happened. I wrote about it right away. So -- why does that call about photography somehow cancel out my Mom's written complaint about assault? Why does what other people say carry so much more weight than what we say? I have repeatedly asked about any documentation or official complaining about us from the neighbors and have just gotten very vague, non-specific answers.

People have been working overtime to make our taking of photographs of people who exhibit odd behavior in front of our home, or of vehicles who park in the proximity for no apparent reason, as some sort of crime. We do it defensively as stalking victims to document the odd/stalkerish/harassment behavior in the neighborhood. We have explained to our neighbors why we do it and have asked them to contact us with any concerns. If there is some legal issue about taking photographs on the public street, I'm sure that someone in some sort of official capacity can let us know.

Sergeant Richardson indicated to me that it was perfectly legal for Alain Goodman to stand on the sidewalk and photograph our property. I can't imagine that it's illegal for us to stand on our own property and photograph the street. Though these people take pains to get us to interact with them, we never do.

Anyhow -- the double standards and multiple explanations are odd.

It seems as though Chief Muir's next rhetorical tack (since "insincere" didn't quite work out) is the woo-woo, crazy ladies conspiracy angle. Again, conspiracy is when two people get together to plan to do harm/make mischief/deprive people of their rights. The way that Chief Muir contradicts himself, fails to give sufficient legal/procedural explanations for his or his officers decisions, engages in slippery policy, and strives to come up with reasons that our claims are illegitimate, suggests to me that he has spoken with at least one other person about ways to deligitimize our claims or keep them from becoming official police record. Given what he and Sergeant Richardson have written, and how they have responded, this is legitimate interpretation. But I can see why Chief Muir would want to promote an inaccurate interpretation of what conspiracy means rather than one that might apply to him or to officers in his department.

He said he would let my mom know in writing by the middle of next week why he chose not to follow up on her assault or create any official record of it.

~~
So, today Mom called to follow up on the Citizen's Complaint she filed against Alain Goodman after he accosted her on June 25.  It's no wonder Chief Muir didn't want to comment on it or voluntarily follow up. Despite the fact that she both faxed the complaint and sent it certified, there is no record of it in the Department's system. Two separate officers searched for it and couldn't find it.

And we're supposed to believe that the Department is a neutral party, dispassionately interested in protecting us as much as any other citizens? That Chief Muir is just itching to follow up on our array of Complaints? I have corresponded with Chief Muir about this incident repeatedly. Now we have to ask -- who/what is the Department covering for? It's seemed from Day 1 that Sergeant Richardson and Chief Muir were mostly interested in preventing us from supplying documentation and evidence. Then when one of us makes a report, it disappears. And the problem is supposedly my/our "insincerity" about wanting to make official reports? This is ridiculous.

Now I'll be interested to see how many of my 911 stalking/harassment calls have been "lost."

It's not at all an exaggeration to say that we're venturing into official cover-up territory here. It's going to be more and more difficult to make this about us instead of the people and practices Chief Muir seems to be protecting.
Sunday, July 19 at 10:22 PM

Chief Muir,

(Blog post below for your perusal.)

Your July 10 letter was the first one in which you gave any instructions on how you would like to receive evidence, so I find it odd that you spent so much of the letter describing how I was not providing you with evidence, and questioning my sincerity.

I will file police reports to avoid the one-year statue of limitations issue. Until I retain a civil rights attorney, I will continue to seek out others in County and State government who might take a more sympathetic/responsive tack toward addressing someone who has endured nearly two years of relentless harassment in your jurisdiction. I don't consider you a neutral party, and will therefore seek out additional people to send information to in addition to you. You professed a preference for me to send evidence and documentation to you directly without officially filing the reports. However, I will file official reports and include evidence -- it is my understanding that in order for a complaint to be actionable it must be reported. Is that not true?

I must say that your ongoing attitude toward me suggests that you don't believe that your policies/responses will ever be reviewed by an independent body/that you will ever be accountable for them. This is disturbing since we have dealt with numerous attempts to harm us, and/or completely diminish our credibility through entrapment and other means. I would certainly hope that you are not relying on such an eventuality. Your taking this "insincerity" approach is in itself quite insincere, and seems like a further attempt to diminish my credibility.

In regard to specifics:

It seems that the one year statute of limitations on individual misdemeanor offenses would not apply to incidents that are an aspect of an ongoing criminal conspiracy. Please clarify how I can submit information from over one year old that is/has been part of ongoing efforts. Please clarify how I can best coordinate with you and the county and/or state attorney on providing the criminal conspiracy information. Feel free to elaborate and provide any and all helpful information I could use for reporting criminal conspiracy -- this should save us all a lot of time.

You indicated you are not in receipt of the letter your were copied on that I sent to Alain and Darla Goodman's landlord dated June 4th. Sergeant Richardson responded to that letter by looking up my blog and responding to the email address there, rather than responding by post. I find it odd that he had not forwarded the letter to you since you were the one copied on it.

We believe that many suspicious vehicles are associated with the ongoing harassment campaign. We wouldn't provide a "general list of vehicles parked in the neighborhood which you feel might have been suspicious in some unknown way" as you suggest in your response to this description of the issue of license plates:

We have dealt with an overall stalking and harassment situation. We have dozens of incidents to report, and many associated suspicious license plates. Investigators who are truly interested in the why and how have a lot to go on. Again, we could report these all as individual instances or provide them succinctly to a genuinely curious party who would like to follow up thoroughly. The latter seems more efficient.

What about that description suggests that I intend to provide the "general list" that you describe? As must be abundantly clear by now, what I am reporting is stalking, harassment and hate crime. I believe suspicious vehicles and individuals associated with them (some of which have been photographed in the process of bizarre/harassing behavior), are part of this larger effort. Hence, my desire to report these incidents as part of stalking, harassment, and hate crime. Please let me know how to report them as an aspect of that, or if that would involve coordination with County and/or State agencies.

You say that you can't answer the following without receiving my evidence. I beg to differ. It might be uncomfortable for you to explain your department's handling of this, but certainly many of these questions are imminently answerable. If you had enough information to claim that Sergeant Richardson's procedure was not "bizarre," you must have enough information to explain to me why, from an objective procedural and legal standpoint, it was not.

You claim that a general prohibition on contacting the neighbors in any way is not "bizarre." What legal or department procedural policy allows a police officer to instruct a citizen not to communicate in any way with her neighbors -- without indicating which neighbors or citing specific complaints from any of them?  I provided ample documentation of harassment from neighbors to Sergeant Richardson -- has he instructed them not to contact us? Have they provided any evidence or documentation of our supposed harassment of them? My understanding is that I need to file a restraining order against anyone whom I don't wish to contact me, and that I need to have documentation to do so. It seems discriminatory to take their concerns seriously, but not ours -- especially when we are the ones who initiated contact with your department. Please clarify.

Only the last statement seems to rely upon my evidence. The rest of the information should be professional knowledge or gleaned from Sergeant Richardson.

We have large amounts of food and liquid evidence. When workers were in the house last summer, in addition to seemingly purposeful attempts to expose us to toxic chemicals (not warning us about toxicity, removing the barriers we set up to protect ourselves) a number of pantry items were tampered with. We have become ill a number of times due to what seems like tampering with food and bottled water. We have saved these items for testing. Please let me know how best they can be submitted to the state lab. (We have been concerned that one of the goals of the drug entrapment attempts was to remove these items before they could be tested.) Specifically, around the time a doctor misdiagnosed me with hepatitis (seemingly to make me appear as an IV drug user -- another doctor was shocked at her misreading of the blood work and treating me for an affliction I clearly did not have), I suffered major pain for months that turned out to be my gallbladder. It became evident that bottled water that I drank consistently caused and exacerbated the problem. I believe it may have been tainted with oxalic acid, which promotes gall stones. Clearly, I believe that the doctor who misdiagnosed me should be questioned, as well as individuals who seem to have been involved with the food and beverage tampering.

And to preempt any more of your language about all of this being some sort of impression we have -- that is why we saved items for testing. I'm sure the individuals involved thought that we would be dead or discredited before anyone would be accountable for it. The fact of people deciding to do these heinous things to us does not reflect on our stability or capacity. Again -- we have evidence.

Finally, your questioning my sincerity at this time is disappointing to say the least. Though the overall atmosphere of intimidation and harassment has for the most part abated in the neighborhood, we are still dealing with a major campaign to disrupt our lives. Right now it is necessary to provide documentation to a number of entities. Just this last week, we dealt with what seems like an additional entrapment attempt when someone somehow piped what smelled like pot smoke into our first floor bathroom. I recently suffered food poisoning, and the recent chemical exposure in the back yard of which you are aware. As is clear by the way you relate to me, documenting and reporting such incidents in a manner that law enforcement can act on them is difficult; they are that way by design. We go through each day knowing that a number of people in the local community wish for our demise so that the prospect of facing consequences for criminal wrongdoing will go away. Again, you did not instruct me about how you would like to receive evidence until your July 10 letter. Doing so will be very time consuming, and your incomplete information, lack of straightforward answers and seeming inability to understand basic descriptions of criminal activity (see below) don't help. I have wanted a procedure in place to make it easier for all of us. Though the process may take time, and immediate issues of survival pop up in our lives with alarming regularity and demand our full attention, please never doubt for a moment that I want more than anything to see appropriate legal remedy for the overwhelming amount of illegal activity that we have endured. It would be nice to know that the person receiving the information had a genuine desire to see justice served.

I will do my best to make it easy for local law enforcement to pursue crimes that my mother and I have endured in Missoula. I will make every effort to supply evidence and documentation at a timely pace. I hope that you will become sincere and forthcoming. The things that have happened to us are bizarre, but that is not our fault. Believe that there are thousands of things I'd rather do than try to find out a way to provide evidence and documentation to you that best serves justice. Had we not documented most aspects of our lives as well as we have, I sincerely believe we would not be alive right now. Please do not add insult to injury by continuing with insincere deflective strategies and what seems like a continuation of "blaming the victim."

