Two Words " Greed & Control "

This is a bit of a update for November into December 2008.

Elmwood Police Committee had a meeting with a couple of Plum City employees and my wife attended and recorded the meeting. Over all, the budget for 2009 will allow 24,700.00 Salary for a 3/4 Time police Chief, and a Part time officer as well. The budget also has 5,500.00 for benefits and 6,500.00 for expenses like fuel and maintenance on the squad. They have taken away 2,000.00 for the outlay to balance the budget the way they wanted. The outlay would be for the purchase towards a new car, and purchase items needed for the PD.

During the discussion it was clear the members believe no one wants to work evening and weekend shifts. It was stated the officers come and go, as if they are going through a revolving door. Once they get experience, they leave. It was also stated that the good officers leave quickly, and the bad officers always seem to hang around. "Older officers are set in their ways, and do not want to follow instruction" was claimed.

Plum City Reps stated that if they would be looking at getting a squad car, they would most likely just get the Dept. up and running themselves again. It is Elmwoods idea to have Plum City contract through Elmwood to increase their expense amounts and mutually purchase a new squad car. The Rep also stated that Plum City always budgets for the police and currently it is believed 20,000.00 is the 2009 budget amount.

The Schools also have interest in having officers around at the beginning and end of the school days, as well as during sporting events. It was noted that they also have truency issues that are to be dealt with, and the school also have the officers around for pro-active reasons. The truency issues are covered by the village ordinances and Attorney Robert Loberg takes care of them, as he is the Attorney for both communities at this time.

The Plum City Representative asked if the officers would be required to be 24/7 ready, and it was responded that they will be required when their are events going on, as well as nights and weekend mostly.

Elmwoods Police Committee spokeman stated that the 2nd part time officer for Elmwood has resigned, and their will not be another until they hire someone new, near the beginning of the new year. It was also stated that the Hrs to be covered will be likely 7-9 am, and 3-10 pm or so, sometimes till bar closing and every other weekend to mix it up. A new job description is being done to ensure these areas are covered. 32 Hrs a week will keep the officer at part time, and keep the costs down for their pay. If two people are hired, they could look into about 55 hrs keeping the benefits from being paid. The part time officers now are paid 10.00 and hour. The squad car that Elmwood has, is loaded with most the up to date technology that it could have. It was also noted that Loberg does not believe their to be any problems in the two communities working together. The part time officers that have been in Elmwood are also Spring Valley officers, so their has been comments in regards to the squads being in the opposite towns often.

Plum City Reps then stated they would look into having about 24 hrs of service with Elmwood, and would like the figures to be put together and sent to them, prior to the December 1, 2008 board meeting they are going to have. This would help them look into their budget numbers also.

Elmwood Reps noted that they where placing an ad in the paper for the position, and looked to hire someone near the beginning of the year.

Biggest thing noted " The officer must listen to the board, and the job discription will be changed to ensure that" The policy and procedures they are to be covered also, but the control by the board is much more a factor.

It was clearly stated by both community Reps, that Pierce County is not much help. Elmwoods Rep stated "We do not rely on them" and Plum City stated " We have a hard time getting them down there too".

It was a common issue that a full time officer is too expensive for small communities, due to the Retirement, and Benefits that are required by law to be covered for them. The Control over how they do their job is another factor both noted often.

The meeting lasted approx. 35 minutes

November Board Minutes by Clerk Jodi Pulk

1st printing of the year in the Argus.

(note: I called and asked the Argus about the monthly publication of the Elmwood minutes, and they responded they could not really remember any. yet they charge the citizens in the budget for monthly publications of them. more funds missing?)

Nov. 3, 2008

There was public input by Susan Dzubay, stating that the public safety part of the budget was the most important part to be considered at the budget talks. Their was conversations about the police dept. and the village office then.

The 2009 budget talks then discussed how they are looking at the recent survey and spending funds on repairing the sidewalks, like the citizens noted as being the biggest concern.

( I do not agree. I believe Public Safety as being the biggest concern. We have not had police coverage like it is suppose to be, and the board is well aware they are the reason for this problem.)

It was also noted that the Nursing Home will become a smoke free facility at the years end.

This meeting lasted just over an hour, ending at 8:15 pm.

NOTE: While reading the article written by Sari Gordon of the Pierce County Herald, she stated that the Sidewalk budget was cut in half, to allow for a 3/4 time police officer.

(This was never noted by the clerk at all. They also stated that they took away 2,000.00 from the outlay of the police dept. budget. What are they really doing with these funds????)

Nov. 17, 2008

The open public hearing for their budget ended up being nothing but talks between Elmwood and Plum City Reps in regards to sharing a police Dept. This lasted about 17 minutes, and the Public Hearing was closed.

The 2009 Budget was then approved by the board after opening the regular monthly meeting.

They then changed the ban on renting tables and chairs to the community. Now they will charge 5.00 for a table, .50 per chair, and 10.00 per picnic table. They also are charging a deposit fee, that was not given.

They also changed the special assessment interest rate from 5.5% to 10%. This was also passed.

The Board meeting lasted only about 20 minutes, ending at 7:37pm

Note- I will update this when I get the December Board meeting recording done being transcribed.

December Meeting was held this past Monday.

There was no public input

The Pierce County Public Health Dept. in Elmwood will be closing the office they have here, due to budget cuts at the county level. They will continue to assist people of the area though, by using the village auditorium and board room for the WIC and Immunization clinics they hold. This was ok'd by the board.

There was a Representative at the meeting to discuss a Cell Tower being placed within the village limits to provide service coverage for users in the community. This would be owned initially by Minnesota Tower Co., and it would start out with AT&T service, and 3 other carriers could be added in the future as well. The Rep. stated they had concerns though with the village Ordinance, stating the village wants 5% of the revenue received for the tower. He added that he has been dealing with these towers since the mid 90's and has never came across anyone wanting Revenue %. The other area of concern was in the transferability. The village wants the ability to revoke the contract if the company changes or transfers ownership of the tower. Rupakus gave his concerns using large words to make himself look and sound more intelligent than the rest of the people in the room. He does this on a regular basis. There is a word they use for this style of person, but I will let everyone choose their own for him. He wanted to know what kind of payments they would be willing to provide. Clerk Jodi Pulk stated that she called around to other communities and no one used their style of terminology in their contracts. She added that she spoke with Attorney Loberg in regards to the ordinance. It was agreed that the Attorney for the Towers and the Village Attorney could continue the talks in regards to the contract information. The tower would be somewhere between 200-250 feet tall, and it would be anchored down by a cement slab 6' underground. Rupakus continued to state he was concerned about bearing the burdens of the tower, and it was stated that if service was to be stopped, the tower would be removed all together, except for the cement slab underground. It seemed that the ability to terminate the contract at there wish was the biggest concern Rupakus had. The Rep added that the tower is governed by the FCC, and the FAA. He also stated that this is done by engineers and they are controlled by state standards.

So it sounds like we might get a tower to assist in the poor cell phone reception we have here in Elmwood.

October Update

well, our lovely board keeps on going.



They reported that they and the Spring Valley Police Dept. are working together and going to be sharing a squad car. ( I made contact to a member and they informed me that this is totally FALSE)

This month in the Pierce County Herald, it was reported that the village could only afford to pay a full time Chief $ 10,000.00. ( This is less than minimum wage for Christ sake) They reported they had $ 70,000.00 for this a cpl years ago, but now all that money has disappeared. (into whose pockets)

There still needs to be change of the board members here, and I will again put my name into the Election process.

another question I have, why is the community charged for the board minutes to be published, when the Clerk has not published any of them. Another frivolous charge to the community, as with many other that we never get verification of.

CHANGE IS NEEDED IN ELMWOOD - Hopefully the community will stand up against all the embezzlement that continue here. A Federal Audit would probably get our board members pointing the fingers at one another real quick. (JUST A THOUGHT) all it would take is a few calls with concerns of this, to get it to happen.

the election time is coming, so keep in mind what continues to happen here. One LIE after another to the Citizens of Elmwood. It was not that long ago, when the Village Clerk was in front of the County Judge, and after she gave her testimony, the Judge stated the story was not believable, and threw out the 2 Charges that where falsly filed against me. It was really a short time ago, when the Head of Our Police Com., now Head of the Finanace Com. was found to be a LIAR by a Jury of his Peers. These are BIG things to keep in mind come Election Time. Hopefully my Book will be close to publication so everyone can get even better views of Our Head People of this Community and their Attorney as well.

Village threats to citizens continue !!

You can be sure that the letter of intent to all the citizens of Elmwood does not really go for all of them. We all know that if you are friends of the board, or a Board Member the rules do not apply. There are several ordinances that are continuously disregarded for those certain individuals. I have listed them many times in past blog articles, and many of the citizens here know exactly what they are. Below is the letter received in todays mail from our great Village Office. I am sure they are the ones that will use their discretion on who needs to follow this.



