This letter was sent to me 75 days after I asked Elliot Phelps to look into false statements made by Angela Mead (DHS Supervisor) to Jody Martinez of the State Department of Human Services. Angela Mead also made these false statements to the Citizens Review Panel. Linda Connors (Larimer County Attorney) who gave legal advice to both DHS and the Citizens Review Panel, on September 15, 3009, sent me an e-mail on October 8, 2009, stating the opposite of what I answered to a question of the Panel, and what my mother testified, on July 7, 2009. Thus both Angela Mead and Linda Connors made false statements in a child abuse case, which does not seem to be a concern to Larry Abrahamson, Elliot Phelps of the Larimer County DA's Office. The use false statements in child abuse cases does not seem to concern George Kennedy, Lloyd Malone, and Josephine Martinez of the State Department of Human Services. Thus the use of the truth by both the Larimer County District Attorney and the Department of Human Services which would ensure the welfare of children is secondary to these departments. Thus, Larry Abrahamson and Elliot Phelps have decided that the use of false statements to the State level, and to the Citizens Review Panel is acceptable. The fact that Ginny Riley has decided not to comply with the recommendation of the Citizens Review Panel, and provide me with the evidence that they used at the Citizens Review Panel (my file), to see what other false statements were made in my case, that this is acceptable. Read the other post about Steve Johnson and Larry Abrahamson, about the comment of the person who gave his thoughts about how the Fruhling case is simular to the Tim Master's case. Enough said about the corruption that has been cultivated under the leadership of Larry Abrahamson at the Larimer County District Attorneys Office.
Letter Elliot Phelps, the letter head did not copy:
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 8thJudicial District