WHAT IS THE SECRETARY OF STATE GOING TO RECOMMEND?

(Continued)

Chief Henslee issued a second public nuisance letter to El Palacio on May 18, 2016. He based the notice on his tracking of seventy police reports that he claimed were associated with El Palacio between January 2015 and May 2016. Plaintiffs claim that the incidents in many of these reports were not actually associated with El Palacio, but instead that they happened outside the premises, in the general downtown area, between patrons of the various bars.

Defendants point to the “location” identified in the police reports, which attributes the incidents to El Palacio. Defendants claim that officers have no control over this identified location because it is determined at the time a member of the public calls to report an incident to law enforcement.

However, Plaintiffs submit evidence indicating that all seventy of these police reports were radioed into dispatch by KFPD officers, rather than by members of the public. Plaintiffs claim that Executive Director of Klamath 911 Emergency Communications District Keith Endacott pointed this out in his deposition, describing that the origin of the call can be determined on each Computer Assisted Dispatch (“CAD”) report. When the “Created” and “Dispatched” times are the same, it is an officer-initiated call. Plaintiffs assert that this evidence supports their claim that officers were misattributing incidents that happened in the downtown area only to El Palacio, even when other establishments and patrons were involved.

(To be continued)

FACTS AND VOTER QUESTIONS ON THE ELECTION OF DAVID HENSLEE AS COMMISSIONER ONE IN THE COUNTY OF KLAMATH, OREGON. SUBMITTED INTO EVIDENCE IN THIS COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETING ON THE 2ND DAY AND 8TH MONTH OF 2022.

FACT: The case must be settled, or it goes to trial as court documents suggest. Any settlement must be paid within the timeline set by the Judge, or there may be penalties involved. Henslee does not have qualified immunity as evidence has stated in court documents, therefore the potential for personal liability is real and current! He is not afforded protection by the insurance normally offered to city officials and officers as court documents have shown. He now is being represented by another attorney which is not known to be connected to city representation.