Dear Resident,
Please take this time to look over your property and make sure you are in compliance with the following ordinances:

Sec. 6-2-13 House Numbers
All houses and buildings shall have numbers placed immediately above, on or at the side of the front door so that they are visible from the street. Unless the building is fifty (50) feet from the street, then the number shall be displayed at the street line. ( This is only for non members or friends, I can label a few properties that are not following this)

Sec. 8-1-6 Regulation of Length of Lawn
The Village Board finds that lawns, grasses and noxious weeds on non-agricultural lots or parcels of land, as classified under the Village Zoning Code, within the Village of Elmwood which exceed eight (8) inches in length/adversely affect the public health. ( I called the State in regards to this statement being a health issue, and I received a call back- There is no such hazzard at all, they even stated farmers have grass waiste high, and there is no public health concerns at all)

Sec. 8-1-8 Unhealthy, Hazardous or Unsightly Materials
Any unhealthy, hazardous or unsightly materials or thing which creates a fire or health hazard, or which is detrimental to the appearance, neatness and cleanliness of the immediate neighborhood or the Village of Elmwood in general. Such as, but not limited to, garbage, junk, rubbish, rubble, trash, abandoned construction materials, rotting yard and orchard waste, merchandise or parts, accumulation of grease or food wastes in a grease trap or other place or depository which presents a risk of clogging or blocking a sewer system.
( Unsightly is a commen complaint the village likes to use, because they can say that you have something unsightly, but another good citizen with the same thing, it is found to be different)

Sec. 8-4-12 Garbage Accumulation
The accumulation of deposit of garbage or trash in within the Village which causes the air or environment to become noxious or offensive or to be in such a condition as to promote the breeding of flies, mosquitoes, or other insects, or to provide a habitat or breeding place for rodents or animals, or which otherwise becomes injurious to the public health, is prohibited and declared to constitute a nuisance. Refuse areas shall be kept in a nuisance-and odor-free condition. Refuse shall not be allowed to accumulate. Such as, but not limited to, tires, pails, and construction materials. ( I have seen this issue many times with Board Members properties, yet they are not harassed)

Sec. 10-5-8 Junk vehicles or appliances on private property
No disassembled, inoperable, unlicensed, junked or wrecked motor vehicles, truck bodies, tractors, trailers, farm machinery, appliances, household furnishings, abandoned mobile home or trailer, miscellaneous junk or appliances, junk, or construction debris shall be stored unenclosed upon private residential property within the Village of Elmwood for a period exceeding seventy-two (72) hours. ( Junk vehicles should be considered like demo derby cars- they have no liscense yet are allowed to be stored for months without any issues- Board members are involved with this as well)

Sec. 11-3-3 Abandoned Refrigerators Prohibited
No person shall leave or permit to remain outside of any dwelling, building or other structure, or within any unoccupied or abandoned building, dwelling or other structure under his/her control in a place accessible to children any abandoned, unattended or discarded ice box, refrigerator or other container which has an airtight door or lid, snap lock or other locking device which may not be released from the inside without first removing said door or lid.

Sec. 11-6-5 Public Nuisances Affecting Peace and Safety
The following acts, omissions, places, conditions, and things are hereby declared to be public nuisances affecting peace and safety, but such enumeration shall not be construed to exclude other nuisances affecting public peace or safety coming within the definition of Section 11-6-2:
• Tree Limbs - All limbs of trees which project over a sidewalk less than ten (10) feet about the surface thereof and all limbs which project over a public street less than fourteen (14) feet above the surface thereof.
• Dangerous/Dead Trees

ALL PROPERTIES NOT IN COMPLIANCE BY MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22™, 2008 WILL BE ISSUED WARNING LETTERS.

IF AFTER TEN (10) DAYS YOU ARE STILL NOT IN COMPLIANCE CITATIONS WILL BE ISSUED.
( This is a direct letter of intent to send citations, just another threat to the citizens)

ps, I notice the Village President is adding to his property, maybe there should be another assessment of that property for tax reasons, seeing this is the second time I have witnessed that happening on his property. There should be a permit for land development as well I would believe.

TEC Update

I have not been writing a lot here, but I have been writing my book. I hope to have things completed and sent to the Printers before the years end. I am putting everything to print about the lovely life that those in Elmwood have provided for us. There are new people in the community that have started getting the great welcome wagon that we did. They have the law at their front door left and right now, because the neighbors do not like what they have brought to the block. The Village Board and Village Office continue to use the Police Dept. in Elmwood as their Bully, having every little bitch by certain people become a police issue. Unlike many other towns, they do not use the police to take care of things that a simple letter to the people could take care of, they instead want to INTIMIDATE by show of Police Action for everything. The Village has continued to hide all they can, by never allowing any police reports from the village to be in print, and they continue to deny the Citizens the information in a timely manner. The Village Board meetings should be posted within just a week or so of the meeting, not a month later, after the next meeting down the road comes along. These folks want to be popular, so I will let them all be known about then. My experiences with all of you out there, and you all know who I am referring to. Elmwood can be known for just the way they are. More Information will be getting published soon, it has not all been put together for here yet, continue to check the site for updates.......THANKS ......

Part Three " The Trial vs The Liar "

Rupakus Trial Outline
May 14th, 2008 9AM
Trial by Jury (6)

District Attorney John O’boyle vs Defendant Robert Rupakus
1- Disorderly Conduct
2- Obstruction of Justice

Pre-Trial comments between DA O'boyle and Attorney Loberg:

Loberg-

1- Both cases are gong to jury
2- Motion made to deny info.
3- Talford case info. To be blocked out from this trial

O'boyle- There is no prejudice outline involved here

Loberg-

1- We had a discussion yesterday about this
2- That outcome is not pertinent
3- I want that outcome left out
4- Request Judge to point that out in trial

Judge Wing - If it is necessary at the time, it will then be decided

Loberg- The argument is that Talford brought this on himself

O'boyle- The Court already said "He was not guilty of provoking the incident"

Loberg- This is a self defense and provocation case

Judge Wing- No, Not in a case of battery, self defense is not an argument,

He would need To prove that he was in a situation of bodily harm.

This is a Forfeiture case

O'boyle- This is a case of violent misconduct, and knowingly obstructing justice

6 Person Jury brought into courtroom

Judge Wing then gave direction to the Jury on the cases being looked at, and
what their duties where.

Opening Statements-

DA O'boyle:
1- Dec. 2,2007 Incident date
2- Talford went to go to Daddy Day Care for payment
3- 2 phone calls where made between the two
4- Talford then walked past the Rupakus home and was assaulted
5- Talford called the Sheriff
6- Rupakus stated that Talford and he spoke, and Talford went away
7- The Deputy arrived and seen blood on the roadway
8- The Deputy then ended the interview early, being called away to an accident
9- 3 days later, the suspect had a new and improved statement written
10- Now claiming Talford was in his driveway, not the roadway
11 -There where injunctions filed
12- The suspect then admitted to lying to the Deputy
13- There is a lower burden of proof needed here to find him guilty
14- We have two witnesses here, the deputy, and Mr. Talford

Suspects Attorney, Loberg:
1- Needed to pull the podium out to stand by
2- Our version is diff. but, there are small distinctions
3- It was a peaceful Sunday
4- Rupakus was home with his 3 kids.
5- He recently learned how to play Texas Hold Poker at Tiffany Tavern
6- About 2 pm, Talford was out plowing
7- Talford went past Tavern, then called and spoke to Owner, and asked if Suspect was there
8- Talford then told him to tell Bob to get his ass home to his family
9- Rupakus used the star 69 option to find out who called
10- Rupakus then left a message that Talford crossed the line
11 Rupakus is on the Village Board
12- Rupakus is the Head of the Police Committee ( False)
13- He called his wife and told her to keep the kids inside and watch for Talford
14- 4:30 PM Rupakus went home
15- He then went outside to begin shoveling
16- He made a call to the Village Clerk and the Village President
17- Talford came from around the corner of the garage
18- Rupakus told Talford he needed to go home
19- Talford then seen girls and stepped in between Rupakus and his girls
20- Talford's arms where gyrating and flailing about
21- Talford had plenty of time to leave, yet stayed
22- He was like one of those bobble boxing things
23- He was hit, and he went back into his face
24- His glasses where hit, and he got right back in his face, Right back again
25- Rupakus then called the Village Clerk and Village President again
26- As a parent, it is our job to defend and protect our children when in danger
27- Rupakus was accosted
28- His story was not an obstruction of justice



Witnesses For DA
Pierce County Deputy Michael J. Vodinelich

Q- Did you have contact with Talford ?
A- Yes

Q- Where ?
A- Shaw Ave.

