From the December 1998 Idaho Observer:
Innocent grandfather faces eight years
"I refused to plead guilty to anything because I am innocent and I truly thought that the court system would work. Unfortunately, I found out this is not the case." T.J. Burris
by Investigative Reporter Edward Snook
of The Oregon Observer
JOSEPHINE COUNTY, Ore.--On November 16, 1998, 65 year-old T.J. (Jack) Burris of Hugo was sentenced to 20 years for sex crimes that he did not commit. Under Measure 11 mandatory sentencing guidelines, Burris would have to spend eight plus years behind bars and the remaining twelve years of his sentence on parole.
Burris went through two trials in Josephine County, the first of which resulted in "not guilty" verdicts on the three most serious charges, as well as a hung jury on five additional (stacked) charges. The Josephine County District Attorney's Office had reportedly agreed to accept the verdict as final, yet after the "not guilty" verdict was announced, it informed the court it would try a second time to convict Burris. Judge Loyd O'Neal quickly agreed to allow a second trial.
The second trial resulted in a conviction by a provably contaminated jury on all five of the charges which were undecided from the first trial, due to the absolute fact that Judge Loyd O'Neal combined his efforts with those of Deputy District Attorney Jody Stutsman Vaughan and Oregon State Police (OSP) Detective John Anderson to withhold pertinent evidence from the jury which would have vindicated T.J. Burris.
Judge O'Neal has proven to many people that he is capable of presiding over a false conviction trial, that he is an expert at threatening witnesses before they testify and that acting rude, threatening and abusive towards a packed courtroom during the sentencing phase of this absolute mockery of justice was like second nature to this spineless coward.
Realizing that no one would face the truth during the Burris trial, let's see how O'Neal and his disgraceful cohorts deal with the truth now that we have moved from a corrupted courtroom to the "Court of Public Opinion."
The Facts About T.J. Burris & His Case
OSP Detective John Anderson: The Manufacturer of A False Conviction
This case was "investigated" (manufactured) by Detective John Anderson, so let's begin our analysis by looking at what he did and didn't do and how concerned he was with the truth as he conducted his "investigation."
On November 17, 1998, one day after the sentencing of T.J. Burris, out of fairness I called Detective Anderson, taking into account that he is an "elder" at the First Assembly of God church in Grants Pass. His response was, "I don't have time to meet with you, go ahead and write what you think you have to write."
Quite the arrogant attitude when you consider that this supposed public servant ignored the truth and turned his head the other way as crimes were presented to him regarding T.J. Burris' accusers.
First off, Anderson was called in by the State Offices Of Services To Children And Families (SOSCF-- formerly known as CSD). Instead of setting out to find the truth about the allegations against Burris, Anderson did as many officers do: He started building a case against Burris in an attempt to get a conviction against him. In the process Anderson ignored the truth--along with a substantial amount of pertinent evidence.
Many innocent people are charged with a crime and ultimately convicted by this approach as the investigator becomes blind to anything that would prove a person's innocence. Once committed in the direction of a conviction, the investigator becomes desperate to find any shred of information that can be used to manufacture the appearance of guilt.
Instead of doing a thorough investigation and then taking a close look at the evidence, Anderson took a blind position, signed a "Probable Cause Affidavit," arrested Burris, and the rest is history. At this point, how could Anderson, when and if he was presented with evidence of T.J.'s innocence, back out of his false arrest?
Well, the when and if did occur. Many witnesses have come forward with evidence of T.J. Burris' innocence.
Questions for Detective Anderson:
We have been informed that between the two trials the alleged victim, Burris' granddaughter Dannielle Burris, went to SOSCF and informed the state agency that her father was beating her. She was reportedly taken from the home and then a short time later she admitted to SOSCF that she had lied and was returned home.