Kyeann Sayer

Chief Muir's "Insincerity" Narrative

|
Chief Muir sent me a letter dated July 10 (postmarked July 13) in response to the email below. It is the first communication in which he has provided any specific information about how he would prefer to receive evidence and documentation.

Yet, the new tactic is to make it look like I'm simply not supplying evidence and only like to argue. When I've been waiting for procedural preferences as well as assurance that someone other than Chief Muir will bear responsibility for reviewing the information I submit. This man's first substantive communication with me involved warnings to keep quiet about my claims that the department was mishandling our situation. Since that first interaction, he hasn't given me much of a reason to trust him.

For example, I stated these concerns about Chief Muir's defending the legitimacy of Sergeant Richardson's actions in his last letter.

You claim that a general prohibition on contacting the neighbors in any way is not "bizarre." What legal or department procedural policy allows a police officer to instruct a citizen not to communicate in any way with her neighbors -- without indicating which neighbors or citing specific complaints from any of them?  I provided ample documentation of harassment from neighbors to Sergeant Richardson -- has he instructed them not to contact us? Have they provided any evidence or documentation of our supposed harassment of them? My understanding is that I need to file a restraining order against anyone whom I don't wish to contact me, and that I need to have documentation to do so. It seems discriminatory to take their concerns seriously, but not ours -- especially when we are the ones who initiated contact with your department. Please clarify.
His response?

I will reply to your third point upon receipt and review of your evidence, as I am unable to knowledgeably respond without that evidence.

What? He is unable to make a statement about legality and department policy? He can't answer these specific questions? He can't provide clarification on the restraining order issue? He doesn't have access to the information supplied to Sergeant Richardson?

Is putting off responding to these very answerable questions (albeit uncomfortable, because they reveal some pretty fuzzy/shoddy procedure), because he believes that I for some reason will not be in a position to supply all of the documentation and evidence? I'll be too distracted, perhaps?

You've gotta love the way he ends his letter:

I do not understand why you have not already brought me the evidence which you so repeatedly have insisted we accept from you. If for some reason you have been insincere as to your intent to share your evidence with me, please feel free to cease communication and seek the assistance of state or federal authorities...
Is there anything about my communication that seems insincere? Seriously? As though I wouldn't sincerely want to help law enforcement to punish the people who have relentlessly harassed and intimidated us? I'm sorry, but that seems like a very insincere tack.

My major concern has been wanting a procedure in place that makes sense.  My entire life has been derailed by this harassment campaign, and documenting it all takes time and energy. A proper process is important, as it sets the framework for how these matters are handled. I guess it will be necessary to file individual reports for every single incident and send copies to his attention. I think that the department's obligations are more extensive if an actual report is filed, so it seems necessary to do so. Of course, It's going to take a lot of time to file all of these individual reports. To me it makes complete sense why a person in my position wouldn't just hand over all of her documentation and information to someone who has revealed himself to be less than objective or trustworthy and isn't accountable to anyone else in the department.

So, here we have local law enforcement playing into the goals of the overall campaign: creating such overwhelming and pervasive harassment as to halt someone's life to a standstill. Right now we are in a position of having to provide documentation to the health department, lawyers, insurance agents, the doctor's office that I have to follow up with constantly to ensure that they don't send paid accounts to collections, the police department, and others. By not answering questions, not volunteering appropriate information, and taking an overall defensive posture, I have to work overtime to figure out my rights and how our evidence will avoid slipping through the cracks. I am the victim of stalking and harassment and attempted entrapment, and have been preemptively treated as the perpetrator. I wonder if they treat all stalking victims this way or if we're special.

So, when there are all of those people out there waiting for information who have an investment in making it seems as though it doesn't exist or that we're making it up, I always pause when a key person like the police chief portrays my lack of immediate reaction as "insincere." (Especially when -- again -- I've repeatedly emphasized an overall desire for a process that ensures accountability and efficiency.) I've learned that such a rhetorical turn usually indicates a narrative is forming: in this case it seems to be the "insincerity" narrative. Something like, "Those ladies, they like to make claims, but they never follow up." But we have been put in a position where we need to document nearly every business and consumer interaction in order to protect ourselves. For heaven's sake, we just found out last week that we avoided an incompetency hearing for my mother! (This letter was written before that matter had been decided -- maybe he thought we'd still be overwhelmed by that.) That's the a central goal of a harassment campaign like the one we've endured: complete and utter disruption of a person's life in such a way that is difficult to document and makes him or her seem to be the party at fault. So the Department preemptively does not want to see it as though we're dealing with constant criminal assaults, but are simply insincere and withholding. Wow.

I can see why he admonishes, "Please don't continue to haggle or dispute this department's handling of your complaints, it is just taking time away from determining the validity of those issues you feel we aren't addressing." His emphasis takes legitimacy away from the importance of the process. If I'm just haggling, then apparently I'm not expressing legitimate concerns about Chief Muir's neutrality and the objective handling of my case. Then I'm a haggler, not someone who wants to be assured that if she takes the time to amass piles of narrative and documentation that it's not going to end up in the back of the Police Chief's filing cabinet. Also, since the situation has obviously been completely mishandled, I can see why he would discourage me from continuing to point out inconsistent or discriminatory procedure.

