On Dec. 28, 1999, I filed a complaint with the Sheriff's Department regarding a bully bailiff's incident that took place on the Public Safety Complex building on Dec. 15, 1999.
To date, no one from the sheriff's office or other investigative entity has contacted me, the "victim" to determine what occurred.
Is it customary within the Carson City Sheriff's Department for a so-called investigation of a crime to be one-sided where only the perpetrators of a crime are interviewed? I recognize that a victim is "alleged" and a perpetrator is "alleged," but until both sides of the story are heard, only one side of the story exists, and the choice was made early on what side of the story was to be heard and believed. If it were anything other than that, I would have been contacted.
Deputy Sheriff Scott Burau reported to the Nevada Appeal that the form I filed out was an "information sheet" and not a complaint. OK, so that means this "information sheet" represents the sheriff's investigation of my complaint in its entirely. Boy, howdy! All of Carson City can rest easy with this sort of keenly astute investigative techniques employed by our Sheriff's Department.
The Sheriff's Department lost my complaint for three weeks, and my phone inquiries resulted in nothing more than promises that someone would return my calls, which never happened.
Is it customary for the Sheriff's Department to hand over the original copies of a complaint to the District Attorney's Office in its entirety, keeping no record within the Sheriff's Department which happened with my complaint? Makes it a little too easy to be filed in the round file. Is it customary at the Sheriff's Department for complaints to remain lost and disappear for weeks at a time?
The sheriff's office may respond that its investigation determined that no crime took place. How would they know that if no one ever interviewed me? Yes, I filled out an "information sheet," but I ask, did the sheriff's office rely solely on the bully bailiff's short statement only? Absolutely not!
In fact, our top law enforcement official, Noel Waters, used the power and resource of his office to quiet me through sanctions because of my civil rights lawsuit. That suit became necessary because the sheriff's office failed to do its job. Really, the Sheriff's Department would better serve the public and themselves if crimes were investigated regardless of who the victim is, and regardless of who the perpetrators of a crime are. Your inaction on this case is improper, disappointing and not for the good of the resident of Carson City.
I don't know exactly what the sheriff's oath of office contains, but I would guess it addresses a responsibility and promise to uphold the laws of the state of Nevada and Carson City, and to properly supervise his men. Perhaps the oath of sheriff should be amended to promise to uphold the laws only if the district attorney says it's OK to be a sheriff of integrity and as long as the elite of Carson City are not the perpetrators of crime.
Perhaps we would know more about the death of 16-year-old Natasha Jennings if only our sheriff and other public officials spent as much time addressing citizen concerns as they do covering up their own misdeeds and irresponsible behaviors, and to spend taxpayer money wisely by investigating crimes objectively and equally without regard to the social status of the victim or the perpetrators of crime.