Suscribe to Weekly RiverCitiesReader.com Updates
* indicates required

View previous campaigns.

Latest Comments

  • GET A GRIP
    Get a grip, I bet the other little girl who...
  • ...
    Love the show - Daniel Mansfield
  • On target
    Everyone I have shared your editorial finds it really close...
  • Retired teacher
    Loved reading how such an outstanding citizen was able to...
  • Re: name correction
    Thank you for bringing the error to our attention, Lorianne,...
Speed Bump Ahead: Police and County Attorney Moved Too Fast to Prosecute Keith Meyer, While a Jury Trial Proved Common Sense Can Prevail PDF Print E-mail
Commentary/Politics - Editorials
Written by Todd McGreevy   
Thursday, 07 March 2013 08:40

(Note: Links to PDF documents can be found within this article.)

This photo, entered into evidence by the Scott County assistant attorney in the jury trial of Keith Meyer, shows Meyer on his property at 1012 Marquette Street in Davenport.

Last week, justice was served in Scott County when a jury of 12 level-headed Iowans found Keith Meyer, Davenport’s former Ward 3 alderman, not guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor: “assault while displaying a weapon.” In November, Meyer was accused by his neighbor, John Fahs – with whom he has a well-documented history of trouble – and arrested by Davenport police. If convicted, Meyer could have been sentenced for up to two years in prison.

Meyer chose to represent himself in this matter, which necessarily consumed his time and energy for four months. It is no small matter to represent yourself in the administrative code system, because the rules are stacked against regular folks without attorneys. But Meyer is not your typical go-along-to-get-along citizen, and he is clearly smarter than your average bear. In addition, he is nearly totally deaf. Yet he prevailed, albeit largely because the prosecutor’s case was so weak.

The case against Meyer should never have been brought. There was no injured party. It was bogus from the jump. Back when courts made more sense, any charge that could potentially result in being jailed for more than 30 days required a grand-jury indictment. Today, however, under administrative procedural rules, county attorneys have effectively usurped the people’s authority by removing grand juries from the process.

No longer does a grand jury determine if allegations merit criminal prosecution and due process for the accused. Instead, county prosecutors make that determination based on precious little evidence showing harm to persons or property. The system is made deliberately complex so that most accused plead out to minimize time and cost.

Such a hijacked process favors the state’s objective within the statutory system: maximize revenues. In Scott County alone, charges are brought nearly 5,000 times per year by the Scott County attorney, bypassing grand-jury oversight altogether and basing costly prosecutions solely on a boilerplate affidavit that states, “Facts known to me or told to me by other reliable persons form the basis for my belief that the defendant committed these crimes” – giving carte-blanche authority to prosecute alleged crimes, regardless of the veracity or tangibility of evidence.

In other words, if the Scott County grand jury had had a chance to do its job and review the case Fahs and the police wanted to bring against Meyer, it may very well have been rejected, saving everyone (including taxpayers) time and money – and avoiding the damage to one’s reputation that often comes with such public allegations.

The state did offer plea bargains in writing prior to the trial, and verbally during a pre-trial motion hearing in the judge’s chambers. The written offer, which Meyer declined, stipulated that Meyer plead guilty, pay a $1,000 fine plus court costs, and agree to a suspended sentence of 240 days that included a year’s probation. The verbal offers, according to Meyer, included a guilty plea and the fine reduced to $625 payable by community service, with the charge removed from his record after 12 months’ probation.

Meyer declined these plea agreements for a single, principled reason: He was not guilty. The folly of the trial proceedings was the court’s insistence that the accused not be allowed to introduce any evidence that showed the ongoing feud between Fahs and himself. The county attorney’s strategy was to isolate this one incident and prosecute it as such, and the court accommodated that strategy.

None of the documentation describing in-depth the unresolved serious problems that have prevailed between Meyer and Fahs over the years was considered relevant to Keith’s defense, including dozens of e-mails between Keith, the Davenport Police Department, the Scott County attorney’s office, and Davenport aldermen.

The central and well-documented problem between these two neighbors was Meyer putting in a speed bump to slow traffic down along the long, steep, and winding driveway that merits a slower speed for safety purposes. Fahs, who has the right to use the driveway, apparently prefers the driveway to be speed-bump-free. Meyer originally put in a speed bump in August 2012, which Fahs allegedly destroyed. This property destruction was reported to the police on numerous occasions because it resulted in several encounters between Meyer and Fahs during which Meyer claimed he was physically assaulted and threatened by Fahs.

In an e-mail, a Scott County assistant attorney determined these incidents to be over an unadjudicated civil matter, not a criminal one, and no charges were filed against Fahs. Meyer reached out repeatedly to the authorities for help/remedy for what he alleged was assault and property damage by Fahs. The response from Davenport police: “As of this time, without the county attorney moving forward with any criminal charges, we can only monitor the situation and respond with more follow-up on new allegations.”

It is no surprise then that when Meyer reinstalled a speed bump on November 11, 2012, a heated argument ensued between them. Fahs went to his house to get his camera to document the speed bump. Meyer went to his house to retrieve his shotgun for protection against what he feared would be another physical assault by Fahs.

Fahs took the opportunity to photograph Meyer holding his shotgun by his side. No picture of the speed bump was taken. Fahs then returned to his house and called the police, accusing Meyer of pointing a gun at him, threatening his life. The 911 recording reveals Fahs laughing on several occasions during the call, indicating no presence of fear. This was important evidence for the jury in determining the veracity of Fahs’ testimony that he was afraid for his life. According to one juror who asked not to be named, “He was not a credible witness.”

Download Embed Embed this video on your site Audio of John Fahs’ 911 call

Meyer repeatedly told police that he did not point his weapon at Fahs. While Fahs did allege such an act on the 911 call, he failed to affirm such a detail when questioned by police at the scene. Regardless, Meyer was arrested and the meme that Meyer “pointed a gun” was proliferated by the police filings and subsequent media coverage.

Transcripts of audio recordings by the arresting officers conclusively demonstrate the myriad flaws in the arrest process, the most alarming of which is the decision by officers to arrest Meyer first, then provide proof of probable cause second. “We take Keith Meyer to jail, we’ve got to prove we’ve got probable cause that he did something other than standing in his driveway on his property with a shotgun. All we’ve got is the neighbor saying – I don’t even know if we’ve got – ” reads the transcript of one police audio recording. The officer who made this statement was not allowed to testify during the trial, despite being named as witness by the state.

Following Meyer’s arrest and this arresting officer’s subsequent statement, questioning of Fahs can best be described as fraught with leading questions designed to elicit a specific response that would provide justification for an arrest that had already occurred. Probable cause must first be established, determining whether an arrest is justified – not the other way around.

Furthermore, the police acted as judge and jury when they accepted Fahs’ version of events over Meyer’s. Unfortunately, Iowa Code 708.2(3) is ripe for abuse by an overzealous government that can indict without a grand jury. The arresting officer even admitted during Meyer’s cross examination that there was no evidence Meyer pointed a gun.