Do we have our information straight about this "credible" witness, Detective Anderson? Did the alleged victim lie convincingly enough to have SOSCF remove her from the home and then admit to her lie so that she could go home, or is it possible that you and the District Attorney (DA) were attempting to protect your prosecution of Burris and that you had her returned home and then covered up the incident?
Nothing was said in court about this, just like there was nothing said about anything that would have shown that T.J. Burris was innocent. Is it any wonder the judge found the witnesses credible, considering that Burris wasn't allowed the opportunity to impeach their credibility?
The church incident
According to witnesses (and reports), while Burris was out on bail the mother of the alleged victim called the DA with an accusation that T.J. had appeared in church and sat behind her children in an attempt to intimidate them. Immediately, Anderson and Vaughan were after Burris.
Realizing that a condition of T.J.'s release was that he stay away from the children, this was clearly an attempt to get his bail revoked and have him locked up. Did Burris go to the church and intimidate the alleged victims?
This was clearly a false allegation (concocted by Georgia Hope Burris--the alleged victim's mother) as the preacher of the church was very adamant that Burris had not entered his church on the day in question. The white pick-up that Georgia and her daughters were used to seeing T.J. drive (the one they stated in their complaint was parked at the church) was not even in his possession on this occasion.
According to a credible witness, Anderson stated that this episode had nothing to do with the case; I say that this incident has everything to do with not only the case, it completely exposes the malicious intent of both Anderson and DA Vaughan and the capability of Georgia Burris to manufacture lies at the expense of others.
Why wouldn't Georgia Burris create a lie about sex abuse if she could lie so convincingly about T.J. coming to church? And further, she had her children and one of their friends also lie. The fact is, Anderson simply wasn't out to investigate, he was out to convict and to hell with truth and justice.
The Moose Lodge incident
The alleged victim's parents, John and Georgia Burris, went to the Moose Lodge in Merlin where T.J. Burris was present with numerous friends. John Burris, who according to witnesses was visibly intoxicated, told T.J. and others they had to leave, as a condition of T.J's release was that he could not be around the parents as well as the children.
T.J. left immediately. However, when John informed certain friends that they should also leave, one friend told him to "go to hell."
Is it any surprise that John and Georgia then filed another report attempting to have T.J's bail revoked? This second attempt failed, yet we should note that Deputy DA Jody Stutsman Vaughan and Detective Anderson went after Burris on this false allegation just as they did on all others, and it was only when they saw that there were too many witnesses that they backed off.
Now, how about some more evidence which was not allowed in court?
While Judge O'Neal was deciding a motion for a new trial which was filed by T.J.'s attorney Claudia Brown, Georgia Burris was walking through the fairgrounds with one of the jurors who voted to convict Burris. Georgia saw T.J. at this time and guess what, another false charge was sent to DA Vaughan. Once again Vaughan went after T.J. with the help of Anderson and once again their all-out efforts to destroy Mr. Burris were thwarted because of eye witnesses.
Did Georgia Burris know the young juror gal before the trial started? We have received evidence that she very likely did, and that this was not disclosed during the jury selection process.
There is much more to write about regarding Detective Anderson which will be presented at a later date, so let's just leave Anderson with a few more questions since he is too busy and unconcerned to speak with us.
More questions for Detective Anderson:
Did your soon-to-be infamous investigation happen to turn up any witnesses who state that the reason John and Georgia Burris charged Mr. Burris was that he had threatened to contact the SOSCF if they didn't start taking care of their children? Ours has, Detective Anderson.
Did witnesses tell you that John and Georgia Burris were thieves and that they were out to destroy Burris and to steal his property? Credible witnesses sure told us this.
Realizing that one of the main witnesses against T.J. was his ex-wife Barbara Burris, did you find any reasons as to why she would possibly lie on the witness stand? Our investigation has turned up some very substantial reasons, Detective Anderson.
What our investigations have uncovered
Barbara testified that when Dannielle Burris (one of the alleged victims) was sent home from school with head lice and while she and T.J. were giving her a bath she observed that there was a small rash on her backside. T.J. testified that there were severe "impetigo" type sores around her vagina, which they washed and then treated with medication.