Q- Did you get a statement from him ?
A- Yes (FALSE- rec'd by fax later that night, after victim returned from ER)

Q- Did you take photos ?
A- Yes

Q- What was the complaint ?
A- Talford stated that Rupakus hit him

Exhibits 1 & 2 Pictures

Q- Are these photos of Mr. Talford ?
A- Yes

Q- Do they show marks on his face ?
A- Yes

Q- Did you note injuries ?
A- Yes

Q- Did you speak with Talford ?
A- Yes

Q- How Long ?
A- 1/2 hour or so

Q- When ?
A- About 6: PM (FALSE-ended at 6, started 5:23 pm)

Q- Did you speak to the suspect ?
A- Yes

Q- At his home ?
A- yes

Q- Did you tell him why you were there ?
A- Yes, I said I was investigating Talford being hit

Q- What was said ?
A- Rupakus recalled Talford coming over

Q- Are the house and garage together ?
A- No, they are separate

Q- How far is the Street from Garage ?
A- About 12 feet

Q- What was his statement then ?
A- He said that Talford came from around his garage, stating

"So you think I crossed the line, huh" He then said, Talford came up to him, and

Rupakus told him "he needed to leave". Words were said and then Talford left.

Q- Did you ask him if he any contact with Talford ?
A- Yes, he said "No contact, Only words"

Q- Did you ask him any other way if he hit Talford ?
A- Yes, I asked him directly, "Did you punch Talford", he said "NO"

Q- How many times did you ask him ?
A- 2 or 3 times, and the answer was "NO" to all of them. Rupakus then stated

that “All Talford was trying to do was get Board members in trouble."

Q- Was there any witnesses ?
A- 2 children, that ended up being Rupakus girls

Q- What are their ages ?
A- I do not know, he did not allow me to speak to them.

Q- Did you press it ?
A- No, I did not think it was pertinent, and he was not going to allow it

Q- Were the red dots in the street or the roadway ?
A- The roadway

Q- Did you point that out to Rupakus ?
A- yes, and he said "Talford's boys put them there"

Q- Were the dots by the garage, or in the roadway only ?
A- only the roadway

Q- Did you take pictures ?
A- yes

Q- Where did Rupakus say the situation happened ?
A- next to the garage

Q- The first statement was that Talford approached his residence?
A- Yes

Exhibits 3-8 additional pictures of roadway blood seen

Q- Recognize these photos ?
A- Yes

Q- Are the red dots in the roadway ?
A- yes

Q- Any spots up by the garage ?
A- no

Q- Did you receive a second statement on Dec. 5th ?
A- Yes, by email

Exhibit 9 1st Written statement by Rupakus 12-2-07

Q- Rupakus stated that it was by the garage, right ?
A- yes

Q- Did you complete a report for both ?
A- Yes

Q- Rupakus first statement has No comment, about being by the garage ?
A- no

Q- It only states that he seen Talford nearing the residence ?
A- Yes

Exhibit 10 Rupakus 2nd statement written Dec. 5th

Q- There is nothing in it about Talford being by garage is there ?
A- No

Q- After talking to Rupakus, did you talk to Talford again ?
A- yes, a few days later

Q- When was your contact with Rupakus then ?
A- Dec. 5th I had voices contact with him, Dec. 12th I had return phone contact

Q- Why so long ?
A- I was out on training

Q- When did you meet then ?
A- Dec. 12th at the Sheriff Dept.

Q- Why you meet a second time ?
A- Rupakus wanted to give a second statement

Q- Why ?
A- he wanted to tell the truth

Q- Why ?
A- he said he had obtained an attorney and felt he should tell the truth

Q- Did he state anything about a filed restraining order ?
A- yes

Q- Did he state that he had been given advice prior to your contact on Dec. 2nd ?
A- he was advised by Deputy Bill Stewart before I arrived, yes

Q- Did Jodi Come up ?
A- Yes

Q- Why did he speak to those two ?
A- to get advice

Q- Did he tell you what those conversations where ?
A- no, he did not want to

Exhibit 11 2nd written statement by Suspect Rupakus dated 12-5-07

Q- Did you talk to him about the statement ?
A- yes

Q- What was changed ?
A- he admitted physical contact with Talford

Q- What and where was said ?
A- in front of the garage, and he punched Talford 3 times

Q- Where ?
A- He said it was in the driveway, Rupakus stated that Talford came from
beside the garage He stated that he went to shovel, and heard a voice
come from the garage, the Talford came at him. He then said he seen his
children coming, Talford came within 2" of face. He claimed that he
continued stating, “so you think I crossed the line” and Talford got so
close That he only push his hat off. He then said “Talford's arms where flailing,”
and his 2nd hit was to his Cheek, and mouth area. He picked up his glasses and
then he hit him a 3rd time. After the third Punch, Talford asked
"What are you doing", and then Talford went running down the road. He
added that he was told by someone, “to neutralize someone, hit them in the
nose.” He said Talford was preventing the girls from coming home.

Q- After the 3 hits, where were girls ?
A- he said only 3 feet behind them

Q- Did Talford swing at Rupakus ?
A- no

Q- Did he slap him ?
A- no

Q -Did Talford threaten him at all ?
A- no

Q- Did Talford prevent him from getting to his kids ?
A no

Q- Only claim was that Talford was standing between him and his girls ?
A- yes

Q- Did Rupakus walk away ?
A- no

Q- Did Rupakus walk to the house and tell his wife to call the police ?
A- no

Q- Why did he not allow you to speak to the kids ?
A- implications would have made his statement false, and he admitted to that

Q- Was he drinking any alcohol on that day Dec. 2nd ?
A- yes, he said he had Jack and Cokes

Q- Do you recall how many drinks it was at the poker tournament ?
A- 3 or 4 I believe he said

Q- Did you do a report on the second interview ?
A- yes

Exhibit 12 2nd interview report narrative by Deputy

Q- page 9, please took at what you reported-
A- Yes, he had 4 drinks

Exhibit 13 - Map of Elmwood, WI

Q- Why did you do this ?
A- to show where Talford may go

Q- Where did you get this ?
A- plat book

Q- This is colors coded, right ?
A- yes

Blue- Cenex,
Green- Daddy Day Care,
Yellow- Rupakus home,
Red- Talford home ( Mark for our home located on the wrong street- and wrong end of st)

Q- Did you do any follow up with Rupakus then ?
A- no

Q- Did you do any follow up with Deputy Stewart ?
A- no

Q- Did Rupakus tell you what Deputy Stewart told him ?
A- no, he did not want to

Q- Didn’t you think that he might have some pertinent info. ?
A- no

Q- Did you speak with the clerk at all ?
A- no

Q- In the 2nd interview, did you ask Rupakus what he thought the red spots where ?
A- yes, he said Blood

Q- These where not something that was planted by the Talford boys ?
A- no

Q- Rupakus did claim that this was just a Talford plot ?
A- yes, he did say that

Q- Do you see the Suspect here today ?
A- yes, he sits next to Attorney Loberg


Cross Questioning by Attorney Loberg:

Q- Did you have a discussion about alcohol ?
A- yes

Q- Do you recall him stating he told the bartender to make the drinks ?
A- he said to make them weak


Exhibit 12 page 9

Q- What was his request to the bartender ?
A- to make the drinks very weak

Q- Did you indicate that you did not smell anything ?
A- yes

Q- Did you smell anything ?
A- no

Exhibit 15 Cover Sheet of Police Report

Q- This is dated Dec.3, right ?
A- yes

Q- Is that when the incident was ?
A- no, the narrative report was done that day

Q- the cover of the complaint is Battery complaint, the complaint Talford,
the suspect Rupakus
O'boyle - Objection, relevance ?
Judge Wing- Sustained

Q- The call was 4:32 pm, what time was your arrival in Elmwood ?,

What time did you get to the first Place, was it around 6 pm ?
A- yes (FALSE-5:23)

Q- You interviewed Talford and took pictures, and seen scrapes and marks that

he said he was in an altercation and been hit 3 times ?
A- yes

Q- Was that consistent with someone being hit ?
A- yes

Q- The associate reports you have, 1 is pictures, you did not mark that, but
you have them right ?
A- yes

Q- No consent form is not checked on the report, but you have one ?
A- yes

Q- What does that mean ?
A- no permission to hit him

Q- Reference of statements was not checked, but you did get one ?
A- yes

Q- When did you get written statement from Talford ?
A- one was faxed, and one was written (FALSE- only faxed statement provided)



Exhibit 16 Talford Written Statement

Q- How did you get this statement ?
A- it was faxed to the Sheriff Dept.


