TABLE OF CONTENTS

October 3, 2007
Dallas County Iowa E-911 Service Board Roster With Addresses
October 12, 2007
E-911 Service Board???
November 28, 2007
Dallas County Agreed to Pay for the Rock Caper
November 29, 2007
Reisetter Recuses Himself From Prosecuting Chris Hinds
December 8, 2007
Dallas County News of the Rock Caper
December 24, 2007
The Rock Caper WHEN THE SHERIFF SHOWS UP, ASK TWICE
January 16, 2008
Dallas County Government Is Everywhere

   We're back!  After six more years of effort the address for The Promised Land is 26000 O Lane.  It was a long and arduous journey that could have ended with the following Court Order.  It didn't.">

The Rock Caper

WHEN THE SHERIFF SHOWS UP, ASK TWICE

The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow and in some cases of Chad Leonard's Dallas County Sheriff's Department they grind not at all. In case you want to read Hind's shoulder patch or the Quinn truck License plate click on the picture. That's Mary Hays standing at the truck door and her watchfellow Richard Reiste of Minburn. HInd's, by the way is standing on private property without a writ.

This case began in April 4, 2007 when we met with Sheriff Leonard and forewarned him of the liklihood that the owner next parcel would stike in the near future, to forewarn him that there was much litigation behind this move and that he needed to be careful not to step into legal doo doo. Instead Sheriff Loenard blew it off, made no followup and simply handed the case to his "30-year expert in civil law," Deputy Chris Hinds. Hinds, who after "a complete and thorough investigation," conspired with Ralph Brown to guard the site while the neighbor dumped a truck load of road rock on our property.

I suppose that Chris Hinds had the illusion that I wouldn't show up just at the moment the crime was to take place. But I did! As I stepped up to stop the rock dump, Hinds, whose vehicle was already blocking my way popped up waving a sheaf of paper and blocking my way with his body and said, "We're enforcing a court order here, if you take one more step (onto your own property to preserve it) I will arreast you."--Parens added) So I watched as Chris Hinds presided over the criminal tresspass on our property.

The key element in all of this, as Sheriff Leonard, Deputy Hinds and Ralph Brown all knew at the time that the Sheriff is not lawfully empowered to enforce a Court order without a writ from the Court to do so. Hinds had no writ!
Way leads upon way and after these months Sheriff Leonard has stonewalled except to conclude that, "I am not going to admit to any Departmental wrongdoing." Following is the text of the latest letter to Sheriff Leonard in this matter.

Chad Leonard
Dallas County Sheriff
201 N. 8TH St.
Adel, Iowa 50003

Dear Sheriff Leonard:

You have my letters of April 18 and June 13, 2007. It has been 118 days since the first and 62 days since the second. To date I have no response from you except your failed offer to recommend compensation for a portion of my direct expenses and your oral statement May 22 that, “I [sheriff Leonard] am not going to admit any Departmental error.”
Your inaction is not an option. Do not conclude that your ignorance or neglect of this matter will resolve it. Do not conclude that a claim in District Court resolves the crime.
You learned July 10 that you do not have the power assuage your error by compensating me, even in part, for my expenses.
It is a crime for Deputy Hinds, to detain me under the false pretense of enforcing a court order without a writ.
It is a crime for a Deputy Hinds to conspire with Ralph Brown to plan another crime.
Your foil that that your Department has the right to keep the peace is true. It does not reach these crimes. Deputy Hinds did not keep the peace; he unlawfully detained me under pretense of enforcing a court order without a writ, first with his vehicle and then with his body. There is and has been no dispute of these facts.
The lawful prohibition of your Department from attempting to enforce a court order without a writ was known to, and you claim practiced by, both you and to your “civil expert of 30 years service,” Deputy Hinds on April 17 and again to you on June 12, 2007. It is not an option for you to apply that policy ever before and ever after those dates with me as your admitted sole exception.
Your oath of office is to uphold the law, “I, Chad Leonard do solemnly swear that I will…faithfully and impartially [underscore added]…discharge the duties of the office of Sheriff of Dallas County. It is your duty to investigate and appropriately respond to wrongdoing within your Department. You have not done so.
I demand that you investigate and prosecute these crimes timely, fully, openly and lawfully.
It is now 35 days since I declined Wayne Reisetter’s proposition of money in exchange for releasing you and Deputy Hinds from responsibility for the crime. You have had more than adequate time to begin your work.
You have ten more days to reveal to me in writing your progress in investigating and prosecuting both my false arrest and Deputy Hind’s coupling with Ralph Brown.
Yours truly,

Stay tuned, there is more to share about Sheriff Leonard and his Department. Feel free to respond not only to this case but as well to share your experiences with Sheriff Leonard and Deputy Hinds.

Dallas County News of the Rock Caper

The fourth branch of government, a free press, is no less a requisite to sustaining a free and democratic society than are the legislative, executive and judicial branches. A free press requires effective self-governance, the integrity of which is the basis for the public trust. Bob Eschliman, general manager (read editor) of the Dallas County News has declined to publish the following the letter, a response to one of his news articles. Make your own assessment of how much trust you want to place in the Dallas County News.

_________________

An open letter to Bob Eschliman and Amber Williams, Dallas County News

Sheriff Leonard has it right (maybe for the first time). Journalism is one thing; making it up out of whole cloth is quite another. It would have been ethical, to say nothing of a courtesy, for you to have contacted me before you published your piece regarding my request of Wayne Reisetter to prosecute Deputy Chris Hinds, especially after your insistence on interviewing Ralph Brown and attempting to interview Mary Hays for your article published October 18, 2007, regarding the rock caper.

You did not. That was a disservice to your readers and the public interest. I would have disabused you of errors. For examples:
1. “It has long been disputed… on who has the rights to the lane….” No. The rights of all parties are meticulously spelled out in five court orders in Equity 28517. You were shown those orders and anyone can read them at http://equity28517dallascounty-iowa.blogspot.com/
2. “…As they own adjacent properties surrounding it [the lane].” No. It is not the “adjacent properties.” There is no dispute that I, solely, own the lane. You were shown that. The crime took place on a public road, 260th St..
3. “ litigation… resulted in a 1998 decree stating that Mary Hays has the right to make repairs to the lane as long as it does not diminish her brother’s access to it.” No. You shouldn’t have tried this on your own. To quote Kimes’ Order, allegedly filed August 12, 1999, “Mary has the right to make repairs…so long as it does not diminish to Carl his use of the access [underscore added] and Horton’s lane 1.” My use of the access is to preserve, nay enhance, my property value. Not any one of the seven Fifth District judges who have ruled in this matter over a period of 28 years, Hagen, Joy, Finneseth, Jordan, Christensen, Kimes or Morr, ever tried to limit my access to this plot of land, 32 feet X 180 feet, which, after all, I own. Your error is an embarrassment to journalism and an insult to the bench, a very long bench.
4. “…Hinds was present to keep the peace….” “Hinds does not remember his exact quote…” No. According to his statement, Hinds was present to detain me, without a writ to “enforce a court order,” the Order Hinds holds the photograph you have of the crime. Chad Leonard appointed Chris Hinds, a 30-year veteran, the “Departmental expert in civil law.” No matter Hinds’ amnesia. Reno did not contact or interview any of the three by-standing eye/ear witnesses to the crime, Mary Hays, Richard Reiste or the Quinn driver, all in the same photograph and each of whom could refresh Chris Hinds memory. Instead, Reno interviewed Ralph Brown, Mary’s attorney who was not present. The “keeping-the-peace” alibi was and is a ‘jus’ us chickens’ distraction introduced by Wayne Reisetter in our conference of May 18. No one, Mary Hays, Ralph Brown, Chris Hinds, Chad Leonard nor Wayne Reisetter has ever shown a writ nor claimed that a writ was issued.
5. “The incident was referred to the [Iowa] Attorney General’s Office….” No. What was referred to the Iowa Attorney General was my request that Wayne Reisetter prosecute Chris Hinds for unlawfully detaining me in an attempt to enforce a court order without a writ along with Reisetter’s request to recuse himself. You have that in hand and anyone can see it at DallasCountyIowaGovernment.blogspot.com. Steve Reno made it unequivocally clear that he was not investigating the “incident.” That is a matter in equity. The Attorney General’s inquiry was limited to my request that Wayne Reisetter prosecute Chris Hinds’ crime.
6. “Assistant attorney general Stephen Reno, sent a letter to Hays declining to bring criminal charges against the Sheriff’s Office.” No. Steve Reno’s letter is addressed to Wayne Reisetter and it declines to bring criminal charges against Chris Hinds. That, incidentally, leads to the absurdity of your banner headline, “AG sides with county in Hays case.” The AG’s declining to prosecute Chris Hinds is hardly tantamount to siding with the county in the “Hays case.” Why do you think Wayne Reisetter recused himself? Dallas County agreed to pay me for my expense of removing the rock. See Dallas County Board of Supervisors resolution 2007-0096, July 10, 2007. You have this in hand and it is at DallasCountyIowaGovernment.blogspot.com
7. “Reno indicated that if Hays had successfully stopped the rock from being poured he would have been in contempt of his sister’s court order.” No and no. You really shouldn’t have tried this on your own. Reno’s letter states, “I would note that if Carl’s recollection of Deputy Hines’ quote is accurate [i.e., “Carl, we are enforcing a court order here and if you take one more step I will arrest you”] and I have no reason to doubt that the essence of the quote is correct, the statement would be valid as to a possible contempt of the Findings.” This does not associate me with contempt. I was not present when Chris Hinds, after the rock truck entered my property, blocked the entrance with the Sheriff’s vehicle and set his cherry a’ spin. Reno refers to the Plaintiff, Mary Hays’ and her attorney, Ralph Brown’s contempt of Equity 28517 for attempting to use the “repair” clause of Kimes as a foil for unlawfully upgrading Lane 1, defined by the Court as a wholly unimproved dirt farm lane, to an all-weather road. Hence, Reno forwarded his letter to Ralph Brown who up to that point supposedly had nothing to do with Chris Hinds’ crime. The Iowa Attorney General, of course, is not investigating contempt of Equity 28517. Further, the Kimes Order is not “his sister’s.” Court orders belong to no one; they are notice to everyone. The public can read them if they choose.