Interestingly, I copied Chief Muir on a letter to our neighbor's landlords dated June 4, but he seems to have never seen it. It was the basis of Sergeant Richardson's contacting me. Strange that even now he has not forwarded Chief Muir a copy of the letter.

I'm also concerned about Chief Muir's ability to accurately interpret clear written communication. In response to my concerns about David Merrill making extortion-like threats, he says that "Threats of legal action or law enforcement investigation is not a threat upon which any criminal charge may be undertaken." But I said clearly:

if my mother did not pay him a certain amount, he indicated that he would circumvent legal channels and sic the police department on us.

Does Chief Muir not understand the meaning of "circumventing legal channels"? The point about Mr. Merrill was that he did not threaten legal action, as would have been appropriate. He should have gone through appropriate legal channels. Instead he said that if he was not paid a certain amount of money, he would call the police, in addition to other threats. He knew that we were fearful of law enforcement's involvement with our harassment at that time -- the threat seemed designed to scare us. As you can see below, I indicate clearly that the problem was that he was not using appropriate legal remedy but threatening to use the police as enforcers for his demand for money.

Then, there are little niggling annoying things. I asked for follow-up on Mom's report filed re: the neighbor's assault. He can't follow up with me because it would violate her privacy. Great -- completely valid. But, why not follow up with her directly? His department's mishandling of the situation contributed to incident's even taking place. One would think that the department could follow up with her within a month's time. And, my asking about it would at least alert them to the fact that our household is interested in the outcome... And might prompt a follow-up. But we haven't heard anything. (Waiting for her to be declared incompetent, perhaps?)

Another thing: he says not to submit evidence that's over a year old. But if it's part of ongoing criminal conspiracy, isn't it still valid/valuable? Or would the state attorney need to handle that? This is where I find the handling problematic. It seems that it's being viewed/handled in the narrowest possible terms, with the least amount of helpful information provided. Of course, it would be lovely to have a civil rights attorney that wasn't for sale. We don't have that luxury yet. But we will. And when that day comes it seems like the Department will want to have lent the appearance legitimacy.

You may ask: why do you take the time to write these posts? Well, if I didn't, I believe the next door neighbors would have remained in full on campaign mode and that Chief Muir wouldn't even be giving me lip service.

~~
I sent the email below and then thought it best to follow up with specifics. At least the recipients at the city and county can't pretend they haven't been somewhat filled in.

Am I handling this badly? Wrong? I guess there's no Emily Post Guide to convincing law enforcement and county prosecutors to care about crimes against you. I would feel worse about my handling of it if someone had taken the time to explain to me exactly how to best submit evidence of multiple, interwoven crimes and I was ignoring them.

All along it has seemed as though everyone was holding his or her breath, waiting for one of us to die, for one of the entrapment schemes to work, or for us to be labeled crazy for saying out loud that all of this was happening. As long as any of that was in store, none of the specific crimes would matter because we would be discredited and not in a position to pursue them. 

We'll see how long that trend continues. Can they really get away with ignoring claims like those below? They're only a teeny tiny piece of the tip of the ice burg.

from       Kyeann Sayer
date        Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 7:12 AM
subject    Specific Examples of Criminal Activity

Let me provide some examples in the hope that it will clarify my dilemma of how best to provide evidence.

In an email exchange, a Missoula resident named David Merrill threatened what amounts to extortion -- if my mother did not pay him a certain amount, he indicated that he would circumvent legal channels and sic the police department on us. This is a violation of many laws (including those governing email communications locally). We believe that he was threatening the extortion as part of a larger scheme to foreclose on my mother's property. I could simply submit a police report with evidence of his threat and so it would be treated as a single issue. It seems, however, as though it would make looking into all of this simpler if someone had a file labeled something like "Conspiracy to Damage/Foreclose on Property X" and Mr. Merrill's individual extortion attempt could go there. From an investigative perspective, it seems like it makes sense to have the overall context along with the report of the individual attempt.

Also, the day before an important court appearance, my mom suffered carbon monoxide poisoning because her car had been tampered with. Not only was the exhaust system somehow blocked, but a part was pulled out of the engine so that it was burning and smoking. When she took it to the mechanic, he said that it could have exploded if we drove much further. We have pictures of it, the receipt from the mechanic, and an idea of who could have done it. It seems that all of this information would be very helpful to investigators.

A gentleman named Ty Cranmore threatened to use a Sheriff's Department employee as a hired goon when we wouldn't return a piece of property that my mother had purchased from his employer and that he had damaged. We believe he intentionally damaged property, and think his threats bordered on extortion. He used hate speech in our home, apparently to contribute to the overall atmosphere of intimidation. We would like to know why Mr. Cranmore was so confident in his feeling of entitlement to damage our property and then receive local government back-up.

