New post

CONTENTS

 

CONTENTS 2006-2013

 

(Post titles listed most recent first, oldest last)

 

 

May 2, 2013                          SPEAK UP, BE HEARD AND BE COUNTED....

 

May 2, 2013                          PETITION

    

December 7, 2012              WHY THE DELAY, SECOND CALL

 

JULY 7, 2012                        WHY THE DELAY....

 

DECEMBER 12, 2011         SHERIFF LEONARD FULFILLS HIS COMMITMENT

 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2011        SHERIFF LEONARD OFFERS ASSISTANCE

 

JULY 7, 2011                         THIRD REQUEST FOR HOMESTEAD ADDRESS

APRIL 1, 2011                        THE DALLAS COUNTY E911 BOARD IS NOT DALLAS COUNTY                         

 

MARCH 30, 2011                  JUDGE PRATT DISMISSES 4:09-CV-00198-RP-RAW

 

AUGUST 7, 2009                   ANOTHER STORY LINE, THIS TIME OVER BOB OCKERMSN'S SIGNATURE

 

NOVEMBER 20, 2007          A LONG ATTORNEY SEARCH IN A VERY LOCAL ENVIRONMENT

 

OCTOBER 11, 2007             DALLAS COUNTY HEARS [SORT'A, MAYBE HEARS ABOUT] REQUEST

 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2007        AFTER MONTHS OF RECEIVING LIES, STONWALLING AND BULLYING

 

FEBRUARY 13, 2007            ADDRESS SIGNS COST $4.25

Speak up, be heard and be counted in favor of effective Dallas County Government

TO BEGIN WITH:

After a six-year case history, at great and unnecessary expense to Dallas County taxpayers, during which the Dallas County E-911 Service Board repeatedly refused to provide an E-911 address, the E-911 Board reversed itself with no explanation of the unnecessary delay, the taxpayer expense or the reasons for the Board's self-reversal of its own Order.

The E-911 Board has been asked twice to reveal its reasons for this unexplained, expensive delay and to date has not responded.

This site  contains background information about this instance of the Dallas County E-911 Board's waste of taxpayer money.

Also provided here is a petition whereby Dallas County and other taxpayers can join together to request that the E-911 Board answer why this taxpayer money was wasted.

The Petition text follows in the next post.

Petition



 

PETITION

 

Whereas:

The Dallas County, Iowa Code, Title II, Chapter II, Section 11:03 states: "The Dallas CountyE-911 Service Board shall cause to have installed, signs for every person owning, controlling, occupying or using any house, store, storeroom or building situated on premises, fronting any public way…."

For a six year period, through two appeals to the E-911 Board and an appeal to the U.S.District Court, the E-911 Board refused, to address the parcel it has now addressed 26000 O Lane.

On October 6, 2011, after six years delay, the E-911  Board, reversed itself and did address 26000 O Lane after all.

All of the E-911 Board's reasons for its six-year denial and delay, as testified under oath by the Board's Chair and its Coordinator, are belied and mooted by the E-911 Board's self-reversal.

The Board's delay resulted in the expenditure of $149,887.93 in unnecessary attorney fees, $73,314.43 the Iowa Communities Assurance Pool paid on behalf of Dallas County and the E-911 Board, and, in addition, $76,573.50 personal expense to the taxpayer,  only then to reverse itself to the cost of a $4.25 sign.

The E-911 Board's violation of Section 11:03 and its egregious and unnecessary expense to taxpayers is a stain on Dallas County Government and demands that the E-911 Board reveal its true and full reason/s for its misuse of tax revenue by its delay.

Therefore:

I respectfully request the Dallas County Iowa E-911 Service Board to respond fully and truthfully to this request for the Dallas County E-911  Board's justification for wasting $73,314.43 of taxpayer's money in a useless, unnecessary six-year delay before reversing itself and addressing 26000 O Lane at a cost of a $4.25 sign post.

Name

___________________________________________________

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Street Address

 ____________________________________________________

Signature

If you have a digital signature, use it.

If you do not, make up any random

string of 8 characters (like a password), enter them

here and remember them.

                                                   ________________________________

Date

              ___________________________________________________

If you will to join this petition, copy it into an email message, fill it in and address it to:

 Stojogg@msn.com
 

WHY THE DELAY, SECOND CALL; DALLAS COUNTY CONTINUES SILENT

Receiving no response to his July 2012 request for its "reason for unnecessary delay," after six more months of waiting Brad Schroeder repeated his request to the entire E-911 Service Board in December 2012.

