This is some of the questions I would like to get Mr. Abrahamson to answer, as he sent Carol a long letter on case number 06CR703. I feel that if Mr. Abrahamson had ethics and integrity he would provide me with the evidence to support the claims he has made about my case?
I have to say that I can find no reason why you would want to keep from making your department look like it was acting with ethics and integrity? The only reason that I can think of is because you and your department have not been acting with ethics and integrity. There is one document, well a few documents that prove why the $35,000 was stolen. I feel that competent prosecutors would have asked for these documents to support their claim that no crime occurred. As David Vandenberg, Andrew Lewis, Emily Humphrey and yourself seem to lack the competence to ask for these documents/evidence that would prove that the a theft occurred. However, from the "Trust Me"
letter that you sent me, and the use of the words "capable attorneys"
rather than "competent attorneys
" I think is good evidence that you know that the work that was done in this case was not competent work and that the truth was not the main focus or used in my cases. Thus I feel until you provide me with the evidence, that supports your claims I will continue to ask for this evidence. I feel that a man with ethics and integrity would do that.
Strange how you are going to give an award to those who are helping victims. I feel that the group Judicial Justice should get this award because of the work they are doing to bring about changes to prevent you, Andrew Lewis, Emily Humphrey, David Vandenberg from causing more harm to citizens of Larimer County. I will include in this list Elliot Phelps for his capable ability to determine that Angela Mead and Linda Connors can make false/fabricated statements in a sexual abuse case of a child and no crime was committed. I am attaching the letter from Elliot Phelps as proof of my claim. I am also posting this to the website
because this is to important for the citizens of Larimer County and they should know how far you and your office is willing to go protect your own and let child be sexually abused rather than bring ethics and integrity to the Larimer County DA's Office.
What follows is the letter I received from Elliot Phelps where he states that Angela Mead (DHS Supervisor) and Linda Connors (Larimer County Attorney) made false/fabricated statements to the State in a sexual abuse case of a child.
Greg Leverett November 15, 2010
1333 Moline Street #207
Aurora, CO. 80010
Reference; DHS Complaint
After review by our office, a determination has been made that your complaint does not constitute a criminal violation in this situation.
To prove a case of perjury or false swearing under C.R.S.18-8-501 to -509 several elements must be met. In this case, two elements of concern are the requirement that the statement be: (1) made “under oath” and (2) “materially false.”
Pursuant to 18-8-501, an “oath” is an affirmation as authorized by law of attesting to the truth of that which is stated. The evidence in this instance would indicate that the statements presented to the CRP were not made under oath as the presenting witnesses are not sworn in. Thus, a charge of perjury is not sustainable in a court of law as the element of “oath” is not present.
Pursuant to 18-8-501, a “materially false statement” is one which could have affected the course or outcome of an official proceeding, or the action or decision of a public servant, or the performance of a governmental function. The statements complained of concern statements made regarding whether you were present when the child in question disclosed abuse to your Mother, and of a possible conversation with your Mother concerning a claim that the child was no longer going to the house were the abuse occurred. Neither statement can be considered “material.” The allegation regarding the child abuse was investigated. Whether there was one person present, or two, when the child disclosed information to the mother, is not “material” to the investigative steps taken by DHS. The ultimate issue is whether the allegation by the child is true and can be substantiated. The same is true concerning the statement that your Mother had claimed that the child had not been going to the residence where the alleged act occurred. It does not appear that this statement has relevance to the investigation concerning the truth or substantiation of the investigation. Also, both these statements were brought to the attention of the CRP, who found no wrongdoing on the agencies part. The agency further reopened their investigation, knowing of these complaints as made by you and it had no effect as to a material fact. More material to the outcome of the investigation was the actual statements made by the child in question, not whether you were or were not present when the child told your Mother about the abuse, and not whether your Mother knew about where the child had been visiting. Again, a charge of perjury is not sustainable in a court of law as the element of “material statement” is not present.
Given that each and every element of a crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no sustainable action for perjury.
Attached to this document you will find a copy of the state statue regarding perjury. As discussed in previous phone conversations, while there is not an actionable criminal violation for perjury, you may have additional courses of action through the state for a review of your complaint regarding DHS.
Office of the District Attorney
What Elliot Phelps did not investigate was the fact that DHS Ginny Riley did not follow the recommendation to provide me with the evidence used at the CRP. Thus Larry Abrahamson and Elliot Phelps seem to agree that the withholding of evidence is appropriate in cases of sexual abuse of children. As Ginny Riley does not want to allow me to review other statements used in this case, one can only assume that more false/fabricated statements are contained in the file. Thus Larry Abrahamson and Elliot Phelps seem to support the withholding of evidence that may cause damage to their claims.