We have dealt with an overall stalking and harassment situation. We have dozens of incidents to report, and many associated suspicious license plates. Investigators who are truly interested in the why and how have a lot to go on. Again, we could report these all as individual instances or provide them succinctly to a genuinely curious party who would like to follow up thoroughly. The latter seems more efficient.

I have a hard time believing that the city and county of Missoula would not want to follow up on issues like these. I hope you will start treating us like citizens to help and protect.

Kyeann Sayer


from    Kyeann Sayer
date    Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 6:50 AM
subject    Re: Request for Liaison
mailed-by    gmail.com

Mr. Van Valkenburg,

Are you not interested in pursuing criminal activity in the county? I have evidence of harm to persons and property including fraud and criminal conspiracy -- as well as attempts to do physical harm to my mother and me. Many of these crimes appear to have been hate-based. It seems odd that you would make a predetermination that you are not interested in pursuing such serious matters.

We have such extensive documentation and material evidence that I would like a consistent and clear means of providing it to your office and the police department so that we are all spared a great deal of energy and effort. I would like to help your office operate efficiently, so that tax payer dollars are not wasted unnecessarily through sloppy communication and duplication of efforts.

Since you will not identify a liaison, please let me know how you would like to learn about the criminal activity we have endured in Missoula County.

I am sure you don't want to send the message that you are not interested in receiving information about and pursuing criminal activity by preemptively ensuring that your office is not aware of it. So far, that is what your communication suggests. Many of the  people involved in doing us harm are prominent community members and it seems as though they have felt protected by individuals in the police and sheriff's department (I have evidence of this); I'm sure you don't want to lend the appearance of obstructing our efforts in order to protect them.

I look forward to working with your office to ensure that justice is served in Missoula County. Again, please let me know how best to so.

Kyeann Sayer
- Hide quoted text -


On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Fred VanValkenburg <fvanvalk@co.missoula.mt.us> wrote:
Dear Ms. Sayer,
 
You are not getting a liaison in the County Attorney's office. We have no business with you to discuss.
 
Fred Van Valkenburg
Missoula County Attorney  

>>> Kyeann Sayer <kyeann@gmail.com> 7/8/2009 04:07 AM >>>
All,

Since Mr. Van Valkenberg sent me the pasted text of an email he claims to have sent on June 29 (I never received it), I have not heard from him. I am eager to have a liaison in the county attorney's office in order to streamline communication.

Thank you,

Kyeann Sayer


from Kyeann Sayer <kyeann@gmail.com>
to Fred VanValkenburg <fvanvalk@co.missoula.mt.us>
date Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:15 PM
subject Re: Threatening Behavior from Alain Goodman This Morning


Mr Van Valkenburg,

I never received a June 29 email and don't see it below.

My mother and I have endured much criminal activity in Missoula County and believe that your office should seriously consider our claims. Please let me know with whom I should confer about this. I will be forwarding information to the police department, but also think it's important to have a liaison in your office.

Thank you,

Kyeann Sayer

12.28.12: The unconstitutional censorship of an entire post regarding what I saw as unethical tactics in lawyer Timothy Geiszler's attempt to have my mother declared incompetent in July 2009 was affirmed by the Montana Supreme Court and, as of December 26th, 2012, a stay of the injunction is under review by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Per its user agreement, my web host had a right to discontinue my account if the offending content was not removed.  I had a deadline of December 31st, 2012 to remove it, and Justice Kennedy is not going to be able to issue a decision until Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at the earliest.  Although I would have appreciated their waiting until Justice Kennedy had the opportunity to consider a stay of the injunction, as for the moment the post was "libelous" (though without due process or any application of the legal standards for libel law), the host was within its rights to cancel my account if I did not remove the content.  Web hosts and bloggers are put into a difficult position when State Supreme Courts don't stay injunctions against speech that (as far as this author is concerned) are contrary to controlling federal decisions about censorship.


Because the Montana Supreme Court did not issue a stay pending my petition to the U.S Supreme Court,  I have been censored.  My constitutional rights have been violated and continue to be as long as I am prohibited from publishing speech that has been enjoined.  The content was going to be removed no matter what.  By capitulating to the demand of the web host I could mitigate the damage of the censorship because the company would have canceled my account, erasing all of my entries.  If I had waited for that to happen, I would have had to manually copy the entries onto another site in addition to being censored.  Further, to the degree that the site promotes accountability and transparency, I would have lost all the work I did promoting specific entries and the site in general.


I don't like that I was put into a position to have had to have create this site (certainly, it wasn't the "brand" I was after), and have learned much since and cringe when looking over some of the posts.  I wrote to survive and protect myself and as embarrassing as it was and is, terrible things were allowed to happen to my family.  I'm not going to let shame about who I was or what I thought five or even 2.5 years ago cover up what we went through.  So, if the stay is approved, I will repost the original.


If you are interested in the issue of lawyers using incompetency as a tactic, more information can be found at http://lawyersattemptingincompetency.blogspot.com/.