 

WHY THE DELAY?

DALLAS COUNTY IS NOTIFIED THAT THE MOOTED REASONS FOR SIX YEARS OF EXPENSIVE DELAY BY THE DALLAS COUNTY E-911 SERVICE BOARD REQUIRE AN HONEST REASON FOR THE DELAY

Hartung & Schroeder

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

EQUITABLE BUILDING – SUITE 100

PHONE: 515-282-7800                                              608 LOCUST STREET                                                         FAX: 515-282-8700

DES MOINES, IOWA 50309

www.handslawfirm.com

Schroeder@handslawfirm.com

 

      June 5, 2012

Wayne Reisetter

Dallas County Attorney

207 N 9^th Street, Suite A,

Adel, Iowa 50003

Dear Wayne:

            As you may be aware, with the promulgation of the 2012 edition of the Official Dallas County Address Map, the homestead of my client, Carl Hays, has now been appropriately addressed at 26000 O Lane.  As you are also aware, Mr. Hays invested considerable time and effort over the course of several years trying to secure exactly this result.  In fact, his first request a proper address for his property was entered December 15, 2006.  Unfortunately, his requests were wrongfully denied by Dallas County until very recently. 

            Among reasons Dallas County has given for its previous denials of this address are:

1.       "Dallas County cannot change a decision made by the E-911 Board." Pratt ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment, p.16
2.       "…the access point on [sic at] Lane 1 is designated 25998 O Avenue." Ibid
3.       "…it was decided by the E-911 Board that the previous ruling was justified due to the GPS location of said driveway."  Ibid P. 20
4.       "…due to safety considerations…there would be no further action by the E911 board to grant Mr. Hays' request." Ibid
5.       "…the assigned number will be plotted by GPS at the center of the primary entrance of the premises and will not approve multiple addresses to premises." Ibid p. 21
6.       "…all of the Plaintiff's [Carl Hays] utility and postal services were established at another address." Ibid p. 22
7.       "Plaintiff did not use that particular drive to access his property."  Ibid
8.       "…the Board felt that the entrances were properly marked." Ibid P. 23
9.       "…it is undisputed that Plaintiff already had two separate E911 addresses assigned to his property as a whole at the time the amended ordinance took effect." Ibid P. 59
10.   "…it was rational for the Board to deny his requests on the basis that Plaintiff had already been assigned two separate E911 addresses." P 59
11.   "24002 260^th Street is a nonexistent address." Ibid P. 60

            With the addressing of 26000 O Lane, it is now established that all the various reasons offered by Dallas County over the years for its failure to address Mr. Hays' homestead properly were not valid or prohibitive reasons.  Dallas County could have -- and eventually did -- grant Mr. Hays the relief he requested, and to which he was entitled.

            Mr. Hays now requests a response from Dallas County regarding the reason for this completely unnecessary delay and his incurring of tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to accomplish what should have been done in 2006 when first requested.

            Thank you.  I look forward to your reply.

                                                            Sincerely,

 

Brad Schroeder
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SHERIFF LEONARD FUFULLS HIS COMMITTMENT FOR THE E-911 BOARD TO ADDRESS MY HOMESTEAD; DALLAS COUNTY CONTINUES TO STALL!

To: Brad Schroeder
From: Carl Hays
December 11, 2011

Brad:
       Sheriff Leonard faithfully did fulfill his committment for the E-911 Board to address my homestead properly.  However, the proof must show on the ground and it hasn't; Dallas County has continued to bollix the process and delay.

       First, after much waiting I acquired the minutes from October 6, 2011 E-911 Service Board meeting, the relevant Board minutes follows:        

          "New Business

          Carl Hays Addressing

          Leonard said that he'd met with the Carl's attorney and knows what Carl is requesting.  Carl said two nice driveways are going away and Carl is going to be using the old driveway [ Lane 1]....  Carl wants his address to be noted on that land, so wants another sign post ....  Dallas County claims if you gps at the gate his address would be 26002 center of the road.  Leonard met with Dallas County Engineer Jim George and through these discussions, E911 can give him 26002 or could rename the driveway "O Lane" and give Carl an address off of "O Lane", but with the address of 26002 "O" Lane.  Jim George is in favor of this as well...."

          "Hersch made motion to rename the driveway "O Lane" and to assign an address of 26002 "O" Lane for Carl Hays.

Adams 2^nd."
            End of November 6 Minutes

 

 

 



    Second,  Todd Noah is still unable (unwilling?) to show me a master records in the Dallas County Map Data Base that include all of the information for my three addresses in one place at one time.  He did provide a page that shows an address, 26002 O Lane but it is not linked to my name nor to the homestead parcel.  Nothing for 26002 O Avenue shows up on the web site.  Todd also revealed that the number to be at the entrance is 26000, not the 26002 recorded. The E-911 Board finally made this correction at its January meeting, 2013. 

    Third, no street sign, O Lane, has appeared after two months of attempting to track down where this is in the process.

    This deserves action now!  It has been more than two months since the October 6, 2011 E-911 Service Board meeting.

 

 

     Thank you,

      Carl

 

 

SHERIFF CHAD LEONARD OFFERS ASSISTANCE

    None among Dallas County's Government:

1.  Not Keith Heenan, Dallas County E-911 Service Board Coordinator,

2. Not Bob Ockerman, then Dallas County Board of Supervisor's, District 3 (then Board Chairman and BOS representative to the Dallas CountyE-911 Service Board (then Chairman), 

3. Not Brad Golightly, Dallas County board of supervisors, District One,

4. Not Mark Hanson, Dallas County Board of Supervisors, District Two, 

5. Not the unanimous, 21-members of the Dallas County E-911 Service Board twice, upon hearing a formal appeal,

6. Not Wayne Reisetter, Dallas County Attorney,

7. Not Dallas County's and the Dallas County E-911 Service Board's insurer, the Iowa Community Assurance Pool in the guise of John Mullarkey, Apryl DeLange, and Harry Perkins of the law offices of Hopkins and Huebner, P.C.,  

8. Not Judge Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Iowa Southern District,

would foresee from the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence (i.e. ownership of the property) that I would evdentually prevail in not allowing my property to be stolen by the thuggery of whim.

     However, one individual,

DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF CHAD LEONARD, saw the light, saw that there was in all of this a moral obligation to the truth, to the evidence, to the Dallas County Code, to common sense and to the honor of his office; to make a wrong right.  He acted on his principals.  You and I and all of Dallas County are the beneficiaries of his act.  Here it is:

From: Chad Leonard <Chad.Leonard@co.dallas.ia.us.gt
Date: September 22, 2011 5:20:34 PM GMT+02:00
To: "schroeder@handslawfirm.com" <schroeder@handslawfirm.com>
Subject: Carl Hays

Mr. Schroeder,

The next meeting for the 911 Commission is scheduled for October 6^th at 6 p.m.  I have some potential ideas on how we can help unless you have something specific.  Please give me a call anytime at 202-5468. 

Thanks,

Chad W. Leonard 

Dallas County Sheriff 

201 N. Nile Kinnick Drive

Adel, Iowa 50003

(515) 993-4771

 

 

 

THIRD REQUEST FOR HOMESTEAD ADDRESS

      The elephant in the room of this matter is, and has been since December 2006, that, notwithstanding the lies-for-reasons upon which the E-911 Board voted twice in appeal to deny an address for my homestead and  notwithstanding Judge Pratt's dismissal to "get rid of it [Case 4:09-cv-00198-RP-RAW]" ultimately the E-911 Board would have no choice by its own Code but to concede and address my property.  This was made known in advance to the E-911 Board, to Dallas County and to Judge Pratt.  
 

   The real reason that the E-911 Board and Dallas County chose to ignore my ownership of 26000 O Lane is a mystery yet to be revealed.  The Board's choice was at a staggering, unnecessary cost in dollars and delay, particularly when the honest, lawful choice, beginning December 2006, was available at a cost of $4.29 for a sign.

The Dallas County E911 Board is NOT Dallas County

Dallas County E911 Board is Not Dallas County

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

CENTRAL DIVISION 

Case 4:09-cv-001 98-RP-RAW Document 57 Filed 03/30/11 Page 55 of 61 

B. E911 Defendants 

The parties are in agreement that Plaintiff's official capacity claims against Heenan and Ockerman are, in actuality, claims against the Dallas County E911 Board, and are not claims against Dallas County. See E911 Defs.' Br. at 6-8 (discussing how the E911 Board is a separate and distinct entity from Dallas County under Iowa law and citing case law making clear that Dallas County cannot be held liable for any actions of Heenan or Ockerman); As 2d Br. at 17 ("Plaintiff agrees that his claims against Defendant Ockerman and Defendant Heenan in their official capacities . . . are “claims against the Dallas County E911 Board, not Dallas County.") 

