Saturday, February 19, 2005


The FDLE deified Sheriff Dennis Lee based on a letter that he sent them regarding the "drug problem" in Holmes County, which somehow escaped his attention for the previous seven years. Recently it appears that the FDLE even awarded his business manager a "Who's Who of Prevention Leadership" here in the sunshine state. According to the local paper, Dr. Gail Honea nominated the Holmes County Sheriffs Department Business Maager for the honor stating in part,"Her people, planning and writing skills led to funding CASE by the Federal Drug-Free Communities Support program." Holmes County is suredly blessed with such a collection of talented writers. Maybe I should ask them to write a letter to the Governor's Office of Drug Control to investigate my charges?

Wednesday, February 16, 2005


FDLE Comm. Tunnell still hasn’t investigated or even replied to my petition that Governor Bush sent to him. Guy is covering-up, but why? The reason is the deal that the state cut with my drug-dealing neighbors. This deal is a touchy issue and seems to concern the FDLE more than the illegal surveillance, threatening witnesses, or even attempt to kill us.

AG Charlie Crist hasn’t gotten back to me, either. I mailed the AG a certified letter (see June 8th blog post) to him on April 21 charging former Director of Executive Investigations Jamie McLaughlin with official misconduct. Coincidentally, FDLE Internal Affairs began another separate investigation of the Director on April 22 based on an "anonymous tip." McLaughlin resigned suddenly and unexpectedly the very next day on April 23, coincidentally the same day USPS confirmed delivery of my April 21 letter to AG Crist (bureaucrats can move when they want to).

FDLE’s investigative report revealed that the dates covered by its investigation of McLaughlin were from Oct. 1999 to April 22, 2004. However, FDLE General Counsel Ramage and Assistant Director Richard Lober advised the investigators, Special Agent Pritt and Chief Metz , on April 22 of the receipt of the anonymous allegation of potential sexual harassment of by the Director. After their briefing (remember this was on April 22, the day after I mailed my letter to AG Crist), the investigators conducted a preliminary fact-finding inquiry into what they deemed an ongoing course of conduct "that could be considered a type of Sexual Harassment." They used Oct. 1999 as the start date of their investigation because that’s when the Director and another Executive Investigations employee began their consensual affair and April 22, 2004 as the end date. So FDLE began their investigation the same day Lober receives an anonymous allegation and McLaughlin resigns the next day, which is the day the USPS verified that the Attorney General received my April 21 letter. No rational person would find that coincidental. But why go after the Director now? Could it be that this anonymous tip and sudden resignation served as a cover story for McLaughlin’s role in the cover-up that I describe in my April 21 letter to AG Crist and the FDLE’s deal?

Another scandal is that there’s been an inordinate number of bum drug arrests over the past year here in Holmes County. I suspect that the reason for all the drug arrests is that it is an FDLE manufactured problem orchestrated by the FDLE to rehabilitate the Sheriff’s image and serve as a cover if I ever went public with the following (i.e. "the deal"). The Sheriff’s well publicized crackdown on drugs began about 2 weeks after I notified someone that that FDLE offered my neighbor a deal if she’d implicate the Sheriff in her drug dealing. This was the first of two deals that the FDLE offered her and she declined it, preferring to do the time if necessary. The FDLE was in the awkward position of trying to nail the Sheriff on drugs while having to cooperate with him to cover up their involvement in the illegal surveillance and harassment. Apparently, there’s more flexibility in the so-called “war on drugs” than is portrayed in the media. I’ve also heard allegations of "cash register justice" which might explain some botched cases, but I believe that my theory is the reason.

I don’t know if the Sheriff was involved or not in drug dealing, but the FDLE believed that he was. The meth problem is no worse in Holmes County than any other rural community. The FDLE wanted to create a problem and then offer a solution. So the Sheriff made a lot of questionable arrests, resulting in an extremely low conviction rate. They needed numbers in order to justify a problem, which would require state intervention. Even the Holmes County Sheriff’s Department knows what cases prosecutors accept and won’t accept. There’s also a cost effectiveness factor. For the Sheriff to realize that after expending considerable resources that the County can’t afford it is ludicrous. It provided the excuse to go to the state for help with a manufactured problem that is no worse than that of neighboring counties. The FDLE then got some friendly reporters to portray the Sheriff as hard on drugs and puff up his image. State officials then presented the Sheriff with a commendation and remark that he “understands the drug problem.” They should know, especially since they believed that he was part of it. Realize that the Sheriff’s epiphany and subsequent well-publicized apotheosis by the FDLE didn’t manifest itself until only after I notified people about the FDLE’s first deal regarding implicating the Sheriff in their activities. This is the scandal that concerns the FDLE. If the recent awards, honors, and fluff news pieces are any indication of the Sheriff’s redemption, then I certainly deserve part of the credit. Realize that he largely ignored this "drug problem" during his previous seven years of service.

Finally, realize that the Patriot Act legalizes or else makes the government unaccountable in what I describe in my blog. Ask yourself, is this an example of the "democracy" and "freedom" that we’re bringing to Iraq? Maybe we should restore the rule of law here first.

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

"Refused not at the address"

An "Express Letter Service" envelope from "National Credit Council" listing a DC POB return address arrived here yesterday addressed to someone we never heard of and don't know. The envelope has a clear cellophane face revealing the unknown addressee, our address, and some supposed credit account info, including PIN, notifying the addressee of easy auto financing. A Google search on National Credit Council revealed some government agency in the Philippines by that name. I also checked the telephone directory for the addressee and there is a person by that name in another town.

It's probably just a simple mistake, but I contacted USPS anyway for advice. I explained that we're the only ones that have ever had this street number and we don't know the person who's erroneously listed at our address. USPS suggested that I simply write 'Refused not at the address" and put it in the outgoing mail. I followed their advice. I'm probably making a big thing out of nothing, but also notified the Governor's office of this mistake. Who knows? I don’t want an FDLE SWAT team kicking in the door some morning looking for this person. I've read about mistakes like that happening. You'd be surprised at the problems simple mistakes can cause.