Exhibit 15 Medical release of records to review

Q- Miranda warning is not checked, did you give them to both ?
A- no

Q- When you interviewed Talford, what was the first thing he said ?
O'boyle- Objection, hearsay
Judge Wing- sustained

Q- What was the order of Talford's story ?
O'boyle Objection
Judge Wing - sustained





Exhibit 13 Map

Q- Is the orange dot Talford's home ?
A- yes

Q- It is the same location, one block over, right ?
A- yes (FALSE- property to the east also-not same location)

Q- Why did you make this map ?
A- to show where everything is

Q- Talford said he was going to Cenex and daddy day care ?
A- yes

Q- Is Clark to Public St. considered one city block?
A- not sure

Q- Is there several homes on the block ?
A- yes


Q- did you conclude that Talford could have went another direction ?
O'boyle - Objection
Judge Wing sustained

Q- did you review Talford's medical records? Did you confirm damage ?
O'boyle Objection
Judge Wing - Sustained


Q- Where was he when you arrived ?
A- in his house

Q- Was the driveway shoveled ?
A- appeared to be

Q- Did the blood look like it was displaced in the roadway ?
A- no

Q- When did Rupakus give you his statement ?
A- he sat and wrote it out at the table, while I stepped outside

Q- did you find anything to be untrue ?
O'boyle Objection
Judge Wing Sustained

Q- Did you tell Rupakus that you were investigating an assault or Battery case ?
A- yes, I told him I was checking on a battery

Q- Did you tell them there could be criminal charges ?
A- no

Q- Did he tell you why he wanted to give another statement ?
A- he had spoke with people and was advised to tell the truth, he wanted to
tell the truth, and he wanted to be honest

Q- Did he tell you that he wanted to set the record straight ?
A- yes

Q- Did he tell you he seen his son ?
A- yes, he said he was running away when he left the Tavern

Q- After the incident he then stated that he seen his two sons go past ?
A- yes, he also stated that he would not put it past Talford having put the
red drops on the ground

Q- Did you ever speak to the Talford boys ?
A- no

Q- You know their ages ?
A- no

Q- Talford stated that he was going to Cenex at 4:30 and daddy day care ?
A- yes

Q- So he tells you that he needed to go to Cenex for a soda after, like he does
not have it at home, like the rest of us ?
A- yes, that is what he said he was doing

Q- Did you call daddy day care ?
A- no

Q- Did you think you should call to see if he was paid ?
O'boyle Objection
Judge Wing Sustained
No further questions


2nd Witness Rick Talford (Victim of Battery Case)

Explained I had knowledge of Rupakus by the Village and I have been at his home
doing things Personal as well. The day in question, I seen Rupakus drive past me,
while I was plowing snow for Daddy Day Care. He gave me his usual stare, as he
went by. I completed the snow work, and went to the Cenex station to get a soda.
I left there and headed home down Main Street, and I seen the Rupakus vehicle
sitting in front of the bar. When I got home, I made a phone call to the bar,
speaking to the bartender -owner, I asked him to give a message to Rupakus,
stating to “go home and spend time with his family, instead of sitting in the bar.”
I was listening to messages on our answering service and the last message was from
Rupakus telling me that “I had crossed the line.” I then told the wife, and left to
go plow snow for another citizen. I got home about 2 hrs later and was told by my
Wife that Daddy Day Care had called, so I decided to go to Daddy Day Care and then
stop at Cenex for another soda. I left and got two blocks when Rupakus came out
from beside his vehicles, pointing to the ground behind the van, and stated “why
don't you step over here,” and he continued to come right to me, in the street. He got
as close to me as he could without touching me, and without anything being said,
he hit me in the side of my head and ear, knocking my hat off my head. I leaned over
and picked up the hat, and upon looking back at him, he hit me a second time,
hitting my glasses and cutting my nose with them, as they fell off my face.
I leaned over and picked them up, stating "What the hell is wrong with you,"
and as I looked back at him, he hit me a third time, in the nose. I was
bleeding heavily from the second hit to the nose, so I returned back to home,
and opened the door telling my Wife to come to me, and bring a rag with her,
she did, she asked what happened and then she called the 911 number. The EMT'
were the first to arrive. They stayed until the Deputies arrived at 5:23 pm.
They made contact to the ER, and requested to take me in, I went to the ER
myself after the deputies left, to go speak to the suspect. When I returned
home from the ER, I then called the Sheriff Dept. requesting the Deputy call.
He did, and we spoke over the ER discharge paper and I faxed them, with my
statement. He stated that he did not arrest him, nor did he speak to the witnesses,
they were Rupakus kids. He did not give a breath test either.
Note- Attorney Loberg kept trying to speak over me, and the Judge jumped him for it,
telling him that he was not going to continue doing that.

I was off the stand and the Judge put us into a break-10:40 am
Note- Loberg was now whispering to the court clerk for what reason, is unknown.
Note- Judge noted the Exhibits that have been entered-1-8,10,11,13 Rec'd

Suspect - Robert Rupakus then put on the stand-
questioned by Loberg
Sworn in -name and age
Personal information- wife and kids (stating their ages for the 4 of them)

Q- Where do you work ?
A- Employed - Polaris Defense Products

Q- Have you received any awards ?
A- Yes, the highest proficiency Rating by any employee with the company in 2007
(this means what?)

Q- You have known Talford through the Village Board ?
A- yes, he is anti-government

Q- You have not been social with him ?
A- no (false-has had us over to his home, he invited)

Q- In the past have you mediated issues with Talford ?
A- yes, I volunteered, there where several tickets
O'boyle -Objection I move to strike that
Judge Wing sustained

Q- How have you tried to mediate ?
A- there where RO with the school, Kraemer quarry, and the clerk
O’boyle Objection
Judge Wing - sustained

Q- After the third order, did you change routine ?
A- yes, I determined not to mediate anymore

Q- You take your kids to school ?
A- yes

Q- Did you have to change anything for that ?
A- I avoid his residence (Note-school is on the street he lives-Rupakus)

Q- So Dec. 2 it was a heavy snowy day, and you had signed up for Texas hold em?
A- yes

Q- You ever play it before ?
A- yes, I played when I was in the army

Q- Is the yellow dot your home on the map ?
A- yes, it sits more on the corner

Q- What route did you take then ?
A- I went left on Public, Left on 72, left on Main and parked in front of the bar

Q- Did this route take you past Daddy Day Care ?
A- yes

Q- Did you see Talford there ?
A- no

Q- Did you know he plowed snow there ?
A- no

Q- Did you think you would see him ?
A- no

Q- What time did you arrive at the bar ?
A- 12:45 pm

Q- Did the bartender tell you that you had a call ?
A- he said he thought it was Talford

Q- Did you call him back ?
A- I called and said that as a village board member, he crossed the line, then
I called home and told my wife to watch for Talford

Q- Did you have any other run-ins with Talford ?
A- about two weeks prior, he looked into the bar, right at me, then left.

Q- Then what happened ?
A- I left the bar, seen his boy by the post office. I went up main street,
to Wilson then home. I felt that Talford had me staked out! When I arrived home,
the wife had allowed the girls to go sledding across the street. I discussed
issues with wife.

Q- Then what did you do ?
A- I called Deputy Stewart about the threatening call, then I called the Village
Clerk to let her know. I changed clothes into winter gear to go out and shovel

Q- Where was your shovel ?
A- outside the door

Q- Did you pick it up ?
A- no

Q- What time was it ?
A- it was dusk (It was 4:15-4:30 still daylight)

Q- Did you recognize Talford and his voice?
A- yes

Exhibits 19-25 Pictures Rupakus took for Trial

Note- I was never allowed to state anything about those pictures,
they were brought out only for Rupakus

1- View from Rupakus doorway to County Rd P, showing 2 cars on pad
Q- Where was Talford in the picture ?
A- points to within a foot of building

2- View from Church Parking to the side of Rupakus home
Q- Where was he in this picture ?
A- again pointed to next to the garage

Q- Was Talford moving or standing still when he stated crossing the line?
A- he was standing still

Q- Where was he ?
A- in the driveway

Q- Where were you ?
A- walking on the wooden path

Q- What did you do ?
A- I told him he had to leave

Exhibit 20 - repeat picture
Exhibit 21 - looking down Public (S)

Q- Again, where was Talford ?
A- up next to garage

Exhibit 22-23 again repeat pictures
Exhibit 24 picture with view to sledding hill

Q- What happened after the statement was made ?
A- I told him he needed to leave, then he said what are you going to do, I told him to leave

Q- Where was Talford ?
A- he was walking north, and I stopped in the middle of the driveway, there was a few
exchanges and I told him he needed to leave, at the same time, I seen the girls
coming from the sled hill.

Q- What did Talford do ?
A- he had his hands in his pockets, then he started waiving them, agitated and flailing

Q- What did you do ?
A- I repeated that he needed to leave

Q- Where were the girls then ?
A- at the double yellow line, and he looked at them, and so I pushed him, in his head.

my right hand to the side of his face, knocking his hat off

Q-then what ?
A- he jumped back within 2 " of my face

Q- What kind of hat was he wearing ?
A- it was a stocking hat (FALSE-Baseball Cap)


Q- Then what did you do?
A- I used my fist and swung at him, I felt he was animated and flailing, and
could have Something in his pockets. (1st time this came up)
The second time was intensified. He was face to face with me.
I hit his glasses off, and he retrieved them. I am literally
twice his size, and he jumped right back in my face, and the kids where
less than 5 feet from him.
My dad always told me “hit someone in the nose to neutralize someone.”

