Excerpts From John Lom's Email: Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 1:35 PM
... I paid for unconditional release= I CAN posses firearms. I have not been convicted. Has not yet been a final disposition. ...
... Both Koochiching and Itasca County have been served with a letter of representation from Duranske Law Firm. Why are they contacting me personally?
I received this certified letter directly from Victor Williams today. I find it to be very disturbing, and request your attention to this issue, please. I would prefer we file an immediate lawsuit for this permit revocation, rather than wait until I’m cleared of the charges. I will leave that decision up to you.
I’ve attached a copy of the MN Statute Williams references in which I have color coded. This points out he has not met the criteria to order this revocation. I paid for the unconditional release- I can posses firearms, I have not been convicted. It’s been well over a month since I was charged leading me to believe this is some type of retaliation for the pending litigation we have against him.
Furthermore, This sounds to me like a threat! He states “ Failure to return your carry permit card will result in an Itasca County Deputy obtaining it from you” . Are Itasca County Thugs coming to my home again to steel from me, or break my back again in five days? Myself and my family fear for our safety and security. ...
Sincerely,
John R. Lom
Attachments: Letter from Vic Williams
Color Coded-Statute 624.714 Subd. 8(a)
Subd.
8.Permit to carry voided.
(a)
The
permit to carry is void at the time that the holder becomes
prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, in
which event the holder must return the permit card to the issuing
sheriff within five business days after the holder knows or should
know that the holder is a prohibited person. If the sheriff has
knowledge that a permit is void under this paragraph, the sheriff
must give notice to the permit holder in writing in the same manner
as a denial. Failure of the holder to return the permit within the
five days is a gross misdemeanor unless the court finds that the
circumstances or the physical or mental condition of the permit
holder prevented the holder from complying with the return
requirement.
(b)
When
a permit holder is convicted of an offense that prohibits the permit
holder from possessing a firearm,
the court must take possession of the permit, if it is available, and
send it to the issuing sheriff.
(c)
The sheriff of the county where the application was submitted, or of
the county of the permit holder's current residence, may file a
petition with the district court therein, for an order revoking a
permit to carry on the grounds set forth in subdivision 6, paragraph
(a), clause (3). An order shall be issued only if the sheriff meets
the burden of proof and criteria set forth in subdivision 12. If the
court denies the petition, the court must award the permit holder
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees.
(d)
A permit revocation must be promptly reported to the issuing sheriff.
Subd.
8a.Prosecutor's duty.
Whenever
a person is charged with an offense that would, upon conviction,
prohibit the person from possessing a firearm, the prosecuting
attorney must ascertain whether the person is a permit holder under
this section. If the person is a permit holder, the prosecutor must
notify the issuing sheriff that the person has been charged with a
prohibiting offense. The
prosecutor must also notify the sheriff of the final disposition of
the case.
Slanderous Excerpt From Confidential Koochiching Documents? It's Against The Law To Release Confidential Criminal Investigative Data In An Open Criminal Investigation, Isn't It? It Is, Isn't It?
Itasca County was notified as the suspect in question resides outside of Koochiching County. Itasca County responded and assisted in the investigation, it was determined based on their prior knowledge of Lom and his residence that an arrest warrant along with a search warrant should be conducted as Lom is very anti Law Enforcement and will not be cooperative with our investigation and evidence could be destroyed in the process if not done properly. Deputy Chad Mastin #128. ICR#: 15807222. Reported Date: 08/09/2015 Reported Time: 04:45 Police Report – Supplemental.
John Lom Is Not Anti LEO, Is He? He Isn't Is He? John Lom = Anti Corrupt Local Officials, Right?
Media Blackout On Alleged High-Profile Shooting? Why Isn't An Alleged "Drive-By Shooting" With An Assumed "Machine Gun" Not Making Headlines From One End Of The State To The Other? Wouldn't "The Story" Being Going National?
http://www.ifallsjournal.com/news/public_safety/police-report/article_f3114ab8-211a-5c17-81b1-a860751e6c20.html
Police Report Tammie Calder Updated 18 hrs ago Aug 20, 2015
Koochiching County Sheriff’s Department
Theft: Andrew M. Timmer reported Aug. 10 the theft of a 2,000 watt Honda generator, valued at $1,000, from his vehicle while it was parked at the Littlefork Municipal Liquor Store.
Burglary: Chris Dillman, County Road 126, reported Aug. 8 that someone forcibly entered his residence but saw no damage or anything missing.
Arrest: An Itasca County man was arrested Aug. 9 and charged in connection with several gunshots fired into several vehicles at a residence in Northome. The Sheriff’s Office was assisted by the Itasca County Sheriff’s Office and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.
Koochiching Co. Fears Media Focus On Corrupt Itasca Co. SWAT/Search & Seizure Involvement Because Of Lom's Lawsuit Case No. 31-CV-14-3366? Or Doesn't Koochiching Co. Want Media Focus On Alleged Victim's Car With Swithed Vin Numbers? Hmm?
Koochiching Co. Sheriff Perryn Hedlund & Co. Attorney Jeff Naglosky Hoping Nemmers Could Be Bribed/Flattered Into Being A Koochiching Co. "Pal/Ally" Against John Lom/Justice?
Alleged Victim Putting In Restitution Claim For Someone Else's Stolen Car?