~~

Ok, I admit it. When I wrote this post I hadn't read Chief Muir's letter (sometimes we need a break from all of this) but relied on Mom's report of it. The July 4th vibe got the best of me and I wanted to interpret it through rose-colored glasses. I already knew that I was going to have to keep on my toes and document my socks off. But it's becoming more and more clear that in a situation like this, it's important that our evidence is actually documented and doesn't just end up in the back of someone's file cabinet. I have to say that so far that seems to be the official desire.

I'll be interested to learn what departments are legally required to act on. For instance, if I don't file official reports, is there a lower standard of accountability? It seems like all possible has been done to point me in other directions than filing actual reports, so it seems that I should definitely file them.

Since we reported our neighbor Alain assaulting my mom things have settled down remarkably. That momentary loss of control on his part ended up sort of being a blessing to us.

So: here we go!

from   Kyeann Sayer
date    Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:09 AM
subject    Addressing MPD Issues/Criminal Claims

Dear Chief Muir,

This is in response to your June 29 letter (I typed in the text below). I will also send you a hard copy since you don't respond to email communications from me.

I'm glad that you have shifted from advising me that you will not tolerate my opinions about my treatment by the department to expressing an interest in receiving my claims. Since June 26 the change in the neighborhood has been remarkable -- someone seems to be sending a new message about what sort of behavior is acceptable. It seems that the overall tone of accountability has shifted and individuals no longer feel that they can harass and intimidate us with impunity, which of course is a welcome change.

My concern is not only that my desire to relay information about criminal activity and provide evidence was ignored, but also that a concerted effort seems to have been made to delegitimize my concerns and prevent me from submitting evidence of them to your department.

Sergeant Richardson seemed to have had the singular goal of heading me off before I could provide documentation of criminal activity. He sought to frame my issue as isolated to my unfounded concerns about harassment from my neighbors, while I repeatedly emphasized that I needed the department to send a clear message in the community in general that hate and organized crime directed at my mother and me was unacceptable. He continually instructed me to just relax and enjoy my neighborhood as I implored him to look at the overall law enforcement atmosphere that seemed to condone harassment of us. Ironically, my mother was then assaulted by the neighbor that I initially complained to you about, illustrating that Sergeant Richardson's intervention/conversations with his household did nothing to diminish their impression that it was acceptable to harass us. If he had intervened appropriately to begin with, it is doubtful that my mother would have been assaulted.

Additionally, I find it alarming that your initial response to my understandable concerns about the Department's handling of this issue was to threaten that you would not tolerate my exercise of free speech.

I have some points of clarification. Please explain:
  • Why neither you nor Sergeant Richardson never explained the procedures for filing police or hate crimes despite my repeated requests for guidance.
  • Why you did not explain the procedure for filing an Employee Complaint Form. I clearly believed I was receiving one-sided treatment from Sergeant Richardson, and his mishandling and adamant refusal to take my claims seriously allowed for a continuation of the atmosphere of permissiveness that enabled mother's assault by Alain Goodman.
  • You claim that a general prohibition on contacting the neighbors in any way is not "bizarre." What legal or department procedural policy allows a police officer to instruct a citizen not to communicate in any way with her neighbors -- without indicating which neighbors or citing specific complaints from any of them?  I provided ample documentation of harassment from neighbors to Sergeant Richardson -- has he instructed them not to contact us? Have they provided any evidence or documentation of our supposed harassment of them? My understanding is that I need to file a restraining order against anyone whom I don't wish to contact me, and that I need to have documentation to do so. It seems discriminatory to take their concerns seriously, but not ours -- especially when we are the ones who initiated contact with your department. Please clarify.
  • What was the outcome of *****'s June 26 report of Alain Goodman's assault? Is he prohibited from approaching her? Does she need to apply for a restraining order?
Again, I appreciate your willingness to receive our information. In the absence of clear direction on how to proceed, ****** and I will file individual police reports for scores of incidents over the past few years. We will also provide you and a designated investigator with categorized narrative descriptions of what has occurred so that you are not simply inundated with random reports. Please let me know if you have any other ideas for making sure our reports remain part of our overall hate/organized crime claims and don't slip through the cracks.

It is important to me that you designate another person in the department who will be responsible for reviewing the information in addition to yourself. Again, your initial response and lack of basic instructions about procedures for citizens to file reports indicates to me that it is necessary to widen the net of responsibility for reviewing and acting upon my claims.

I will send you copies of the sixhoursaweek.com blog posts related to the Missoula PD to ensure that the department has a record of them (of course I keep copies of them in case the blog is for some reason hacked into). However, my blog was not created for the purpose of communicating with you or your department. It is in many cases very general and only very partially conveys the criminal activity we have endured in Missoula County. Reading my blog should not serve as a substitute for direct communication with me regarding these matters, and should in no way serve to constitute your full understanding of what we have endured. I will continue to chronicle my relations with the department over these issues, however.

Again, to clarify, I contacted you in a letter about harassment from the Goodmans. Sergeant Richardson responded and I provided documentation of my responses to verbal assaults, harassment and entrapment attempts in the neighborhood. Sergeant Richardon's provided a "blame the victim" response,  stigmatizing my efforts to document the neighborhood harassment. That led to these blog posts below.

