Request For Meeting [Weazel News]

[Herrman Wolff]

Los Santos County Sheriff's Department Public Information Request Sheriff's Information Division

---

Contact Information

Your Name: Herrman Wolff
Your Phone Number: 298-4429
Your Position in Your Agency: Herrman Wolff
Your Email Address: [email protected]
Date / Time of Request ((UTC via /time)): 21/AUG/23 17:38 (E.g. 16/SEP/19 13:00)

Request Information

Detailed information of your request:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to request a meeting with an individual from the Sherrifs Information Division (and if at all possible, Sherrif Kirk) in order to receive some comments around recent events. I feel a meeting would be more cohesive in providing clear dialogue, as well as being more appropriate in handling some of the more sensitive questions.

I thought it may be better to request a meeting, so I am not putting anyone on the spot by just turning up and I do fully understand that face to face meetings can be time-consuming, and if the sheriffs' division would prefer me to instead use the typical format, of publishing questions and then waiting for an answer, then I am more than happy to do so.

Thanks,
Herrman Wolff

[Amelia Clark]

Los Santos County Sheriff's Department Sheriff's Information Division "A TRADITION OF SERVICE"

---

• August 21st, 2023
  Mr. Herrman Wolff,
  
  I have created an internal discussion regarding this matter and will reach back to you within a few business days. Thank you.

---

• From
  
  
  Commanding Officer Amelia Clark
  Sheriff's Information Division
  Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

[Amelia Clark]

Los Santos County Sheriff's Department Sheriff's Information Division "A TRADITION OF SERVICE"

---

• August 21st, 2023
  Dear Mr. Wolff,
  
  We want to thank you for your patience while this is under review. At this time, the Office of the Sheriff and the Sheriff's Information Division is not available for a meeting. We wish to receive your questions in text form for review.
  
  Thank you.

---

• From
  
  
  Commanding Officer Amelia Clark
  Sheriff's Information Division
  Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

[Herrman Wolff]

Weazel Entertainment News Network Request For Meeting [Weazel News] "Reporting The Right News - EST. 2005"

---

• Dear Ms Clark,
  
  Thank you very much for your speedy turn around on this. I completely understand about the limited availability of SID and the Sherrifs Office. I have included my questions below, split into topic areas, there is quite a few so I must apologise up front.
  
  John Wallace IA
  • What is the reasons for the Sheriff's Department alleged denial to hand over any information surrounding an Internal Affairs complaint against John Wallace?
  • Is the IA process considered sufficient over criminal proceedings against officers, even in cases where they may be substantial proof?
  • Why did the LSSD consider the force used by John Wallace to be sufficient and only paid the IA reporter $10,000 for the comments John Wallace made against her?
  • There is a considerable level of patriarchal sexism behind a man belittling a woman by calling her a "hoe", was John Wallace forced to undertake any kind of sensitivity training after the IA against him?
  
  Alester Carter Case
  • What are the reasons for the Sheriff's Department alleged denial to hand over any information surrounding a case against Alester Carter?
  • Does the Sheriff's Department believe that the LSPD wrongfully charged Alester Carter?
  • Does the LSSD not believe that Carter should fight his case in court without impleadment, like every other individual in the state has to do?
  • Has this case and its discovery, worsened relations with the Judicial Branch?
  
  JB Interactions
  • Does the LSSD refuse to comply with the Judicial Branch on a large number of cases, or only on cases in which its officers are accused?
  • Does the LSSD not think it would be more appropriate to tackle any alleged charges against Sheriff Kirk in court rather than have the San Andreas breach executive separation, in order to intervene?
  • Does the LSSD have reason to believe the Judicial Branch is overstepping in its duties?
  • Does the LSSD have any comment surrounding recent precedents set by the LSPD in which they bypassed all Internal Affairs processes and charged a Government Employees, does the LSSD not believe this president applies to them when it comes to Obstruction Of Justice Charges against Sheriff Kirk?
  • How does the Sherrifs Department intend to keep the public faith in it when it does not hold its internal members to the same level of justice as it holds the individuals it arrests?
  Extra Departmental Relations
  • Did the LSSD reach out to other departments and request that they not attempt to detain Bobby Kirk?
  • Did the LSSD attempt to reach out to the Government to intervene, despite the fact that this would be unconstitutional to do so?
  • Does the LSSD believe Bobby Kirk had committed the alleged Obstruction of Justice?
  • With the current situation considered, does the LSSD feel charges placed on Issei Schnider by a joined effort of the LSPD and JB, where just?
  
  
  I thank you for your time.

---

• Kind regards,
  Herrman Wolff - Media Manager
  Weazel News

[Alex Schill]

Los Santos County Sheriff's Department Sheriff's Information Division "A TRADITION OF SERVICE"

---

• August 22nd, 2023
  Mr. Wolff,
  
  Thank you for your time as we have done our best to provide you with the answers and information you have requested:
  
  John Wallace IA
  • What is the reasons for the Sheriff's Department alleged denial to hand over any information surrounding an Internal Affairs complaint against John Wallace?
    - We can confirm that the Sheriff's Department did deny a written request to turn over classified documents pertaining to an Internal Affairs investigation recently, as these investigations are legally binding to the confidentiality of those involved. However, the Constitution gives the Attorney General investigative powers, and we were by no means stopping any investigation. Submitting warrants and going through bureaucracy is a part of the judicial and investigative process.
  • Is the IA process considered sufficient over criminal proceedings against officers, even in cases where they may be substantial proof?
    - The Department does not speculate on matters of criminal proceedings as they are entirely separate from Internal Affairs proceedings. The Department's Internal Affairs cases take all evidence given into account in their decisions, sometimes if deemed proper, resulting in the discharge and criminal charges against accused employees. We have a transparent record of when these actions have been taken. Again, if there is a criminal proceeding at hand, the powers of the Attorney General are there to investigate should they wish to do so.
  • Why did the LSSD consider the force used by John Wallace to be sufficient and only paid the IA reporter $10,000 for the comments John Wallace made against her?
    - To correctly shed light on this situation, it is best to relay the actual outcome given to the complainant after our thorough investigation, as we do with all complaints. This investigation revealed that there was no excessive use of force, as this was detailed in the response. A monetary sum was offered to help the complainant with any mental distress, as there were words of unpleasantry exchanged, according to statements from both the deputies and the complainant. However, any further conclusions or allegations from this resolution are purely fictional.
  • There is a considerable level of patriarchal sexism behind a man belittling a woman by calling her a "hoe", was John Wallace forced to undertake any kind of sensitivity training after the IA against him?
    - It seems this is a far-reaching question with a high level of sensationalism, again lacking any context or source other than pure speculations. The allegations made here of sexism have no foundation in reality. Both male and female deputies were involved in this situation. Not only this, but this department prides itself on its inclusive nature. We have a history of prominent inclusion of females, many of whom have or are in high-ranking positions.
    As with any case, the Internal Affairs department takes all necessary actions to ensure that incidents are correctly resolved in an unbiased and confidential manner. Should an employee be in the wrong, measures are taken to ensure they do not happen again.
  
  Alester Carter Case
  • What are the reasons for the Sheriff's Department alleged denial to hand over any information surrounding a case against Alester Carter?
    - Whatever these so-called allegations may be, we can assure you they are false. The Department has complied with the Judicial Branch to the best extent possible. We did deny a request to hand over the personnel file of Deputy Carter, as we do not deem it to have any relation to his civilian actions or his case. If there is a court warrant for documentation to be handed over, we will comply with said warrant. Again, this is a normal part of the legal process and does not imply any negative interactions or bias with or against the Judicial Branch.
  • Does the Sheriff's Department believe that the LSPD wrongfully charged Alester Carter?
    - The Sheriff's Department and Police Department have a strong history of working together and this has not changed. Given the ongoing case, we do not wish to comment on legal proceedings of this nature that may jeopardize a conflict of interest since he is still an employee. This is an open case and the Department does not want to influence the judicial process with our opinions.
  • Does the LSSD not believe that Carter should fight his case in court without impleadment, like every other individual in the state has to do?
    - Absolutely, the Department has, in every step of this case, allowed Carter to fight his case as any other civilian would. There are no existing attempts for an impediment from the Department or, to our knowledge, of any other government entity. The proceedings thus far have taken place just no different from any other court case.
  • Has this case and its discovery, worsened relations with the Judicial Branch?
    - The proceedings have occurred like any other criminal investigation. There has been no ill will or detrimental nature in our workings with the Judicial Branch. We continue to work well daily with all branches of government, and nothing since has changed.
  
  JB Interactions
  • Does the LSSD refuse to comply with the Judicial Branch on a large number of cases, or only on cases in which its officers are accused?
    - The Sheriff's Department has worked with the Judicial Branch since its inception. We strive to work with them to the best of our ability and legality. No matter the case, sometimes there is simply information that the Department cannot obtain or is classified in nature to which further clarification or action would be needed for us to hand over legally. This does not mean that the Department refuses to comply with the Judicial Branch and, again, is just part of the normal proceedings. Nothing has changed in this precedent, as it is the law and constitutionally bound, and certainly does not change depending on the accused. As shown in the past, we hold our employees to the same accountability.
  • Does the LSSD not think it would be more appropriate to tackle any alleged charges against Sheriff Kirk in court rather than have the San Andreas breach executive separation, in order to intervene?
    - The Department is unaware of any such allegations against Sheriff Bobby Kirk or constitutional breaches. Honestly, we have no idea where this notion could have arisen and find such accusations baseless. It would be reckless of us to indulge these notions or dive into allegations based on pure speculation and lacking any credible source.
  • Does the LSSD have reason to believe the Judicial Branch is overstepping in its duties?
    - There has been and always will be a dialog with any Government entity, which sometimes may result in further actions or clarification being needed on either end. This does not mean that we have any reason to believe we would have any reason to think anyone is overstepping their duties. It is to the contrary, we believe everyone should follow the law and constitutional processes as written.
  • Does the LSSD have any comment surrounding recent precedents set by the LSPD in which they bypassed all Internal Affairs processes and charged a Government Employees, does the LSSD not believe this president applies to them when it comes to Obstruction Of Justice Charges against Sheriff Kirk?
    - The case you are referring to, assuming you mean the charges on Alester Carter, were placed on him as a civilian and has nothing to do with on-duty actions. We trust the LSPD to act enforcing the law and vice versa, and this has not changed. Everyone is entitled to dispute their charges, and it is part of the legal process.
    Assuming any charges would be placed on Sheriff Kirk is a far shot from a simple denial of a request for legally binding documents. It is an ordinary course of action in deliberations. No alleged "precedent" has been set here, and we are bewildered by how this has been assumed. The Department continues to work hand in hand with all government agencies with respect and in good faith, especially our friends in the Los Santos Police Department.
  • How does the Sherrifs Department intend to keep the public faith in it when it does not hold its internal members to the same level of justice as it holds the individuals it arrests?
    - The alleged accusations in this inquiry are, again, entirely unfounded and not based on any facts that this Department has released, past or present, with regard to holding our employees accountable. We will not indulge in such notions when we have a strong track record and transparency concerning any internal actions taken, from suspensions to discharges and criminal charges.
  Extra Departmental Relations
  • Did the LSSD reach out to other departments and request that they not attempt to detain Bobby Kirk?
    - To put it bluntly, there is absolutely no reason the Department would need to contact others about what are tantamount to fictional actions against Sheriff Kirk. Again, we will not indulge in such speculation and boundless assumptions.
  • Did the LSSD attempt to reach out to the Government to intervene, despite the fact that this would be unconstitutional to do so?
    - Simply put, no. The Governor has the Constitutional authority to make their own decisions and their decisions are of their own accord. The Department has always consulted and worked with the Government in various matters that are pertinent to law enforcement. We have no reason to engage in any of these "alleged" fictional actions and again are confounded by this accusation.
  • Does the LSSD believe Bobby Kirk had committed the alleged Obstruction of Justice?
    - The Department is that of law enforcement. We enforce the penal and constitution as written. There is simply no evidence, or actions taken to which we believe there would be such a crime. I'll refer you to our previous statement that the farthest this goes is a simple request which was denied, to hand over classified material, therefore it goes to the next stage of the legal process. Any assumptions beyond this have no grounding.
  • With the current situation considered, does the LSSD feel charges placed on Issei Schnider by a joined effort of the LSPD and JB, where just?
    - The Department was not involved in this matter and thus, has no comment.
  Now that we have answered your questions to the fullest extent, please know these 'allegations' in your line of questioning are false and provide for a narrative that seems prewritten and biased. The exploration therein seems based on journalism not aimed at the truth but at finding fault again with law enforcement, as has been the prerogative of this news agency.
  
  The Department does not seek to entertain further sensationalist claims aimed solely at discrediting ourselves or others rather than searching for the truth. We remain transparent in our accountability and actions taken when it does not breach confidentiality agreements or ongoing investigations. However, we reiterate that we do not wish to entertain glorified accusations containing little or no basis in sound reason or fact.

---

• Regards
  
  Lieutenant Alex Schill
  Assistant Commanding Officer
  Sheriff's Information Division
  Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

[Herrman Wolff]

Weazel Entertainment News Network Request For Meeting [Weazel News] "Reporting The Right News - EST. 2005"

---

• Dear @Alex Schill,
  
  I must first thank you for your comprehensive response to my questions, it has been most valuable in my investigation of this matter.
  
  I wish to address claims to a preconceived bias and assure you that is not the case. If Weazel had a preconceived notion and "chosen side" then it would be far easier for us to not reach out to the Sheriff's Department for clarification. I believe the sensitive nature of the questioning and how easily text can get muddled is why I first requested a meeting, as I wished to avoid this very scenario.
  
  The direct and leaning side of questioning, is indeed a purposeful choice, but as you may have seen this style from Weazel before, it's not to highlight a side or show our own hand but is instead done because it's easier to get a direct answer to a question when it's written in such a style. I am sure you are familiar with the interview tactics of both the LSSD and LSPD and such questioning from myself are in the same interview tactics used by your department, in both instances they are used because they achieve a direct answer, efficiently, and help ensure that if a narrative is chosen then changed, then It's easy to see at a later point in time. I appreciate how at times this may come across as spinning a narrative, but I assure you, with as early as this investigation is, it would be impossible to have a concluded idea of a narrative that is free from bias. The very asking of these questions is Weazels attempt at framing a even playing field that is concluded on collaborated statements and facts, and whilst the LSSD has been the first department to have been questioned, every department, regardless of if they are Law Enforcement or not, will be questioned in the same way.
  
  Weazel News values its relationships with the LSSD, LSPD, and all over entities in the state and actions that would hurt those ties, would serve absolutely zero purpose to Weazel News. Weazel has built strong relationships with many entities across the state and will hopefully always continue to do so. It must be noted however that the first priority of media produced by Weazel News is to provide citizens of the state, an insight into the happenings and highlighting these can often be seen by individuals involved as sensationalizing but Weazel prides itself in getting a full picture because of publishing any article. This standard that we set ourself against is not just a company mantra but also baked into our policies as can be seen in our Ethics section in our Writers Handbook (which you can freely find *HERE* as we make it publicly available for all individuals as a mark of transparency)
  
  An article written about a department is not a marker for how that individual writer or Weazel feels about said Department, and is, instead, a snapshot in time of the involvements of incidents that occurred and should always be seen as such. If Weazel were to comment on a hypothetical lack of funding that Government provides the LSEMS then it should not be seen as an attack, veiled political statement, or any other such long-running fued but instead as a snapshot of the happenings in the state at the time of writing and written in such as to represent the thoughts of the citizens and provide facts surrounding the case. If one side is considered "in the wrong" then it's no concern of Weazels to judge, but it is the concern to comment on it whilst giving an overall narrative. It may, at times, feel that content produced by Weazel News is disproportionally concerning Law Enforcement, but I can assure you, there is no anti-law mentality at Weazel and the number of content is only statistically related to the sheer number of law enforcement across the state compared to individuals in other Government Departments and Organizations which is understandable.
  
  I hope this explains the reason for such questioning in the past and future, and I hope the LSSD continued to have a prosperous relationship with Weazel News. The LSSD has its own duties to fulfil, as does Weazel News and they are not duties that are at odds but instead both work towards providing essential services to the state, in their own separate ways.
  
  
  I thank you again for answering the questions and I hope this unfortunately lengthly insight (I should really try submit this as an article and get paid for it!) gives you and all that reads it, a better understanding of Weazel. I have no follow up questions on the comprehsensive answers you gave.

---

• Kind regards,
  
  Herrman Wolff - Media Manager
  Weazel News

[Alex Schill]

Los Santos County Sheriff's Department Sheriff's Information Division "A TRADITION OF SERVICE"

---

• No further follow-up is needed at this time. Archiving.

---

• Warmest Regards
  
  Lieutenant Alex Schill
  Assistant Commanding Officer
  Sheriff's Information Division
  Los Santos County Sheriff's Department