Update on Ron Swift/Randy Hatlee Hearing August 1st, 2012

I also attended the trial, and below you will find my response to InAWhisper, that PC also deleted.

WOW! Very impressive reporting, articulately written. To bad it was not the hearing that I attended, similar, but most of the facts are again incorrect.
I especially, loved the statement that Van Der Jagt convinced the court to quash the subpeona. I recall it as, the court ALLOWED the defense to exam Ms. Ferraro, placing her on the stand, and Van Der Jagt to sit at the prosecution table, but not allowed to object to anything. In my opinion, that was a win for the defense in itself, knowing the Ferraros' had just paid Van Der Jagt a pretty penny for nothing. Although, Ms. Ferraro was seen in the parking lot wearing her glasses, she claimed on the stand to not have them with her. (which may have been true, I believe they were in her purse which she left on the bench she had previously been sitting on. Her testimony, I would classify as on the verge of purgery, Ms. Ferraro claimed under oath, as to only posting on the Internet occasionally, never posting a link, and then asking what a link was........well, she did follow her counsels advice, (which was the only comment I heard as I walked into the courtroom with my friend Randy Hatlee) Ms. Ferraro was advised, if ordered to testify, to be as vague as possible. The remainder of her testimony, she claimed to not recall anything, and didn't have her glasses to see the discovery containing the information that had been provided. As to "the half-witted town clown" at least he has the common sense to place a front plate on their car after being warned that they would be ticketed.....another $25 spent. So glad they have so much money.
Finally, as to Undersheriff Gore, And Betty Royce's testimonies, well, if the defense attorney had been on the ball, their discrepencies would have been highlighted. I am confident that Judge Brian Green, caught them though.
Ms. Cindy Hardey appeared to be the only level headed, unemotional, and completely truthful testomony given that day. ---end of post

I would also like to add that Whisper mentions "the half-witted town clown" and the incident at the Feed store, neither of which were mentioned at the hearing.
To set the record straight, Ms. Ferraro was not named by the defendants, nor 4 of the 5 witnesses as the person at the Feed Store. But it is possible that there is more than one case.
So, again I say to InAWhisper, if you are going to give "updates" get the facts straight.

Actually Becky in the Sheriff race I was the one beating the drum to have a facts based conversation. You and your anti Park County crew were busy spreading rumors and accusations, some of which were very nasty. Facts didn't matter to you.

My comment about the same old Becky refers to the fact you will change your belief system to match if you like or dislike something. In this case you don't like how the post was edit or presented so you want to be facts based.

I don't expect your twisted mind to be able to reflect and understand the above points. This is what makes you the Becky that some love at first and then learn through experience to dislike or hate.

Becky wrote:

V_A wrote:

jmc wrote:
2 years ago plenty of calls for "facts only" concerning the election for sheriff. How the worm turns.

same old Becky

Same old VA.

I didn't demand facts from the OP. I merely pointed out that the OP was pilfering an opinion and offering it up as fact.

Didn't you complain about the exact same thing.....HYPOCRITE

It has come to my attention that unedditted postings are being circulated to any and all Community websites. One would think that if a posting was required to be editted, that there would be a question as to the TOS rules. Let me remind those that Slanderous statements fall under these rules, and legal ramifications could be considered. This is not a threat but simply a reminder.

I think that we can all decide on our own what is going on and as adults realize that any post on a website could be bias.

Look forward to reading the transcript as the court recorder typed it.

I like that we can all post our thoughts and opions even if we don't agree.

MtnMiss wrote: It has come to my attention that unedditted postings are being circulated to any and all Community websites. One would think that if a posting was required to be editted, that there would be a question as to the TOS rules. Let me remind those that Slanderous statements fall under these rules, and legal ramifications could be considered. This is not a threat but simply a reminder.

That website cannot decide if a statement is true (they are not a news publication) and I know that on the other site you mentioned, personal info has been removed. The slander falls on the poster, contact them.

If you want to, please report the posts that you think have any personal information in them and I know they will be examined. Slander does not fall under the rules on the site you are talking about. This statement only pertains to the other site not 285bound.

I think you are referring to libel, which in U.S. law is written defamation of character, while slander is spoken.

Thank you all for your input and correcting me regarding the different sites, wrong assumption on my part of the Bound sites. But, I believe my point had been made.

VA... in regards to the SO...I always stated that what i posted was my opinion and should be weighed as just that. Go back and read the posts.
I was not demanding facts from the OP. Just pointing out that what had been posted was merely opinion and was being represented as fact. Just as you have done in the past.
I don't like or dislike the OP. I don't know the OP.
I merely requested a copy of the court transcripts to form my own opinion.
Had justice been served where the SO was concerned....we would have had court transcripts to form real opinions on.
Does that rock ever get heavy?

Becky,
To be totally honest with you, the court transcripts would be of no use. There have been so many things happening behind closed doors, or not even presented yet, that all of the story is not out. I wish I could say more, but for now all I can say is, that this has been a very sad case. Not only for the horses, the defendants, but also the county.