Sunday, April 16, 2006

The Honorable Steve Meadows

To get this ball rolling, I've pasted in below a copy of my first letter to Florida State Attorney Steve Meadows. Florida Attorney General Crist never replied to an earlier letter to him. Crist stands a good chance of becoming Florida's next governor.

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT # 7004 2510 0001 0583 6369

May 13, 2005

The Honorable Steve Meadows
State Attorney's Office
P.O. Box 1040
Panama City, FL 32402

Dear State Attorney Meadows,

Gov. Bush suggested that I bring any evidence of my charges of official misconduct by the FDLE and Holmes County Sheriff’s Department to my state attorney. My charges include the following: illegal interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications, misuse of official position, threatening witnesses, conducting so called "investigations" under the color of law, harassment, falsifying official records, and obstruction of justice. Before I do present any evidence, however, I have some questions and concerns that I'd like to share with you and would appreciate your help in resolving. First, what sort of evidence would you consider sufficient to open an investigation into my charges? Three electronic surveillance experts all verified illegal law enforcement devices on the utility poles, but refused to supply their reports. The first one said that law enforcement would arrest me if he did so. The second one confirmed that law enforcement installed a tracking device in one vehicle and he even identified the supplier of the surveillance device on the utility pole, but said that he would lose his license if he supplied his report. The third had a conflict of interest, which he didn't disclose. Incidentally, a nationally recognized expert confided not too long ago there is an official cover-up of this on-going scandal.

So what would you accept as evidence in lieu of a signed report of findings? Would affidavits attesting to the above be sufficient? If I'm able to record an echo effect indicative of electronic surveillance, would that be sufficient? Would videotapes help? For example, I videotaped (with his permission) the second expert refusing to check the utility pole for any surveillance devices. I also videotaped (again with his permission) an electric utility official telling me that I put the devices in the transformer on the utility pole myself. I also videotaped other suspicious incidents, such as a utility foremen threatening me with arrest if I searched the power transformer's lightening arrester and fuse for any concealed device myself after he refused to search as he previously had agreed. I certainly will not go near the power transformers, but what if I located the remotely activated tracking device hard-wired into the motor vehicle and remove it? Would doing so destroy its evidentiary value? I also have a number of inane letters from law enforcement and other public officials refusing to investigate. Would these documents help you decide whether or not these officials are covering up?

I would also like to know what would you do with any evidence that I present? Will you seriously consider it or summarily dismiss it? For that matter, does your office have the authority and/or legal responsibility to investigate my credible charges? And, if so, do you have qualified personnel and equipment to conduct such an investigation? If your office isn't authorized or properly equipped, do you know a state agency that is and will investigate my charges since neither the FDLE nor Holmes County Sheriff's Department will do so and, instead, are covering up? The "smoking gun" with a satellite uplink is on the utility pole in the backyard and possibly there's a similar one on the utility pole up front. Finally, am I just being silly expecting you to investigate my charges since Florida law enforcement seems to be above the law and the cover up officially sanctioned?


Joe Keegan

No comments: