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
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
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