Friday, July 12, 2013

Itasca Co. Sheriff "Good Ol' Boy #2" Williams Makes Wild Claim: Dash Cam Video Of J.D. Lom Not In His Possession? Then Who Has It, Vic?

Updated: July 14, 2013

Cass Co. didn't want to take Tim Salisbury's statement against Itasca Co.'s "Good Ol' Boy" Deputy Kyle Curtiss, did they? Tim cornered them and forced them to take his statement, didn't he?

Lion News: Tim Salisbury's Cass Co. Statement VS Itasca Co.'s "Good Ol Boy" Deputy Kyle Curtiss?

Original Post: July 12, 2013

Itasca Co. Sheriff Vic "Good Ol' Boy #2" Williams has been trying to withhold evidence in lawless Itasca Co., hasn't he? To cover up his spoliation of evidence (Withholding evidence that incriminates Vic and his cronies, right?) "Good Ol' Boy #2" Williams started making the wild claims that dash cam video did not exist, didn't he?

 Actually, that loony cover story originally started with his crooked deputies Curtiss & LeClair, didn't it?

Apparently, "Good Ol' Boy #2" Williams has found that his fairytales weren't being believed, hasn't he? Come on now! Who is dumb enough to believe that "The dog ate my homework" excuse more than once, huh?

Well, in hopes of duping the people with eyes to see, "Good Ol' Boy #2" Williams has now switch to a new & improved whacko story, hasn't he? Now "Good Ol' Boy #2" Williams isn't claiming that the dash cam video does not exist, is he?  No, he isn't, is he? Instead, "Good Ol' Boy #2" Williams has decided to spew the goofy line that the dash cam videos are not in his possession, right?

possession. (14c) 1. The fact of having or holding property in one's power; the exercise of dominion over property. [Cases: Property 10.] 2. The right under which one may exercise control over something to the exclusion of all others; the continuing exercise of a claim to the exclusive use of a material object. 3. Civil law. The detention or use of a physical thing with the intent to hold it as one's own. La Cov. Code art. 342(1). 4. (usu. pl.) Something that a person owns or controls; PROPERTY (2). Cf. OWNERSHIP; TITLE (1). 5. A territorial dominion of a state or nation. Balck's Law Dictionary, 9th Ed. Page 1281.

So they exist, but "Good Ol' Boy #2" Williams just doesn't have them, right? So where are they Vic?

According to daffy example #1: "Itasca County does not possess this video/data."

Please note: Postmark says June 27, 2013 & letter is dated June 25, 2013 (2 days to get letter mailed, right?)

 According to daffy example #2: "Itasca County does not possess this video/data."

Please note: Postmark says July 10, 2013 & letter is dated July 03, 2013? (7 days to get letter a mailed, right?) Sounds like a crazy fabrication, doesn't it?

Vic, are theses dash cam videos (and MDT data) in your basement? Hidden in your Swiss Bank account? Did the dog who eats your dash cam video eat them for breakfast? Are they in the trunk of Itasca Co. Attorney John "Good Ol' boy #1" Muhar's car? Who has possession of these dash cam (and MDT) videos, huh?  Inquiring minds demand to know, don't they?

Oh, we can't forget about the goofball excuse used to avoid giving John Lom a copy of the citation, can we? "This information is retained by Court Administration. Request needs to be made directly to them"  Vic, that ticket was in your possession at the time it was issued, wasn't it? Vic, you still are an officer of the court, aren't you?
officer of the court. (16c) A person who is charged with upholding the law and administering the judicial system. Typically, officer of the court refers to a judge, clerk, bailiff, sheriff, or the like, but the term also applies to a lawyer, who is obligated to obey court rules and who owes a duty of candor to the court. Also termed court officer. Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Ed. Page 1195.

So you can waddle down and get a copy of it, can't you? You can, can't you? You just don't want to, do you? By the way, did you scan a copy of the ticket before turned over possession of the ticket to the court?

When Itasca Co. Sheriff "Good Ol' Boy #2" Williams changing his laughable story that made him look really, really guilty, didn't it? It did, didn't it?

The “liar liar” technique, when stripped to its barest essentials involves the following progression:

  1. Get the defendant to say that a prior inconsistent statement is untrue.
  2. Get the defendant to say that she knew it was untrue when she made it.
  3. Get the defendant to admit that she lied.
George R. Dekle, Sr, Prosecution Principles: A Clinical Handbook (Thompson/West:2007), Page 283.

The witness will appear dishonest in one of three ways – either the testimony will be illogical, internally inconsistent or incompatible with other evidence.
George R. Dekle, Sr, Prosecution Principles: A Clinical Handbook (Thompson/West:2007), Page 166.

P.S. Vic - in case you "forgot" - you still John Lom a data response, don't you? That request is dated 06-03-13, isn't it?  You're long overdue, aren't you?