With our sacred American free press and the public trust you hold in your laptop a pearl of great power. Like the Dallas County officials who through the Freedom of Information Act have lost the power to defraud the public by controlling information, you, the press, have, through the Internet, already lost the power of information gatekeeper. If through sloppy research, bias, half-truths, lies, innuendo, hidden agenda or just plain ‘making it up,’ the press also squanders the public trust, it loses the power to do public good.
Carl H. Hays

November 25, 2007

Bob,
You are free to publish the letter above as a letter to the Editor of The Dallas County News provided that it is published in full with no truncation and no editing. You are not authorized to publish it edited or in part.
Further, please know that if you decline to publish it, I will.
Thanks,
Carl

Reisetter Recuses Himself From Prosecuting Chris Hinds

Click on imagesfor readable view.

Somebody, probably the Dallas County News, opined that there was confusion about what Wayne Reisetter recused himself from and what the Iowa Attorney General agreed to investigate. No, afraid not. Above is Wayne's response to the request to prosecute Chris Hinds and Wayne's request to the Iowa attorney general to recuse himself. Click on the images for a readable-sized view. Following is the request of Wayne reisetter to prosecute Chris Hinds.

23996 260th St.
Adel, Iowa 50003
September 18, 2007
Wayne Reisetter
Dallas County attorney
207 N. 9th St., Suite A
Adel, Iowa 50003

Dear Mr. Reisetter:

April 17, 2007, Deputy Chris Hinds, Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, without a writ, did unlawfully block my right of way to my property, first with his vehicle then with his person, and did detain me, under threat of arrest, from entering my property in order to preserve it from criminal trespass at 24002 260th St., Adel, Iowa. Further, in the days preceding April 17, Deputy Hinds, at the direction of Chad Leonard, Dallas County Sheriff, did conspire with Ralph Brown, City Attorney, Dallas Center, Iowa in constructing a plan to unlawfully detain me under the guise of attempting to enforce a court order without a writ in the event that I should happen to appear at the site while criminal trespass was being committed.
It is a crime for a peace officer, or anyone else, to unlawfully detain any citizen under the false pretense of attempting to enforce a court order without a writ.
It is a crime for a peace officer to conspire with at another public official to commit a crime.
I forewarned Sheriff Leonard of the conspiracy in person, in his office, April 4, 2007.
I reported these crimes to Sheriff Leonard in person, in his office, immediately after they took place, April 17.
I reported these crimes again to sheriff Leonard in writing April 18, 2007.
I reported these crimes to you in person in your office May 18, 2007.
On July 10, 2007, as a representative of Dallas County you offered me three pieces of silver in exchange for my “Release of Claims Against the Dallas County Sheriff, Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Chris Hinds, and the County of Dallas County,” to, “release, acquit, and forever discharge the Dallas County Sheriff, Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Chris Hinds, and Dallas County, their officers, employees, shareholders, directors, agents, successors, predecessors, or assigns, and all other persons firms, and corporations (hereinafter “Releasees”) from any and all liability whatsoever arising out of or relating in any manner to any representations, conduct, statements, omissions or actions of the Dallas County Sheriff, Dallas county Deputy Sheriff Chris Hinds, Dallas County or Releasees in connection with or regarding in any manner, any and all claims asserted arising from the circumstance of Dallas County Sheriff [sic Presumably Deputy] Chris Hinds….
“This agreement covers all injuries and damages, whether known or not, and which may hereafter appear or develop….
“This agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties, their respective heirs, beneficiaries, personal representatives, successors, and assigns….”
Whew! A boy doesn’t usually git an offer like that!
Your foil that the Sheriff’s Department has the right to keep the peace is true. Keeping the peace does not reach to these crimes. Deputy Hinds did not keep the peace; he unlawfully detained me under the fraud of enforcing a court order without a writ, first with his vehicle and then with his body. There is and has been no dispute of these facts.
Sheriff Leonard has refused to respond to my several requests to investigate and prosecute this matter, except to say orally that, “I [sheriff Leonard] am not going to admit to any Departmental wrongdoing.”
Your oath of office is to uphold the law, “I, Wayne Reisetter, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully and impartially…discharge all the duties of the Office of County Attorney in Dallas County…required by law.” It is your duty Under Iowa Code 331.756 to, “commence, prosecute and defend all actions and proceedings in which a county officer is a party.” It is your duty to prosecute crime. It is unlawful for you to attempt to cover up crime up with a bribe. You have in this matter so far failed on both sides of that mandate.
As a citizen, a taxpayer and a voter I demand that you prosecute these crimes fully, openly and lawfully. Do not conclude that your ignorance or neglect of this matter will resolve it.
It is now 164 days since these crimes occurred. It is now 134 days since you were personally apprised of the crime. It is now 81 days since I declined your offer of money in exchange for releasing Sheriff Leonard and Deputy Hinds from responsibility for the crime. You have had more than adequate time to begin your work. So far you have produced nothing but a failed attempt to dismiss the crime with a bribe.
You have ten more days in which to demonstrate to me in writing your progress in investigating and prosecuting these crimes.
Yours truly,