The problem with the pictures Fahs took was twofold: First, the time stamp on the photo was dated March 2011, and Fahs claimed he took it the day of incident, on November 11, 2012. Second, several pictures claiming to be taken that day were also admitted by the state as evidence, but inconsistencies were immediately apparent to the jury. In one photo, a scoop shovel is visible, but it’s missing in the others that were supposedly taken at the same time.

Despite these glaring inconsistencies, the photos were allowed as evidence with an explanation by the prosecutor that the camera was broken when the picture was taken, corrupting the time stamp, but that Meyer was dressed in the same coveralls and shirt as the day of the arrest, thereby authenticating the reliability of the photo(s) as evidence.

Based on the transcripts of the police officers at Meyer’s home, it is hard to imagine how any prosecutor could justify proceeding with such an overwhelming lack of evidence – let alone requisite probable cause other than an emerging antagonism by authorities toward rights protected by the Second Amendment – rights that police officers swear an oath to protect. This portion of the transcribed recording of the officers’ interaction with Meyer speaks volumes to the underlying bias that played out during Meyer’s arrest.

Unidentified male officer: “You don’t run around on your public property – your property pointing guns at people.”

Meyer: “I didn’t point my gun.”

Unidentified male officer: “Really? He [Fahs] has a picture of you holding it.”

Meyer: “He was threatening me.”

Unidentified male officer: “Where?”

Unidentified female officer: “Okay, then you call us and we deal with that. That doesn’t give you the right to be seen with a gun.”

The truly confounding aspect of this particular trial is the court’s attempts to disallow any of the contentious history between Meyer and Fahs as evidence for Meyer’s justification defense. Yet during testimonies for the prosecution, numerous references were made by Fahs of his version of past confrontations with Meyer, ostensibly justifying Fahs’ alleged fear of Meyer.

The double standards that this ordeal reveal are worth noting. Meyer was not allowed to bring his laptop into the courthouse during his trial, due to a ban – except for attorneys – on electronic devices. Meyer cannot rely on his efforts to document prior incidents with Fahs as his defense, but Fahs can testify to his account of prior events. The prosecution can stipulate which police they will call as a witness, but when Meyer does not subpeona those same witnesses, he is not allowed to call them to the stand. And when the government tells us to slow down for our own safety and the safety of others, it is fiercely enforced with high-tech equipment, guns, fees, revocation of driving privileges, and the courts. But when a private property owner attempts to enforce similar speeding/safety precautions, he is arrested.

The state really did not want to allow Meyer to bring into evidence any of the past efforts he made to seek protection against Fahs’ alleged assaults and property damage. The county prosecutor filed a motion in limine to disallow any of Meyer’s previous efforts, stating: “Even if relevant, evidence related to these issues would be confusing to a jury, misleading, cause great delay and waste considerable time.” The Davenport city attorney even tried to get in the game, attempting to quash Meyer’s subpoenas of the arresting police officers on a technicality and make himself an intervenor in the trial. Since the verdict, the city of Davenport has purportedly opened up an internal investigation into an evidence technician’s recorded statement that when he was previously called to Meyer’s house, he would knock softly because he knew Meyer couldn’t hear and then he would file a report that Meyer did not come to the door. How many false reports has this evidence technician filed in other cases?

Why would the county and the city work so hard to limit Meyer’s ability to tell his side of the story? More than likely, there’s much more to this story. A juror spoke to me about this trial but only anonymously because “I feel retribution is coming from the police department. If they can do what they did to Meyer, they can do it to everybody.” This juror added: “If the cops don’t know the law, how are we supposed to know the law?”

Trackback(0)
Comments (56)Add Comment
0
Great story
written by Mike Romkey, March 08, 2013
Thanks for the good reporting, detail and analysis. And thanks to the jury for rendering justice in this case.
0
What happens now ...
written by Bobaloo, March 09, 2013
Without getting more into the case and the outcome of Mr. Meyer's trial -- what you've said was solid, BTW, and very well detailed -- I do have to wonder the obvious question that I'm sure are on a lot of minds: What happens now? What happens between Mr. Meyer and Mr. Fahs, neighbors who obviously cannot get along? Refusing to go along with the majority just for the sake of "getting along" is one thing (and right or wrong, nobody can blame Mr. Meyer for that). It is another thing to "get along" because much more can be at stake when the next major dispute comes along, and I hate to think what could be.

That all said, I know that Mr. Meyer's demeanor and struggles to get to his point sometimes irked the jury, but note that they still understood the law and arrived at the right verdict. We owe them a thank you.

As far as the editorial itself, it's like I've seen written in many mainstream newspapers' editorials. Say what you will about how you perceive their knowledge and respect of the court system, but I've seen them say this one thing: It is nothing like those syndicated TV programs like "Judge Judy" or the current version of "The People's Court" -- loud litigants who argue over each other and disrespect the judge, the judge also acting disrespectfully ... and so forth. For all of Mr. Meyer's faults, you have to give great thanks to the judge in his case for being incredibly patient and respectful of his efforts.
0
What happens next.
written by Meyer, March 11, 2013
What needs to happen now? The Davenport police department should do the investigation into the complaint that John Fahs committed a serious misdemeanor by calling 911 and providing false information.
John R. Fahs, 1010 Marquette, Davenport, Iowa committed a serious misdemeanor by making a false call to the Davenport police Department on November 11, 2012 and stating that the Defendant, Keith E. Meyer pointed a gun at him. (us)


718.6 FALSE REPORTS TO OR COMMUNICATIONS WITH PUBLIC SAFETY ENTITIES
A person who reports or causes to be reported false information to a fire department, a law enforcement authority, or other public safety entity, knowing that the information is false, or who reports the alleged occurrence of a criminal act knowing the act did not occur, commits a simple misdemeanor, unless the alleged criminal act reported is a serious or aggravated misdemeanor or felony, in which case the person commits a serious misdemeanor.

A person who telephones an emergency 911 communications center knowing that the person is not reporting an emergency or otherwise needing emergency information or assistance commits a simple misdemeanor.

A person who knowingly provides false information to a law enforcement officer who enters the information on a citation commits a simple misdemeanor, unless the criminal act for which the citation is issued is a serious or aggravated misdemeanor or felony, in which case the person commits a serious misdemeanor.




1.The Defendant did not point the gun at John R. Fahs.
2.There is no evidence that the Defendant pointed a gun at John R. Fahs.
3. On the 911 telephone call place by the victim the victim states the Defendant pointed the gun at us.


The Davenport Police Department needs to investigate,
and they will find that the evidence to charge John Fahs with making a false 911 call is there( right on their own recordings).
And then the Scott County Attorney Walton's Office should prosecute, because the evidence is there.
Thank you.
0
What happened next
written by Meyer, March 11, 2013
So before the Trial, Meyer went down to the Scott County Attorney Walton's Office and told the Receptionist he wanted to file a Criminal Complaint. He was give a form. filled it out, stating that John Fahs made a false telephone call to 911 on November 11, 2012, in saying that Meyer had pointed a gun at him.(us)
And the Receptionist took the form and told him to wait. That an Attorney would come out to see him. Shortly someone arrived with the complaint form in hand and said the matter would be turned over to the Davenport Police Department for investigation. And What happened next?
0
And then what happened next
written by Meyer, March 11, 2013
Sent: Wed, Feb 27, 2013 12:23 PMDownload All |
Tabatha

What is the status of the Criminal complaint I filed with the Scott County Attorney's Office on John R. Fahs, 1010 Marquette? I was told by an Assistant County Attorney in that office that my complaint would be referred to the Davenport Police Department.

The complaint was that John R. Fahs committed a serious misdemeanor by calling 911 on 11-11-2012 and providing false information.

Best
Keith Meyer
1012 Marquette
Hearing impaired
0
And what happenened next
written by Meyer, March 11, 2013
Mr. Meyers: Your email has been forwarded to me for review. If you were under the impression that your complaint was going to be referred to the Davenport Police Department that would be in error. Our office reviews these complaints to decide whether further investigation is warranted, or if charges should be filed or denied. Charging decisions are ultimately made by this office. In order to avoid further confusion, I have personally reviewed this matter to make the final decision. I feel the incident has been fully investigated and now litigated. Charges will not be filed against Fahs for the incident on November 11, 2012. In summary, I believe the statements made by Mr. Fahs are credible and supported by other relevant evidence. Therefore I consider this matter closed.



Mike Walton
***********************
And what happened next.......out on busiiness later...
0
what happened next
written by Meyer, March 11, 2013
Dear Mr.Walton;

This matter is not closed. I will be speaking with the staff in your office.
0
and what happened next
written by Meyer, March 11, 2013



No, my staff will not be speaking to you about this matter. If you have something to say, you can put it in writing and mail or email it to me. I will then address it as I see appropriate.



Mike Walton

Scott County Attorney

0
and what happened next
written by Meyer, March 11, 2013
Mr Walton

I will be speaking with your Supervisors about this. If you don't know what your own County Attorney's are doing is one thing. Lying to the public is another.
Keith Meyer
1012 Marquette
0
And what happened next
written by Meyer, March 11, 2013
More on what happened next tomorrow. Things to do.
0
Missed, multi email comments stopped as spam,,,,just before Waltoin, and what happened next?
written by Meyer, March 12, 2013
RE: Criminal complaint against John R. Fahs filed with the Scott County Attorney's OfficeBack to MessagesFrom: Walton Michael HeaderReply To:
To:Cc:"Donchez Jr., Francis (Frank)" , "Schaeffer, Donald" , "Rush, Tabatha" , "Sikorski, Paul" Bcc:
Sent: Wed, Feb 27, 2013 01:59 PMDownload All | Mr. Meyers: Your email has been forwarded to me for review. If you were under the impression that your complaint was going to be referred to the Davenport Police Department that would be in error. Our office reviews these complaints to decide whether further investigation is warranted, or if charges should be filed or denied. Charging decisions are ultimately made by this office. In order to avoid further confusion, I have personally reviewed this matter to make the final decision. I feel the incident has been fully investigated and now litigated. Charges will not be filed against Fahs for the incident on November 11, 2012. In summary, I believe the statements made by Mr. Fahs are credible and supported by other relevant evidence. Therefore I consider this matter closed.



Mike Walton

Scott County Attorney

Courthouse

Davenport, IA 52801

(563) 326-8600



From: Donchez Jr., Francis (Frank) [mailto: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:31 PM
To: Walton, Michael
Cc: Schaeffer, Donald; Rush, Tabatha; Sikorski, Paul
Subject: Fw: Criminal complaint against John R. Fahs filed with the Scott county At orney's Office






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rush, Tabatha
To: Donchez Jr., Francis (Frank)
Cc: Schaeffer, Donald
Sent: Wed Feb 27 12:27:30 2013
Subject: FW: Criminal complaint against John R. Fahs filed with the Scott county At orney's Office

Chief,



Please see below. Who should this go to? Thanks.



Tabatha Rush

Administrative Assistant to Chief of Police

416 N. Harrison St.





0
The ongoing saga of Bobaloo's What happens now.
written by Meyer, March 12, 2013
Meyer stops at the Receptionist desk of the Scott County Attorney's Office, a place usually quite frendly in fact, now all horrors, to get the name of the tall dark haired attorney who came out with Meyer's complaint in hand, and said the matter would be referred to the Davenport Police Department. A check in back room by the receptionist and the request is denied. Meyer asked for the information, including the attorney's job title to be mailed to him.
0
What happenes next
written by Meyer, March 12, 2013
Meyer stops at the front desk of the Davenport Police Department to file a criminial complanit, that John Fahs 1010 violated the law calling 911 on 11-11-2011 providing false information that Meyer point the gun. After a back room discussion Meyer is told to go to an area east of records where he is met by a young womnam with dark hair who takes down the information and signs the report N0.# 13-14170 as Hollie. Meyer takes the small white report slip paper, leaves, and takes his two year old Malamute mix dog, Justice , "Just" ,to the Mississippi River.

( just a note here sometimes having dial up is a real drag)
0
what happened next
written by meyer, March 12, 2013
Sgt. Marxen

I visited the Davenport Police Department yesterday to file a criminal complaint. I was interviewed by an individual, a female with dark hair, who signed the name Hollie to the report which was given to me.

Unlike my time with you, or Tabatha, or even Lyndsey Nellon in records , my time with this individual was anything but pleasant. You told me, when you visited with me, that there were good police officers on the department, that I should not hesitate to contacting your organization, and should contact supervisors if difficulty occurred.

I realize that Hollie is not an officer, or know, even if it was her job to do complaint interviews.Or even know who her supervisor is.

I do not know why Hollie was upset with me and treated me the way she did. Whether it was because she was the one who got assigned to interview me, or if it was some other reason.

How I was treated during the interview is not, is not, how any person in the City of Davenport should be treated by the Davenport Police Department.

If you desire to follow up with me on this or any other matter contact me at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , since I am hearing impaired ,and I will make myself available to you.

Keith Meyer
0
...
written by meyer, March 12, 2013
To: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , JGrundberg@dmos.comCc:
Bcc:
Sent: Fri, Mar 08, 2013 04:20 PMDownload All | Tabatha
,Who is the Officer assigned to report #13-14710 and how do I get back the shotgun taken from me?

Thanks
Keith Meyer
1012 Marquette
0
What hapened next
written by meyer, March 13, 2013
Mr. Meyer,



I have forwarded your e-mail to the Criminal Investigations Division Commander and he will have someone respond to your e-mail. Thank you.



Tabatha Rush

Administrative Assistant to Chief of Police

0
More of what happens next
written by Meyer, March 13, 2013
:"Donchez Jr., Francis (Frank)" , "Schaeffer, Donald" , "'Walton, Michael'" Bcc:
Sent: Mon, Mar 11, 2013 10:20 AMDownload All | Mr. Meyer,



This case has not been assigned to a Detective. In an e-mail you received from Scott County Attorney Mike Walton, he stated charges would not be filed against Mr. Fahs for the incident on November 11, 2012. Scott County Attorney Office is not requesting any follow-up related to this case. After reviewing the report, I do not feel that additional investigation is warranted in this case. Scott County Attorney Mike Walton does consider the incident closed as do I.



As for the return of your shotgun, once we have a release from the Scott County Attorney Office, I will send you an e-mail letting you know your shotgun is available to be picked up. This should be in the immediate future.



Captain Dale Sievert
Criminal Investigation Division
Davenport Police Department

0
irellevant court notes and more what happens next
written by Meyer, March 13, 2013
When you are getting ready for one of the many hearings with the Judge and the County Attorney this one slip of paper will majically appear on your desk. Sometimes you don't even know who placed it there. Almost like the Valentine from the cute red-headed girl.
The paper is entitled WAIVER OF ATTORNEY. Sometime during the hearing the Judge will bring the subject up. Your name is on it, as is the charge. The last line says:
No one has forced me to give up the help of a lawyer in my case(s). I have made my own informed choice to do this.

And at the next hearing the form will appear again, anew, because you have taken the other one home and filed it. And with due diligence the matter will again be raised by the Judge, and you take it home with you again.
So just before the trial starts and you get ready to face the Jury you are onnce again in the Judges Chambers with the County Attorney and the WAIVER OF ATTORNEY form once again slides forward. And you have the same conversation you had the time before. Except you ask a new question. " What are the consequences of not signing this form"?
And the Judge stops in her tracks to collect herself and finally says. I don't know. It has never been done before.
So you say. "I guess we are just going to have to find out."


Captain Sievert,

Criminal complaint, Davenport Police Department "Hollie" # 13-4710 was filed after Walton's decision, not before
.If you review your police squad audios you will hear what Fahs says when asked again about whether Keith Meyer pointed the gun at him.

Also could I get a copy of your copy of the the Criminal complaint,

Also Information as to whether or not the job description of Hollie includes interviewing the public relative to criminal complaints. This can be done a number of ways. I would like it done the way it does not violated any personnel policies.
Thanks and best to you Captain

Keith Meyer
1012 Marquette
Davenport, Iowa
0
what happened next
written by Meyer, March 13, 2013

Return of ShotgunBack to MessagesFrom: "Sievert, Dale" View ContactAdd to Contacts | Invite Sender | Block SenderFull HeaderReply To:
To:Black Lab Crossing Cc:"Marxen, Kevin" , "Donchez Jr., Francis (Frank)" , "Schaeffer, Donald" Bcc:
Sent: Wed, Mar 13, 2013 09:59 AMDownload All | 15R0ITI4.pdf (198KB); DPD-39 Firearm Ret... (28KB) Mr. Meyer



Prior to assigning your complaint, I personally reviewed the squad audio tapes and Mr. Fahs stated to the Officer he observed you with a shotgun and stated he was in fear. The Iowa Code Section you were charged with states: 708.2(3) A person who commits an assault, as defined in section 708.1, and uses or displays a dangerous weapon in connection with the assault, is guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor. This subsection does not apply if section 708.6 or 708.8 applies. What occurred on November 11, 2012 met the elements of the crime which provided probable cause for the arrest. At a preliminary hearing a Judge felt there was probable cause to proceed with prosecution. I believe you filed a motion to have the charges dismissed and this also was reviewed by a Judge who once again found there was enough to proceed to trial as did the County Attorneys Office. You were found not guilty by a jury of your peers. This does not mean that Mr. Fahs filed a false police report, only that it wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This occurs everyday in the United States and does not mean that the complainant in each of those cases filed a false police report. I had an opportunity to review the complaint a second time with Scott County Attorney Mike Walton and he still declines to prosecute your complaint and so it will not be assigned to a Detective As for the job description for “Hollie”, I am awaiting a response from the Personnel Officer of the Davenport Police Department.


I have attached a copy of the complaint you filed on 03/04/2013 and also attached a form which you will need to complete and return to the Davenport Police Department prior to your shotgun being released. Sergeant Marxen will facilitate the returning of the shotgun with you and will be in contact.





0
W.H.N.
written by Meyer, March 13, 2013
Captain

Am I required to complete this form to get my shotgun returned to me?

Thanks
Keith Meyer
0
what happened next
written by Meyer, March 13, 2013

Yes sir



Captain Dale Sievert
Criminal Investigation Division
0
What happened next
written by Meyer, March 13, 2013
Sent: Wed, Mar 13, 2013 01:03 PMDownload All | Captain

Could you show me the Iowa State Law-Code or City Ordinance that requires I complete this form prior to getting my gun back? I was found not guilty.

And don't forget that it was the County Attorney's Office that contributed to the Davenport Police Departments getting into this mess in the first place by not taking action and by their *** **** opinions.

Think for yourself., Captain. Do not let County Attorney Mike Walton take you down with him.

Thank you,

Keith Meyer
1012 Marquette
0
boboolas or whatever saga
written by Meyer, March 13, 2013
Sent: Wed, Mar 13, 2013 12:35 PMDownload All | Sheriff Conard
,
On 11-11-2012, John Fahs, 1010 Marquette, Davenport, Iowa provided false information when making a 911 telephone call stating that I pointed a gun at him. The Davenport Police Department refuses, at this point, to do an investigation into my criminal complaint regarding John R. Fahs of 1010 Marquette, Davenport, Iowa. Your web site points out very prominently that providing false information is a crime. As a citizen of Scott County in long standing I am requesting that the Scott County Sheriff's Department do an investigation of this matter.I would be happy to assist you In his matter with records and transcriptions.As I am hearing impaired I can best be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . I look forward to hearing from you.
Thank You
Keith Meyer
1012 Marquette
Davenport, Iowa
Hearing impaired
0
what happened next
written by Meyer, March 13, 2013
Mr. Meyer



I understand Capt. Sievert sent you a form to fill out so you can reclaim your shotgun. If you fill the form out and send it back to me or Capt. Sievert today or early tomorrow, I will walk it through the process and then deliver your shotgun to you tomorrow. If you are unable to complete the form in this time frame we can take care of this next week. Let me know.



Sgt. Marxen

0
What the **** happened there.
written by Meyer, March 13, 2013
I asked for a state code or city ordinance that required me to complete this form to get my shotgun back Is the shotgun considered evidence or property..Is the fact that I am asking for it now, rather then 30 days from now part of the problem?
Thanks
Keith Meyer






---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Marxen, Kevin"
0
...
written by meyer, March 13, 2013
15R0ITI4.pdf (198KB); DPD-39 Firearm Ret... (28KB) Mr. Meyer


0
This is the top half of the form the cops want you to sign to get your shotgun back
written by Meyer, March 14, 2013
City of Davenport

Property and Evidence Department Firearm Return Request

Date of Request: ____________________ DPD Report #: _____________________ Owner Name: ____________________________ Race/Sex: _______________ Date of Birth: __________________ Social Security Number: ___________________ Address: _______________________________ DL# :_________________________

________________________________ Phone Number: _________________ Application for Return of Firearms Mandatory Questionnaire

All of the following questions must be answered by the owner:

1.Have you ever been convicted of a felony?

2.Have you ever been convicted of the misdemeanor crime of domestic abuse assault?

3.Have you ever been convicted of the misdemeanor crime of assault in violation of

individual rights (hate crime)?

4. Have you ever been convicted of the misdemeanor crime of assault on a peace officer,

fire fighter or health care provider?
5. Have you ever been convicted of the misdemeanor crime of setting a spring gun or trap? YES or NO

6.Have you ever been convicted of the misdemeanor crime of hazing?

7.Have you ever been convicted of the misdemeanor crime of stalking?

8.Are you addicted to the use of alcohol or any controlled substance?

9.Do you have a history of repeated acts of violence?

10. Have you ever been adjudged mentally incompetent?
11. Have you ever been dishonorably discharged from the military?
12. Are you currently under indictment in any State or Federal Court?
13. Are you currently listed in/or subjected to a No Contact Order?
14. Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor crime involving a firearm or explosive? YES or NO If you answered yes to any of the above, please explain:
0
And this is the botom half. More questions then the Police are willing to ask Fahs
written by Meyer, March 14, 2013
9.Do you have a history of repeated acts of violence?

10. Have you ever been adjudged mentally incompetent?
11. Have you ever been dishonorably discharged from the military?
12. Are you currently under indictment in any State or Federal Court?
13. Are you currently listed in/or subjected to a No Contact Order?
14. Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor crime involving a firearm or explosive? YES or NO If you answered yes to any of the above, please explain: _______________________________________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________________________________
_______________________________

15. Are you a citizen of the United States? YES or NO If not, provide country of birth and alien registration number:
Country of Birth: _________________ Alien Registration Number: _____________

Notarized Signature of Owner Certifying Information as Correct:

I ____________________ certify that the information provided is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that I may be convicted of a Class D Felony pursuant to Iowa Code section 720.2 if I make a false statement of material fact on this application.

________________________________ _____________

Signature of Owner Requesting Firearm Return DATE

______________________________ Signed and sworn before me on ____________, ____, ______. Notary Public In and For the State of Iowa

DPD 39 1-10-07Â


0
What hapend next
written by Meyer, March 14, 2013
I will be down and get my shotgun tomorrow, Thursday March 13, 2013. I am willing to give you a receipt that I have taken the gun. That is all. I am not signing your form. This form is just another way you can steal peoples property. Let me know what time you want to do this..I really find it odd that you do not want to investigate my complaint regarding John Fahs making a false statement on the 911 call. and you expect me to call your Department for assistance.
Keith
Thanks
0
And next
written by Meyer, March 14, 2013
Sent: Wed, Mar 13, 2013 09:28 PMDownload All | Sgt. Marxen
What was the result of the internal investigation of the Evidence technician assigned to my case? And what was result of the police officers lying of the stand? And what was the result of the illegal search of my house?
Thank you.
Keith Meyer
0
What happened next.....
written by Meyer, March 14, 2013
I have received your concerns on several matters and will address them as follows:



1.We will not require you to complete our form in reference to the return of your shotgun. Upon completion of our necessary checks, Sgt. Marxen will contact you to arrange the return of the shotgun. You will, however, be required to sign acknowledgment of its return for our records.


2.The internal investigation into the alleged statements make by one of our Evidence Technicians is ongoing and you will be advised as to the result of that investigation upon its completion.


3.We have opened an internal investigation into your allegation that officers illegally entered your home in search of the shotgun. Upon completion of that investigation you will be notified of the result.


(Please note that in sections 2 and 3 you will be notified of the result, not the details. Davenport Police Department policy is that we do not make public the details of an internal investigation but we do advise the complainant of the result.)



4.As for your complaint in reference to John Fahs alleged false statements, that matter is closed and we will not be doing any further investigation. Please understand that a Not Guilty verdict in a criminal case does mean that the person making the complaint was lying or provided false information. It means that a jury determined that there was not “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” as required by law as to the guilt of the defendant. Therefore, the matter is closed.


Thank you for your patience in these matters.



Frank Donchez

Chief of Police

Davenport Police Department

0
What happened next?
written by Meyer, March 14, 2013
Chief
You failed to address the issue of Police Officer's lying on the stand.
Thanks
Keith Meyer
0
The on going saga of boboola's what happens now?
written by Meyer, March 14, 2013

Add to Contacts | Invite Sender | Block SenderFull HeaderReply To:
To: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Bcc:
Sent: Thu, Mar 14, 2013 12:43 PMDownload All | Attachment (20KB)
Chief,

First of all, here is to all the people who did not get their property back because they did not want to fill out your form or had their requests rejected because they did not, somehow, pass. Want to take a guess at how many people there are?

I asked your Captain Dale Sievert if I was required to fill out the form. He responded, " Yes sir." I had earlier told him when he was digging a hole to stop digging. This issue is not legally over.



Have a good weekend Frank . I know you wish you had listened to what I had to say about the bylaws of the DCIC. It is never to late to stop digging. And I need to get back to work on my business which is months and months behind.

Keith Meyer
1012 Marquette

As to the False 911 call I am posting once again for you to read:
Notice the last paragraph which follows:
A person who knowingly provides false information to a law enforcement officer who enters the information on a citation commits a simple misdemeanor, unless the criminal act for which the citation is issued is a serious or aggravated misdemeanor or felony, in which case the person commits a serious misdemeanor.

This act cannot occur until after the citation has been entered. In my case after AGCR 359990. The serious misdemeanor occurs because I was arrested and charged with a serious misdemeanor. It is not until after, after, we have this happen that 718.6 False Reports to or Communications with Public Safety Entities kicks in. It could not happen during and it could not happen before.



718.6 FALSE REPORTS TO OR COMMUNICATIONS WITH PUBLIC SAFETY ENTITIES
A person who reports or causes to be reported false information to a fire department, a law enforcement authority, or other public safety entity, knowing that the information is false, or who reports the alleged occurrence of a criminal act knowing the act did not occur, commits a simple misdemeanor, unless the alleged criminal act reported is a serious or aggravated misdemeanor or felony, in which case the person commits a serious misdemeanor.

A person who telephones an emergency 911 communications center knowing that the person is not reporting an emergency or otherwise needing emergency information or assistance commits a simple misdemeanor.

A person who knowingly provides false information to a law enforcement officer who enters the information on a citation commits a simple misdemeanor, unless the criminal act for which the citation is issued is a serious or aggravated misdemeanor or felony, in which case the person commits a serious misdemeanor.

0
And next
written by Meyer, March 15, 2013
Sent: Thu, Mar 14, 2013 12:58 PMDownload All | Mr. Meyer,



I have no knowledge of that. I was not at the trial. The County Attorney’s Office was, and I trust that if they felt that perjury was taking place they would have addressed it. County Attorney Mike Walton has a competent, professional staff and I see no need to revisit this issue by the Davenport Police Department.





Frank Donchez
Chief of Police
Davenport Police Department

0
Has to be a better title then another , What happened next. Freedom from DCIC or something.
written by Meyer, March 15, 2013
The County Attorney's Office was well aware it. They even initially shut down playing the incident to the jury where perjury occurred. But the jury came back and asked that it be played. Do I have to lay out this all for you in detail, The recordings and court record? Do not trust Mike Walton's Office on this. They are just protecting themselves, not doing their job. Do your job. Deal with perjury by you department.

Keith Meyer
1012 Marquette
0
And What happened next?
written by Meyer, March 15, 2013
Sent: Fri, Mar 15, 2013 04:07 AMDownload All | Attachment (21KB) And Chief. Yesterday when I went down to the Police Department to pick up my shotgun, and get to it without having to fill out the form that Captain Sievert said I had to, I noticed the Davenport Police Officer who had committed perjury on the recording the jury asked to hear, talking to the member of the County Attorney's Office who handled my case in Court, Will R. Ripley. Maybe you should ask them what they were talking about. and ask them about what went on in the trial.

Keith Meyer
1012 Marquette
Davenport, Iowa
0
Where did the term Chief as applied to the police ever come from?
written by meyer, March 15, 2013
Sent: Fri, Mar 15, 2013 07:47 AMDownload All | Mr. Meyer,



No you do not have to lay it out for me. Please read the definition of perjury. Any statements made in a recording (other than a sworn deposition or the like) cannot be perjury because they were not made under oath. As stated previously, Mike Walton and his team are professionals and know their job well. As an attorney myself, I am often amused how many people “know” the law when they haven’t gone through law school and passed the very rigorous bar exam. Please don’t assume that your courtroom victory has somehow enabled you to claim membership in a profession that the rest of us have worked very hard to obtain.



Frank Donchez
Chief of Police

0
bobaloos email wars. What next?
written by meyer, March 15, 2013
Chief,

I am not talking about a recording. I am talking about testimony by your officer in court. Perjury is a willfully false statement of fact material to the issue made by a witness under oath in a competent judicial proceeding..Do you have another definition for it? Or are we going to call the judicial proceeding incompetent?

Also, to refer to County Attorney's Mike Walton's office as professional, except for the female non lawyers out front, is a stretch. The only person pointing a shotgun in AGCR 39990 was Will R. Ripley pointing it at the jury. And not just once. Behavior offensive enough to get a case overturned on appeal.
Keith Meyer
0
DCIC. You have to admitt that has a nice ring to it. to bad It was a stacked deck.
written by meyer, March 15, 2013
From the legal farce on the DCIC (bylaws) you would never have known any of the Directors was a lawyer
0
the Real reason why Lawyer, Chief Donchez is back at the police station after DCICing.
written by Meyer, March 15, 2013
On January 28, 2013, before the DCIC Noon meeting in the Colonel Davenport Room, River Center South, Second floor, Keith Meyer, 1012 Marquette gave a copy of page 11 of the DCIC Bylaws to DCIC Chair Kelli Grubbs, Davenport City Administrator, Craig Malin, Sixth Ward Alderman Jeff Justin, Davenport police chief Francis Donchez, Riverboat Development Authority Mary Ellen Chamberlin as well as Davenport Mayor Bill Gluba. And others.

During the public portion of the meeting Keith Meyer 1012 Marquette read the following section 11.1. of the DCIC Bylaws.

ARTICLE XI
NO VOTE ON CONFLICTING MATTERS AND TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH
OFFICERS OR DIRECTORS ARE INTERESTED
Section 11.1. No Vote On Conflicting Matters. Every Director of the Corporation owes
a duty of loyalty to the Corporation. Further, it is imperative that each Director avoid any
conflicts of interest with his or her duties as Director. Accordingly, no Director shall vote on any
matter which grants, confers or otherwise conveys economic benefit to such Director or to an
entity of which any Director or any member of his or her immediate family is an officer, director,
shareholder or employee. On an annual basis, and on a form approved by the Corporation's
Board of Directors, each Director shall confirm in writing that he or she (and his or her family)
have no conflicts of interest with the Corporation or, if so, the nature of such conflicts.

And cited conflicts of interest by Malin. Justin and Donchez as well as conflicts by RDA Board Chair Mary Ellen Chamberlin and RDA member Christinie Frederick.

At the following Wednesday January 30, 2013 meeting of the DCIC, Craig Malin and Jeff Justin abstained but the Police Chief Francis Donchez voted, as did members of RDA.

The action of the Davenport City Council on November 15, 2012 creating the DCIC with its City Administrator membership, its Police Chief membership and the City Council Alderman appointment is a subject for Judicial Review . Under Iowa Code Section 17.A. 1 IOWA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, §17A.19
17A.19 Judicial review.
0
What happened really.
written by Meyer, March 15, 2013


On January 28, 2013, before the DCIC Noon meeting in the Colonel Davenport Room, River Center South, Second floor, Keith Meyer, 1012 Marquette gave a copy of page 11 of the DCIC Bylaws to DCIC Chair Kelli Grubbs, Davenport City Administrator, Craig Malin, Sixth Ward Alderman Jeff Justin, Davenport police chief Francis Donchez, Riverboat Development Authority Mary Ellen Chamberlin as well as Davenport Mayor Bill Gluba. And others.

During the public portion of the meeting Keith Meyer 1012 Marquette read the following section 11.1. of the DCIC Bylaws.

ARTICLE XI
NO VOTE ON CONFLICTING MATTERS AND TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH
OFFICERS OR DIRECTORS ARE INTERESTED
Section 11.1. No Vote On Conflicting Matters. Every Director of the Corporation owes
a duty of loyalty to the Corporation. Further, it is imperative that each Director avoid any
conflicts of interest with his or her duties as Director. Accordingly, no Director shall vote on any
matter which grants, confers or otherwise conveys economic benefit to such Director or to an
entity of which any Director or any member of his or her immediate family is an officer, director,
shareholder or employee. On an annual basis, and on a form approved by the Corporation's
Board of Directors, each Director shall confirm in writing that he or she (and his or her family)
have no conflicts of interest with the Corporation or, if so, the nature of such conflicts.

And cited conflicts of interest by Malin. Justin and Donchez as well as conflicts by RDA Board Chair Mary Ellen Chamberlin and RDA member Christinie Frederick.