Exhibit -- Gloves he was wearing on Dec. 2
Note- Rupakus put the gloves on, and showed die courtroom.
(This was done for absolutely no reason- he did not do any testimony over them)

Q- How much time went by from the time you first seen Talford to him leaving ?
A- 30-45 seconds

Q- Did you try to leave ?
A- repeatedly

Q- Did you move your body ?
A- I stayed planted all the time

Q- So you pushed him once, and punched him twice ?
A- the first one was just my arm strength, because he was so close, I could not put force in the hit

Q- After hits, did you see blood ?
A- no, he seen blood, and asked what was wrong with me, like he was surprised,
he then left. After he left, I squatted down, and explained to the girls what
they had seen.

Q- What did you then do ?
A- I told my wife I was shaken up., then I called Bill and Jodi again

Q- What was your mood ?
A- I was shaken, I was worried about what could happen

Q- Have you fought before ?
A- last fight about 20 years ago, someone grabbed my wife's butt, so I wrestled around with them

Q- Was this the shortest route Talford could take ?
A- no

Q- What then ?
A- I spoke to Clerk and Stewart, and I was shocked and jittery. I went out to finish shoveling

Q- Had you gone inside before Deputy arrived ?
A- no

Q- Did Deputy tell you he was investigating an assault ?
A- repeat

Q- Did the Deputy ask you if you assaulted Rick ?
A- yes, I told him that I did not assault him, I was defending myself, and my wife.

Q- Did you assault Talford ?
A- no

Q- Why did you not tell the Deputy ?
A- because I was nervous. The innocent people get in trouble

Q- Did you give the Deputy a written statement then right away ?
A- yes, he went outside, while I finished it

Q- What then ?
A- he came in, and said there was a lot of blood out there

Q- Did you deny it was blood ?
A- no

Q- Did you recall him stating it was a bunch of blood ?
A- it was not like it was pouring, and within 10-15 minutes, his kids came by,
I would not put it past them, to plant the blood or red substance

Q- When did you call the Deputy ?
A- I called him and left a message on the 3rd
We then met that same night at the Methodist church (direct lie, met on 12-12-07 at the Sheriff bldg)

Q- Was the meeting recorded ?
A- no

Q- Have you ever been given a copy of the report ?
A- no

Q- Did you tell the Deputy why you wanted a second interview ?
A- I had contact with DA, and Loberg then told him to change statement to get
charges on Talford He was paraphrasing what I was saying. (Deputy)

Q- How long was that interview ?
A- 30-45 minutes

Q- Why did you not allow kids to be spoken to ?
A- I did not want them to get involved, that is exactly what Talford is trying to do.


Cross Questioning by DA O'boyle:


Q- Did you review Deputy Report ?
A- no

Q- There really is no reason the Deputy had to give you a copy of his report to ok it, right ?
A- right, I did not believe I was lying to the Deputy

Exhibit 10 Rupakus first written statement

Q- You stated that he walked past your house, not by your garage, didn't you ?
A- yes

Q- There was nothing about having any contact, right ?
A- right

Q- Nothing said about blood ?
A- no

Q- Nothing about assault ?
A- no

Q- Nothing about fear ?
A- no

Q- Nothing about protecting your family?
A- no

Q- You’re stating that you never admitted lying to the deputy ?
A- I do not remember

Q- You stated that you dialed star 69, then ten a message, then called Stewart
after going home and after finishing cards approx. 2 hrs later ?
A- yes

Q- Why did you call Stewart ?
A- because of the threatening call

Q- Are you the head of the PD ?
A- yes

Q- Did you call the PD ?
A- no

Q- Did you call the Sheriff Dept. ?
A- no

Q- So why did you call Stewart ?
A- because I do not know the ordinances, I called him as a Deputy, and he
advised me to Call the EPD (proof that Stewart knew the truth right then,
but never told anyone the truth either)

Q- Why did you call the village clerk?
A- for advise

Q- Did you call her to see if there was an ordinance ?
A- not really

Q- Did you call her and ask her ?
A- to a degree

Q- How much time after the phone calls, did you go down the path ?
A- 20-30 minutes

Q- I heard no testimony about the call to keep the kids inside and lock the doors, did I
A- The wife decided to let them out

Q- They where outside when you got home then ?
A- yes

Q- Did you walk toward Talford ?
A- we met in the driveway

Q- Did you gather up your kids ?
A- no

Q- Did you tell your wife to call the cops ?
A- no

Q- so you did not gather the kids up, or tell the wife to call the cops ?
A- no

Q- You felt that Talford might have weapons in his pockets, yet you did not go to the kids ?
A- no

Q- Did you ever tell the Deputy that Talford had a plot against the Village Board members ?
A- don't remember

Q- Did Talford ever hit you ?
A- no

Q- Did he swing at you ?
A- I would not let him to make contact with me

Q- You couldn’t let that happen now, could you ?
A- No

Q- Has Talford ever threatened you physically?
A- no

Q- There where never any threats to your kids ?
A- no

Q- Did you see your kids across the street ?
A- yes

Q- Where were they ?
A- I think he heard them walking, and turned to them

Q- Did you go to your girls ?
A- no

Q- Did you walk around Talford to go to your kids ?
A- no

Q- Your second interview, explain your contact with Deputy Stewart
A- I was following his recommendations

Q- Did you tell the Deputy all the details of your conversation with Stewart ?
A- no

Q- Why ?
A- because the Deputy seemed to be more worried about Stewart’s involvement

Q- So Talford never took a swing at you ?
A- I would not let him hit me

Q- So in the Village Politics ,Talford is very Active ?
A- yes

Q- Have you read his blog ?
A- yes

Q- So he has continued to be active then ?
A- not anymore

Q- So being very active, makes him disliked by the village board ?
A- yes, he distracts the order

Q- Between Dec. 2 and Dec. 5, did you have contact with the Village Clerk and Village President ?
A- no (Lie, he already admitted to speaking to them twice on 12-2-07)

Q- You state that Talford has continued to threaten and harm you since before or after April 2002 ?
A- after

Q- Exhibit. 11 was used for any other reason then ?
A- no, I do not recall anything else, or Yes, I filed a RO vs Talford

Q- You only used the second statement, not the first one for that, correct ?
A- yes

Q- So you did not have contact with the clerk or president then ?
A- no (already testified that he did talk with both, twice- LIE)




Cross Question by Loberg:

Q- Why did you call Jodi Pulk ?
A- she has the knowledge of the ordinances

Q- Did Talford threaten the kids ?
A- I thought he was at the time

Q- You see the blog information before Dec. 2nd ?
A- yes

Jurors where then excused for a break
Discussion in the courtroom-

Loberg wants self-defense
O'boyle stated that Rupakus gave the testimony that he was the aggressor
Loberg- Officers investigation was not impeded

Exhibits being rec'd
8 pictures given by Prosecuting Attorney- Taken by Deputy 12-2-07
Rupakus 1st Statement written 12-2-07 and 2nd written statements dated 12-5-07
Map of Elmwood (False marking of Talford's Home on Map Noted)
4 Loberg pictures - Taken by Robert Rupakus of his driveway - (Unknown dates of pictures)

Jury went to Break at 12:10 PM

12:30 PM- Judges directions to the Court Jury for deliberation-
1- each charge must be considered by itself

2- 5 out of 6 jurors must agree for a conviction






Closing Statements O'boyle:
Listening to Rupakus, you can tell he is an intelligent person, His arrogance has really shown through, as he slipped out additional information every chance he got, to paint Talford as a bad life. He did not define it as an assault, he did not think he was lying. You must look at who is credible, by looking at the demeanor on the stand. Believability is also important, Do you really believe his answers he told you here today? He outright lied to the Deputy . He was asked several times if lie hit Talford, with every answer being “No“. You have seen the pictures with the blood, but Rupakus states that Talford's kids planted that. He would not allow the Deputy to speak to the kids. Then he came up with the New and Improved Statement that is Bashing Talford. Rupakus admitted to lying and not allowing the Deputy to speak to the witnesses. His first statement never said anything about calling home to wife, but stated that Talford's kid was looking at him. There is No Conspiracy here. He claims that he came out, and Talford was passing his house, not popping up from behind the garage. There is a lot of missing stuff in 1st statement. Do you trust Rupakus? There was a lot of calls going around, that don‘t make any sense. .