I look forward to receiving your responses and moving forward together to combat corruption and hate crime in Missoula.

Kyeann Sayer


June 29, 2009

Dear Ms. Sayer,

I received your e-mail in response to my concerns about your allegations of misconduct by members of this department. I understand your concern that we don't appreciate what the real problem is and that you are simply looking to know who you can give your extensive evidence to.

Please feel free to provide me with copies of any written statements and documented evidence of criminal activity which you have in your possession. Another investigator or I will review all that information and provide you with notice of  our findings and recommendations, if any. I might add that I took the time to review the archives of your blog to familiarize myself better with the situation you believe you find yourself in, so you do not need to provide me with copies of those posts unless you are planning to take down your blog site.

For your information, there is nothing "bizarre" about a police officer giving notice to cease contacts with neigbors and is in fact quite common. The notice is based on a request by any party who feels they are being harassed by another.

At your convenience, you may deliver copies of the above documentation/evidence to me or phone me with a time to have someone from the MPD pick it up. Again my office is open to you at any time with reasonable notice for discussion of your concerns.

Respectfully yours,

Mark Muir
Timothy Geiszler will have to answer to Jeff Doud for this. In a July 2 filing, Geiszler went on an all out assault on my mother's mental health in what seems like a last ditch attempt to bully her into settlement with Steve Loken. He used a claim that my mother made about Mr. Doud's conspiring with Loken's camp to ruin her case to back up his assertions. So, here I explain why the use of the word conspiracy could indeed apply to Mr. Doud's actions, and why any reasonable person would come to such a conclusion. (Again, the Geiszler has pulled a quote from Mom's effort to amend her counterclaim against Loken to include civil conspiracy. The quote centers around the discovery request issue elaborated on below.)

After what I've seen, I feel comfortable stating that Mr. Doud should not be allowed to practice law. He is a young attorney whose ethical/professional sensibility was clearly quickly shaped by the Montana culture of cronyism. It's hard to imagine his moral compass being righted enough to entrust him with any unassuming client. (Having Tim McKeon as a father-in-law can't help.)

Doud took over the Loken case in fall of 2007 because Mom's other attorney was doing little on the case. Initially that attorney was very enthusiastic, but was never the same after a meeting with Mr. Geisler, at which he told her Mom was paranoid. (We have called Geiszler on this bit of slander -- clearly the incompetency angle has been part of his and Loken's plans for quite a while.)

In January of 2008, without informing his client, Mr. Doud propounded a second set of discovery requests on Mr. Loken. A year earlier, Mom's first attorney had received answers to discovery requests. The original attorney had asked around 14 questions. Mr. Doud asked around 80. This was in no way helpful to Mom's case -- the questions gave Mr. Loken the opportunity to elaborate upon and revise his narrative of what happened. It also allowed him to produce a schematic that my mother had never seen before, and that Loken claimed she provided.

Though Doud found the time to do this, he ignored Mom's pleas to follow up on details essential to her case like a previously-ignored Request for Production to get copies of canceled checks showing Loken's supposed $14000 worth of payments to an employee for work that was never finished. (Mom later followed up when she was defending herself pro se and newly printed versions of these supposedly already produced checks were submitted to court. This was that point at which an unrecognized attorney from Geiszler's firm started filing. This was completely against procedure, but Judge Deschamps never required this other attorney to become an attorney of record. It seemed like Geiszler was trying to put distance between himself and fabricated financial records.)

Mom didn't find out about the second set of discovery requests until around the end of October 2008 when Mr. Doud was no longer her attorney and she received her file from him. Attorneys are required to operate with their clients' informed consent. First, the requests obviously should not have been propounded without her knowledge. Second, if a defendant has no knowledge of the plaintiff's revised narrative of what occurred based on answers to 80 discovery questions, how can she make informed decisions about what direction to take the case?

If an attorney takes action in secret that is so clearly favorable to the opposing side isn't it reasonable to assume that he is conspiring? Of course, that's not all. The depth and breadth of Jeffrey Doud's malpractice is astounding. Please see a partial list of his greatest hits after the jump.

What's frightening is that the malpractice is so objectively identifiable and true, and Mr. Geiszler is working so hard to brand Mom's identification of it as symptomatic of paranoia. Do attorneys ruin their client's cases without speaking to another about it? (It would take a great leap of faith to believe that Doud is innocently and overwhelmingly incompetent.) Speaking to one other person about it makes it conspiracy. Doud did a lot of speaking to Mr. Geiszler without Mom's consent. Maybe that's why he needs Mom to be "crazy." 
This is more in-the-muck Missoula-specific info that is informative if you are interested in how people try to steal from and take advantage of retired ladies.

So, Timothy Geiszler went on an all out assault against my mother's mental health yesterday. He used a bunch of quotes from a motion to amend her counterclaim as evidence that she is paranoid. (Legalese translation: she was sued by Steve Loken, but also had claims against him. She was trying to add more claims.) The hilarious part is that she was trying to add civil conspiracy as a counterclaim, and has the evidence to prove it. Let's review what conspiracy is, courtesy of findlaw:

A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. One person may be charged with and convicted of both conspiracy and the underlying crime based on the same circumstances.

