prosecutor quits after allegation
jmdr
Denver officer admits 'fixing' speeding ticket
By Brian Maass | CBS4 News
May 12, 2008
An assistant Denver city attorney has resigned and a Denver police officer
has been disciplined after the cop admitted "fixing" a speeding ticket for
the prosecutor's boyfriend.
Full story:
or
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/12/prosecutor-quits-after-allegation/
Greegor
"I then did as I would have done for any prosecutor and destroyed the
ticket due to the relationship and the close working we do with the
prosecution. I would have done this for any one of them." - part of
the officer's testimony!
and
The ticket fixing, and the suggestion that this happens regularly,
were troubling to Elena Nunez, of Colorado Common Cause, a government
watchdog group.
A local attorney here has a driving record which shows a chronic
speeding problem, ticket, ticket, ticket (etc.)
When she became a Juvenile Court Judge, suddenly her history
of speading tickets abruptly stopped.
Do you honestly think she slowed down? I don't!
I think the cops extend "professional courtesy" to the Judge.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/12/prosecutor-quits-after-allegation/
Prosecutor quits after allegation
Denver officer admits 'fixing' speeding ticket
By Brian Maass, CBS4 News Monday, May 12, 2008
An assistant Denver city attorney has resigned and a Denver police
officer has been disciplined after the cop admitted "fixing" a
speeding ticket for the prosecutor's boyfriend.
The Denver City Attorney's Office says Dani Eliscu resigned March 17
after being confronted about the ticket fixing.
"That is not OK, not acceptable and unethical to do anything like
that," said Vince DiCroce, director of prosecution for the Denver City
Attorney's Office.
The incident began Feb. 18, when traffic officer James Gates issued a
speeding ticket at West Sixth Avenue and Kalamath Street to Jeremy
Rosenthal, Eliscu's boyfriend.
According to the sworn statement from Gates, Rosenthal "told me his
wife worked for the City Attorney's Office and she was a prosecutor.
He asked if that changed anything." The statement and other
information were obtained by CBS4 under a Colorado Open Records Act
request.
Gates said he told Rosenthal that if Rosenthal's wife was indeed a
city prosecutor, she would know where to find the officer. He then
issued the speeding ticket.
Later that morning, according to Gates' statement, he received a call
from Eliscu saying the officer had ticketed her husband and "she asked
if I could help her out."
"I then did as I would have done for any prosecutor and destroyed the
ticket due to the relationship and the close working we do with the
prosecution. I would have done this for any one of them. She told me
not to tell anyone because she would get in trouble if anyone found
out."
"It is completely unacceptable," said DiCroce. "No prosecutor should
be treated differently because of their position as a prosecutor. It
is not standard operating procedure. The attorneys here are very
ethical and there are clear ethical boundaries. This was wrong and
inappropriate."
The ticket fixing, and the suggestion that this happens regularly,
were troubling to Elena Nunez, of Colorado Common Cause, a government
watchdog group.
"Everyone should be treated equally under the law," said Nunez. "To
give one set of people special treatment means we are not treated
equally under the law. It just raises the question of how the law is
applied."
Gates was issued a written reprimand last month for engaging in
"conduct prejudicial" and "conduct unbecoming an officer."
Eliscu resigned after she was confronted about the ticket fixing,
according to DiCroce.
It was not the first time she was accused of using her power to avoid
prosecution.
She was reprimanded last year after she tried to use her position to
get out of tickets for having her dogs running loose in a park.
Eliscu did not respond to requests for comment. Her attorney, Phil
Cherner, said "Ms. Eliscu did nothing wrong in any shape or fashion."
Cherner declined to answer any questions.
Rosenthal, a Denver attorney, wrote a cease and desist letter to CBS4
last Friday, threatening legal action after learning the story would
be made public.
"This story is false and publishing any part of it would irreparably
injure the reputation of Ms. Eliscu or me . . ."
He did not specify what parts of the officer's account were allegedly
false.
