PERJURY PART 2
This is part 2 of a series of events I told you about in the last issue of this newspaper. Officer Peterson did come to my house, and he did receive a written complaint and a disk containing the audio/video files proving Lou Leone had indeed committed perjury.
Officer Peterson came to see me a few days later, and told me he could find no evidence of perjury because the audio file of the court hearing was not on the disk. I told him he was a liar, because I knew all of the files were on the disk.
Chief Houston called me and said he did not appreciate me calling Peterson a liar. I sent all of the files to Chief Houston via email. I told Chief Houston I wanted Lou Leone arrested and charged with perjury. Chief Houston refused to do so.
Lou Leone resigned his position as City Administrator, and got another position in another state.
I contacted the Kansas Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training, asking their office to investigate. I did get a response in writing that reads, in part: “After a careful review of your complaint, we find no allegations that would constitute a possible violation of the Kansas Law Enforcement Training Act. Therefore, this matter is considered closed with our office.”
After all of this, I will now put several questions to the People of Kansas for their consideration.
Should a City Administrator, who signs an Oath of Office swearing/affirming to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Kansas, who commits perjury at a trial, be allowed to just walk free, with no consequences?
Should a police officer, who signs an Oath of Office swearing/affirming to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Kansas, who refuses to make an arrest even after he has evidence that a crime has been committed, be allowed to keep his job?
Should a County Attorney, who signs an Oath of Office swearing/affirming to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Kansas, and then refuses to prosecute a case when he has clear evidence that a crime was committed, be allowed to keep his job?
Should a judge, who signs an Oath of Office swearing/affirming to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Kansas, who is told of these crimes, and refuses to do anything about it, be allowed to keep his job?
I have concluded that these people that call themselves “public servants” do not serve the public at all. They serve the corporation that hired them, and they protect the corporate employees. Their Oath of Office means nothing to them.
Paul Howard Tilley 7-16-2019