The Deputy did not make contact with the Stewart, and he should have. Rupakus gave a second New and Improved statement that was used the very same day, to file for a Restraining Order , He LIED. Do you believe that he really felt his kids where in harm? He never took kids inside. He never called the Police. This was two hours later, and after the phone calls, this was not in the driveway, but in the roadway. Talford's statements Never Changed and he stayed Constant with all his Testimony,. The Small Town Politics are the under current of this case, and Talford is not well liked, because of it. Rupakus seen Talford, he was Drinking that day, he Lost Control and Hit Talford- remember he Admitted Lying



Loberg's Closing Statement;

Usually I don't say this, but I am offended by DA remarks. Talford over answered simple questions. Do you trust what Talford says here? Rupakus never denied blood being in the street. Rupakus said he did not want the kids involved in the village board issues. DA states No testimony on call home, sorry, that is my fault, I missed it, then he added he called the wife. He is trying to twist statements on when the calls where made, and spin on the facts being made. All the County towns are small. This does not happen anywhere. Talford has some kind of paranoia, stating he does not back down. He had stopped and made eye to eye contact at the bar. He has regular contact with him as a Village Board Member. He spoke of 3 RO, and that made him change his travel pattern. 2 years he has done that. Rupakus stays away from Talford. Talford then sees Rupakus and with his paranoia, he says that fighting words. Rupakus denies even seeing him. Talford is the one that went home and made he call. Talford said he felt it would make Rupakus displeased about it. He tells him to get his ass home to his family. I have been all around the County. On Dec. 2nd, Talford gets thirsty and Cenex being right next door to Daddy Day Care.
He does not have drink at home, like you do.(pointing to the jury members) He says he was going to both, do you believe Talford?, he is not believable. Then Loberg points at the map, trying to manipulate their minds, pushing the false info. On the map, (location of our home, on the wrong street, and wrong end of block) as true. Then he adds how the kids so happen to be by later. It is a huge coincidence that Talford came walking by when Rupakus came out to shovel.(yet never touched the shovel, just outside the door) Talford was where he wanted to be. Talford states that he never said anything. Rupakus did not know that Talford was even out there. He just wanted to be left alone. He pleaded for Talford to leave. Put yourself in his shoes, did he have the right to fear? Talford's arms where flailing and aggravated. Talford says he took shots at me, acting with a sort of bravado. He couldn't knock me down. He did not walk away. Rupakus felt he was under attack, and acted accordingly. With respect to Deputy, Exhibit 10 has no lies in it. The cover sheet listed battery, and that was over assumed. The heat of the moment, I likened what happened. He was asked if he assaulted Talford, he did not think so. He did not feel his report was obstructing. Talford stated he took a normal route, no one talks like that. What are the motives here. The Deputy did not have the right time, he did not know. His first report was 6 pages, his second one was 10 pages. The Deputy then felt he had been lied to. Take into account that disorderly conduct is a offense against public decency. The big picture is that Rupakus is innocent. Talford is like Chester the cat, he has got what he wanted.



O'boyle second closing:
You have to like Loberg's analogy, it is really cute.

His semantics of the word assault, he said “No” Three Times.

Punching someone is Pretty Damn Clear.
You should always tell the truth right away.

What reasonable person. does not tell the truth right away?

You do not trust the one that calls the village clerk, the
village president, and an attorney before telling the truth.

He tried to use the false mark on the map as well again, if there is one block difference in it,
who cares, The Deputy asked him directly, did you lie to me, and he said yes.
Why would he not allow the kids to speak to the Deputy?
The whole self-defense is a stack of playing cards.

You are really being asked to believe a LIAR .

Believe me know, Believability and credibility must be paid attention to.



Juror sworn in:
Exhibits 1-25 being entered

Note- O'boyle was giving Loberg hell for his antics during the trial.
Was not real loud, but it had to do with police report info.

Jury found Rupakus Guilty of Obstruction ( A Proven LIAR)

Note- Very same day, I rec'd a threatening email, stating to
"get out of town quietly, or have the attacks resume against my family".

Note- During the Trial, Rupakus openly lied again to the Jury, stating that he was still the

Head of the Police Committee of Elmwood.

This was a direct lie- he was removed from the Police Committee all together,
so he is far from the Head of it This information was provided by the Village
Board on May 12,2008. Just 2 days prior to the Trial.



Admitted statements, and Claimed statements

Deputy Vodinelich on the Stand
Admitted:
- 1st and 2nd written statement stated nothing about Talford being by the garage
- Getting advise from the Clerk and Deputy the same day
- He wanted 2nd interview, to tell the truth
- Hitting Talford three times
- Each hit explained
- Being told how to neutralize someone, by hitting them in the nose
- Talford never swung at him
- Talford never slapped at him
- He never threatened him at all
- He never stopped him from going to the girls
- He never walked away
- He never told Wife to call the cops
- Kids would have implicated him as telling lies
- He was drinking and had 4 mixed drinks that day
- Using the advise he rec’d from the Deputy
- The 2nd statement was due to being told to tell the truth Claims:
- This is just a Talford plot
- Boy was watching him
- Kids planted red substance to look like blood on the ground



Robert Rupakus on the Stand Admitted:
- He quit mediated contacts himself without saying anything to anyone.
- Bartender stated it was Talford
- Calling Talford’s home and leaving a message that he crossed the line
- Calling Clerk and Village President/ Deputy the same day
- Never touching the shovel, that was right next to the door
- Contact with Talford, 1st push, then hit, then hit
- Using fist on first swing, but also said it was a push
- Using fist to hit Talford, hitting his glasses and cutting his nose
- He is twice the size of the victim, also that he was taught how to neutralize someone
- total time from seeing Talford to him leaving was 30-45 seconds
- He had a second round of calls to the Clerk and Deputy, getting advise before the Deputy

arrived to question him
- Not telling the truth, due to being nervous, and believing that the innocent people get in trouble
- He seen blood after the second hit, yet claimed the boys planted that on the ground
- Being told by Loberg, that DA said to change statement to get charges against Talford
- Not allowing the kids to talk to the Deputy
- Talford walked past the house in 1st statement
- No contact was stated
- Nothing about blood
- Nothing about assault
- Nothing about fear
- Nothing about protecting family
- Not calling the PD as he was advised
- Not calling the Sheriff Dept.
- Calling Stewart as a Deputy
- Calling Jodi, Clerk to get Ordinance Information
- Did not gather up girls
- Not telling wife to call the police
- Talford had weapons, yet he did not go to kids
- Talford never hit him
- Talford never swung at him, he stated he would never allow that to happen
- No physical contact was ever made
- No threats to the kids
- Not going to the girls, though he felt fear
- Not trying to walk around Talford to get to the girls
- To following Stewarts advise, but refusing to state what that was
- Talford is active with the Village Board
- Reading Talford blog
- Board dislikes Talford because of his involvement, he distracts order
- Using 2nd written statement for RO filed also
- Not using the 1st written statement for the RO Filed

Claims by Rupakus:
- Talford is Anti-Government
- Never social with Talford
- He did not see Talford
- Boy watching him from the Post Office
- Boy was staking him out, then ran home to tell dad
- Incident was at Dusk
- Talford 1 foot within the garage, then it was next to garage, then it went to the driveway, then it was

closer to the roadway, then he finally said it was more in the middle of the driveway
- Talford had weapons in his pockets (new information again-this never came up before this trial)
- Talford had agitated and flailing arms (Loberg statement used many times before in court)
- Talford was now animated and flailing
- He was protecting himself and his wife (not the kids now)
- Deputy was paraphrasing what he stated
- That is what Talford wants, bringing the family into it
- Did not lie to the Deputy
- Head of Elmwood Police Committee
- Did not remember stating that Talford had a plot to get Board Members in trouble
- Talford heard girls walking and turned towards them

Closing Statements

DA O’boyle: Admitted:
- He outright lied to the Deputy
- He was asked several times if he hit Talford
- Not allowing the Deputy to speak to the kids, witnesses
- Using a new and improved statement to Bash Talford and file the RO as well
- Lying to the Deputy
- Majority of information was not in 1st statement
- Never took girls inside
- Never called the police
- Talford is disliked by the Village Board, due to his involvement
- He was drinking that day
- most importantly, he admitted lying

Claims by Rupakus:
- He did not define it as assault
- He did not think he was lying
- Boys planted blood
- Boys staring at him
- Talford came popping out from beside the garage
- He felt Talford put kids in harm
- This was in the driveway, not the roadway

DA Personally noticed:
- Arrogance every chance he had to paint Talford as a bad life
- New and Improved statement to Bash Talford
- There is no conspiracy here
- A lot of information missing from the 1st statement
- A lot of calls being made, but not to the right people
- He lied
- Talford’s statement stayed constant in all his testimony
- Small Town Politics are the under current of this case, Talford is not well liked for that
- He seen Talford and lost control and hit him

Loberg:
Admitted:
- He did not want his kids involved in Village Matters
- Stated incorrect information about testimony
- Regular contact between them , due to village board

Claims by Rupakus:
- Talford over answered simple questions (yet Judge jumped him, for not allowing
me to finish what I was stating, he kept trying to talk over me, and the Judge put a
stop to it, with a warning to Loberg)
- O’boyle trying to twist and spin what is being stated
- Talford has paranoia
- Talford sees Rupakus with his paranoia
- Talford goes to get soda, like he does not have any at home, like you do (jury)
- Talford lives one block over in the same location (False)
- Talford being there was a huge coincidence
- Talford’s arms flailing and aggravated
- Talford using Bravado
- Exhibit 10 has no lies
- Report was not Obstruction
- Rupakus is innocent
- Talford is like the Chester cat, he got just what he wanted
- Talford stated he went his normal route- no one ever says that

Claims VS Deputy by Loberg:
- Deputies report was not accurate
- He did not know the right time he arrived
- Cover Sheet of Report already assumed Talford the Victim and Rupakus the Suspect
- Report went from 6 pages, then added 10 more pages
- Deputy only felt like he was lied to
_ Deputy did not mark information in the report, and he should have

O’boyle Rebuttal to Closing Statement by Loberg:
- Analogy by Loberg real cute
- Semantics over the word assault
- Rupakus denied hitting Talford in three different questions
- Hitting someone is pretty damn clear
- What reasonable person does not tell the truth right away?
- You do not trust someone that has to call the Clerk, the Village president
and an attorney before he tells the truth
- Loberg tried using false marks on the map again to manipulate the facts
- Rupakus admitted lying to the Deputy
- Self Defense is not believable
- Rupakus is a Liar - END RESULT

Restraining Order Information from Dec. 17, 2007

I am posting this information, so that you can see what the first round information was that the court heard. Court Commissioner Julia Gehring was the presiding official.

Restraining Order Hearing

Talford VS Rupakus
Case 07-00432
Filed 12-4-2007--Temporary Order signed

Rupakus VS Talford
Case 07-00437
Filed 12-6-2007--Temporary Order Signed

Hearing for Injunction (s):
Date -12-17-2007

Hon. Judge Robert Wing received the 1st RO request by Talford 12-3-07 , when I went to the District Attorney Office, to the Victim Services Dept. to get assistance is completing the Required paperwork to obtain a Injunction against the Suspect that Assaulted me. The Judge wanted more than just the ER Discharge papers to be used for filing. I was told to get the DR. Report or the EMT Report for the Filing to be completed. I went to the EMT after returning home, and the Head of the Ambulance Services stated it would be completed the following morning. I did got the report the following morning, and faxed it to the Court Clerk for the Judge to complete the Temp. Order.

Commissioner Gehring was the person that signed the Temp. Order for me, even though it was the Judge that requested the information the day before hand. The Clerk called me, when the papers were signed, and I then called the DA Victim Services a second time, and Pam B. went to the Clerk and took the Filing papers to the Sheriff in the same building, for service. This was to help me, with not having to drive another 40 miles, just to move a paper from the Clerk to the Sheriff in the same building. This was completed on 12-4-07.

The Suspect then went to the Courthouse Clerk with a New and Improved Statement after speaking to the Village President and Village Clerk, as well as getting Legal Advise from the DA Office through his Attorney Loberg to change his statement to get charges against the victim of the incident. He told the Deputy on the day of the assault that he never touched the victim at all. There was only verbal conflict and the victim left. When he filed the Order against the victim, he used a 2nd written statement that he had written out, changing his story to self defense, and he admitted to striking Talford 3 times in the head, even though Talford never swung at him at any time. He then was served, and then he filed a RO against me in return. Those papers were filed on 12-6-07

Petitioner Rick A. Talford - no council -
Witnesses: Deputy Vodinelich - Dee Nazer

Respondent: Robert Rupakus - W/ Attorney Robert Loberg
Witnesses: Dick Tiffany (Tavern Owner)

Copy of the Exhibits I had for the Hearing, I had given to Attorney Loberg before the Hearing

Exhibits 1-8 given to Court Clerk by Talford before the Hearing began, to have them filed:
1- 12-2-07 written statement by Talford 1 page
2- EMT Report from 12-2-07 5 pages
3- ER Discharge papers from 12-2-07 5 pages
4- Rupakus 2nd written statement dated 12-5-07 3 pages
5- Talford vs Rupakus blog on topix.com (Unknown creator) 10 pages
6- 12-29 Verbal Request - Police Committee to meet w/ Rupakus 1 page
7- Loberg letter from “New Policy vs Talford Family” 1-9-2006 2 pages
8- Complaint on False EPD report being published 8-10-06 1 page

Commissioner Gehring stated that “She was not taking the time, to look through the papers!”




Exhibits 1-8 given to Judge during Hearing by Loberg -

During the Hearing, Loberg gave exhibits to the court, that I had not seen and she accepted them.
He took certain pages of the Blog and stated that they threatened Rupakus. None of them ever threatened any harm to be done towards anyone at any time. These where nothing but the expressed opinions of a citizen going to the Board meetings and not agreeing with the actions that the Board Members were taking, towards his family and other citizens as well. Standing up for true beliefs.

1- April 19th, 2008 Elmwood Citizen Blog posting vs Bob and Jodi creation of False Disorderly Conduct Charges through the EPD, after the County Sheriff Deputies ( 4 of them) had come to the scene and stated Talford did nothing wrong by waiting in a public lobby, for a meeting to end. Rupakus and Pulk stated that Talford made threatening hand gestures and Disrupted their meeting. Those charges where thrown out by the Judge when they came to court some 6 months after they had obtained a RO for the information they used for the Charges. The Commissioner stated that she believed Pulk, and when Pulk got in front of Judge Wing, he stated He did not believe Pulk

2- Bill, Bob and Jodi blog
3- Bob running the show blog
4- Oct. Hail Rupakus blog
5- Nov. Bob Filed RO with Jodi Pulk blog
6- Dec. Kris allegations of Rupakus assaulting a disabled citizen
7- Topix.com Maybe new board members coming
8- Topix.com those members who read this, more than just the chief case



Start of the Hearing: 11:30 am
ended : 1:30 pm

Web Information Blog referred to in Hearing:

Elmwoodcitizen.blogspot.com began by Talford Feb. 2007-
Elmwood Citizens a third location to get unofficial minutes of the Board meetings, done by a citizen that attends them. The Clerk never gives all details in a meeting, especially when Board members say or make poor comments or statements against the citizens they are elected by. The Newspaper has a story line about the meetings, but they stay on the Politically Correct side of those statements that get made.

The Elmwood Citizen is a straight forward, “HE SAID, SHE SAID” minute to minute transcript done as best I can, with audio recordings to back up the information I type. This is the closest anyone is going to get, without having the minutes literally wrote from the audio recorded meetings themselves.

Pearlgreen.blogspot.com began April 2007 vs Talford
This site was created to “BASH the Talford Name” with false information against the Talford Family and those who Associate with them. This fast became a nasty site, making accusations about who the real parents to the kids are, to making comments about the family being imbreeders. Numerous foul and objectionable comments where turned into the Sheriff Dept. and the Elmwood Police Dept. with neither doing any research into investigations of them.

Inquisitor-theinquisitor.blogspot.com began October 2007 vs Talford
This site was created to “UN-SPIN the Talford Lies as they Put it” Tracking the Families movements and making tales about the Family being night walkers. Hundreds of nasty, foul, and implicating statements are being left on it regularly. Many threats towards the Family have been received through the site, from running one of them over and backing up, to ensure the job being done. To inviting members of the family to go into the woods during hunting season, so it could end there. Some of the nastiest comments about the family and those that deal with the family, came from the inquisitor himself, who pictures himself on the site, as a black trench coat wearing, hair halfway to the ground villain, handling weapons and terrorizing the nights.




Hate Blog Information:
Over 50 stories and over 600 hate comments left on sites against the Talford family.
Over 12 stories and 150 comments on Topix.com against the Talford family.











Contact with Village Board & Rupakus by the Talford's:

March 2004 - Village Board meeting held against the Talford family, “stating they would get rid of the
family and business with in 3 years.” This was officially recorded for the transcript minutes.
The Board members all laugh and stated “The last family they got rid of, took 5 years, so
John Marson still had about 3 to go” This was when we started attending all the meetings we could.

March 2004 - Special Police Committee meeting VS the Talford family- Lein, and Marson
Complaining about every aspect of Talford life. Head of Committee snapped at Rick when he
tried to speak up for us. He yelled “that we where lucky he was letting us talk at all,”
yet the others were all talking without any problems from him. Prejudice Act Audio Transcript available to those that request it directly from me, through a verifiable form.

September 2004 - 2nd Police committee meeting held, due to Letter of Intent by Radtke, Marson,
and Lein And their attorney from Eau Claire.

October 2004 - Another Police Committee meeting to defend against the threat of suit vs Village Statement,
“They have no basis for any claims against the Village Board”

December 2005 - Letter to Police Committee over problems we where having, requesting a meeting
1 called Rupakus and he threatened making a Policy against my family,
1 asked him what, and he replied that “They as a board needed, to make a policy on
how they would deal with my family directly.”

January 2006 - Police Committee meeting held early against notice posting- committee created a
policy Vs Talford family, and sent it to us the following day by certified mail. Taking
our equal and fair treatment rights to Police protection, as the rest of the residents get them.

October 2006 -1 filed a list of issues for a meeting with the Police Committee, and Rupakus ignored
them Rupakus claimed he gave it to the acting Chief, and guessed he did not feel like dealing
with any of it, huh..