His letter went on to say, "Ms. Eliscu has damaging information about
the city and city personnel and this is an attempt to damage Ms.
Eliscu's credibility. It is also an attempt to retaliate against Ms.
Eliscu for disclosures that she has already made."
Greegor
Firemonkey
> I thought this part was EVEN BETTER!
>
> "I then did as I would have done for any prosecutor and destroyed the
> ticket due to the relationship and the close working we do with the
> prosecution. I would have done this for any one of them." - part of
> the officer's testimony!
>
> and
>
> The ticket fixing, and the suggestion that this happens regularly,
> were troubling to Elena Nunez, of Colorado Common Cause, a government
> watchdog group.
>
> A local attorney here has a driving record which shows a chronic
> speeding problem, ticket, ticket, ticket (etc.)
>
> When she became a Juvenile Court Judge, suddenly her history
> of speading tickets abruptly stopped.
>
> Do you honestly think she slowed down? I don't!
>
> I think the cops extend "professional courtesy" to the Judge.
>
richard
wrote:
>I thought this part was EVEN BETTER!
>
>"I then did as I would have done for any prosecutor and destroyed the
>ticket due to the relationship and the close working we do with the
>prosecution. I would have done this for any one of them." - part of
>the officer's testimony!
So? Happens in every county in the country.
In Hamiton County Ohio, if you're an elected official, or a high
ranking city official, do as you damn well please behind the wheel.
Any officer dumb enough to cite you for it won't have his badge for
long.
I wonder if our resident NYC ADA has ever prosecuted a city official
for any moving violation? Let alone any other of his colleagues.
Kent Wills
wrote:
Do moving violations warrant a trial that requires an ADA? I
really don't know.
--
"Hail imp," shouted Vlad, the Imp Hailer.
richard
wrote:
Well when I went to court over a minor infraction of not having a rear
bumper on a pickup truck, I was confronted by an ADA.
When I went to court for "leaving the scene of an accident", I was
questioned by an ADA.
After all, the jurisdiction has to be represented in court.
Greegor
KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
Fixing tickets is fixing tickets, whether
its a dog catcher, cop, ADA, Judge or
a clerk of court asking or granting the favor.
What difference does it make if it would
or would not "warrant a trial that requires ADA" ?
Kent Wills
wrote:
>KW > Do moving violations warrant a trial
>KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
>
>Fixing tickets is fixing tickets, whether
>its a dog catcher, cop, ADA, Judge or
>a clerk of court asking or granting the favor.
You don't answer the question raised.
>
>What difference does it make if it would
>or would not "warrant a trial that requires ADA" ?
You don't answer the question raised.
--
"If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll
cripple you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out,
I'll be able to walk,but you will still be a cripple."
--Greg Hanson, in a verbal threat to his girlfriend
Greegor
KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
G > Fixing tickets is fixing tickets, whether
G > its a dog catcher, cop, ADA, Judge or
G > a clerk of court asking or granting the favor.
KW > You don't answer the question raised.
G > What difference does it make if it would
G > or would not "warrant a trial that requires ADA" ?
KW > You don't answer the question raised.
Your question doesn't logically follow.
What's the point to your question and
how does it relate to the subject of cops
and courthouse insiders fixing tickets?
Kent Wills
wrote:
>KW > Do moving violations warrant a trial
>KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
>
>G > Fixing tickets is fixing tickets, whether
>G > its a dog catcher, cop, ADA, Judge or
>G > a clerk of court asking or granting the favor.
>
>KW > You don't answer the question raised.
>
>Your question doesn't logically follow.
>
I asked if moving violations warrant a trial that requires an ADA.
You go off on one of your delusional rants about fixing tickets. Your
rant didn't even address my question in any way.
>What's the point to your question and
>how does it relate to the subject of cops
>and courthouse insiders fixing tickets?
Had you not deceptively snipped the preceding text, you wouldn't
need to pretend like you don't understand.