Apart from the mountain of evidence that was withheld from the jury, this testimony made T.J. out to be a liar when he was telling the absolute truth. We have three separate witnesses who will testify that Barbara told them about the severe sores and their location. Wouldn't this lead any prudent person to believe that Barbara committed perjury on the witness stand?
According to witnesses, Georgia threatened Barbara with not letting her see her grandson again if she didn't go along with the "program."
We have also received statements that Barbara has been committing fraud against the State of Oregon for quite some time. Barbara must report her income to the state as she receives a disability check each month. We are told that she has been having Georgia Burris and others turn in false claims for supposedly giving her care when they actually haven't.
We are also told that these people receive checks for this care which is not given and that they cash the checks and then give the cash to Barbara so she doesn't have to turn it in on her income reports to the State Disability Division.
By the way, one of the people who informed us of this alleged fraud is one of the people who was actively taking part in obtaining and cashing the checks and a second witness admitted to giving Barbara funds from a third party.
Could this information possibly be a motive to lie, Detective Anderson?
Oh, and by the way Detective Anderson, do you know anything about case #005927300? This a case which Georgia Burris is involved in, out of Marysville, California, detective. You might want to look into it as the T.J. Burris false conviction case is far from over, in fact it is only beginning. And don't look into this case as you did T.J.'s, do a real investigation and look at the applications that Georgia filled out in order to obtain the state funds in question.
Why did Anderson ignore the three attempts by John and Georgia Burris to have T.J. arrested instead of doing his job--which would have been to charge them with filing false police reports?
We uncovered the alleged fraud and much more damning evidence against John and Georgia Burris and their witnesses in a period of two weeks. Had Anderson been after the truth, he certainly could have been able to find some of this evidence during his 2 1/2 year involvement with this case.
The rest of this article will present a solid indictment against an incompetent and unjust judge, as well as Deputy DA Vaughan who, in our opinion, belongs behind bars. While reading about this corrupted human tandem, be aware that Detective John Anderson either had access to, or personally witnessed, the following abuse.
Deputy District Attorney Jody Stutsman Vaughan
A Twisting & Compulsive Liar?
As I attended the sentencing phase of T.J. Burris' bogus trial with a packed courtroom of people who supported this innocent grandfather, I watched a compulsive liar repeatedly twist the truth in her all-out attempt to deceive the people, regarding the "facts" of the case. I might add, the real facts were not allowed to be heard in the courtroom.
I watched her falsely ridicule T.J. Burris as she made some very lame attempts to make a bunch of criminals (the accusers) appear as victims, when they should have been the ones on trial for ruining their children.
Name calling? Politically incorrect? You bet! If anyone expects The Oregon Observer to sit back and politely accept the false and malicious prosecution of yet another fellow American, they are definitely dreaming.
Shouldn't we all be repulsed by anyone who is so perverted that they will cover up the truth and destroy an innocent person? Shouldn't we all be repulsed by anyone who will lie repeatedly, without conscience, when a decent human being's liberty is at stake?
A deeper look at Jody Stutsman Vaughan's involvement in the false and malicious prosecution of T.J. Burris
Above everything, Jody Vaughan is guilty of sending an innocent T.J. Burris to prison. We have received compelling evidence that there are numerous other cases in Josephine County in which she has prosecuted innocent people, all under the "watchful eye" of her boss, Timothy R. Thompson, the same boss who touts that his office processes 6,000 cases a year and that it has a 98 percent conviction rate. Considering that his office consistently uses coercion, force, threats, and lies to gain many of these convictions, I fail to understand what he has to be proud of.
According to witnesses and reports, it appears that Vaughan had some substantial theft charges dropped against John and Georgia Burris.
John and Georgia Burris were charged after an investigation found that they had stolen parts from a truck and sold them. They also allegedly sold tools belonging to the same person who owned the truck. When the theft case was taken to the grand jury, witnesses report that Vaughan entered the grand jury room and that the charges were then dropped against John and Georgia Burris.
What if the charges hadn't been dropped? Vaughan would have been attempting to prosecute T.J. Burris using witnesses charged with serious crimes themselves, and this wouldn't look too good to a jury.
Could we consider these alleged actions by Vaughan to be a major conflict of interest, jury tampering, obstruction of justice, or is this type of allegedly perverted action actually all of the above?
Stacked charges? We find that Vaughan stacked charges against T.J. Burris. Vaughan charged T.J. with eight separate crimes. This is usually done so that a prosecutor can force a person to plead guilty (plea bargain).
What would you do if you were innocent, yet facing eight plus years in prison? Most people take the bribe and plead guilty to one or two counts in order to avoid prison, while at the same time they take on the stigma of being a convicted felon. Vaughan used "Measure 11" sentencing guidelines in an attempt to intimidate Burris, just as she has in many other documented cases. However, Burris didn't buy into this corrupted offer.
"I refused to plead guilty to anything because I am innocent and I truly thought that the court system would work. Unfortunately, I found out that this is not the case," commented Burris.
Sexual abuse: Who is really guilty?
How about the "charges" themselves, Vaughan? When Jody Vaughan was attempting to retry her case at the sentencing hearing November 16, 1998, she emphasized to the court that the alleged victim had a "thickened hymen" and then went on in her own pitiful way to blame Mr. Burris for this.
Why didn't Vaughan tell the court that a witness (and family friend of John and Georgia's) stated that he caught the so-called victim having oral and consensual sex with his son in Vancouver, Washington, in late 1995 and even more important, why did she hide this fact from the jury during the trial?
Why didn't she inform the court and the jury about witnesses' statements that John and Georgia watched Three X and Four X rated films right in the presence of their daughters? Why didn't she mention the eye witness testimony that the young girls had sex with their older brother?
Why didn't Jody Vaughan ever mention the statement allegedly made by John Burris about him waking up one night to find his daughter fondling him sexually?
Why didn't Vaughan talk about all the pornographic materials (magazines) that were readily available to the alleged victims (in their own living-room)?
Why didn't our illustrious DA mention that the alleged victims little brother had been sent home from school for bringing a pornographic Hustler magazine to class?
Why wasn't there any mention of the fact that a witness reported seeing John and Georgia having sex in the middle of the living-room, in the middle of the day, with the doors unlocked and their children (including the alleged victims) running around?
Beg my pardon, Jody Vaughan, do you remember informing the court during T.J.'s sentencing that, "Mr. Burris' action's have ruined this family as far as functioning."
Are you starting to get the picture of the type of people that you have "jumped in bed with," Ms. Vaughan? And are you beginning to see who is really guilty for the dysfunctional condition of this family?
I'm sure you were aware that John Burris fought his way through the trial, "between six packs" and now he is reportedly up in Portland going through alcohol rehabilitation. You simply amaze me, Ms. Vaughan.
How about another bombshell, Jody?
Do you recall that a witness reportedly came into your office before T.J.'s second trial was over, to inform you that Georgia had just accused him of molesting her children and that he was dealing drugs out of his business? Doesn't this incident establish a pattern of questionable behavior on the part of your star witness, Jody? Isn't this exculpatory evidence Ms. Vaughan? Isn't prosecutorial misconduct the term used for withholding such evidence from the defense?
The deceit which you and your crony judge have perpetrated on Mr. Burris and upon justice itself is both unbelievable and unforgivable and just imagine how naive Mr. Burris was when he stated to me, "I don't think she's a bad person, I think she just believed the children."
Mr. Burris has far too good of a heart, and the fact is that you have about as much attachment to the truth as does Detective Anderson. I'd better move on to our corrupted judge at this point before I really get into some name calling...
Is Judge Lloyd O'Neal stricken with the "God syndrome?"
From his very first threats directed at witnesses of T.J. Burris, to his threats at the sentencing hearing, O'Neal was anything but smart in the manner in which he perpetrated his seething and corrupt influence on the trial, as well as his attack upon justice itself. One example was that no one was to refer to Mr. Burris' first trial as a trial. They were directed by the court to lie to the jury in that they could only relate to it as a hearing.
I witnessed O'Neal act like a threatening, childish bully, as he sentenced T.J. Burris. O'Neal ranted, "Who's whispering back there? Who wants to go to jail? Do I have any volunteers?"
I can just imagine that this Pee Wee Herman-type of individual was bullied himself as a youngster, and that he finally got himself behind a "bench" where he can now in turn, bully others. I am sure that O'Neal has some haunting memories from his childhood which justify in his mind how he treats people in his official capacity.
I have witnessed some pretty despicable judges in my day, yet never have I encountered the likes of O'Neal.
When he stated, "This is my courtroom," I can only assume that senility is setting in. In all fairness I should inform this overbearing "Hitler-type" individual that the courtroom he occupies just so happens to belong to the citizens of Josephine County, and that he is only a referee in our courtroom.
O'Neal stated at the Burris sentencing (in response to T.J. Burris' statement that the truth wasn't allowed to come out during his trial) that, "I also withheld evidence that would have been damaging to you Mr. Burris."
I'm sure anxious to find out what this "evidence" is because I haven't heard a single word against Burris, except that which came from proven liars and thieves.
Before the second trial began, T.J. Burris' attorney, Claudia Brown asked the judge to recuse himself due to the fact that Burris felt he couldn't get a fair hearing in front of O'Neal. The judge refused to step down from the case, claiming that the second trial was a continuation of the first trial and not actually a new trial. Amazing.
Obviously Burris' request for a different judge was the result of O'Neal's actions during the first trial, and it has been proven that Burris was right, as he certainly didn't receive a fair trial the second go-around.
O'Neal attempts contaminated jury cover up
O'Neal stated to Burris, "You received a fair trial, not a perfect one."
More deceit? From the judge's statement we are to accept that an imperfect trial is fair? Can you imagine what it feels like to go through an imperfect trial when your liberty is dependent on the outcome? O'Neal's statement about a "fair trial" is simply a lie, just as this entire sham proceeding was a lie. They wanted a conviction and they didn't care how they got it.
The truth about the trial is that, as the jurors were questioned, the seed of guilt was well-planted before the jury selection was ever completed. After two potential jurors stated that they couldn't be impartial, the judge allowed them to explain why they believed T.J. was guilty. One explanation was that he couldn't possibly be innocent of all the charges since there were so many (stacked) of them.
Another juror stated that he went to church with Detective Anderson and he would believe everything Anderson had to say. This juror was excused by the judge, however another young female juror (the same one who was walking through the fairgrounds with Georgia Burris) was allowed to remain on the jury, even after she told the court that she went to the First Assembly of God Church with Anderson.
Noting that Anderson was committed to getting Burris, are we to believe that this gal would go against the desires of an "elder" from her church? The truth is, this jury was tainted before the trial ever began. Three separate jurors (including one who was dismissed by the DA) have stated that the seed of guilt was planted before the trial even started.
We have already spelled out (in part) the ridiculous amount of evidence that was not allowed in this trial, so let's move on to the jury deliberations.
After the jury found Burris guilty by a 10-2 margin, the two jurors who had voted not guilty, signed unsolicited affidavits regarding jury contamination and delivered them to Claudia Brown. Subsequently Brown filed a motion for a new trial.
During voir dire (jury questioning prior to the trial), O'Neal asked the jurors, "Have any of you ever been the victim of sexual abuse yourself or someone in your close or immediate family, you know, son, daughter, husband, wife, or anyone, you know, really close to you? Any of you ever have that in your background that, you know, you might not be able to set that aside and be a fair and impartial juror? Is that a problem with any of you, that you've had close person, family member or yourself been the victim?"