Carl H. Hays


DallasCountyIowaGovernment.Blogspot.com\

Dallas Couny Agreed to Pay for the Rock Caper

If these three images are too small to read, click on the image for a larger view.


The upside down logo of the Dallas County Courthouse was not contrived for this posting. It is shown exactly as it was promulgated. Apparently it is some denizen's of the County Government Campus notion of a joke. Not funny but nevertheless seems apropos.

A colorable claim quickly removed from the agenda during the meeting when claimant declined to sign the County's proposed Settlement Agreement and Release. There is good reason for that. Wayne Reisetter, Dallas County Attorney, made a great play to procure the all-inclusive Release (see above) of Dallas County for its liability in the rock caper. The money claim is for a portion of the cost of removing the rock. That claim is profoundly distinct from releasing Dallas County for its liability for the crime of unlawfully detaining a property owner in an unlawful attempt to enforce a court order without a writ. It was a valiant attempt on Wayne's part. but ask yourself, what person in their own interests would agree to, "release acquit, and forever discharge the Dallas County Sheriff, Chris hinds, Dallas County, their officers, employees, shareholders, directors, agents, successors, predecessors, or assigns and all other persons, dirms and corporations from any and all liability whatsoever...whether known or not and which may hereafter appear or develop...?" Citizens beware!

E-911 Service Board???

TO: Dallas County E-911 Service Board
September 26, 2007
Keith Heenan and Bob Ockerman have taken it upon themselves to refuse to place an accurate E-911 marker at our property at 24002 260th St., our homestead. Apparently for the first time ever, an individual’s request for a marker is being referred to the E-911 Service Board at large. It is to come before your October meeting.
I believe that it is incumbent upon the E-911 Service Board to restore its own credibility and to avoid further undue expense by directing Keith Heenan to accurately post the 24002 260th St. marker and to instruct Todd Noah to correctly enter and exclusively identify my address in the “Dallas County E-911 Official Map” database.
Further, I believe that it is unlawful for the Board to continue to refuse to erect this marker and record the map data accurately.
In December 2006, unbeknownst to me and quite unpredictably, from your 2006 unsigned letter (see Exhibit 1), at a neighbor’s telephone request and with no notice to anyone, Keith Heenan personally erected an erroneous E-911 marker (23998) at our homestead at 24002 260th St. My contact with Keith Heenan then revealed some incredible and inconsistent rationale for his error (see Aid to Memory, December 15, 2006, Exhibit 2, and Hays/Heenan letter December 26, 2006, Exhibit 3).
By April 2007 I had heard nothing from Mr. Heenan so I contacted him again and received an even more twisted response (see Aid to Memory, April 10, 2007, Exhibit 4).
By July 2007, still having had no response from Heenan, I contacted Mr. Ockerman only to hear even more astounding revelations (see Aid to Memory, July 18, 2007, Exhibit 5).
Eventually, my property at 23998 260th St. was correctly addressed. At the same time, however, where my 24002 260th St. sign is required, a sign for 25998 O Avenue, an address that leads to no residence and has no entrance to the county road, appeared exactly where the 23998 260th sign had originally, erroneously been. With some effort I was able to discover that O Avenue record in the “E-911 Official Map” database had also been revised.
Still, 24002 260th street, the entrance to our homestead remains unmarked (see Plat For Ethel Hays dated August 8, 1981, Exhibit 7, Access Permit To Secondary Road dated May 18,1985, Exhibit 8 and Geodallas map of 24002 260th St., Exhibit 9)! Ockerman and Heenan are steadfast in their refusal to mark it. That is the issue before you!
Their error is in marking 25998 O Avenue for one requester and, by contrast, refusing to correctly mark the directly adjacent spot in the road at my request, the property owner.
On the one hand, Keith Heenan at his sole initiative, with no direction from the E-911 Board, at the telephone request of a person who owns no property in Section 9, has marked a Section 9 address where there is no residence, no access permit to a county road and a notorious set of Court Orders in Equity 28517 precluding there ever being an access at that address, all in front of a gate locked or open at my pleasure “at all times” by Court Order.
On the other hand, despite my repeated and documented requests, Heenan and Ockerman have provided only bogus excuses for refusing to mark the exact same spot in the road, 24002 260th St., and the entrance to our homestead, and instead deferred to you, the E-911 Board.
Heenan and Ockerman have come up with a list of incredible excuses, both for having marked for the neighbor and for refusing to mark our homestead. For examples:
1. “Markers are available to whoever requests them, by telephone or otherwise.” Unequivocally not so!
2. “A marked address must provide access to emergency vehicles.” Unequivocally not so!
3. “There are too many signs there already.” This is an insult to our first responders! The E-911 addressing scheme provides 500 addresses per mile on each side of the road. The two miles of O Circle now have a total of six markers. There are multiple-sign positions posted throughout the County!
4. “You are required to show your parcel plats and access permits.” There is no precedent for this, certainly not for 25998 O Avenue! Nevertheless, I have done so and they are attached (see Hays/Ockerman August 22, 2007, Exhibit 6, and Exhibits 7, 8 and 9).
5. “I heard that you are suing the County over the Sheriff’s errors in the rock caper at that address.” This is hearsay of a rumor that, true or not, can lawfully have zero connection, other than blatant personal prejudice, to a refusal to post an E-911 address marker.
6. “Well I’m opposed to it and Keith Heenan is opposed to it.” The question is not willy-nilly opinion. The question is lawfully equitable application of the E-911 tax dollars.
7. “Well, this has to be approved by the entire E-911 Board.” There is no precedent for this. Clearly, the posting of 25998 O Avenue did not come before the entire Board.
8. “I’m not going to spend time talking with you, I have other things to do.” An unacceptable face for County government.
9. “The signs are in the public right of way. You have no say.” Really?

Our Access Permit To Secondary Road from our homestead, 24002 260th St. (see Exhibit 8) locates the sole access to the half of our property that lies up to 3/8 mile east of the crossing of Carl’s Branch, the North/ South creek traversing Section 16. We have had one instance of an injured poacher to be evacuated there. We have had two fire Department calls. The Sheriff’s Department has been called to that address at least 15 times, five within the past eight months.
It is under this access and road that our utility lines are buried.
Depending on the wind-drift direction, this access is also our sole deep-snow emergency entrance/exit, which in March 2007 constituted a period of six consecutive days.
Further, I have liability for the emergency accesses to all of my property in Section 16 and for the safety of my family, my tenants, my employees, my invitees and myself. From the time your E-911 signage program was enacted both my insurer and I have a liability stake in your signs.
The E-911 Board is liable for any failure of the signage to accurately guide emergency vehicles. I do not plan to assume liability for your refusal of a $4.25 sign. If you fail in E-911 signage this liability metastasizes to you.
Sheriff Leonard learned the pitfalls of attempting to interpret Equity 28517 without a writ. The E-911 Service Board will find itself in a similar disgrace if it continues to refuse to sign 24002 260th St. without a written, promulgated and lawful policy equitably applied (see Hays/Leonard August 14, 2007, Exhibit 10, and Hays/Reisetter September 18, 2007, Exhibit 11).
We have invested 27 years in responding to litigation to successfully preserve from usurpation our property at 24002 260th St.. You are assured that I do not plan to forfeit any of the benefits of that effort at the whim of Keith Heenan’s and Bob Ockerman’s refusal to accurately post a $4.25 E-911 sign at our homestead, a posting to which we are lawfully entitled.
Thank you.