For example, Andy, Dan, and Alice plan a bank robbery. They 1) visit the bank first to assess security, 2) pool their money and buy a gun together, and 3) write a demand letter. All three can be charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, regardless of whether the robbery itself is actually attempted or completed.


Clearly this has nothing to do with black helicopters. Mom's language about conspiring made perfect sense in this legal context. Apparently, Mr. Geiszler hoped that quotes ripped out of context would simply read as paranoia. Big, big stretch.

But since our run-ins with the justice system seem to conform to others' big stretches, it seems prudent to flesh out some of the conspiracy of which my mother wrote (and has evidence and would like/would have liked to argue). Here goes.

While I was in Russia in winter of '06 I received a frantic Skype from Mom. Her property was no longer in her control and Steve Loken had filed a lien against it. Before leaving for Russia, all of my boxed belongings had been soaked due to a flood caused by Mr. Loken's negligence. I had been in the dining room listening while Mom met with him and he tried to make excuses for why she had been charged for incomplete work, and why the contractor in charge of her project was such a disaster. I overheard him swear at her and watched him storm out of the kitchen. By this point I knew the man was bad news, but neither of us had any idea of what he was mixed up in or what was in store for us.

So I was feeling pretty helpless a world away as my Mom found her property slipping away. Especially since her lawyer at the time, David Ryan, seemed to have orchestrated it. Here are the boring details:

Chief Muir Agrees to Review Evidence!

|
fireworks parade 1894.jpgYay. Chief Muir wrote a very conscientious letter indicating that he and another investigator will review our evidence.

Bright side: all of this has been an incredible learning experience and promises to reveal so much about the workings of local and state government. I know how dorky that sounds, but we've been living in this state of helplessness with the never ending COINTELPRO-like life disruption. It not only felt impossible to make any headway with local officials because of the general mistrust engendered by the sheer volume of people who were convinced to make life difficult for us. But also, when dealing constantly in fight or flight mode, it was difficult to get a handle on how to advocate for ourselves in spite of the overall terror/harassment. Until last week, I had no idea how to file a police report or make a report to the health department. Today I do.

Now just being aware of some of the local laws that individuals have broken, and the steps to take to remedy them, is empowering. There were probably many things that we could have done to make the harassment more difficult, and to create accountability, but we didn't know them. If we didn't, then I don't think many people do have much of a handle on how to advocate for themselves.

If I hadn't been creating some form of public accountability through my blog, I might not be in the position to get at least lip service to a genuine look at what we've been through in this jurisdiction. We know what a sorry state the world would be in if only windbags with blogs got a hint of justice. (Why reporters haven't long ago exposed a fraction of the people who have attempted to mess with us is a question deserving serious consideration.)

There's a ton of work to be done! We have these rights because we are American and if we don't know how to claim them we are just screwed by the greedy and brutish. This Independence Day I am grateful to be in this beautifully imagined but imperfect country, getting up everyday and giving substance to the notion of inalienable rights. For the foreseeable future that will mean trudging through slow, long legal and law enforcement processes. 

Again, I hate to be cheesy, but there is something really beautiful about the idea that all of our sufferings and efforts might make things easier for another Montanan or other American. I am typing now because others have fought and died and suffered much more terribly than I ever have -- on the battlefield and in the struggles for free speech and civil liberties/rights. It's humbling to think that maybe a small bit of our efforts will enable some woman or man to suffer in front of the future's version of a keyboard generations from now. Or help those who don't know that luxury.

~~

Six Hours A Week Is:

A coping strategy, advocacy outlet, and form of protection. My life has been nearly destroyed by the unconstitutional practices of politically/socially-motivated private intelligence contractors and the corruption and cronyism that allow them. Apparently because I speak out in ways that prioritize the little guy and human and environmental health above gargantuan profit margins, and believe that facts are as important as PR spin, I was someone who had to be completely discredited. In 2007, after a few months of a surreal and relentless invasion of privacy and dignity, I started to spend six hours each week researching, communicating about, and advocating legal and ethical responses to assaults on our shared democratic and republican ideals. For most of that time I was writing from the perspective of someone whose life was manipulated into a constant state of terror and emergency. In 2010, many of the array of entrapment attempts seem to have failed and it seems no longer possible to get away with such excessive, obvious harassment and overt interference. As we take more practical steps to address what has been allowed to happen to my family, we do expect to see some more harassment and intimidation. But I should be able to chronicle it from a more measured perspective, rather than that of someone in constant fear. Part of me would like to go back and delete earlier posts, because even I find them hard to relate to in some ways. But this blog has been one of our only forms of protection as everyone in any official capacity ignored the truth and tried to spin and frame us into the troublemakers and perpetrators of one form or another. So I leave it up as a form of protection, a record of what has occurred, and (with luck) the account of our way back to credibility and some form of legitimate justice. All content on this site is property of Kyeann Sayer. All rights reserved.