The Fountain Green Incident(s)
|
DISCLAIMER: The incidents, organizations and persons discussed in this section of joepuente.org have already been discussed in the Sixth Judicial District Court in Manti, Sanpete County, Utah as well as the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City. I have revealed nothing in these pages that is not already available to the public (with the exception of certain documents that have been sealed by the court) including the identities of those named here-in who, by submitting their names to the court in various documents, have willfully given up any claim to anonymity. I would also like to point out that my primary accuser in this series of events has been adament about having her name deleted from these pages. I find this very interesting. The reason I have posted this information onto the internet is because I know I have nothing to hide. I am presenting her claims and refuting them one by one. If she's telling the truth, as she claims, then why wouldn't she want to be associated with the information that's presented here? Only a person who has something to hide, someone who knows that they have been caught in a lie, would want to back-peddle and distance themselves from their earlier claims.-JLP This section of joepuente.org is dedicated to presenting all the facts in what I am calling "The Fountain Green Incident(s)" which occurred on August 26 and September 2, 2005.
On September 6, 2005, I mailed two letters. One of these letters was mailed to Ms. Kaibetony, discussing with her my concerns about the incidents as well as her professionalism and attitude toward me. The second letter was mailed to Patricia Banks, Human Resources Director of The Central Valley Medical Center, Ms. Kaibetony's employer. The letter brought my concerns about Ms. Kaibetony to their attention with a request that Ms. Kaibetony be counseled by her supervisor. I felt that these letters were frank and direct but in no way threatening. I did not demand that Ms. Kaibetony be fired or reprimanded, simply counseled. The reader is invited to judge for themselves, copies of the letters (The one to Ms. Kaibetony and the one to Ms. Banks) are posted on this web site. Instead of counseling Ms. Kaibetony, I was charged with disorderly conduct through the VA Police. When I was informed of this charge, I tried to contact Debbie Howard in order to arrange a conference call between myself and Ms. Banks in order to discuss this action, but my request was ignored. I also tried contacting Ms. Banks and Ms. Graham-Avila directly to ask them why I was charged with disorderly conduct, but neither of them would take my calls. Following my requests to resolve that matter through civilized discussion, Ms. Banks and Ms. Graham-Avila collaborated with Ms. Kaibetony in filing an "Ex Parte Civil Stalking Injunction" against me. Certain incidents have yet to be resolved including a potentially fraudulent 911 call made by Ms. Kaibetony on September 2 which resulted in a blatant civil rights violation at the hands of Sanpete County Sheriff Kay P. Larsen. These incidents were brought to the attention of the Sanpete County Commission with a request for an investigation to be conducted by the state Attorney General's Office. My request was denied in a letter from an Ina Jensen, a complaint analyst for the office of the Attorney General, who said, "...we have concluded that criminal enforcement action is not merited in this case." Ms. Jensen said I might consider a civil action but I would have to hire a private attorney. Apparently Mark Shurtleff's efforts to get wine-coolers out of grocery stores takes precident over the civil rights of Utah's citizens. The actions of the CVMC have been brought to the attention of Lawrence A. Biro, Director of the VA Rocky Mountain Network out of Colorado and James Floyd, director of the VA Medical Center in Salt Lake City who have chosen to ignore my pleas for help. I also informed Utah state legislator Darin Peterson since the incidents took place in his district but I have received no response from him. Unfortunately, I was also ignored by Chris Cannon, my Congressional Representative. However, I did receive a response from someone in Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT)'s office who tried very hard to help me get legal assistance to deal with both the disorderly conduct charge and the restraining order. Unfortunately, most legal aid organizations, at least those that I contacted, do not provide assistance in criminal matters. I was appointed an attorney in the disorderly conduct matter but I am still forced to represent myself in the case of the restraining order. As a courtesy, this information has also been brought to the attention of the Utah chapter of Disabled American Veterans.