    So, there you have it, the Dallas County E911 Service Board operates independantly of Dallas County, i.e., Dallas County is absolved of any liability for the actions of the E911 Board, meaning that the E911 Board is immune from the scrutiny of Dallas County voters as well as all Iowans who pay the E911 tax through their communications utility bills (have a look at yours!)

    Nevertheless it would be more difficult to recognize the distinction between Dallas County and the Dallas County E911 Board than to separate a barrel full of 25 kinds of black snakes. There are tens, maybe tens of tens, of symbioses. Here are a few:

1.          All E911 Board members are employees or electees of Dallas County governmental entities.

2.          Dallas County funds the Board’s accounting.

3.          Dallas County funds all of the Boards space use.

4.          Dallas County entities pay the salaries of the Board members while on Board duties.

5.          Article One of the By-Laws of the Dallas County E911 Service Board states:

ARTICLE ONE - NAME

The name of this organization shall be the Dallas County E-911 Service Board, as established in joint agreement, entered into the political subdivisions located with the E-911 Service Area together with the County itself as represented by its Board of Supervisors, the same filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Iowa, and the Dallas County Recorder, all as provided Chapter 28E of the Code of Iowa, and acts amendatory thereto.

 

 

And on, and on, and on. Usually, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.  In this case it ain’t no duck.  It may be a quacker, but it ain’t no duck! 

 

 

                        

 

 

 

JUDGE PRATT DISMISSES CASE 4:09-cv-00198-RP-RAW

Judge Robert Pratt, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Iowa Southern District, dismissed Hays v. Dallas County et. al.  on March 30, 2011

Following is the beginning and the end of that Order:
 

 

ANOTHER STORY LINE, THIS TIME OVER BOB OCKERMAN'S SIGNATURE

     Attorney Amy Hughbanks, of the Green County law firm, Jungman and Hughbanks, P.C. with offices in Van Meter, agreed to represent me in the case and on June 3, 2008 addressed her letter of inquiry regarding my homestead E-911 address.  After three more weeks of Ockerman's silence Ms. Hughbanks followed the letter by telephone with Ockerman.   June 25 she posted to Ockerman a letter of understanding of their telephone conversation and again requested a written reply.  July 9 2008 Ockerman did reply in writing and with that advanced the certainty that his and the Board's real reasons for the E-911 Boards inexplicable behavior  was yet to be revealed.  Following is Ockerman's explanation":

     There several discoveries from this letter:
1. "The assigned number will be plotted by GPS at the center of the primary entrance of the premise."

       What is extremely fishy about this statement is that the E-911 Board had already plotted and addressed Tthis site in 2006 and agaiin in 2009.

2.   "O Avenue does not go South of 260th Street and 260th Street does not exist East of 0 Avenue, his request for 24002 260th Street would not be a good address in the County System."

     This is truly a grasping at desperation, it was the E-911 Board that addressed this very site, "26998 260th St." in December 2006. 

 




A LONG ATTORNEY SEARCH IN A VERY LOCAL ENVIRONMENT

        Given the Heenan's,Ockerman's and the E-911 Boards "actions" between December 15, 2006 and October 11, 2007, tthe E-911 Board's ruling that, "there would be no further action by the E-911 Board to grant Mr. Hays' request," was both astonishing and unbelievable.  From those conditions began a trip through the near impossibility of hiring a Dallas County lawyer to take a case involving Dallas County government or the Dallas County E-911 Board. 

I interviewed 20 lawyers during the process and  heard an unexplainably consistent  reason for not taking the case.

The entire search took more than a year from October 11 2007, through November 20 2008 when a Polk County Attorney was hired.

In the hopes that my search might aid your search, following are my notes from the search.

Aid to memory

Re:  Attorney Search , a chronology of October 11, 2007 through November 20, 2008 

           

1.      Randy Hefner.  Randy claims a conflict of interest in representing us in any cause that includes county government.  Randy recommended Frank Steinbach in West Des Moines and offered to contact him with an introduction.  Randy had not, however by the time I contacted Frank.

2.      Frank Steinbach.  Much posturing here.  Said he did not know what a writ is.  Talked about ¾ hour.  Suggested a “notice to sheriff” to stay off my property.  Offered to work but only if I paid him $250 per hour to read the entire 3,000 pages of documents. 