At the following Wednesday January 30, 2013 meeting of the DCIC, Craig Malin and Jeff Justin abstained but the Police Chief Francis Donchez voted, as did members of RDA.

The action of the Davenport City Council on November 15, 2012 creating the DCIC with its City Administrator membership, its Police Chief membership and the City Council Alderman appointment is a subject for Judicial Review . Under Iowa Code Section 17.A. 1 IOWA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, §17A.19
17A.19 Judicial review.
0
If you are a young, still honest lawyer bumping between dry walls in Davenport
written by Meyer, March 15, 2013
Take a good look at the Firearm Return Request form. The one Davenport Police Captain Sievert claimed had to be filled out. Then think class action, with the class everybody who did fill this out, or didn't because they were put off by the wording. My take is this form is completely illegal. So If you have just graduated from Law School at Iowa. Apply what you have learned. Use the money you get in a settlement to get the hell out of Dodge.
0
The latest on Bobaloo's what happens now...
written by Meyer, March 16, 2013
Sent: Sat, Mar 16, 2013 01:05 PMDownload All | Case report 2013-00014710 as filled out I assume by Hollie is not accurate. I talked to the front desk and i spoke with Hollie. I told them what my complaint was. It was as follows:

John R. Fahs, 1010 Marquette, Davenport, Iowa committed a serious misdemeanor by making a false call to the Davenport police Department on November 11, 2012 and stating that the Defendant, Keith E. Meyer pointed a gun at him. (us)


718.6 FALSE REPORTS TO OR COMMUNICATIONS WITH PUBLIC SAFETY ENTITIES
A person who reports or causes to be reported false information to a fire department, a law enforcement authority, or other public safety entity, knowing that the information is false, or who reports the alleged occurrence of a criminal act knowing the act did not occur, commits a simple misdemeanor, unless the alleged criminal act reported is a serious or aggravated misdemeanor or felony, in which case the person commits a serious misdemeanor.

A person who telephones an emergency 911 communications center knowing that the person is not reporting an emergency or otherwise needing emergency information or assistance commits a simple misdemeanor.

A person who knowingly provides false information to a law enforcement officer who enters the information on a citation commits a simple misdemeanor, unless the criminal act for which the citation is issued is a serious or aggravated misdemeanor or felony, in which case the person commits a serious misdemeanor.

Captain, this is a serious misdemeanor, not harassment as indicated on the report.This was told to both hollie and the front desk receptionist..

I expect this to be investigated. Also was "Hollie" assigned to, and qualified to do, Criminal complaint interviews? I am still waiting for a copy of her job description.

Thank you and best.
Keith Meyer
0
And next.
written by Meyer, March 17, 2013
RE: false 911 callBack to MessagesFrom: Bennett Pamela View ContactAdd to Contacts | Invite Sender | Block SenderFull HeaderReply To:
To:Black Lab Crossing Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Fri, Mar 15, 2013 09:01 AMDownload All | Mr. Meyer:



This situation was investigated thoroughly and completely by the Davenport Police Department. The Scott County Sheriff’s Office will not be investigating this incident.



Sheriff Dennis Conard

Scott County Sheriff's Office

400 W. 4th Street

Davenport, IA 52801



From: Black Lab Crossing [mailto: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:35 PM
To: SD Mail Box
Cc: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Subject: false 911 call



Sheriff Conard
,

On 11-11-2012, John Fahs, 1010 Marquette, Davenport, Iowa provided false information when making a 911 telephone call stating that I pointed a gun at him. The Davenport Police Department refuses, at this point, to do an investigation into my criminal complaint regarding John R. Fahs of 1010 Marquette, Davenport, Iowa. Your web site points out very prominently that providing false information is a crime. As a citizen of Scott County in long standing I am requesting that the Scott County Sheriff's Department do an investigation of this matter.I would be happy to assist you In his matter with records and transcriptions.As I am hearing impaired I can best be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank You

Keith Meyer

1012 Marquette

Davenport, Iowa



0
What next
written by Meyer, March 17, 2013
To:Pamela.Bennett@scottcountyiowa.comCc: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Bcc:
Sent: Fri, Mar 15, 2013 09:33 AMDownload All | Sheriff Conard

You have been misled. There was never an investigation of this incident by the Davenport Police Department. It was not assigned to an Officer. It was not done.
Keith Meyer
0
What happens next
written by Meyer, March 17, 2013
To:Pamela.Bennett@scottcountyiowa.comCc: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Bcc:
Sent: Fri, Mar 15, 2013 11:59 AMDownload All |
This criminal complaint against John R. Fahs, 1010 Marquette was filed months ,months after the incident in which Meyer was arrested. Perhaps my use of the word incident in response to the Sheriff's use of the word incident, was a poor choice of words on my part. Davenport report # 13-14710 follows although what the Davenport Police

Department ,person Hollie, reports is somewhat different "harassment"
.
John R. Fahs, 1010 Marquette, Davenport, Iowa committed a serious misdemeanor by making a false call to the Davenport Police Department on November 11, 2012 and stating that the Defendant, Keith E. Meyer pointed a gun at him. (us)


718.6 FALSE REPORTS TO OR COMMUNICATIONS WITH PUBLIC SAFETY ENTITIES
A person who reports or causes to be reported false information to a fire department, a law enforcement authority, or other public safety entity, knowing that the information is false, or who reports the alleged occurrence of a criminal act knowing the act did not occur, commits a simple misdemeanor, unless the alleged criminal act reported is a serious or aggravated misdemeanor or felony, in which case the person commits a serious misdemeanor.

A person who telephones an emergency 911 communications center knowing that the person is not reporting an emergency or otherwise needing emergency information or assistance commits a simple misdemeanor.

A person who knowingly provides false information to a law enforcement officer who enters the information on a citation commits a simple misdemeanor, unless the criminal act for which the citation is issued is a serious or aggravated misdemeanor or felony, in which case the person commits a serious misdemeanor.

This complaint arises from the fact that Fahs committed a serious misdemeanor because Meyer was charged with a serious misdemeanor. This complaint has never been investigated by the Davenport Police Department.

Mary Thee perhaps you can explain the difference to the Sheriff and others involved.

Thank you
0
Scott County Board of Supervisors up next.
written by Meyer, March 18, 2013
ScottCountyIowa.com
Subject: Feedback Board of Supervisors
Date: 03/16/2013 16:11:34

•Thank you for your message. Return to Board of Supervisors

Thank you for your comments.

