August 19, 2009
Fulfilled Expectations Department
The Smoking Gun, Part II: When the Going Gets Weird, the Bumbling Get Put on Patrol
Let's start off by reviewing the key paragraph in our last episode:
On April 16 of 2008, Sheriff Bob Fletcher and Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner filed a hundred-page petition (here's Part 1; here's Part 2) with District Judge Joanne Smith, requesting that the judge revoke what they called Wilson's "conceal and carry permit", and documenting, in great detail, each and every one of the incidents above. In detail. The petition had been written and researched by David Rossman -- then a deputy assigned to Sheriff Fletcher's gun permit unit.
Which, combined with all the other strangenesses, was more than strange enough.
This morning it got stranger. The following was posted in the comments -- go look for yourself.
I represent Ms. Wilson. You are wrong on many of your facts.
In addition, the incidents of 2004 and 2007, did not involve Michelle Rae Wilson. Those incidents involved another "Michelle Wilson". Ms. Wilson has no son named Terrance. She was not the perpetrator in those situations. I guess you should print at retraction.
All of this is wrong:
"In 2004, two neighbors accused Wilson and another son of pouring sugar in their car's gas tank; according to police records, one said that, "Michelle Wilson threatened to blow up her house and kill her. She taunted her to go outside." She owed Wilson $60, and couldn't pay. Vandalism is a crime; terroristic threats are a felony.
"But Wilson was never prosecuted -- SPPD Officer Kong just left a card at the house -- and it all went away.
"In 2007, Nakeshia Britton, a high school classmate of Wilson's son Terrence, got another restraining order, claiming that Wilson, her son and others had followed Britton's school bus home, after which Wilson and her son Terrence, "came up on the porch with broken beer bottles and a bat trying to hit me... and told Edna, my foster mom, to let me come out so they can kick my retarded ass." She said that they tried to force their way in."
Michelle has a clean record. Her friends and neighbors love her. You wrote a very unfair and factually false piece as it pertains to her.
Thanks,
Gary Wolf
Attorney for Michelle Rae Wilson
I'm always up for correcting any facts, of course, and I have no particular reason to doubt Mr. Wolf's claims of this morning that the 2004 and 2007 incidents were another Michelle Wilson.
In fact, I think he's right. Hence:
Addendum and digression:
Let me put that more strongly: Oops. I missed something. After getting Mr. Wolf's email this morning, and reading his comment, as reprinted above, I went back and looked again at the voluminous documentation that Sheriff Fletcher filed with the court, and went over it with my friend, David Gross, who had reviewed both the piece and the revocation petition before.
While it's clear that the 1996 incident is Mr. Wolf's client, Michelle Rae Wilson, it's also clear, upon review, that the 2004 and 2007 incidents are, as he says, another Michelle Wilson, who lived at another address. We missed that, when reviewing Sheriff Fletcher's petition.
End of Addendum.
But, let's be clear: they're not my facts. The source for the story wasn't my imagination -- I'm just a fiction writer, by trade, and I couldn't have made this stuff up; it's far too weird for fiction.
The 1996 incidents, which Mr. Wolf doesn't dispute was his client (and, to be fair, he doesn't admit it, either) is from sections #6 and #7 in Sheriff Fletcher's and County Attorney Susan Gaertner's revocation petition, and their Exhibit K and and Exhibit L, both of which were submitted to the court in support of that petition.
Somebody accused of hounding an ex for four years (and that's what the accusation is in Exhibit K and L; I don't know if the accusers were lying) being issued a carry permit in Ramsey County? Let's not be silly. That wouldn't happen unless the applicant was connected -- say, by being the aunt of a Saint Paul cop.
But let's turn to the two incidents that Mr. Wolf does [addendum: accurately] dispute.
The 2004 incident, which Mr. Wolf does say was some other Michelle Wilson (and why would he lie? I can't imagine a reason, and don't think he is) is also from Sheriff Fletcher's revocation petition, in which he claims that Respondent -- that's Mr. Wolf's client -- was named as a criminal suspect, and which Sheriff Fletcher supports with his Exhibit J.
The 2007 incident, which Mr. Wolf also says was some other Michele Wilson, is, yet again, from Sheriff Fletcher's revocation petition, in which Sheriff Fletcher claims that Respondent -- that's still Mr. Wolf's client -- was hit by a restraining order, and which he supports by his Exhibit I.
Let's assume -- he does seem credible to me; you decide for yourself -- that Mr. Wolf is right. Why -- when trying to revoke a carry permit of a woman who was sitting in jail, accused of murder -- did Sheriff Fletcher throw accusations about another Michelle Wilson into the mix?
I wish I knew. I think it's a fascinating question.
There are others. Why wasn't the 1996 restraining order enough reason for Sheriff Fletcher to deny Michelle Rae Wilson's permit application in the first place? He's certainly denied other applicants for less. Why, when she was sitting in jail, did he apparently throw every accusation he could find up against the wall and see what would stick? Wasn't the murder charge enough? And why, after years in the Ramsey County Sheriffs Office gun unit, was David Rossman transferred to patrol after researching and writing that petition?
Apparently, one of the possibilities I raised in the last episode has not panned out: it was apparently not a reward for the accuracy and thoroughness of the research he did in the revocation petition. What did happen with the bumbling Deputy Rossman, and why? Is it possible that, after deciding that Rossman is too incompetent to properly shuffle paper around, Fletcher put him in a squad car with a handgun and a shotgun to do things requiring far better and sharper judgment than he'd already demonstrated was lacking during his time in the gun permit unit?
I'd love to know the answers to all of these questions.
And there's more. Me, I think it would also have been news to many of us, back in 2008, after the murder, that the accused murderer was a Saint Paul PD dog cop's aunt, using supposedly, the gun that that same cop had given her. Doesn't that sound like news to you?
Ah, if only there were some enterprise locally, that hired people to look into interesting questions about public figures and public officials, then reviewed and edited their reports, and printed them daily upon some inexpensive medium for public distribution.
Instead, what we've got is the Pioneer Press and the Star Tribune.
3 Comments
Leave a comment
.
Hey, Joel,
Thanks for the clarification/retraction. Very responsive.
I do not believe there is any indication at all, anywhere, that the St. Paul Police, Ramsey County Sheriff or the officer you mentioned conspired to find any loopholes or broke any rules. No calls were made, to my knowledge. Ms. Wilson took the gun course, passed it and her background was and is clean. I do not think there is a story here.
Take care. I respect your adding to and vindicating the first amendment - the free press. We need more like you.
Respectfully,
Gary Wolf
Lawyer for Michelle Rae Wilson
Thanks for the kind words, and the gracious acceptance of my clarification.
I've been clear and explicit on other occasions, but I haven't had occasion to say this to you, yet, so let me: I understand and respect your role in this. You've agreed to zealously represent the interests of Michelle Rae Wilson, a person who has been charged with a very serious crime, and from what a mutual acquaintance has said about you, today, I've no doubt that you'll do that with skill and integrity. Regardless of what she did or didn't do, like anybody else charged with even a much less serious crime than second degree murder, she deserves that, and while there are folks who will sneer at the CDLs who represent such people, I'm not one of them; I respect the work.
But. . .
As to what's indicated, I think there's a whole forest there, and whether or not this is one of the diseased trees is, I think, not at all clear.
And that's a story in and of itself, of which you've seen only part. For that story, we'll both have to wait for the next installment.
Very interesting choice of words: "conspired to find any loopholes or broke any rules." Vis-a-vis whom?
As against Michelle Rae Wilson? No. They treated her very fairly.
As against the rest of the world, permit to carry applicants? Yes.
But, the rest of the world is not your client, Gary; so I don't expect you, or your client to feel violated, or even to have standing to complain. You are narrowly focused, as is required, in the profession, the world's second oldest.
Joel does not have the same perspective, never claimed to have it, and shouldn't be required to have it. Joel's perspective is that of the public interest, as contrasted to your representation of the personal, private interest of your client. His concern is that the rest of the world isn't treated as fairly as your client. If they had been, there would be no story.
Your client was merely an example of apparent disparate treatment on a matter completely collateral to the matter for which she is charged. Nobody would have known, or cared, about it, until the Sheriff used an "Atomic Flyswatter," essentially screaming from the rooftops, and into the public record, that the permit should not have been issued in the first instance, and/or should not have remained valid; when all that was required was a suspension based on the pending charges.
Such an hysterical move draws attention to itself and invites the very scrutiny you see. The fact that the Sheriff chose to include material that did not pertain to your client, but rather to another Michelle Wilson, is further evidence of that hysteria, haste, and, at least arguably, incomptence.
Does/did it make a difference to your client? No. But it does to everyone else.