3.      Mark Powell met us January 17 in his office.  Mark claims a conflict of interest because he is a magistrate.  He did suggest Jennie Hughes, Perry; Bob Horak, Perry, Jefferson and WDM; Mark Rassmusen, Jefferson’ and Chip Darling, Winterset ("fierce advocate")

4.      Jennie Hughes, 465-8800, did view a copy of the documentation and claims a conflict of interest because her partner is a magistrate.  She thought it was very interesting and that there really is a case.  She suggested Sam Marks 276-7211 WDM.

5.      Sam Marks 276-7211.  I’m really not qualified or interested in practicing in this area.  Should contact a Dallas County lawyer.  Suggested Brian Jennings.  

6.      Brian Jennings, 993-4254.   Left message January 31, a.m.  He did not return the call.  I called him February 4.  He immediately revealed a conflict of interest due to his representation of the E-911 Board[G1] .  He indicated that Wayne [G2] does represent the County in most cases but not in the interest of some of the “minor” Boards[G3] .  At my request, Brian suggested that I might consider DuWayne Dalen who is with Sackett law firm in Perry.  See Dalen, below.   

7.      Chip Darling, Winterset 462-2440.  Spoke with his administrative assistant at length.  She says that Chip doesn’t do this kind of work but recommended John Casper the Winterset city attorney.

8.      John Casper, 462-4912.  Not interested.  Call Steve Walters, another Winterset attorney.

9.      Steve Walters 462-3731.  You should do this by getting a local attorney to approach the BOS on QT.  This is too expensive to litigate but he will do it if there is no other choice.  He suggested Randy Hefner; Brian Jennings, 993-4253; Mark Lowe 993-4545(with Jim Van warden); Mark Spellman (young member of Spellman firm), firm of Shirley and Finniseth 465-4641.

10.  James Nelson, also with Monte Brown.  Suggested Mark Powell in Perry,  the one I talked to for 30 minutes but he did not make recommendations.  

11.  Chris Gruenhagen 225-5528 cell 971-6709, attorney for Iowa Farm Bureau was not available but referred me to Michelle Meinecke 225-5547 who directed me to the Iowa Bar Association lawyer referral service.

12.  Judy Jordan, ISBA Lawyer referral Service, 280-7429, recommended Aaron Fultz, 618 Douglas Ave. P.O. Box 270 Ames, 515-239-5005. 

13.   Aaron Fultz.  Talked with him in January 30.  Was not sure whether he would be interested or not.  I offered to send documentation.  Promised to talk with his associate and return a call to me.  He did not.

14.  Jonathan Kramer 288-6041 Second recommendation from the Iowa Bar Referral Service.   Kramer was not available on January 31.  Was referred to his Associate who also was not in.  Left a message to return my call.  No return.  

15.  DuWayne Dalen, 465-5331, 1212 2nd St, P.O. Box 310, Perry 50220.  Lives on the west side of Cross Country Estates.  This is the same firm, same office as Ned Willis.  Said he would take a look at the documents.  He took both my phone numbers.  Mailed documentation with cover letter to him to him February 4, 2008.

16.  I Had not heard from Dalen by February 29, 25 days into it.  I telephoned him February 29 and he replied, ”I’ve been too busy with taxes to look at the notes but tax pressure is slackened and I will look at it next week for sure and get back to you.  Then we can get together at the site and look at it.”

17.  March 17 I still have not heard from Dalen, another 16 days into it, a total of 42 days into it.   

18.  The fifteenth lawyer whom I interviewed in my search,  De Wayne Dalen from Perry, did eventually respond after being prompted by my telephone call several weeks after I had sent him the E-911 documentation.  He agreed to work on it and I hired him for the job at $150.00 per hour, beginning by making inquiries to Wayne Reisetter, Bob Ockerman and Keith Heenan.  Daley reported that his inquiry to Reisetter, who indicated that he was not opposed to the installation of the sign, made Daley more optimistic about a resolution without litigation. 

After several weeks and another prompting telephone call Daley reported that he had contacted Heenan and Ockerman.  By way of explaining why a private attorney is giving counsel to the E-911 Board, Daley revealed that Keith Heenan’s wife is Brian Jennings’ secretary.  [G4] Ockerman apparently told Daley that, “it was up to the E-911 Board.”  But, Daley said, Heenan was adamantly, nay passionately, opposed to placing the sign.[G5]  

Because of that, Daley concluded that there was no way that we would get the sign without litigation.  Then came the sticker.  Daley announced that he, “just didn’t have the staff to pursue a lawsuit.”  So once more I have lost two months time and whatever damage is done to my interests by having an attorney contact opponents on my behalf and then bow out!

Further I have lost the evidence of the results generated by those initial contacts.  Specifically, Heenan claims now that he is opposed to the sign because 402 260^th St., “isn’t a legitimate entrance.”  If there is an emergency there, he has another think a’ coming.  Even if that were so, why did Heenan install a sign there for the next parcel in the first place!

18.1.        Dalen was gentleman enough to return my documents to me with a cover letter, dated April 8, 2008, bowing out with a cursory account of his appearance.  I determined that since I had risked having him appear on my behalf I am entitled to complete documentation of what he learned and what he revealed.  To that end I wrote him a letter, dated April 10, 2008, asking for details of his findings.  Dalen telephoned upon receipt of my letter and suggested that we get together to discuss exactly what I wanted.  I composed some draft ideas for him to suggest that he simply augment his April 8 letter.  KM and I visited with Dalen in his office on Thursday, April 17.  He seemed quite ready to satisfy my request of April 10 in writing.

19.  In considering Harvey Harrison.  I spoke with Gary Steelman co-owner and partner in the Consignment Barn just west of Adel.  Gary sued Dallas County several years ago over a zoning issue.  Harvey Harrison had successfully defended them and I wanted any information Gary could give me regarding that experience.  Gary was very enthusiastic about Harvey.  It cost them $30,000 but it saved the business.  Gary agreed for me to use his name as a reference for the call if I decide to contact Harvey. 

20.  Despairing of being able to hire an attorney, any attorney, I, again, hat in hand, telephoned Randy Hefner.  Randy, again, was generous enough to suggest two more possible attorneys.  The first is Michael Tungsvik from Boone (515-432-6618).  Michael is in with Dorothy Dakins.  Randy specifically suggested avoiding Dorothy as not a good fit for me but was enthusiastic about Michael.  The second is Amy J. Hughbanks with the firm of Jungman and Hughbanks, Greenfield, Iowa. JUNGMANN & Hughbanks, P.C. (main office - Adair County)
113 W. Iowa St.
P.O. Box 329
Greenfield, Iowa 50849
Tel: (888) 366-5107
Fax: (641) 743-8977
Contact

JUNGMANN & Hughbanks, P.C. (branch office - Dallas County)
800 Main Street
P.O. Box 252
Van Meter, Iowa 50261
Tel: (888) 366-5107.  Randy gave the local number 996-2050
Fax: (515) 996-9339

Randy explained that Dave Jungman is Amy’s uncle.  Furthermore, Amy is the granddaughter Lloyd Jungman, the owner of Hawkeye Breeders.  Hence, the Van Meter addresses.  I spoke with Amy via telephone on April 15 and learned that she lives at 23602 River Heights Drive, Dallas Center 992-3266.  Amy seemed interested enough to discuss the matter and suggested that we begin with her visit to the site that was scheduled for Thursday, April 24 at 8:30 a.m.   Amy hired on and did inquire of Bob Ockerman and did, eventually receive a written reply.  Then Amy was called to withdraw as counsel for personal reasons. 

21. Brad Schroeder, a Polk County attorney was hired November 8, 2008.

---

 [G1]Wow! The jackpot. Keith Heenan has adamantly refused to name the E-911 Board's attorney whom he had consulted and had been advised, "not to talk to me."

 [G2]Wayne Reisetter, Dallas County attorney.  The question was, "why did Heenan and the E-911 Board hire a private attorney for a Dallas County Board."  Why are the taxpayers paying a private attorney when we already elect and are taxed for a County Attorney with assistant attorneys and support staff? 

 [G3]"minor?"  Whoa!  "Minor,?  when the attorney for the Iowa Communities Assurance Pool, representing the E-911 Board revealed, 'we have $450,000 to defend the Dallas County E-911 Board?'  Stay tuned.

 [G4]Wow! Another jackpot!  Dallas County  government is indeed a small world.  All politics is local in Dallas County.

 [G5]The invisable elephant in the room here is the real reason why Heenan could muster such passion for his opposition to my address.  There is something more he isn't admitting?  Remember, he had never met me at this point.  Why then, without contacting me, and apparently with no other person present, did he stick an address sign at the entrance to my property.  Stay tuned.