As a reminder, you submitted the following information:

Full Name: KEITH MEYER
Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Phone: -
Company: -
Address: 1012 marquette
City: Davenport
State: Iowa
ZIP Code: 52804
Message: My nmae is Keith Meyer. I live at 1012 Marquette, Davenport, Iowa and have been a Scott County resident for almost a half century. Recently I filed a criminal complaint with the Scott County Sheriff's office as follows:John R. Fahs, 1010 Marquette, Davenport, Iowa committed a serious misdemeanor by making a false call to the Davenport police Department on November 11, 2012 and stating that the Defendant, Keith E. Meyer pointed a gun at him. (us) 718.6 FALSE REPORTS TO OR COMMUNICATIONS WITH PUBLIC SAFETY ENTITIES A person who reports or causes to be reported false information to a fire department, a law enforcement authority, or other public safety entity, knowing that the information is false, or who reports the alleged occurrence of a criminal act knowing the act did not occur, commits a simple misdemeanor, unless the alleged criminal act reported is a serious or aggravated misdemeanor or felony, in which case the person commits a serious misdemeanor. A person who telephones an emergency 911 communications center knowing that the person is not reporting an emergency or otherwise needing emergency information or assistance commits a simple misdemeanor. A person who knowingly provides false information to a law enforcement officer who enters the information on a citation commits a simple misdemeanor, unless the criminal act for which the citation is issued is a serious or aggravated misdemeanor or felony, in which case the person commits a serious misdemeanor. The Scott County Sheriff's Office refuses to investigate this complaint saying it has already been investigated by the Davenport Police Department. That is false. This complaint has never been assigned to a Davenport Police Officer and has never been investigated by the Davenport Police Department. Please take all necessary steps to insure that this investigation is done. thank You Keith Meyer 1012 Marquette Davenport, Iowa

Sent To:
Chris Berge - Mitch Tollerud
0
What happens next?
written by Meyer, March 18, 2013
To:Mary.Thee@scottcountyiowa.comCc:
Bcc:
Sent: Sun, Mar 17, 2013 04:55 PMDownload All | Mary,

In as much as the Scott County is paying for the 911 system , I would assume they would not want the system to be abused as it was by John Fahs 1010 Marquette. on 11-11- 2012.

Keith Meyer
0
What happens next. What case are you talking about , Chief.
written by Meyer, March 18, 2013
From: "Donchez Jr., Francis (Frank)" View ContactAdd to Contacts | Invite Sender | Block SenderFull HeaderReply To:
To:'Black Lab Crossing' Cc:"Schaeffer, Donald" , "Sievert, Dale" , "Warner, Tom" , Mike Walton Bcc:
Sent: Mon, Mar 18, 2013 07:47 AMDownload All | Mr. Meyer,



This matter is closed. We will NOT be investigating this case any further.



Frank Donchez

0
What happens next?
written by Meyer, March 18, 2013
Sent: Mon, Mar 18, 2013 08:45 AMDownload All | Attachment (33KB) Chief
I would like a copy of the investigation report for Davenport Police Department Case No.2103-00014710
Thank You
0
WHO CARES
written by Nemo Populi, March 18, 2013
Keith, all I have to say is... REALLY? This is clearly inappropriate, and a flagrant abuse of the site's comment system. Obviously you have a bone to pick, which may or may not be justified (IMHO you are taking this WAY too far for no good reason), but that does not mean you post your RIDICULOUS crusade on the comments of your 1.5 minutes of fame. Spamming like this shows you have no respect for the RC Reader or the author of the article.

A more appropriate response would be to collect your findings on a personal website or blog (there are so many free options to make this happen), post your overkill of correspondence there, and post a comment linking to your site.

I repeat: post A SINGLE COMMENT. Not post after banal post ad infinitum.

Or, if you want to somehow rally the support of the Internet with your minutia, post it to Reddit, or 4Chan. Let the trolls of the Internet be your judge. There's a chance they'll take up your cause, make it viral, and then you'll feel good about it. Most likely, they'll ridicule you for your absurdity and spam your email address with octogenarian pornography. But at least that's a more appropriate forum for your inane postings.

The net is vast and infinite, and there is a place for all posts, comments, discussion, and media. This is clearly not the one for your needs. Respect your fellow users, the kind folks who took a chance to write and publish an article on your insignificant little scuffle with your neighbor, and the RC Reader and its website, and move your crusade elsewhere.

Sincerely,
Everyone else
0
Been waiting for this, must be a steeling up over green beer.
written by Meyer, March 18, 2013
Nemo Populi,

The writer of the article, Speed bump ahead was over this weekend. Left me a present. Do you want to see it.

But before you go, Nemo, if you could drop off your address I will pass it on, so when Fahs moves he can move next door to you and be insignificant.
0
From the Chief
written by Meyer, March 19, 2013
From: "Donchez Jr., Francis (Frank)" View ContactAdd to Contacts | Invite Sender | Block SenderFull HeaderReply To:
To:"' This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '" Cc:"Schaeffer, Donald" , "Sievert, Dale" , "' This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '" , "Warner, Tom" Bcc:
Sent: Mon, Mar 18, 2013 12:35 PMDownload All | Mr. Meyer,

That is because there is no investigation. As stated previously, case closed.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Black Lab Crossing
To: Donchez Jr., Francis (Frank); This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Cc: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Sent: Mon Mar 18 12:29:41 2013
Subject: RE: Case report 2013-00014710


Chief
There is nothing about an investigation. Just what Hollie wrote.And it wasn't a crime of harassment it was a serious misdemeanor
Keith Meyer

0
To the Sheriff
written by Meyer, March 19, 2013
o: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , Mary.Thee@scottcountyiowa.comCc: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Bcc:
Sent: Mon, Mar 18, 2013 01:38 PMDownload All | Attachment (5KB)
Sheriff Conard
As you will note, contrary to your previous assumption, statement, the Davenport Police Department states there is, was, no investigation. of 2013-00014710. A serious misdemeanor and no investigation!

Mary Thee could you pass this email along to the Scott County Board of Supervisors.

Thanks and
Best
Keith Meyer
0
Surprising
written by CBix, September 07, 2013
I'm surprised that the transcripts which contained such sensitive and personal information such as both party's social security numbers, and phone numbers, were just posted without any effort to at least obscure this information. Almost shocking.
0
Response
written by Bobaloo, September 20, 2013
With all due respect to Keith Meyer, I have to agree with Nemo. I was actually looking for some discussion, not a laundry list of complaints, transcripts, etc. about what did or did not happen, ongoing rants where certain individuals were in error (as opposed to simple statements and sound reasoning of such), etc. As Cbix points out, some of this could contain personal, sensitive information for which you and possibly the River Cities Reader could be held liable.

The best thing to do is let this situation pass. You had your day in court, and you won. Twelve of your peers decided there was insufficient evidence to hold you on charges. What I was getting at was, how do you and the neighbor with whom you have a grievance, feud, whatever with get along from this point forward ... because six months later, I still fear for both of you. Like it or not, BOTH of you need to get along or at least learn to do so.

You have filed your candidacy for Davenport mayor. With all due respect, I have to wonder if you're fit to run given your tendency to be, shall we say, long-winded like this. If you do happen to win, you will need all the support and luck you can get because believe me, this is not as easy of a job as it seems. It is a much different ballgame than being an alderman for a single ward, or even at-large alderman.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy