Alot of the time those elderly only have one car and do not drive that much anyway hardly taxing on the road. He put down a good idea he is gone. Instead of building nice homes and getting tax dollars that do not stress our comunity he just sued everyone else and wasted 500K.....OH great jog Dunn..

Did your horse read the article to you about Atlanta being the most expensive city to commute to and from, to you yet?

If not go here and get your horse to read it to you.

http://www.11alive.com/money/money_article.aspx?storyid=80509

So now we know that is you that’s fill of horse sh!t.

The Sheriff and his office are not above some measure of control. They are not at will to spend with no regard and do anything they please.

That being said, I wish Maxwell well.

and state law set the only parameters and safeguards over the spending the sheriff does with the drug money. If the sheriff has done anything illegal, Dunn should bring charges against, otherwise shut up!!

The Sheriff's Office doesn't have Carte Blance to do what they please. I sincerely hope this new BOC also keeps up checks and balances. Knowing some people who were caught up in the fiasco in Clayton County taught me that the Sheriff did not have power without consequences.

I'm not here to argue pro con Dunn, that is over.

He cannot violate state or federal law and cannot spend money he does not have.

Unless you can post anything the Sheriff has done illegally, what is the point of all of this?

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

I never implied there was. Just stating facts, the Sheriff is not autonomous.

Actually it’s the DoJ that set the rules for the disposition of seized drug assets, not the states. The states just had to agree to it in order for it to become effective.

Peter Phifer would have you believe differently, but he’s not the sharpest tool in the shed if you know what I mean.

And just what measure of control are you referring to? What are the “rules” regarding the Sheriffs spending? Who set them? Where are they published?

You were right in your earlier posting. The rules are set by the U.S. Department of Justice. They are published in a pamplet referred to as the "orange book", which are guidelines DOJ wrote based on the wording of the Federal Asset Forfeiture laws. The pamplet is intended to lay out guidlines based on the feds interpretation of the intent of the law.

When the seizure laws were written congress wanted to enhance law enforcement in rural and less affluent areas where drug dealing was prevelent and law enforcement did not have the money to battle it.

These laws were written more than 20 years ago and Fayette County, at the time, was that kind of town. No money, nada, was being spent on drug enforcement. Congress wanted law enforcement to reap the benefits of their labors without County Commissions and small town politicians trying to get their hands on the money to pay for 10 million dollar parks for gang bangers to congregate in - sell drugs- make money - which could be seized and used to build more parks. It kinda would've defeated the purpose of the whole idea.

In later years, while Paul Coverdell was our Senator, the laws were tweaked to cause law enforcement to make sure they could prove the money they were seizing was actually drug money. Congress had sort of left that out of the original writing of the law and in the early years, if it couldn't be proved it wasn't drug money then it was seized.

There was also some law enforcement agencies using their seizure money for departmental Christmas parties and other such nonsense which obviously was not the intent of the law so those guidelines had to be tweaked as well. Fayette County never did that and remained in good standing with DOJ for twenty years.

When problems arose with other law enforcement agencies use of their seizure money the Georgia Association of County Commissioners told their members that this was the time to try and take control of the drug money and take it out of the hands of law enforcement. Our Fayette County Board of Commissioners were one of the front runners in making an aggressive
attempt at taking control of the Sheriff's drug seizure money using our tax dollars - our County Attorney to try and take control of that money. A County Attorney (sometimes referred to here as the sixth commissioner) who was, at the time, supposed to also be the Sheriff's attorney as well.

When the Board of Commissioners could not convice the DOJ to give Commissioners control of the money they then attempted to stop Fayette County from receiving the money all together. Had they succeeded then the Sheriff's drug agents would have been forced to return seized drug money to the dealers they were taking it from. So far, the Superior Court Judge handling the case has not agreed with them.

That's the history of the rules and how they've been challenged here. I know all of this because I have studied it well hoping that Eric Maxwell will transfer me from being a super secret agent Marshall to a Fayette County Sheriff's drug agent.

Consider this ? The sheriff office purchases a helicopter with the siezed funds from a drug deal ? No problem, go for it great move for the county. We as citizen are all in agreement to catch the bad guys.

The Helicopter for some reason causes damage to a structure or worst has a problem ? Who is responsible for the law suits??? The sheriff's office? For purchasing a helicopter with drug funds? Fine if that's the case - I don't believe that is the case? The federal government? NO Who then????

Fayette county?? the answer is Fayette County and the tax payers - do we need a check and balance - I say yes - I like to ensure we are protected and know what the heck ourd liability is and who is purchasing what - could be wrong - but any good business look at the long term impacts and exposures to risk?

I have no problem if the government is held responsible but if it's my tax dollars I do have a problem - that why we have an elected commission?

You are correct, the county pays all damages, not the Sheriff. To be sure, not one person in the Sheriff's office is liable for anything they do. The very worst thing that can happen to them is: well, there is nothing bad that can happen to them---name one? When it comes to money, one accounting system must justify the books, not two, or more. The sheriff doesn't have an accounting department to my knowledge. In the old days, much of the floating cash went into certain pockets, now it is used to create jobs, primarily.

Casey why don't you do a little research and tell us how many crashes County hellos caused in the last five years and how much money was awarded before you make a dumb coment like that one.

The insurance is responsible. The Sheriff has a five million dollar liability insurane police on the aircraft. And you know that. Still spinning.

Anytime someone says the obvious answer is: the obvious answer is not obvious! The sheriff has nothing concerning policies, the county has such a policy. Probably has a huge deductible also.

And spinning, and spinning, and spinning.

Guess she thinks if you repeat a lie long enough it will become fact.

Hey Harvey...Are you the pilot? Let me know if you need some volunteer help sometime. You fly..I'll spot and throw rocks at em as they're running.

"The Helicopter for some reason causes damage to a structure or worst has a problem ? Who is responsible for the law suits???"

If I follow your logic than we should probably not be buying “each” of them cars that can go over 150 mph. or guns that are specifically designed to kill people. Oh my gosh, think of the lawsuits if they shot somebody!

As for accountability, the Sheriffs office is audited annually by the DoJ for the seized assets that are collected. The County audits and approves just about every other purchase the Sheriffs office makes. Then turns around and spends $500,000 on a forensic audit. I’m using $500,000 because both the Sheriffs office and County Commissioners used TAX PAYER money on this fishing expedition and the result was nada.

As far as I’m concerned the Sheriff and local police should be getting equipment from the U.S. Army. Armored personnel carriers, assault rifles, small rockets and a tank. They should have whatever it takes to take down drug dealers and gang bangers. If one officer can bust 6 perverts just imagine what 5 officers could do. Don’t role your eyes. Some cities have provided such equipment to there local law enforcement.

The Helicopter for some reason causes damage to a structure or worst has a problem ? Who is responsible for the law suits??? The sheriff's office? For purchasing a helicopter with drug funds? Fine if that's the case - I don't believe that is the case? The federal government? NO Who then????

Fayette county?? the answer is Fayette County and the tax payers - do we need a check and balance - I say yes - I like to ensure we are protected and know what the heck ourd liability is and who is purchasing what - could be wrong - but any good business look at the long term impacts and exposures to risk?

The suit would be against the Sheriff's Department, just as if there was a car wreck with the Sheriff's vehicle involved, or officer misconduct.

Being a helipcopter makes it more dramatic, but no different, legally.

If you don't like the helicopter, so be it. But that makes it no different than any other legal issue of that category.

The risk of misconduct is way higher than the helicopter.

I have no problem if the government is held responsible but if it's my tax dollars I do have a problem - that why we have an elected commission?

Whoa there! That is why we have an elected Sheriff and commissioner.

Commissioners are not law enforcement specialist. How stupid it would be to have non-law enforcement running law enforcement.

That is why the commissioners control the budget and the Sheriff the spending and daily activities.

It is a checks and balance system, not a linear chain of command.

We do not want politicians in direct control of law enforcement. The corruption and abuses of power would be staggering way too often.

Why do you think it is set up as it is? From historical abuses when excessive power is in the hands of too few.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Who friend, you have forgotten the problem. The sheriff does not work for the commissioners, that is correct, but the county does keep the books for the county, including the sheriff. The use of money without proper authorizarion and documentation is the problem. I don't think there would have been a problem at all if the sheriff's department had simply told the commission what they were buying, and then when it is disposed of what happened to it, in detail. That is keeping books! There could have been no argument with the sheriff about drug spending, due to the law, providing the books were kept right, and no secrets were withheld. These laws were passed years ago to eliminate such chicanery. It has nothing to do with politics, or shouldn't have.

...but the county does keep the books for the county, including the sheriff.

The county keeps the books on what part of the budget is alloted to the Sheriff's Dept.

Drug money is not, and never has been, part of the County budget.

And if the county controlled the Sheriff's books, then why would the commissioners be accusing him of hiding numbers, since they controlled the books?

The Sheriff determines how the money is spent, not the Commissioners.

I don't think there would have been a problem at all if the sheriff's department had simply told the commission what they were buying, and then when it is disposed of what happened to it, in detail. That is keeping books! There could have been no argument with the sheriff about drug spending, due to the law, providing the books were kept right, and no secrets were withheld. These laws were passed years ago to eliminate such chicanery. It has nothing to do with politics, or shouldn't have.

It is political. The commissioners wanted to take control of the Sheriff's department, not allot budget amounts. They wanted to control the drug money under THEIR dispensing.

The audits said no issues. The courts said no issues. But Dunn and friend just kept pushing.

No way, no how, do you want commissioners controlling how the Sheriff does day to day business.

Same with the Chief of Police in PTC. They initially refused to give him money for new cops for the Target area. So, he said, ok, I will pull the school cops to get cops there. They gave him the money.

A perfect example of how departments balance each other.

For Dunn and friends, it was purely a political power and money seizing attempt.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

I'm not arguing the fact that our sheriff's department should not be able to purchase the most hi-tech and state of the art equipment on the market to protect the county. I'm all in favor of catching the bad guys and protecting our officers with the best equipment available. They do deserve our support and funding.

Police cruisers and other means of protecting the county are all part of the funding and it's understood that the county is liable in the event of law suits. Pretty much what you stated.

My point is, it would be nice to advise the county - I'm not saying the sheriff has to request permission to spend the drug money - on the other hand going out and purchasing a helicopter or 2 (with drug funds) - it would make a good business practice to ensure the people who would be responsible for the liability (county tax payers) should be in the loop. I do not feel that's too much to ask.

Again - not stating the sheriff office should report to anyone -

Yes we should have a check and balance in place to control or stop any excessive abuse of power or expenditures.

My point is, it would be nice to advise the county - I'm not saying the sheriff has to request permission to spend the drug money - on the other hand going out and purchasing a helicopter or 2 (with drug funds) - it would make a good business practice to ensure the people who would be responsible for the liability (county tax payers) should be in the loop. I do not feel that's too much to ask.

They were in the loop. He told everyone.

And again, there is more liablity in a cop abusing his authority than the helicopter. Or patrol cars have more.

What makes the copters any different than a new cop or car?

Yes we should have a check and balance in place to control or stop any excessive abuse of power or expenditures.

Which is it? Did the Sheriff need the commissioners' or your permission to buty the copters? Or did he have the authority on his own?

You are trying to have it both ways here. Which is it?

And we do have checks and balances in place. Fed and State Law on drug money, county budgeting on regular county affairs, audits and elections, where the Sheriff can be fired.

What you want is the Sheriff having to go get signed permission from commissioners to spend money. He does not need it.

If the commissioners pull the budget money, the voters will turn them out for damaging law enforcement. If the Sheriff abuses the money, he will be turned out by the voters and maybe even prosecuted.

There are checks and balances.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

He didn't even keep you in the loop that the Sheriff went to him before purchasing the helicopter and he (Dunn) said good deal, go ahead with it. I know he denied that to the other Commissioners but I thought he would have told you. Dang!

So, even if someone did TELL a commissioner about buying a helicopter, that is not legal, and you know it.

What is your relationship to Greg, Linda, or Peter?

Which one of them is spoon feeding you the "party line" verbage you blabber?

Are you Janet's sock puppet?

Your arguements are not original thoughts. Are you reading from a Dunn / Wells Spin Script?

This has already been addressed over and over and over with your side proven wrong on every point. If you're newer to this site and ignorant of the facts then go back in the archives and do a little research before making yourself look silly. Repeating their lies and rhetoric will not make it truth here.

What is your relationship to Greg, Linda, or Peter?

They are my elected representatives who manage and oversee the direction of the county.

Are you Janet's sock puppet? Party Line?

Not sure what this is - do not know Janet - haven't been invited to the party line

Your arguments are not original thoughts. Are you reading from a Dunn / Wells Spin Script

No script - they were my thoughts -

obviously there did not agree with YOURS

Sorry to bore you with issues you have already discussed - lost my head - thought this was an open forum -

I forgot this is an exclusive do it OUR way, support OUR candidate or hit the highway site.

Must be lonely at the top.

Hay Casey Dunn may be an elected offical but he will not do anything anymore since Maxwell got it done. He did not even show up the the meeting the Wednesday after the election...He is hiding out, as far as the rest of your dialoge pack your bags we are going on a guilt trip.

Sorry casey, I must be slow.

What exactly are you referring to when you say “(county tax payers) should be in the loop.”?

Thanks for posting it.

It looks like Tonto is 2 for 2 at being wrong.

Come to think of it, so is Peter. Any connection?

There are State laws regulating money if you seize it through the local District Attorney. The laws are very similar but not exactly the same. Most of Fayette County's money is seized thru the feds.

writes the rules and oversees the use of drug money seized and distributed under federal programs, but the power to write the "rules" are granted under the federal legislation authorizing the siezure and distribution.

I won't get into splitting hairs, but I obtained copies of both the federal and state laws and I stand by my original statement that federal and state law controls the use of seized drug money. You might want to read the actual code sections to learn more about this subject.

What you're overlooking here is that there would be no "rules" if rules were not authorized by the legislation itself.

I didn't mean to imply anything about what you posted.

Tonto was busting my chops on this and another issue and I wanted to make sure that he understood that he was wrong on both.

you know I was right and you were wrong, how are your chops ?

My chops are fine.

Great post! I'd love to know how you got so knowledgeable. Let me guess--you're Randall's wife, right??

Hey bad-ptc, Tonto was RIGHT about drug money. Federal AND state law set parameters for use of drug money. If the source is a federal forfeiture, federal law sets it. If source is state forfeiture, state law sets it.

bubbly knows what he/she is talking about. Some of the others are just guessing and/or stabbing in the dark. And the BoC was off the mark completely, all the time, and the judge told them so.

As over 90% of seized assets come from the Federal side the states contribution is almost negligible. The money comes from year(s) long investigations which the state doesn’t and can’t afford.

The state gets the $800.00 found on some jerk in a parking lot. The Fed. gets the money when $2.5 mil. worth of cocaine is finally taken in. Do the math.

That’s why the Sheriff can buy a vest with state money and a helicopter with the Fed. money.

You couldn’t even pay for the audit with state provided money.

Them under the Commissioners.

Tbe Sheriff is just as elected as they are.

They are under State level regulation. And under Federal for drug money issues.

Dunn, Wells and Peter tired to force the department under their control.

Hundreds of thousands wasted when the audits and law said there was nothing there for them to pursue. But the pursued anyway.

This is not the first time this was brought up. And was answered more thoroughly before, by several people.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Reply
You are not authorized to post comments

Hope she is done like Dunn

It glitches a lot.

Probably because the site does not get enough bandwith from the server.

Of the script, itself, is buggy when there is higher user demand.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.