One person is putting in a restitution claim for a vehicle that has had the VIN numbers switched and not even hers! John Lom Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:41 AM
Case No. 36-CR-15-575 State of Minnesota vs JOHN RICHARD LOM
08/25/2015 Affidavit for Restitution Doc ID# 8
08/25/2015 Affidavit for Restitution Doc ID# 9
09/15/2015 Affidavit for Restitution Doc ID# 14
09/15/2015 Victim Impact Statement Doc ID# 15
Some Unrelated Context, Okay?
So far, Lupient has taken the largest hit from the stolen Cobalt. It offered McCoy a refund on the $7,200 that he paid for the car. General Manager Pam Guilford said it’s the first time she has encountered such a scam in 33 years of selling cars. The State Patrol says they get about five cases a year, but already in 2014 they have three reports of stolen vehicles sold after a “VIN switch.” ...
Lupient’s insurance company is not reimbursing it for the loss because the car is headed back to the original owner in Illinois, Guilford said. Whistleblower: VIN scam hits car dealers and car buyers By Alejandra Matos Star Tribune May 22, 2014 — 3:34pm
Sources tell WOWT6 news that an Illinois used car dealer is accused of altering VIN numbers and other identifying information on about 200 vehicles sold nationwide. However those cars have to be returned to either the original owners or the insurance company. The unsuspecting buyers must hope their insurance will cover them. Cars From Nationwide Theft Case Found In Nebraska Updated: Fri 4:34 PM, Nov 01, 2013 By: Mike McKnight sixonline@wowt.com
from: Lion News lionnews00@gmail.com
to: gbrady@peoriacounty.org,
Perryn Hedlund perryn.hedlund@co.koochiching.mn.us,
Jeff Naglosky Jeff.Naglosky@co.koochiching.mn.us
date: Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:36 AM
subject: Suspicious VIN numbers on MN vehicles from Illinois? Possible stolen Illinois cars in Case No. 36-CR-15-575 State of Minnesota vs JOHN RICHARD LOM
mailed-by: gmail.com
Jerry Brady, Peoria County State's Attorney/Illinois Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Council board member (309) 672-6900:
Would any of the following VIN numbers be from stolen Illinois cars or trucks? Inquiring minds want to know, don't they?
VIN: 1GTEK19T3YE251483; Year: 2000; Make: General Motors; Model: Sierra (Truck); Description: 2000 Gray General Motors Corp Sierra (Truck)
VIN: 2B4GP44R11R212100; Year: 2001; Make: Dodge; Model: Caravan; Description 2001 Dodge Caravan
VIN: 1B4HS28Y3XF600695; Year: 1999; Make: Dodge; Model: Durango; Description: 1999 Dodge Durango Data from IC#15807222.pdf Koochiching County Sheriff's Dept.
I have some information that a so-called "victim" is putting in a restitution affidavit for damage to a suspected stolen vehicle in Case No. 36-CR-15-575 State of Minnesota vs JOHN RICHARD LOM. have Koochiching Co. Sheriff Perryn Hedlund or Co. Attorney Jeff Naglosky been in contact with you about this suspected stolen vehicle?
Terry Dean, Nemmers
https://peoriabar.org/member-list
BRADY JR, GERALD W PEORIA COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY 324 MAIN ST PEORIA, IL 61606 672-6900 gbrady@peoriacounty.org
So far, Lupient has taken the largest hit from the stolen Cobalt. It offered McCoy a refund on the $7,200 that he paid for the car. General Manager Pam Guilford said it’s the first time she has encountered such a scam in 33 years of selling cars. The State Patrol says they get about five cases a year, but already in 2014 they have three reports of stolen vehicles sold after a “VIN switch.” ... Lupient’s insurance company is not reimbursing it for the loss because the car is headed back to the original owner in Illinois, Guilford said. Whistleblower: VIN scam hits car dealers and car buyers By Alejandra Matos Star Tribune May 22, 2014 — 3:34pm
One person is putting in a restitution claim for a vehicle that has had the VIN numbers switched and not even hers! Excerpt from John Lom email Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:41 AM
Case No. 36-CR-15-575 State of Minnesota vs JOHN RICHARD LOM
08/25/2015 Affidavit for Restitution Doc ID# 8
08/25/2015 Affidavit for Restitution Doc ID# 9
09/15/2015 Affidavit for Restitution Doc ID# 14
09/15/2015 Victim Impact Statement Doc ID# 15
to: corcorwhite@gmail.com,
northome@paulbunyan.net
date: Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:09 PM
subject: Chapter 13 data request - contracts, policy manuals, no-trespass
mailed-by: gmail.com
Chelsy Elhard, City Clerk/Treasurer:
Chapter 13 data request - please email me the following free electronic public data: Current contracts for Koochiching county law enforcement protection and prosecution, Northome data practice manual and personnel handbook for City of Northome. Northome Municipal liquor store policy and procedure manual. No-trespass orders, 2009 to present, barring Richard Leroy Leach, III from the Northome Municipal liquor store.
Terry Dean, Nemmers
http://ci.northome.mn.us/council-members.php
Chelsy Elhard
City Clerk/Treasurer
PO Box 65
Northome, MN 56661
PH (218) 897-5762
13.03 ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT DATA. Subd. 3. Request for access to data. (a) Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, ... (d) ... The responsible authority, upon the request of any person, shall provide sufficient documentation to explain and justify the fee being charged. (e) The responsible authority of a government entity that maintains public government data in a computer storage medium shall provide to any person making a request under this section a copy of any public data contained in that medium, in electronic form, if the government entity can reasonably make the copy or have a copy made. Subd. 2. Procedures. (a) The responsible authority in every government entity shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. 13.05 DUTIES OF RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY. Subd. 12. Identification or justification. Unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data.
to: perryn.hedlund@co.koochiching.mn.us
date: Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:21 PM
subject: Chapter 13 data request - Case No. 36-CR-15-575 State of Minnesota vs JOHN RICHARD LOM
mailed-by: gmail.com
Perryn Hedlund, Sheriff:
Chapter 13 data request - Please email me the incident reports for Case No. 36-CR-15-575 State of Minnesota vs JOHN RICHARD LOM. Date of incident: 08/09/2015.
Terry Dean, Nemmers
13.03 ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT DATA. Subd. 3. Request for access to data. (a) Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, ... (d) ... The responsible authority, upon the request of any person, shall provide sufficient documentation to explain and justify the fee being charged. (e) The responsible authority of a government entity that maintains public government data in a computer storage medium shall provide to any person making a request under this section a copy of any public data contained in that medium, in electronic form, if the government entity can reasonably make the copy or have a copy made. Subd. 2. Procedures. (a) The responsible authority in every government entity shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. 13.05 DUTIES OF RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY. Subd. 12. Identification or justification. Unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data.
from: Perryn Hedlund Perryn.Hedlund@co.koochiching.mn.us
to: Lion News lionnews00@gmail.com
date: Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:58 AM
subject: RE: Chapter 13 data request - Case No. 36-CR-15-575 State of Minnesota vs JOHN RICHARD LOM
Mr. Nemmers,
Here are the Incident Reports you requested. Thank you and have a good day.
Perryn Hedlund
Koochiching County Sheriff
715 4th Street
Int'l Falls, MN 56649
Office: 218-283-1145
perryn.hedlund@co.koochiching.mn.us
Attachment:IC#15807222.pdf
from: Lion News lionnews00@gmail.com
to: perryn.hedlund@co.koochiching.mn.us
date: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 11:54 AM
subject: Chapter 13 data request: Policy & procedure manuals
mailed-by: gmail.com
Perryn Hedlund, Sheriff:
Chapter 13 data request - Please email me your Lexipol policy and procedure manual for the Koochiching County Sheriff's dept., the Lexipol jail custody manual and the data practice manual for Koochiching County.
Terry Dean, Nemmers
13.03 ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT DATA. Subd. 3. Request for access to data. (a) Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, ... (d) ... The responsible authority, upon the request of any person, shall provide sufficient documentation to explain and justify the fee being charged. (e) The responsible authority of a government entity that maintains public government data in a computer storage medium shall provide to any person making a request under this section a copy of any public data contained in that medium, in electronic form, if the government entity can reasonably make the copy or have a copy made. Subd. 2. Procedures. (a) The responsible authority in every government entity shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. 13.05 DUTIES OF RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY. Subd. 12. Identification or justification. Unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data.
from: Perryn Hedlund Perryn.Hedlund@co.koochiching.mn.us
to: Lion News lionnews00@gmail.com
date: Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:50 AM
subject: RE: Chapter 13 data request: Policy & procedure manuals
Mr. Nemmers,
I have attached a copy of the items you requested.
Attachments: Policy_Manual_RELEASE_20120517.pdf; lexipol manual.pdf; Data Practice Manual updated FOR 2015.doc
from: Lion News lionnews00@gmail.com
to: perryn.hedlund@co.koochiching.mn.us,
Jeff.Naglosky@co.koochiching.mn.us
date: Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:46 PM
subject: Will John Lom have to worry about exculpatory evidence being withheld in Case No. 36-CR-15-575 State of Minnesota vs JOHN RICHARD LOM?
mailed-by: gmail.com
Jeff Naglosky, 218-283-1131:
Thanks for the prompt response and for emailing me my free electronic public data. Will John Lom have to worry about exculpatory evidence being illegally withheld in Case No. 36-CR-15-575 State of Minnesota vs JOHN RICHARD LOM? Now I am not accusing you of illegally withholding any evidence, am I? After all, it is a fact that so-called LEO's involved in John's case have a history of illegally withholding evidence and illegally withholding free electronic public data, isn't it? I do have evidence that BCA evidence was illegally withheld from Richard Rapatt by Otter Tail Co. Attorney David Hauser and Otter Tail Co. Sheriff Brian Schlueter, don't I? Not to mention that Otter Tail Co. Attorney David Hauser and Otter Tail Co. Sheriff Brian Schlueter have been illegally withholding free electronic public data from me, right? And I do have evidence that Itasca Co.'s law firm of Rupp, Anderson, Squires & Waldspurger, P.A. had been advising their clients to illegally withhold free electronic public data from me, don't I? And both John Lom and I have evidence that Itasca Co. Sheriff Vic Williams and County Attorney Jack Muhar illegally withhold criminal investigative data and free electronic public data, don't we? Finally, I have evidence that Cass County attorney Christopher J. Strandlie & Sheriff Tom Burch are illegally withholding criminal investigative data for the rigged investigation of Itasca Co. deputies LeClair and Curtiss, don't I? See attached. So what can you and Sheriff Hedlund do to assure me that John Lom will get all his exculpatory evidence? Inquiring minds want to know, don't they?
Terry Dean, Nemmers
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. Psalm 1:1 King James Version (KJV)
Itasca County was notified as the suspect in question resides outside of Koochiching County. Itasca County responded and assisted in the investigation, it was determined based on their prior knowledge of Lom and his residence that an arrest warrant along with a search warrant should be conducted as Lom is very anti Law Enforcement and will not be cooperative with our investigation and evidence could be destroyed in the process if not done properly. Deputy Chad Mastin #128. ICR#: 15807222. Reported Date: 08/09/2015 Reported Time: 04:45 Police Report – Supplemental.
Election Day Surprise Lawsuit For Lawless Itasca Co.? Case No. 31-CV-14-3366 JOHN RICHARD LOM vs Itasca County, Kyle Curtiss, Robert LeClair? How Will The Corrupt Judges Rig This Case So It Turns In The Favor Of The Corrupt County And The Corrupt Deputies Curtiss & LeClair? Beltrami Co. Sheriff's Policies On Money Handling & Evidence Gathering Sheds Light On Why Itasca Co. Sheriff Vic Williams Is Illegally Withholding His Policy & Procedure Manual? UPDATED - Loony Denials From Corrupt Itasca County Hired Liar? http://lionnews00.blogspot.com/2014/12/election-day-suprise-lawsuit-for.html
Flyer Exposing Cover-up Of Fergus Falls City Council Member Timothy Rundquist's Manslaughter Via "Culpable Negligence"? Flyer Exposing Cover-up Of Rigged Trial For Richard Rapatt? Rapatt Can Testify That Co. Attorney Hauser Has A History Of Rigging Court Cases (Case No. 56-CR-12-2353 / 56-CR-14-1447 / 56-CR-15-606, Right?), Can't He? Fergus Falls City Administrator Mark Sievert, Chief of Public Safety Kile Bergren & City Attorney Rolf Nycklemoe Hatch Loony Plot To Cover Up Harassment & Intimidation Of Nemmers & Rapatt? http://lionnews00.blogspot.com/2015/06/flyer-exposing-cover-up-of-fergus-falls.html
Lion News: Nemmers Files Criminal Complaints VS. Itasca Co. Sheriff Vic Williams & Admin. Klein? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcgwtjFs-5M
Attachment: Illegally_Withheld_Evidence_Data.pdf
from: Jeff Naglosky Jeff.Naglosky@co.koochiching.mn.us
to: Lion News lionnews00@gmail.com,
Perryn Hedlund Perryn.Hedlund@co.koochiching.mn.us>
date: Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:05 PM
subject: RE: Will John Lom have to worry about exculpatory evidence being withheld in Case No. 36-CR-15-575 State of Minnesota vs JOHN RICHARD LOM?
Mr. Nemmers,
The only assurance I can provide is to inform you that I am aware of my discovery obligations under the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure. These obligations require that I disclose to Mr. Lom and his attorney all evidence, incriminating and exculpatory, in my possession. The rules further require that my duty to disclose is ongoing. I intend to comply with these requirements in my prosecution of this, and every, case.
Regards,
JSN
Jeffrey S. Naglosky
Koochiching County Attorney
715 Fourth Street
International Falls, MN 56649
jeffrey.naglosky@co.koochiching.mn.us
p (218) 283-1131 f (218) 283-1133
to: Jeff Naglosky Jeff.Naglosky@co.koochiching.mn.us
cc: Perryn Hedlund Perryn.Hedlund@co.koochiching.mn.us
date: Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 2:07 PM
subject: Re: Will John Lom have to worry about exculpatory evidence being withheld in Case No. 36-CR-15-575 State of Minnesota vs JOHN RICHARD LOM?
mailed-by: gmail.com
Jeff Naglosky, 218-283-1131:
I have to admit that your response was deeply troubling, don't I? Especially, coming from a law enforcement officer, right? Actually, it sounded scripted, didn't I? I could tell because it was devoid of reality, couldn't I? In the so-called real world the average person would expect that "the law" would investigate crime - not ignore it, wouldn't they? Yet, you didn't even acknowledge the clear, precise and unquestionable evidence of criminal misconduct by agencies associated with John Lom's investigation, did you? You didn't, did you? That calls not only your integrity into question, but it also calls the integrity of John Lom's investigation into question, doesn't it? It does, doesn't it? You will be able to provide documentation for any exculpatory evidence that suddenly and mysteriously turns up "missing," won't you? It is a matter of the public record that exculpatory evidence in State of Minnesota vs JOHN RICHARD LOM Case No. 31-CR-13-137 suddenly and mysteriously disappeared, isn't it? You will have "fixit slips" and payments for repairs for any electronic equipment that suddenly and mysteriously "failed" during John's investigation, won't you? What is the make and model of the mobile video recorders in your Koochiching County squads? Inquiring minds want to know, don't they?
Terry Dean, Nemmers
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Matthew 7:16-17 King James Version (KJV)
Boss Tweed: The appearance of law must be upheld, especially while it's being broken. Gangs of New York (2002)
John Richard Lom Of Lawless Itasca County - Acquitted Of Obstructing Legal Process, A Felony ( Not Guilty ) - Case No. 31-CR-13-137! http://lionnews00.blogspot.com/2013/09/john-richard-lom-of-lawless-itasca.html
Sounds Suspicious, Doesn't It? Media Blackout On Alleged High-Profile Shooting? Why Isn't An Alleged "Drive-By Shooting" With An Assumed "Machine Gun" Not Making Headlines From One End Of The State To The Other? Wouldn't "The Story" Being Going National? Could It Be That Koochiching County Has No Proof?
from: Lion News lionnews00@gmail.com
to: Jeff Naglosky Jeff.Naglosky@co.koochiching.mn.us,
Bob Peterson bob.peterson@co.koochiching.mn.us,
Perryn Hedlund perryn.hedlund@co.koochiching.mn.us
date: Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:10 PM
subject: Re: Will John Lom have to worry about exculpatory evidence being withheld in Case No. 36-CR-15-575 State of Minnesota vs JOHN RICHARD LOM?
mailed-by: gmail.com
Jeff Naglosky, 218-283-1131:
Is my free electronic public information on your in-car cameras and the information on the brand of software and vendor information from your Robert Peterson, Auditor/Treasurer going to arrive any time soon soon? Inquiring minds want to know, don't they? Funny, I would have thought that the news of your case against John Lom would have been spread far and wide, wouldn't I? Could it have something to do with the lack of integrity of the case and with the lack of integrity of some of the players involved in the case? Inquiring minds still want to know, don't they?
Terry Dean, Nemmers
http://www.ifallsjournal.com/news/public_safety/police-report/article_f3114ab8-211a-5c17-81b1-a860751e6c20.html
Police Report Tammie Calder Updated 18 hrs ago
Koochiching County Sheriff’s Department
Theft: Andrew M. Timmer reported Aug. 10 the theft of a 2,000 watt Honda generator, valued at $1,000, from his vehicle while it was parked at the Littlefork Municipal Liquor Store.
Burglary: Chris Dillman, County Road 126, reported Aug. 8 that someone forcibly entered his residence but saw no damage or anything missing.
Arrest: An Itasca County man was arrested Aug. 9 and charged in connection with several gunshots fired into several vehicles at a residence in Northome. The Sheriff’s Office was assisted by the Itasca County Sheriff’s Office and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.
from: Lion News lionnews00@gmail.com
to: Betsy Zaren Betsy.Zaren@co.koochiching.mn.us
cc: Bob Peterson Bob.Peterson@co.koochiching.mn.us
date: Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:07 AM
subject: Re: Chapter 13 data request - Please email me a copy of the payments to the MN Sheriff's Association for the last five (5) years
mailed-by: gmail.com
Robert Peterson, Auditor/Treasurer Phone 218-283-1112:
Didn't I ask you for the brand of professional software that you use for your position as auditor/treasurer? Please email me the payment, the vendor and warrant data for the purchase of your professional software.
Terry Dean, Nemmers
from: Jeff Naglosky
to: Lion News
date: Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:50 AM
subject: RE: Chapter 13 data request: criminal summon-complaint for Case No. 36-CR-15-575 State of Minnesota vs JOHN RICHARD LOM
: Important mainly because of your interaction with messages in the conversation.
Attached please find the complaint you requested. The Koochiching County Attorney’s Office uses a program called Damion for case management and criminal complaint generating purposes. We access e-charging through the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s website.
to: Perryn Hedlund perryn.hedlund@co.koochiching.mn.us,
Jeff Naglosky Jeff.Naglosky@co.koochiching.mn.us
date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:35 PM
subject: Chapter 13 data request - Case No. 36-CR-09-736 & Case No. 36-K0-97-000555 State of Minnesota vs RICHARD LEROY LEACH, III
mailed-by: gmail.com
Perryn Hedlund, Sheriff 218-283-1145:
Chapter 13 data request - Please email me the incident reports and complaint for Case No. 36-CR-09-736 & Case No. 36-K0-97-000555 State of Minnesota vs RICHARD LEROY LEACH, III. Have you decided whether or not you have mobile video recorders in your squads or not? I find it odd that you have a policy and procedure for mobile video recorders but you don't want to say if you have mobile video recorders, don't I? I'd also like the incident reports for your assist on Case No. 31-CR-13-137 emailed to me. Why is that I don't see any discovery disclosures for either 36-CR-15-570 or 36-CR-15-575? Will John Lom get his discovery the day of his Omnibus hearing? Inquiring minds want to know, don't they? Do you have a copy of the no trespass orders issued for the Northome Municipal Liquor Store for RICHARD LEROY LEACH III? Wasn't Leach banned from the Muni prior to the assault? Keeping John's story low-key for a reason?
Terry Dean, Nemmers
Case No. 36-CR-15-570 State of Minnesota vs RICHARD LEROY LEACH, III
09/14/2015 Omnibus Hearing (2:00 PM) (Judicial Officer LeDuc, Charles H.) Result: Held
Case No. 36-CR-15-575 State of Minnesota vs JOHN RICHARD LOM
10/05/2015 Omnibus Hearing (2:00 PM) (Judicial Officer LeDuc, Charles H.)
John Richard Lom Of Lawless Itasca County - Acquitted Of Obstructing Legal Process, A Felony ( Not Guilty ) - Case No. 31-CR-13-137
13.03 ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT DATA. Subd. 3. Request for access to data. (a) Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, ... (d) ... The responsible authority, upon the request of any person, shall provide sufficient documentation to explain and justify the fee being charged. (e) The responsible authority of a government entity that maintains public government data in a computer storage medium shall provide to any person making a request under this section a copy of any public data contained in that medium, in electronic form, if the government entity can reasonably make the copy or have a copy made. Subd. 2. Procedures. (a) The responsible authority in every government entity shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. 13.05 DUTIES OF RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY. Subd. 12. Identification or justification. Unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data.
http://www.ifallsjournal.com/news/public_safety/police-report/article_f3114ab8-211a-5c17-81b1-a860751e6c20.html
Police Report Tammie Calder Updated 18 hrs ago
Koochiching County Sheriff’s Department
Theft: Andrew M. Timmer reported Aug. 10 the theft of a 2,000 watt Honda generator, valued at $1,000, from his vehicle while it was parked at the Littlefork Municipal Liquor Store.
Burglary: Chris Dillman, County Road 126, reported Aug. 8 that someone forcibly entered his residence but saw no damage or anything missing.
Arrest: An Itasca County man was arrested Aug. 9 and charged in connection with several gunshots fired into several vehicles at a residence in Northome. The Sheriff’s Office was assisted by the Itasca County Sheriff’s Office and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.
___________________________________________
from: Perryn Hedlund Perryn.Hedlund@co.koochiching.mn.us
to: Lion News lionnews00@gmail.com
date: Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:19 AM
subject: RE: Chapter 13 data request - Case No. 36-CR-09-736 & Case No. 36-K0-97-000555 State of Minnesota vs RICHARD LEROY LEACH, III
Mr. Nemmers,
Thank you for your inquiry. The Koochiching County Sheriff’s Office does not currently have any mobile video recorders in our squads. We do have a Lexipol Policy in place should we ever secure funding to place mobile video recorders in our squads. Thank you once again for your inquiry and have a nice day.
Perryn Hedlund
Koochiching County Sheriff
715 4th Street
Int'l Falls, MN 56649
Office: 218-283-1145
Cell: 218-324-1016
perryn.hedlund@co.koochiching.mn.us
___________________________________________
from: Lion News lionnews00@gmail.com
to: Perryn Hedlund Perryn.Hedlund@co.koochiching.mn.us,
Jeff Naglosky Jeff.Naglosky@co.koochiching.mn.us
date: Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:57 AM
subject: Re: Chapter 13 data request - Case No. 36-CR-09-736 & Case No. 36-K0-97-000555 State of Minnesota vs RICHARD LEROY LEACH, III
mailed-by: gmail.com
Perryn Hedlund, Sheriff 218-283-1145:
Was it your idea or Koochiching county attorney Jeff Naglosky's (218-283-1131) idea to try to incite me to violence with your harassing email? Why isn't your current Lexipol policy and procedure manual in compliance with Mn Statute 626.8457, huh? Are you going to email me free electronic public data or are you going to continue to harass me? Inquiring minds want to know, don't they?
Terry Dean, Nemmers
E. PRINCIPLE FIVE Peace officers shall treat all members of the public courteously and with respect ... b) No peace officer shall ridicule, mock, deride, taunt, belittle, willfully embarrass, humiliate, or shame any person to do anything reasonably calculated to incite a person to violence. PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF PEACE OFFICERS MODEL POLICY MN STAT 626.8457
Response to a Data Request • Government entities should respond in one of three ways 1. Provide access to the data (and copies when requested) 2. Inform you the data are classified as not public (must give statute section) 3. Inform you the data do not exist • Not responding is not a proper response Can I ask for that? Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) MN Department of Administration Website: www.ipad.state.mn.us Phone:651.296.6733 Email:info.ipad@state.mn.us page 12
Reasons to Avoid Logical Fallacies in Your Writing "There are three good reasons to avoid logical fallacies in your writing. First, logical fallacies are wrong and, simply put, dishonest if you use them knowingly. Second, they take away from the strength of your argument. Finally, the use of logical fallacies can make your readers feel that you do not consider them to be very intelligent." (William R. Smalzer, Write to Be Read: Reading, Reflection, and Writing, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2005). logical fallacy Glossary By Richard Nordquist Grammar & Composition Expert. http://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/logicfalterm.htm
___________________________________________
Retaliation for looking into Richard Leroy Leach III case? Was Leach banned/barred from City of Northome municipal property at the time of assault?
from: Lion News lionnews00@gmail.com
to: Perryn Hedlund perryn.hedlund@co.koochiching.mn.us,
Jeff Naglosky Jeff.Naglosky@co.koochiching.mn.us
date: Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:18 PM
subject: Second Notice: Chapter 13 data request - Case No. 36-CR-09-736 & Case No. 36-K0-97-000555 State of Minnesota vs RICHARD LEROY LEACH, III
mailed-by: gmail.com
Perryn Hedlund, Sheriff 218-283-1145:
Second Notice: Chapter 13 data request - Case No. 36-CR-09-736 & Case No. 36-K0-97-000555 State of Minnesota vs RICHARD LEROY LEACH, III. Your passive-aggressive behavior just works to my advantage, doesn't it? It does, doesn't it? Did you actually think that your harassment would provoke me to violence or force me to quit? Seriously, did you? Now you and Naglosky are not only going to have to explain to your social network why your high cost technical marvel called Koochiching County Sheriff's Lexiplol policy and procedure manual is not in compliance Mn Statute 626.8457, but you two are going to have to explain why you illegally released confidential criminal investigative data for Case No. 36-CR-15-575 State of Minnesota vs JOHN RICHARD LOM, aren't you? Plus, you two will have to explain why you're illegally withholding public data for Case No. 36-CR-09-736 & Case No. 36-K0-97-000555 State of Minnesota vs RICHARD LEROY LEACH, III, won't you? You will, won't you? You guys aren't very bright, are you?
Terry Dean, Nemmers
Mr. Karpan: I do have one request. Um, I've not asked for this before, I'm not sure how to handle it, but the Department of Natural Resources as they've done in the past has seen fit to do a press release, and officer Osborne has answered questions for the newspaper. My client – all the facts of the case are in the Echo Press, on the radio and in sporting magazines. Not only are there quotes in there that aren't - - I mean I know the State has a right to release incident data I think it's called. Under Chapter 13.82, investigative data is not to be released. Well, there are pictures allegedly of my client's fish all over the Echo Press. Everybody in town is talking about it. I don't know if I'll have to make a change of venue motion eventually. I'll have to see how this plays out in a few months. But under 13.82, there's no way the DNR is supposed to be releasing pictures of evidence to the newspaper. It prejudices my client. It prejudices all of us. It makes it impossible to get a fair trail. So I'm asking the Court to order the Department of Natural Resources to not discuss this case any further until it's done.
The Court: Mr. Hochsprung?
Mr. Hochsprung: Your Honor, I did not authorize the Department of Natural Resources to disclose anything to the paper. Um, I can talk with Mr. Osborne or whoever about that, but I don't have any information about that. State of Minnesota vs. Ronald Wayne Johnson Rule 5/ Rule 8 Hearing. Court File No. 21-CR- 13-51. February 11, 2013
eCharging: Officer electronically signs complaint; Benefits: Keeps process electronic eCharging: Prosecutor electronically signs complaint; Benefits: Keeps process electronic eCharging: Judge signs complaint electronically; Benefits: Keeps process electronic Overview: Instantaneous data transmission, no redundant data entry, reduced error rate, high transparency of workflow, less paper, no vehicles/fuel Reduces review time; Benefits: Reduced time, reduced costs, more accurate data, and improved public safety. Minnesota Criminal Complaint Process - Comparison of Manual and eCharging Systems and Benefits CONTACT: Jill Oliveira 651-793-2726
http://www.mncourts.gov/district/4/?page=3953 Effective September 16, 2013, all e-filed documents, whether in mandatory or voluntary case types, must be submitted in “searchable” PDF format. Visit the eFile Support Center for more details and other important notices.
http://www.mncourts.gov/About-The-Courts/NewsAndAnnouncements/ItemDetail.aspx?id=1148 On July 1, 2016, use of the eFile and eServe system will become mandatory for attorneys, government agencies, and guardians ad litem in all district court cases statewide.
When can I get a copy of the investigative report? Investigation ongoing If the law enforcement agency is still investigating the crime, members of the public will not be able to get a copy of the report. They can, however, get what’s often referred to as the public portion of the report containing basic information about the case that is classified as public. by Crime Victim Justice Unit
Part 3: Responding to Data Requests (Policies for Members of the Public and Data Subjects) Time frames Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 sets forth the time frames within which government entities must respond to data requests. Entities must respond to members of the public seeking public data in an appropriate and prompt manner (section 13.03), and within a reasonable time (Minnesota Rules 1205.0300). Entities must respond to data subjects seeking access to data about them within ten business days (section 13.04). In other words, entities must either provide the data to the data subject or inform the data subject there are no data available within ten business days. This does not mean that an entity can not arrange for a longer period of the time to respond, as long as the data subject agrees. IPAD recommends that entities respond to all data requests in writing. Worksheet for Developing Data Practices Policies MN Department of Administration, Information Policy Analysis Division · www.ipad.state.mn.us · November 2014 Page 8
from: Lion News
to: Perryn Hedlund
Jeff Naglosky
date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:35 PM
subject: Chapter 13 data request - Case No. 36-CR-09-736 & Case No. 36-K0-97-000555 State of Minnesota vs RICHARD LEROY LEACH, III
mailed-by: gmail.com
Perryn Hedlund, Sheriff 218-283-1145:
Chapter 13 data request - Please email me the incident reports and complaint for Case No. 36-CR-09-736 & Case No. 36-K0-97-000555 State of Minnesota vs RICHARD LEROY LEACH, III. Have you decided whether or not you have mobile video recorders in your squads or not? I find it odd that you have a policy and procedure for mobile video recorders but you don't want to say if you have mobile video recorders, don't I? I'd also like the incident reports for your assist on Case No. 31-CR-13-137 emailed to me. Why is that I don't see any discovery disclosures for either 36-CR-15-570 or 36-CR-15-575? Will John Lom get his discovery the day of his Omnibus hearing? Inquiring minds want to know, don't they? Do you have a copy of the no trespass orders issued for the Northome Municipal Liquor Store for RICHARD LEROY LEACH III? Wasn't Leach banned from the Muni prior to the assault? Keeping John's story low-key for a reason?
Terry Dean, Nemmers
Case No. 36-CR-15-570 State of Minnesota vs RICHARD LEROY LEACH, III
09/14/2015 Omnibus Hearing (2:00 PM) (Judicial Officer LeDuc, Charles H.) Result: Held
Case No. 36-CR-15-575 State of Minnesota vs JOHN RICHARD LOM
10/05/2015 Omnibus Hearing (2:00 PM) (Judicial Officer LeDuc, Charles H.)
John Richard Lom Of Lawless Itasca County - Acquitted Of Obstructing Legal Process, A Felony ( Not Guilty ) - Case No. 31-CR-13-137
13.03 ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT DATA. Subd. 3. Request for access to data. (a) Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, ... (d) ... The responsible authority, upon the request of any person, shall provide sufficient documentation to explain and justify the fee being charged. (e) The responsible authority of a government entity that maintains public government data in a computer storage medium shall provide to any person making a request under this section a copy of any public data contained in that medium, in electronic form, if the government entity can reasonably make the copy or have a copy made. Subd. 2. Procedures. (a) The responsible authority in every government entity shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. 13.05 DUTIES OF RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY. Subd. 12. Identification or justification. Unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data.
http://www.ifallsjournal.com/news/public_safety/police-report/article_f3114ab8-211a-5c17-81b1-a860751e6c20.html
Police Report Tammie Calder Updated 18 hrs ago
Koochiching County Sheriff’s Department
Theft: Andrew M. Timmer reported Aug. 10 the theft of a 2,000 watt Honda generator, valued at $1,000, from his vehicle while it was parked at the Littlefork Municipal Liquor Store.
Burglary: Chris Dillman, County Road 126, reported Aug. 8 that someone forcibly entered his residence but saw no damage or anything missing.
Arrest: An Itasca County man was arrested Aug. 9 and charged in connection with several gunshots fired into several vehicles at a residence in Northome. The Sheriff’s Office was assisted by the Itasca County Sheriff’s Office and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.
___________________________________________
Will corrupt Sheriff Williams stop trying to provoke John Lom to violence? Inquiring minds want to know, don't they?
___________________________________________
More to come . . .
Related Links:
Nemmers Files Criminal Complaint Against Itasca Co. Sheriff Vic Williams & Administrator Trish Klein For Illegally Withholding Free Electronic Public Data? Corrupt Grand Rapids Police Dept. (GRPD) Takes Complaint? The GRPD Can't Be Trusted Either, Can They? County Attorney Muhar Informed That Nemmers Has Been In Contact With Sheriff Williams' Latest Brutality Victim - David Thrasher ( Case No. 31-CR-14-1859 )? Itasca Co. Is Getting Sued By John Lom ( Case No. 31-CV-14-3366 ) For Similar Brutality, Aren't They?
Election Day Surprise Lawsuit For Lawless Itasca Co.? Case No. 31-CV-14-3366 JOHN RICHARD LOM vs Itasca County, Kyle Curtiss, Robert LeClair? How Will The Corrupt Judges Rig This Case So It Turns In The Favor Of The Corrupt County And The Corrupt Deputies Curtiss & LeClair? Beltrami Co. Sheriff's Policies On Money Handling & Evidence Gathering Sheds Light On Why Itasca Co. Sheriff Vic Williams Is Illegally Withholding His Policy & Procedure Manual? UPDATED - Loony Denials From Corrupt Itasca County Hired Liar?
Itasca Co. Attorney John Muhar Perverts Justice Again, Doesn't He? No Charges For Dustin Helm For His Assault And Criminal Damage To John Lom's Property? Muhar Maliciously Prosecutes Lom But Gives "Feel Free To Engage In A Crime Spree Against Lom" Pass To Helm? Muhar Makes Wild And Outrageous Claims Of Not Enough Evidence? Muhar Willfully & Intentionally Ignores Clear, Precise & Unquestionable Evidence, Doesn't He? Lawlessness Reigns In Lawless Itasca Co., Doesn't It?
John Lom Gives Itasca Co. Sheriff Vic Williams Another Opportunity To Engage In Criminal Misconduct By Refusing To Produce Son's Data?
John Lom Checks To See If Evidence Is Being Withheld In Itasca Co. VS. Tim Salisbury?
John Lom Asks Cass County: Where Is My Complaint Video & Transcription For Itasca's LeClair & Curtiss?
John Lom's Messages To Crooked Itasca County Cops: "Cops Not Welcome!" (Cops: No Trespass Allowed!)?
John Lom Update – Judge Lois “The Fix Is In” Lang Watches Nemmers' YouTube Videos?
John Lom's Lawyer Duranske Asks Itasca Co. Attorney Muhar For Service Receipts For Dashcam Repairs Per Sheriff's Policy & Procedure Manual?
Itasca Co. Judges & Staff Tried To Rip Off John Lom, Didn't They? Lom Responds To Misconduct Of Officers Of The Court By Filing Complaint?
Transcript Of John Lom's Complaint (Where Is The Recording?) Against Itasca County Deputies Kyle Curtiss & Robert LeClair?
Itasca Co. Deputies Robert LeClair & Kyle Curtiss "Lawyer Up" As Cass County Pretends To Investigate $6500 Theft Of Lom's Money?
Itasca Co. Deputies Robert LeClair & Kyle Curtiss Poor Liars At Omnibus Hearing?
Itasca Co. Derails $6500 Criminal Complaint vs Deputies Robert LeClair & Kyle Curtiss?
