Is there a doctor in the house?
R.J. told the sheriff that he, R.J., was a union rep, and that the union he represented was looking for some good Republican officeholders to support. The sheriff found this pitch irresistible, and R.J. was soon part of the sheriff’s inner circle of friends and supporters. R.J. delivered some small funds, and even got the sheriff invited to some rallies.
Things went pretty well for R.J. until Daniel, the head of the union R.J. claimed to represent, saw R.J. next to the sheriff, pledging Daniel’s union’s support. Since R.J. used to work for the union, but was canned for embezzling money, apoplectic does not adequately describe Daniel’s response. Quasi-homicidal would be much closer to accurate.
Daniel showed up on R.J.’s doorstep, screaming at the top of his lungs. R.J. quickly called the sheriff’s office about a crazy person, and the sheriff sent out his top deputies.
Daniel was taken to jail for disturbing the peace, as well as calling the deputies something on the order of pawns for an idiot sheriff of questionable parentage… Daniel made his one phone call to the union lawyer, who was at the jail within twenty minutes. The lawyer’s response to the charges was just as verbal, but with bigger and more legally meaningful words. Actually, the smaller, more emotional, words were even juicier!
The sheriff’s office, citing a technicality, refused to release Daniel, and the lawyer then threatened the sheriff’s office with a lawsuit and exposure. The lawyer was put in jail for threatening the sheriff. The lawyer made his phone call to the local judge, who immediately ordered the release of the lawyer. (Daniel was on his own for the night.)
Daniel went before a judge the next morning, and was released on his own recognizance. He walked halfway down the steps of the county jail and was greeted by about a dozen reporters, with cameras rolling. The charges Daniel leveled at the sheriff’s office were direct and brutal, and included the fact that 18 months earlier Daniel had tried to get the sheriff’s office to prosecute R.J., but the sheriff’s office declined, claiming that it was a civil matter. Because this is a family publication, “morons” is about the only word we can reprint here…
Has the sheriff learned from this experience? No! Several other similar incidents have occurred that show a complete lack of willingness to do background checks. Trust but verify is not in the sheriff’s lexicon. The sheriff is running for re-election and, unfortunately, will most likely get re-elected. You, however, may not be so fortunate, so don’t overlook background checks.