Why did O'Neal ask those questions?
First off, it was to give the appearance of fairness even though the judge had already decided to annihilate T.J. Burris. Second, Burris' attorney would have had to question them regarding this issue had the judge not decided to ask them.
One juror, Lois Montgomery, said absolutely nothing during voir dire about being molested and was subsequently placed on the jury. She now claims that she was molested by both her grandfather as well as a boyfriend. This is the same juror whose vote decided the guilty verdict, and our totally incompetent Judge O'Neal would ask us to believe that Burris had a "fair trial."
According to one juror's affidavit, "We had been deliberating for quite some time when one of the jurors, I believe Lois Montgomery, began sobbing loudly in the bathroom. When she came out of the bathroom, she said that she was sexually molested by her grandfather. She was having a very difficult time talking because she was sobbing so hard. She said she didn't remember how old she was at the time, but she remembered that her grandfather touched her and that the touching was sexual molesting."
The other juror's affidavit stated, "We went into the jury room and started deliberating. When we were deliberating on the count of penetration with a foreign object, the other jurors were concentrating on trying to change Lois Montgomery's vote. She broke down and went off to the bathroom and then a few minutes later she came out sobbing and said that her grandfather had molested her as a child and that he had done all of the things to her that the children in the present case said the defendant had done to them. Then she said something like, in light of this, I am going to change my vote to guilty." This juror's affidavit went on to state, "I believe that the defendant did not get a fair trial."
At the hearing for a new trial O'Neal and the DA had already decided which jurors they would bring in for questioning and subpoenas had been issued. Lois Montgomery and the foreman of the jury, a Mr. Walz, were both subpoenaed. Mr. Walz chose not to come to court and O'Neal did nothing about his failure to appear even though one of the affidavit's stated, "Also, on Friday before the trial was over, Mr. Walz who subsequently became the foreman of the jury said, 'I don't know about you guys, but I'm for the kids, those kids...' All of the jurors in the room could have heard the statement as I heard it from across the room."
The jury is not to discuss the case until they begin their deliberations, so what does this bit of evidence say about Judge O'Neal? And don't forget, he had this affidavit in his possession as he denied Burris' motion for a new trial.
Montgomery began her testimony by perjuring herself a number of times, again with O'Neal doing nothing and then she recanted and said that she believed a boyfriend had actually molested her.
Montgomery did finally inform the court that her grandfather had molested her, however the judge chose to ignore this fact. The judge claimed that her alleged abuse occurred within a consensual relationship between adults and he didn't even approach the issue of her grandfather.
O'Neal referred to Montgomery by a different last name and he stated that since Montgomery's situation involved a boyfriend and not child abuse that he was denying the motion for a new trial.
I am always amazed at how ignorant crooks are, but O'Neal takes the cake. While he has the affidavits (printed above) right in front of him which state that Montgomery was molested by her grandfather, he totally ignored this fact and covered up the entire matter. If he would have acknowledged the abuse instead of ignoring it, even as prejudiced as he has shown himself to be throughout both trials, O'Neal would have had to grant the motion for a new trial. It certainly doesn't take a genius to figure out that O'Neal was biased and that he was out to assist the prosecution in this false conviction, or better put, in this "star chamber" trial.
Another issue of great importance occurred at the sentencing hearing. Terrance McCauley, Burris' new attorney, notified the court that he would be filing another motion for a new trial since Claudia Brown had filed her motion at the wrong time and thus the court had heard the matter prematurely.
Jody Stutsman Vaughan instructed her partner Judge Loyd O'Neal that he could just ignore this motion for twenty days and that would make the issue moot. What can we expect from this corrupt and vile judge? If he follows Vaughan's instructions as he did throughout the trial, then we can expect him to ignore the new and valid motion for a new trial. If he refuses to grant a hearing on the matter, O'Neal will look all the worse in the months to come.
I am betting that we won't hear anything from O'Neal and that he will follow Jody Stutsman Vaughan's instructions which, in turn, will end up "biting him."
Whatever this corrupted judge does will not change the absolute fact that T.J. Burris is an innocent man who was placed behind bars wrongfully through the combined efforts of a crooked judge, an unconscionable prosecutor and a duplicitous detective.
So, sue me
I sincerely hope to God that none of the jurors who voted as they were directed to vote by the judge and prosecutor get any sleep after reading this article. I also hope that those jurors never have to face or go through the terrible ordeal that was forced upon one of the finest men (T.J. Burris) I have ever had the opportunity to get to know.
I ask all who read this article to realize that if what I have written isn't true and if I wasn't able to prove each and every allegation, the crooks I have named would file lawsuits against me, especially Judge O'Neal, who is prone to file suits when he is "damaged."
You won't see that happen because they know that I would honestly welcome an opportunity to show the world a little more evidence regarding perverts and crooks, as well as further proving the innocence of T.J. Burris.
If I were a beggar, I would beg these degenerates, or "corpulent rats," as they are referred to in Josephine County, to sue me, however I fully realize this won't happen, for these cowards could not stand for this evidence to come out in court, nor could they stand the public exposure which this would create.
I want to stress once again to the citizens of Josephine County that T.J. Burris is, without question, an innocent man and that his false conviction will be overturned. Had The Oregon Observer been involved before T.J. was convicted, there would not have been a conviction.
When false prosecutions take place in a community, no one is safe. At any given moment someone could get mad at, want to get even with, or want to take (whatever) from any of us. In order to accomplish this, all that they have to do is go see a crooked, power hungry DA or "officer of the law" and tell a few lies.
We don't have to put up with this dangerous disease called false prosecution, fellow Americans. If you don't believe me, just sit back and watch how fast this matter is resolved. Just sit back and watch how long Loyd O'Neal remains on his "self proclaimed throne." Just sit back and watch how long our out-of-control District Attorney's Office keeps falsely prosecuting our innocent neighbors, after the judge is recalled from his place on our bench.
We have dangerous criminals on the streets and the employees of our justice system need to spend their time going after them instead of manufacturing and prosecuting cases against the innocent.
To the citizens of Josephine County:
You have made a very powerful statement with your vote in the last election. You informed your incumbent sheriff and your incumbent commissioner that you are tired: Tired of being stolen from, tired of your complaints falling on deaf ears and in a powerful message you said that you were tired of false and malicious prosecutions. You are tired of our supposed public servants beating the hell out of us and our pocketbooks, while they turn their backs on our complaints.
Things weren't working, so voters in Josephine County elected a challenger named Dave Daniel for sheriff and elected a challenger named Frank Iverson as commissioner (See page 1).
To the citizens of all other counties:
The voters in Josephine County started a movement which all of America will envy, a movement which is first of all and most importantly, unorganized. It is a vast number of individuals who amazingly still have the ability to think and act. A movement which reminds public officials of what they have apparently forgotten: That they work for us, that they are accountable and that they must ultimately answer to us.
The Oregon Observer and The Idaho Observer commend the voters of Josephine County for their good old intestinal fortitude, and at the same time we warn the voter, "don't fall asleep. For God's sake finish what you have started."
When public servants cease performing as public servants, get rid of them. It is imperative that you stop false and malicious prosecutions for the simple reason that you might be next.
Besides, if we cannot control the activities of our county commissioners, our district attorneys and our local judges, how on earth do we propose to control the activities of our state officials and our federal officials?
Home - Current Edition
Advertising Rate Sheet
About the Idaho Observer
Some recent articles
Some older articles
Why we're here
Corrections and Clarifications
Vaccination Liberation - vaclib.org
The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869