I certainly hope you're pretending. If you really don't
understand, then I have, once again, seriously over estimated your
intellect.
http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
By that definition, Mr. Probert, I could claim that
you and others are stalking me.
-- GregWhore Hanson
Message-ID: <1150922197.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Greegor
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 15:09:43 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >KW > Do moving violations warrant a trial
> >KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
>
> >Fixing tickets is fixing tickets, whether
> >its a dog catcher, cop, ADA, Judge or
> >a clerk of court asking or granting the favor.
>
> You don't answer the question raised.
G > What difference does it make if it would
G > or would not "warrant a trial that requires ADA" ?
KW > You don't answer the question raised.
Your question doesn't logically follow, spazzo.
Dan Sullivan
> On Jul 5, 6:38 pm, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 15:09:43 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > I wonder if our resident NYC ADA has ever
> > > > > prosecuted a city official for any moving violation?
>> > > > Let alone any other of his colleagues.
> > >KW > Do moving violations warrant a trial
> > >KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
>
> > >Fixing tickets is fixing tickets, whether
> > >its a dog catcher, cop, ADA, Judge or
> > >a clerk of court asking or granting the favor.
>
> > You don't answer the question raised.
>
> G > What difference does it make if it would
> G > or would not "warrant a trial that requires ADA" ?
>
> KW > You don't answer the question raised.
>
> Your question doesn't logically follow, spazzo.
Sure it does, grag.
Are traffic tickets in Iowa prosecuted by an ADA?
You of all people, with your long history of traffic offenses, should
know.
Greegor
KRP > prosecuted a city official for any moving violation?
KRP > Let alone any other of his colleagues.
KW > Do moving violations warrant a trial
KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
G > Fixing tickets is fixing tickets, whether
G > it's a dog catcher, cop, ADA, Judge or
G > a clerk of court asking or granting the favor.
KW > You don't answer the question raised.
G > What difference does it make if it would
G > or would not "warrant a trial that requires ADA" ?
KW > You don't answer the question raised.
G > Your question doesn't logically follow, spazzo.
DS > Sure it does, grag.
DS > Are traffic tickets in Iowa prosecuted by an ADA?
DS > You of all people, with your long history of
DS > traffic offenses, should know.
Long history of traffic offenses? LOL!
Which ones specifically are you talking about, Dan?
But you never explained how Kent's inane
question relates to the ticket fixing news story.
You do know what "logically follows" means, right?
Dan Sullivan
> KRP > I wonder if our resident NYC ADA has ever
> KRP > prosecuted a city official for any moving violation?
> KRP > Let alone any other of his colleagues.
>
> KW > Do moving violations warrant a trial
> KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
>
> G > Fixing tickets is fixing tickets, whether
> G > it's a dog catcher, cop, ADA, Judge or
> G > a clerk of court asking or granting the favor.
>
> KW > You don't answer the question raised.
>
> G > What difference does it make if it would
> G > or would not "warrant a trial that requires ADA" ?
>
> KW > You don't answer the question raised.
>
> G > Your question doesn't logically follow, spazzo.
>
> DS > Sure it does, grag.
> DS > Are traffic tickets in Iowa prosecuted by an ADA?
> DS > You of all people, with your long history of
> DS > traffic offenses, should know.
>
> Long history of traffic offenses? LOL!
> Which ones specifically are you talking about, Dan?
All of them.
> But you never explained how Kent's inane
> question relates to the ticket fixing news story.
Read the krp quote that starts this message.
> You do know what "logically follows" means, right?
Yes, and obviously you need someone to explain what it means to you,
grag.
Look it up.
Greegor
KRP > prosecuted a city official for any moving violation?
KRP > Let alone any other of his colleagues.
KW > Do moving violations warrant a trial
KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
G > Fixing tickets is fixing tickets, whether
G > it's a dog catcher, cop, ADA, Judge or
G > a clerk of court asking or granting the favor.
KW > You don't answer the question raised.
G > What difference does it make if it would
G > or would not "warrant a trial that requires ADA" ?
KW > You don't answer the question raised.
G > Your question doesn't logically follow, spazzo.
DS > Sure it does, grag.
DS > Are traffic tickets in Iowa prosecuted by an ADA?
DS > You of all people, with your long history of
DS > traffic offenses, should know.
G > Long history of traffic offenses? LOL!
G > Which ones specifically are you talking about, Dan?
DS > All of them.
G > But you never explained how Kent's inane
G > question relates to the ticket fixing news story.
DS > Read the krp quote that starts this message.
Dan, I don't see that message ITSELF in the ascps thread.
It appeared quoted in a KW post.
KRP > I wonder if our resident NYC ADA has ever
KRP > prosecuted a city official for any moving violation?
KRP > Let alone any other of his colleagues.
KW > Do moving violations warrant a trial
KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
Is an ADA equivalent to an assistant county attorney?
Does this question negate the problem of
people IN THE SYSTEM fixing tickets for
people with inside connections?
KRP > I wonder if our resident NYC ADA has ever
KRP > prosecuted a city official for any moving violation?
KRP > Let alone any other of his colleagues.
KW > Do moving violations warrant a trial
KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
G > You do know what "logically follows" means, right?
DS > Yes, and obviously you need someone
DS > to explain what it means to you, grag.
DS > Look it up.
This?
-----------------------------
KRP > I wonder if our resident NYC ADA has ever
KRP > prosecuted a city official for any moving violation?
KRP > Let alone any other of his colleagues.
KW > Do moving violations warrant a trial
KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
----------------------------
What exactly does KW's question have
to do with ticket fixing?
Whether it was done by the dog catcher,
the county attorney, the Police Chief or
the county Sheriff, it's an abuse of office.
Most prosecutors have ""descretion"" about
whether or not to prosecute any case, which
when it comes to other insiders, is another
way to ""fix tickets"" for insiders and their relatives.
This reminds me of that city official somewhere
that ominously claimed she "knows things"
that she would unleash if she is prosecuted.
It turns out there's a lot more "Soap Opera"
or "Peyton Place" type crap going on than
most court officials would ever care to admit.
Dan Sullivan
So?
> KRP > I wonder if our resident NYC ADA has ever
> KRP > prosecuted a city official for any moving violation?
> KRP > Let alone any other of his colleagues.
>
> KW > Do moving violations warrant a trial
> KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
>
> Is an ADA equivalent to an assistant county attorney?
In height?
Weight?
Free throws?
> Does this question negate the problem of
> people IN THE SYSTEM fixing tickets for
> people with inside connections?
Apparently you're not following the conversation.
> KRP > I wonder if our resident NYC ADA has ever
> KRP > prosecuted a city official for any moving violation?
> KRP > Let alone any other of his colleagues.
>
> KW > Do moving violations warrant a trial
> KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
>
> G > You do know what "logically follows" means, right?
>
> DS > Yes, and obviously you need someone
> DS > to explain what it means to you, grag.
>
> DS > Look it up.
>
> This?
No.
krp
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:59a8ed25-882a-4a54...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
KRP > I wonder if our resident NYC ADA has ever
KRP > prosecuted a city official for any moving violation?
KRP > Let alone any other of his colleagues.
(attribution above INCORRECT that wasn't me)
Kent Wills
wrote:
>KRP > I wonder if our resident NYC ADA has ever
>KRP > prosecuted a city official for any moving violation?
>KRP > Let alone any other of his colleagues.
Kenny-Bob didn't write that. Why, exactly, are you LYING and
claiming he did?
Here's the article on Google. Note it was Richard who wrote that,
not Kenny-Bob.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.thebird.copwatch/msg/45ef47b4380014be
Come on, GregWhore. Explain to the readers exactly why you're
lying about the author of the article.
>
>KW > Do moving violations warrant a trial
>KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
>
>G > Fixing tickets is fixing tickets, whether
>G > it's a dog catcher, cop, ADA, Judge or
>G > a clerk of court asking or granting the favor.
>
>KW > You don't answer the question raised.
>
>G > What difference does it make if it would
>G > or would not "warrant a trial that requires ADA" ?
>
>KW > You don't answer the question raised.
>
>G > Your question doesn't logically follow, spazzo.
>
>DS > Sure it does, grag.
>DS > Are traffic tickets in Iowa prosecuted by an ADA?
>DS > You of all people, with your long history of
>DS > traffic offenses, should know.
>
>Long history of traffic offenses? LOL!
>Which ones specifically are you talking about, Dan?
>
>But you never explained how Kent's inane
>question relates to the ticket fixing news story.
Since my question was in reply to Richard's comment, not
Kenny-Bob's as you deceptively claim above, and not any ticket fixing
story, your most recent deception fails.
>
>You do know what "logically follows" means, right?
You clearly don't. You think editing the post and replies in such
a way as to make it appear that I was replying to Ken, when I was
replying to Richard, somehow supports your latest lie.
Here's my post on Google. Note that I replied to Richard.
Kenny-Bob doesn't appear anywhere in the attributes.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.thebird.copwatch/msg/371192da41ae18d7
Care to explain to the readers exactly why you were compelled to
lie about this?
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends? You've never actually answer the question, though I've
asked it numerous times.
--
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- GregWhore Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child
abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
Kent Wills
<dsul...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> Long history of traffic offenses? LOL!
>> Which ones specifically are you talking about, Dan?
>
>All of them.
>
>> But you never explained how Kent's inane
>> question relates to the ticket fixing news story.
>
>Read the krp quote that starts this message.
It's not from Kenny-Bob. GregWhore is flat out lying.
Richard wrote the post.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.thebird.copwatch/msg/45ef47b4380014be
More proof, if any were needed, that GregWhore has the unique
ability to make Pangborn look honest.
>
>> You do know what "logically follows" means, right?
>
>Yes, and obviously you need someone to explain what it means to you,
>grag.
>
>Look it up.
First he should study on being honest. Of course, this is an
impossibility for him, based on his numerous lies.
--
"I am erudite [sic] but not Buckelyesque"
Greg Hanson, Jan 22, 2008
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>G > But you never explained how Kent's inane
>G > question relates to the ticket fixing news story.
>
>DS > Read the krp quote that starts this message.
>
>Dan, I don't see that message ITSELF in the ascps thread.
>It appeared quoted in a KW post.
Liar.
From the headers of the post in question:
Newsgroups:
alt.thebird.copwatch,misc.legal,alt.true-crime,alt.support.child-protective-services
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.thebird.copwatch/msg/45ef47b4380014be?dmode=source
Note the last group listed.
Another Gregory Scott Hanson lie has been exposed. If only there
was some challenge to it.
>
>KRP > I wonder if our resident NYC ADA has ever
>KRP > prosecuted a city official for any moving violation?
>KRP > Let alone any other of his colleagues.
>
Pangborn didn't write that.
>KW > Do moving violations warrant a trial
>KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
>
>Is an ADA equivalent to an assistant county attorney?
Yes.
>
>Does this question negate the problem of
>people IN THE SYSTEM fixing tickets for
>people with inside connections?
You keep avoiding the question I raised. Since it's already been
answered, some leeway can be given you.
I do wonder why you keep trying to divert from it though.
>
>KRP > I wonder if our resident NYC ADA has ever
>KRP > prosecuted a city official for any moving violation?
>KRP > Let alone any other of his colleagues.
>
Pangborn didn't write that.
>KW > Do moving violations warrant a trial
>KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
>
>G > You do know what "logically follows" means, right?
>
>DS > Yes, and obviously you need someone
>DS > to explain what it means to you, grag.
>
>DS > Look it up.
>
>This?
>
>-----------------------------
>KRP > I wonder if our resident NYC ADA has ever
>KRP > prosecuted a city official for any moving violation?
>KRP > Let alone any other of his colleagues.
>
Pangborn didn't write that.
>KW > Do moving violations warrant a trial
>KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
>----------------------------
>
>What exactly does KW's question have
>to do with ticket fixing?
Since Richard, the person who really wrote the post you
dishonestly attribute to Kenny-Bob, didn't mention ticket fixing, your
question only serves to further prove how dishonest you are.
I note you frequently attribute comments to people who didn't make
them. What is the specific cause of this?
>
>Whether it was done by the dog catcher,
>the county attorney, the Police Chief or
>the county Sheriff, it's an abuse of office.
>
>Most prosecutors have ""descretion"" about
>whether or not to prosecute any case, which
>when it comes to other insiders, is another
>way to ""fix tickets"" for insiders and their relatives.
>
>This reminds me of that city official somewhere
>that ominously claimed she "knows things"
>that she would unleash if she is prosecuted.
>
>It turns out there's a lot more "Soap Opera"
>or "Peyton Place" type crap going on than
>most court officials would ever care to admit.
All of which fail to address the question I asked of Richard.
Kent Wills
<dsul...@optonline.net> wrote:
[...]
>> DS > Read the krp quote that starts this message.
>>
>> Dan, I don't see that message ITSELF in the ascps thread.
>> It appeared quoted in a KW post.
>
>So?
It proves that Gregory Scott Hanson is unable to be honest. See
my reply to him about the matter.
>
>> KRP > I wonder if our resident NYC ADA has ever
>> KRP > prosecuted a city official for any moving violation?
>> KRP > Let alone any other of his colleagues.
>>
>> KW > Do moving violations warrant a trial
>> KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
>>
>> Is an ADA equivalent to an assistant county attorney?
>
>In height?
>
>Weight?
>
>Free throws?
Presumably legal authority. If my presumption is correct, the
answer is yes.
>
>> Does this question negate the problem of
>> people IN THE SYSTEM fixing tickets for
>> people with inside connections?
>
>Apparently you're not following the conversation.
He's not.
>
>> KRP > I wonder if our resident NYC ADA has ever
>> KRP > prosecuted a city official for any moving violation?
>> KRP > Let alone any other of his colleagues.
>>
>> KW > Do moving violations warrant a trial
>> KW > that requires an ADA? I really don't know.
>>
>> G > You do know what "logically follows" means, right?
>>
>> DS > Yes, and obviously you need someone
>> DS > to explain what it means to you, grag.
>>
>> DS > Look it up.
>>
>> This?
>
>No.
Kent Wills
It's more proof that Greg has the unique ability to make you look
honest.
--
Me:
>> Outside of your drunken stupor, and the mental illness you have
>> admitted it caused, I'm not a justice.
Kenneth Robert Pangborn:
>NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, admitting he's an alcoholic.
See Message-ID: <kjsf449973e8lmqj9...@4ax.com>
Greegor
wrote that. Since Dan said "NO" when asked
if that's what he was referring to, what's the point?
How is this thread NOT about ticket fixing?
Dan Sullivan
> OK, So it was richard, not Ken Pangborn who
> wrote that. Since Dan said "NO" when asked
> if that's what he was referring to, what's the point?
I told you to look up what "logically follows" means.
You took too many stupid pills this morning, grag.
Greegor
G > wrote that. Since Dan said "NO" when asked
G > if that's what he was referring to, what's the point?
DS > I told you to look up what "logically follows" means.
DS > You took too many stupid pills this morning, grag.
Do you think it's OK for ADA's or other
insiders to fix tickets for friends
and relatives?
Dan Sullivan
No.
Who mistakenly attributed the comments to pangborn, grag... YOU or me?
Kent Wills
You presume it was a mistake and NOT another example of Greg's
inability to be honest.
"Us Man Whores don't need porno."
-- Gregory Scott Hanson
Message-ID:
<23e9facf-66a4-4c9e...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>