It just goes to show that you can tell the truth and still lose. Because in a court of law, you don't need the truth as long as you have solidarity. Ms. Kaibetony, et al, won their case, not because of my actions, but because they all told the same lie. The only witness for the defense was me and when five liars are going against one person telling the truth, the court is going to rule in favor of the liars. That's just the way the system works. The bigger issue here isn't really the disorderly conduct charge, it's the violation of my rights as a VA patient as described by VA policy and that has yet to be dealt with legally. An attempt was made to settle the matter of the restraining order out of court but Ms. Kaibetony's attorney, J. Bryan Quesenberry, back-peddled on the one stipulation that I wanted in the agreement: the revocation of the existing restraining order. If this were to be granted, I would have been happy to delete references to Ms. Kaibetony on this web site and refrain from writing any more letters to editors about her (though, truth be told, I never specifically referred to Ms. Kaibetony in a letter to the editor in the first place.) Since Mr. Quesenberry now denies agreeing to revoke the injunction (when I asked that wording to that effect be included in our agreement, he said that he wasn't able to do it), I've changed my mind concerning anything I might write or post to this web site, standing by my First Amendment right to freedom of expression. I've also made it clear to Mr. Quesenberry and the presiding judge that I have revealed no information on this web site that isn't already on the public record (as specified in the first paragraph of this web page). I filed a motion with the court for an order of dismissal which was subsequently denied along with a motion to enforce the stipulated injunction filed by Mr. Quesenberry. A "Scheduling Conference" was scheduled by the court for April 5, 2006 at which I said that I would walk away from the situation and not contest the restraining order. I asked if the court would revoke the order if another agreement was signed and the judge said he couldn't do it. But he did say that he could seal the order so no one can read it. And I didn't have to sign anything, meaning that my civil right to talk about the whole situation here is protected. I'm not sure what Angie thinks about all this but I prefer to see it as a victory. A sealed order is just as good as one that's been stricken from the record. "But why keep the details of it on your web site if it's no longer on the public record?" you might ask. The trite answer is, "Because of the principle of the matter." If Angie Kaibetony tells her friends a bunch of lies about me, that's fine, I can write her off as a babbling idiot. Once she puts it on the public record though, it's slander. Now that the order has been sealed, I don't have to worry about anyone looking up the case and reading all those lies about me (though the likelyhood of a person going to all the trouble to find and read one obscure restraining order is remote, again, it's the principle of the matter). I know, I haven't answered the question, so here goes: I'm keeping the information posted here to show just how petty and childish grown people can be when they think they have a score to settle. Anyone who reads these pages is reading them because I have allowed it, not because of anything Angie has said (though, again, I doubt even she would have gone to the lengths of telling people to "go read my restraining order at the courthouse."), she might direct people to check out this web page. Why? I think I've made it clear that I don't think she's very bright. And what would these hypothetical people find? That I have nothing to hide and every one of Angie's accusations are addressed, disputed, refuted or disproven one-by-one by me without any spineless lawyers coming in and putting their own little spin on it for their equally spineless clients. Just when you think the story was over. On April 12, 2005, the Sanpete Messenger printed a letter to the editor that I wrote about my disorderly conduct charge. I referred to myself in the third person, not specifically identifying myself as the defendant, and addressing the larger issue of where Veterans stand in the political scheme of things. However, I did say that the "witnesses perjured themselves, bearing false witness against him." I figured that would probably rub Angie and her coworkers the wrong way but I didn't name names so, legally, my ass was covered. That very same afternoon, I got an e-mail with a blank subject line and the sender listed only as "angie." Here's what it said:
I'm curious to know who "briandellg@hotmail.com" is. Anyway, I responded... but not to her. I'm no idiot. Were I to click on "Respond" and fire off so much as a "Bite me!" in response, I'd be in violation of the injunction she has against me. (however, I have written a point-by-point reponse to the language Angie uses in her e-mail to me.) Instead, I responded with a letter to The Honorable Judge Mower and an e-mail to J. Bryan Quesenberry stating:
Just when I thought this whole thing was over... After all of this, I have come to one conclusion. Most lawyers are whores. They are paid to believe the lies of their clients. It is their job to tell their clients what they want to hear. Exagerating the physical endowments of their Johns or telling an incompetant receptionist that she's a victim and not responsible for her inept behavior. It's all the same. If you have feelings about or even criticism of anything I might have to say here, then feel free to contact me with your thoughts. |
These incidents involve the following organizations and individuals:
