How To Talk To Police 101; How and why Rule of Law, per se, is not enforced in Mesa County

By John Wilkenson

I want to begin by being absolutely unequivocally crystal clear that many people who work in law enforcement -- (by general the term "law enforcement", I mean to include the people who work in the judicial, district attorney, sheriff's, police departments, jails, etc) -- are decent, hard-working and well-intended people, absolutely worthy of our sincere respect, gratitude, cooperation and assistance. I want to be equally clear that, in my opinion, society very much needs constitution-obedient policing to protect decent law-abiding citizens from "bad guy" scumbags. That means if a law-enforcement officer has 4th-Amendment-valid probable cause to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is imminently about to commit a violation of some criminal statute, the suspect should arrested, put in the paddy wagon and deposited in jail by the officer WITH THE LEAST AMOUNT OF PHYSICAL FORCE NECESSARY. Obviously, under extreme conditions, the officer might be forced to use deadly force his or her own life or the life of another. But those situations should be VERY few and far between.

Unfortunately, despite what we were all taught by our parents, churches and schools, that is NOT what happens, and that is NOT the way the actual mechanics of so-called "law enforcement" works in real life. In the past two years I have learned the following FACT: In real life, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as "enforcement of the law (statutes) per se. There is only WHAT LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WANT TO DO with a given situation. Let's look at how and why that is true.

Having expressed a sincere due-diligence effort to support and respect the basic humanity of those individuals who work in law enforcement, I need to point out how difficult and tricky a matter it is to show support for the individuals who work in law enforcement, while simultaneously taking a critical look at the intellectual dishonesty, lying and anti-US-Constitution corruption endemic in the so-called law-enforcement "system".

In my opinion, it is absolutely crucial for the public to understand that LAW, per se, is not enforced. So, let me restate my premise for emphasis: In real life on the streets, there is no such thing as enforcement of the law, or Rule of Law. As enforced in real life on the streets term "law" doesn't mean the statutes or appellate court decisions. So-called "law" is actually WHAT LAW-ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WANT TO DO in any given case and at any point in time. The unspoken rule of the legal so-called "profession" is "the judge can do whatever s/he pleases". Of course, the same unspoken rule applies to prosecutors and police officers (hereinafter simply "cops" for convenience and brevity). Simply put, they do as they please, while disingenuously wanting the public to belief law itself (state and federal statutes) are actually being enforced.

As a brief aside to prove my case, it is an undeniable FACT that Colorado's 1st degree perjury statute (C.R.S. 18-8-502) is simply not enforced against females in family court as a matter of de facto unspoken policy. There can be no argument or talking points on this issue, it's a plain and simple FACT I know about first hand. And as a human/men's rights activist, I find that to be extremely offensive, even anathema.

The reason I deliberately did not use the word "inexcusable" is because I wanted to explain how what passes for "logic" behind the "system" actually functions. The law, per se, is basically irrelevant to "law enforcement". What IS relevant is that every department of so-called "law enforcement" -- including judicial, prosecutorial, and street-cop policing -- has a budget that they must live within or face the wrath of the taxpayers. That, in turn forces the question to arise: "How much money do we want -- (and/or can we afford) -- to spend prosecuting any given case?" Fairness and obviousness demand, for example, that in such an inherently deceptive and manipulative paradigm, prosecuting a kid who shoots a cop in the face and kills him is far more important than prosecuting the owner/s of chronically at-large dogs who harass and kill $10 chickens who are basically meaningless and valueless to anyone except the chickens' owners.

With absolutely no disrespect whatsoever intended toward any well-intended individual who works in law enforcement, the prime directive of so-called "law enforcement" is NOT to enforce the statutes per se. Their prime directive is to minimize the amount of inter-citizen violence and blood running in the streets. If "law enforcement" personnel want to "go after" somebody, they will do so with no compunctions whatsoever against lying about threshhold probable cause -- (that's called "testilying" and discussed by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz in his book "The Best Defense") -- and with no compunctions against lying about the facts generally. This inconvenient little factoid (generally unknown to the public, especially to the Constitution-101-illiterate "cops are always right no matter what" crowd) is absolutely crucial because, as Judge Jerome Frank told use in his book, "Courts On Trial: Myth And Reality In American Justice", the FACTS of any given case determine what law applies to that case. One of "law enforcement's" main tools is to manipulate the wrong law being applied to the facts. Of course the effects of applying the wrong law to the right facts is just as destructive and dishonest as applying the right law to the wrong facts.

The typical "law enforcement" response to a 911 call is for the policemen to act as if there is some kind of "neighborhood dispute", some kind of moral equivalency between the aggressor/bully and the defender/victim which can be resolved by one cop going to one disputant's house and another cop going to the other disputant's house and trying to talk -- (a la Rodney King "gee-can't-we-all-just-get-along" style) -- with the disputants in hopes of arriving at some type of a resolution.


Interested persons can watch the video clip od Sammi Thomas' attack on Phyliss by CLICKING HERE or on Sammi's picture at the upper right of the page. Sammi's dog, "Zena", seen barking in the video killed at least on of our chickens that I personally witnessed first hand.

Immediately below is a rough diagram of the place where Sammi assaulted Phyliss. By clicking on the diagram, interested persons can see a larger version of the same diagram. Sammi was at point A when she started her rush toward attacking Phyliss. Point B was where Phyliss was actually standing when Sammi rushed at her started hitting and kicking her. Point C is where Phyliss thought she was standing when taking the video which she intended to submit as evidence of a chronically (and illegally) at large chicken-killing dog. Point C is also where Sammi was at when she finished her attack on Phyliss. You will notice that in the video, Sammi hit and/or kicked Phyliss at least two or three times after both women had left the property at 232 Red Mesa Heights and were actually on the easement when Sammi was still hitting and kicking Phyliss.

100% of the people who have seen the video are of the opinion that Sammi's physical attack on Phyliss constituted a criminal assault.

The most likely reason most people would use the word assault is because the dictionary definition of the word "assault": " 1. a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: an assault on tradition. 2. Law. an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner." As any intellectually honest person can easily see, that is EXACTLY what happened in the video.

The Colorado statute which comes closest to actually fitting Sammi's behavior is C.R.S. 18-9-111 Harassment, which, in pertinent part says:
"(1) A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:"
"(a) Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches a person or subjects him to physical contact; ..."

Sammi may not have intended to "annoy, harrass" Phyliss, according to Webster's Dictionary definition of those words, but according to Black's Law Dictionary, the word "annoyance" includes "feeling of imposition and oppression". At any rate, Sammi obviously intended to intimidate Phyliss and put her in a state of fear, both physically and mentally. Additionally, to me, "intimidate" is synonymous with "alarm".

Interested persons can also read the other Colorado statutes on assault by clicking the links below:
C.R.S. 18-3-202. Assault in the first degree.
C.R.S. 18-3-203. Assault in the second degree.
C.R.S. 18-3-204. Assault in the third degree.

The Colorado statutes which talk about the use of violence in alleged "defense" of persons or property are as follows:
C.R.S. 18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person.
C.R.S. 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder (aka "Make my Day Law").
C.R.S. 18-1-705. Use of physical force in defense of premises.
C.R.S. 18-1-706. Use of physical force in defense of property.

Because it is self-evident that Phyliss was just trying to get video evidence of an illegally at-large, chicken-killing dog -- the dog (Zena) in the video is the same dog which is in my incident report -- to present to Mesa County Animal Services (MCAS) officers, it is also logically inferred that Phyliss had no intent (aka "mens rea") of using unlawful violence against either the person or the property of Sammi Thomas. Therefore, it is obvious that none of Colorado's "justifiable use of force" statutes fit the circumstances of Sammi Thomas' criminal physical attack on Phyliss Flower.

Accordingly, the questions for a jury would be: 1) Did Sammi Thomas give Phyliss Flower a reasonable amount of time to realize that she was not standing where she thought she was standing while making the video? 2) Did Sammi Thomas give Phyliss a reasonable amount of time to step off the edge of the property at 232 Red Mesa Heights before commencing her "bull rush" and physical attack on Phyliss? 3) Why did Sammi keep hitting and kicking Phyliss after both women were physically standing on the easement?

My own answer to the first two of those questions is OBVIOUSLY not. The answer to the third question is: because 1) Sammi was retaliating against Phyliss for our calls to Animal Control, and 2) Sammi was trying to intimidate Phyliss and stop Phyliss from making an evidentiary video of Sammi's chronically at-large chicken-killing dog. Therefore, Sammi Thomas should definitely be prosecuted criminally for her illegal attack on Phyliss.


In this situation, an assistant DA declined to prosecute Sammi's physical attack under the legally inapposite talking point that Phyliss had accidentally stepped about 18-24 inches onto the property at 232 Red Mesa Heights, and that triggered Sammi's right to use force "in defense" of the property on which she was renting a room in a de facto illegal flop/drug-house.

The Colorado Supreme Court case which contains the most comprehensive discussion I've found of the legal principles involved is Bush v. People, 10 Colo. 566, 16 P. 290 (1887). The Bush case involved the killing of a man in what was referred to at the time as a so-called "lot-jumping" case in Leadville, Colorado.


Every law-abiding citizen needs to know the REAL "rules of engagement" before doing battle with government1 operatives.
Rule 1. If you are wrong in the law, then you lose automatically, regardless of any other factors, facts or considerations.
Rule 2. If you are correct in the law, then the law means absolutely NOTHING, and you still have to win the politics2 (aka the public relations contest).
Rule 3. Being "perfect in the law" in the context I have used it here means that you have to become competent in researching, reading and understanding the law. It also means you have to be fluent in talking about the law and using the law in ways such as drafting pleadings to present to a court.
Rule 4. You have to have some effective means of getting the "news" about government scumbaggery out to the public. Mahatma Gandhi called this "making the injustice visible" to the general citizenry.
Rule 5. Virtually no lawyer will attack government power -- the courts are the de facto "third rail" of government Power -- Power, criminality or dereliction on your behalf. If they do, state supreme courts will disbar them and take away their livelihood. Very few, if any lawyers dare to be openly honest about this empirically observable FACT.

You see, as I said, if you are "perfect in the law" then the law means absolutely NOTHING to those the public naively entrusts with administering and enforcing the law. But you have to be able to use the law effectively to eliminate their talking points in the public arena where public relations battles are fought.


A little more than a year ago, neighbors from hell move in next door. They are basically "Clifton-trailer-park-trash-methhead-type" -- (apologies to the good people in Clifton for the handy-but-impolitic metaphor, besides it is well known that some law enforcement personnel privately refer to parts of Clifton as "Little Beirut") -- folks. In other words, HIGHLY problematic. For convenience, I will simply refer to them as the "Scofflaws".

A search on an online real estate site showed over 100 criminal reports coming from the Scofflaws. Mesa County Sheriff's deputies have been at the residence literally dozens of times. In a once quite and respectable neighborhood, crime, including car theft, has skyrocketed. We had a new custom-made utility trailer stolen, vehicles have been vandalized with paint

The basic Scofflaw "family unit" consists of a single methhead-looking mother with a live-in boyfriend and two out-of-control teenage sons. But because at least one of the sons appears to be dealing drugs and the Scofflaws appear to be basically running what amounts to an illegal flophouse, there are different people and different dogs coming and going all the time.

The Scofflaws are street-wise, arrest-wise, system-wise and process-wise. If they know somebody has called the police, the guilty party will immediately leave the neighborhood in a motor vehicle, and then, after having been advised by cellphone that the police have come and gone, the "rabbit" will return to the scene of the crime and continue the scofflaw behavior.


When someone makes a call/complaint to a law enforcement agency, that agency automatically makes a record of the call/complain, regarding who made the call, what the complaint was about, etc. If they don't respond to the call, it creates an appearance that they aren't doing their job. And if, heaven forbid, something bad happens, they could even incur liability for not doing their jobs. So law enforcement usual responds to calls, even false, malicious and retaliatory calls, as in the false complaint about Arlo.

In the case of our neighbors from hell, they are the kind of problematic, lying and manipulative people who constantly call 911 on each other, e.g., "my son won't obey me!" or "my mom is swearing at me!" ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Such is the kind of mentally ill criminal crap our law enforcement personnel often have to waste their time on.

Additionally, fairness and reality demand that we not forget law enforcement's budgetary considerations. When law enforcement is dealing with meth-head-type career-criminal scum, if the "system" wants to prosecute, it has to pay for the scofflaw's public defender. Then, if the "system" decides to incarcerate the meth-head-type scum, it must pay for said incarceration. So, in a situation such as Sammi Thomas' assault of Phyliss, by far the easier "rule" -- (forget the statutes, they don't count) -- for law enforcement to follow is "no blood, no foul". In other words, screw Phyliss' legal (statutory) right to not be physically attacked. That statutory right doesn't count because enforcing the relevant statute is NOT WHAT LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WANT TO DO.


Mesa County Animal Services (aka Animal Control) officers have been nothing but polite, helpful, understanding and supportive considering the fact their hands are tied by the -- (budget related?) -- prosecutorial decisions of the District Attorney's staff.

How enforcment is ostensibly supposed to work with at-large dogs is that every ticket gets tougher until the MCAS field officer decides to label the offending animal as a "dangerous dog", in which case the owner can be forced to build an expensive run for the dog which has a concrete floor with chainlink top and sides that the dog can't dig out of. That could cost $10,000-12,000, a figure that gets the attention of most scofflaw at-large dog owners.

In our specific case, MCAS field officers wrote three righteous at-large dog tickets, only to have them dismissed in return for a guilty plea on an unsafe-backing-in-a-WalMart-parking-lot charge. Don't ask me how unsafe backing is a "lesser included offense" in a chronically-at-large-chicken-killing-dog situation.

The neat thing about being a scofflaw in the present "let's make a deal" system as it currently functions is that the more criminal charges you have pending against you, the more chips you have to bargain with on Monty Hall's "Let's Make a Deal" show. Let's make a deal: three at-large dog tickets for one unsafe backing charge! Or would you rather choose what's behind door number one? Come on down!

Meanwhile, to heck with MCAS' efforts to actually enforce the relevant laws against chronically at-large chicken-killing dogs.


Barking Dog Warning

Verified Response of John Wilkenson

Affidavit of Phyliss Flower

Affidavit of Seth Dodd-Flower

Affidavit of David Wilkenson

Affidavit of Robert Power

Affidavit of Michael Cooper

Affidavit of Sharon Cooper


Over the past several years, several different people have owned the property at 232 Red Mesa Heights. They have all had dogs who have killed our chickens. We have probably lost more than a dozen chickens to illegally at-large dogs.

Interested persons can click the link to see the formal Complaint of dogs killing chicken I made. The big dog in the complaint is "Zena" (the dog in the Sammi Thomas assault on Phyliss Flower video linked above.

People who need to download the MCAS incident report form can do so at the MCAS website, or just CLICK HERE and print the form.


In Colorado, dogs are required to be under PHYSICAL control at all times (24 x 7), period, end of story.

In contrast to dogs, if a neighbor doesn't want your chickens pecking around in his garden, he is required to fence your chickens out.


As I stressed at the beginning of this blog, it is VERY important for the citizen, at the beginning of a "contact" to treat law enforcement officer/s with courtesy and respect. After all, like any other demographic, there are good guys, power-tripping jerks, and even downright criminals in the law enforcement demographic. My best political advice is ALWAYS initially presume/hope you are dealing with one of the "good guys/gals" until s/he proves otherwise. Remember, they are supposed to treat you with courtesy and respect as well. There is always time to change your mind about an erroneous presumption in the event your particular "luck of the draw" turns out to be a jerk.


If I knew at the beginning of this law-UNenforcement saga what I know now, I would never have bothered to call MCAS. I would have opted to just build the fence around my property -- (which I wound up doing anyway) -- post the "no trespassing" and "no parking" signs and put up some surveillance cameras to start gathering evidence that might have a realistic chance of being acted upon by the "let's make a deal" law-enforcement "system".


Gerry Spence on the American "justice system" -- YouTube video -- Gerry Spence is one of your humble webmaster's heroes. I consider him to be a great man, and have corresponded with him. He is a spiritually humble man who would object to being thought of as "great" or any person's "hero". According to Wikipedia, "Spence has never lost a criminal case either as a prosecutor or a defense attorney. He has not lost a civil case since 1969."

Interview with Gerry Spence Part I -- YouTube video

Eric Liu: “Why ordinary people need to understand power" - Transcript of video

Do NOT Talk To Police! -- YouTube video -- By Regent University School of Law Professor James Duane -- Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001):
“One of the Fifth Amendment's "basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.'" Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391, 421 (1957) (quoting Slochower v. Board of Higher Ed. of New York City, 350 U. S. 551, 557-558 (1956)) (emphasis in original). In Grunewald, we recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth.”


1. In reality, there is no such real thing as "government". It is not a rock, a tree, a river, or even a cloud. It is mere behavior, an established social order, a dominance-based pecking order. With other animal species, it is often called "dominance hierarchy". In the case of humans, the term "social hierarchy" is more often used. As Frédéric Bastiat said, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." As H.L. Mencken said, "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." As General Smedley Butler has written, "War Is A Racket". In reality, "government" is merely the dominant individuals in the inherently evil and inevitably corrupting stupid-human pecking order struggle known as "politics"2. These disordered-by-definition dominant individuals merely call themselves "government" so the hoi polloi masses will view them as being intelligent enough and moral enough to follow and obey.

2. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. In other words, "politics" = manipulation. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. (The first two kings of ancient Israel, Saul and David, were murderers.) In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to the inalienable Creator-endowed rights of individual freedom and self-ownership.

Under construction . . .