December 1,2006 -1 finally rec'd a formal denial for any meeting from the Village Board signed by the President

January 2007 -1 requested a simple meeting again, and Rupakus verbally denied us ever getting a meeting

March 2007 - Rupakus cut the Pride program to keep drunks out of the cars in Elmwood

April 2007 - Rupakus filed false charges using the Village Chief to re-write reports to give citations
out, that where men thrown out by the Judge, yet a RO was granted using the false reports of
his and Jodi Pulk Rupakus was the reason that Mark Fredrickson resigned his board position,
Rupakus Started the removal process against him.

August 2007 Rupakus also was the cause of the Termination of Our Chief of Police, because he did not do
as he was told by Rupakus, Rupakus law over shadowed the State and Local laws In Elmwood,
and many directives where problems for the Chief to follow, and he lost his job because of it.


November 2007 - Termination completed on the Chief of Police. Rupakus started his unlawful directives within
60 days of the New Chief taking over. These were sent to the Chief by Emails from his Polaris
Defense email account. The Chief told me about them, shortly after receiving them, because it
disturbed him, that the Head of the Police Committee was trying to tell him who he could deal
with, and where he could be? Too Much Control where it should not be.

Witness #1 Dee Nazer
Objection by Loberg- she was not present during altercation- sustained
Commissioner Gehring told her to step down-

Witness #2 Deputy Vodinelich
Loberg Objected, stating he was not present during the altercation- sustained
Commissioner did not allow his testimony at all..

Talford Testimony:
The day started out at Daddy Day Care, where I was plowing snow with a lawnmower. Rupakus came driving by, staring me down, like he usually does when he sees me. Robert Rupakus came driving by, staring at me as usual. I continued to plow snow and when I finished, I went to the Cenex for a soda, and then headed up main street towards my home. I seen the Rupakus car in front of the bar, (this is an uncommon car in the village) so when I got home, I called the bar and spoke with the bartender. I asked him if Bob Rupakus was there, and he replied yes. I then told him to give Bob a message for me, to go home and spend time with his family, instead of sitting in the bar. I then hung up the phone, and proceeded to listen to my voice messages. The phone rang, while I was listening to messages, so I did not answer it, but instead, when I got to the most recent message left, I heard Bob Rupakus on it, (I could recognize his voice) stating that I had crossed a fine line with him. He then hung up. It could have been perceived as a threat, but I took it as normal Bob mouth. I then explained my call to the bar, and his response to my wife. I then left to go snowplow for a 2nd resident in the village. About 1 1/2 hours later, I returned home, and was told by my wife, that Daddy Day Care had called the house. I figured that was to pay me for the services. I decided that I would walk down to his place and to Cenex to get another soda. I only made it 2 blocks, when I was in front of the Church, that is across the alley from the Rupakus home, I looked out at the snow hill, and seen 2 kids walking. I then seen 2 more kids sitting on a snow hill across the road from the Rupakus home. I thought nothing of them, and continued to walk. I then got in front of his place, and I seen Bob coming from his house down the sidewalk towards the street, As he got beside his car and van, he pointed to the ground behind his van, and stated "Why don't you step over here?" He continued to walk towards me as he stated that. I stopped where I was, in the street. I felt that he was trying to intimidate me. He came right up to me, as close as he could without touching me, and without a word being said, he struck me with his right fist in the side of my head, striking my ear, and knocking my hat off. I leaned over and picked up my hat, and as I faced him again, he took a 2nd swing at me with his right fist, striking me in the nose, forcing my glasses to cut my nose, as they fell off. I leaned over and picked my glasses up, and as I was standing back up, I stated to him "What the hell is wrong with you?" Now I was standing there with my glasses in one hand, and my hat in the other. Just as I finished stating that, he hit me a 3rd time with a fist in the nose a 2nd time. Now I was bleeding heavily from my nose, I turned and started walking home. When I got home, I called for my wife from the front door, and asked her to bring me a rag. She then came to the door, and seen me. She asked me what happened, and then she called 911 and reported the assault. The Deputy arrived at 5:23 pm, just about an hour after the 911 call. The EMT and Deputy was dispatched at 4:30 pm for the call. The EMT stayed with me until the Deputies arrived. The EMT had called the ER and they wanted me to come in, and I denied any transport by the Ambulance. I then spoke to the Deputies and when they went to speak to Rupakus I went into the ER. Upon returning home, I called the Deputy to find out if they had arrested him for assault, or gave him a breath test, or if they spoke with the witnesses that where out there. I did not know who they where, but knew there was 4 kids outside across the road. His answers were no to all the questions, and he stated that they where called away for an accident

Witness #1 for Loberg: Dick Tiffany (now a Village Board Member appoinbted by Bill Stewart)
Q- You remember any problems with Talford?
A- yes, on Nov. 5* he looked into the bar at us, then left

Q- Do you remember Dec. 2nd?
A- Yes, I recognized his voice when he called, and he said to tell Bob to get his ass home to his family

Q- Did you tell him to stop threatening and harassing your patrons?
A- yeah

Cross by Talford:
Q- Was every customer in the bar that day, sitting at one table?
A- Yes

Q- So when I looked in, I was looking in the direction where everyone was?
A- yeah

Q- I did not say anything to anyone, did I?
A- No, but you looked right at us



Witness # 2 Robert Rupakus (Battery Suspect)
Q- What is the location of Talford's house to yours?
A- 2 blocks away

Q- Where do you live?
A- 109 W Winter Ave. and County RD P

Q- Is there a sidewalk?
A- No, you walk in the street

Q- How long you been on the Board?
A- 6 years

Q- You're the Head of the Police Committee?
A- Yes for 2 years now

Q- You know Talford then?
A- yes, because of the committee

Q" Why?
A- 2002 there where community issues with Talford and other Shaw Issues. The Board and
Staff members heard it the most

Q- Did you mediate for Talford?
A- I perused it

Q- Did you do this for very long?
A- Until the Issues could get on common ground, then the court issues started

Q- What is your Job?
A- Polaris Military Sales
Talford - Objection Your Honor,
Commissioner Gehring sustained

Q- Did you continue contacts with Talford then?
A- It was nothing but a hostile relationship

Q- How long did you try to hang out?
A- 6-8 months, but he was not willing to go to common ground, So I stepped away
(False, he quit, because Delorse R. threatened his removal from the Board for Associating with us)

Q- What happened then?
A- The threats towards me began. I supported Jodi this year in a May RO

Q- Did you know about the blog statements written about you?
A- Yes

Q- Did you read the blog?
A- yes

Q- How did you find out about it?
A- Polaris employee googled my name, and they came up

Exhibits 1-8 by Loberg: Talford Blogs
Q- Are you a regular customer at the bar?
A- I generally use it weekly

Q- When do you normally play these tournaments?
A- Monday and Tuesday are the games, and the Tournaments are on Saturdays
(All the talk about playing, but none was on Sunday stated)

Q- Do you remember Nov. 5th ?
A- I saw the door close- I did not see Talford

Q- so you did not have any interaction that day?
A- No

Q- Sunday December 2nd, what happened?
A- A call came to the bar, and the bartender said "It must have been Talford”

Q- Then what?
A- When I was leaving, I saw his son standing across the road at the PO.
Talford - Objection Your Honor- Relevance
Commissioner Gehring - Sustained

Q- Did you have your kids kept in the house?
A- The Wife chose to

Q- What happened when you got home then?
A- I called Bill Stewart and told him what Happened. He told me to call Jaeger the next week.
He said that if it was a concern, they could write a ticket

Q- Did you wear heavy gloves?
A- Yes, they are thick

Q- Where the kids outside when you got home then ?
A- I gave them permission for kids to go sledding after I came home.
(LIE Caught- She let them out is what he already stated once)

Q- What next?
A- I heard Rick's voice say, so I crossed the line, huh?

Q- Where were you then?
A- In the driveway where it butts to hwy P

Q- Did you turn to Rick?
A- Yes, he was on my property
(False- I never left the street, I was in the south driving lane)

Q- Was he on the street?
A- He was on the edge of the driveway, he was on the concrete

Q- Was your driveway shoveled then?
A- Only a path from the Street to the Garage

Q- What did you say?
A- I walked up to him, and when I was a foot away, “I told him he needed to go away”

Q- Did you see you girls?
A- I seen the kids coming home, he stepped between me and them.

Q- So what did you do then?
A- I pushed his head and knocked his hat off, he picked it up, and jumped right back at me with in 1"
(FALSE- he swung from the side at me, hitting my ear, and knocking my hat off)

Q- What did he do?
A- His arms where flailing and he moved his arms a lot

Q- What did you do?
A- He came right back at me, I thought he was going to hit me, so I threw a punch from the side of his
Nose, and knocked his glasses off
(I did not come at him, I simply stood back up, facing back to him, I was hit again)

Q- Where were the girls now?
A- They were stuck on the other side

Q- So what happened then?
A- He came right back at me, My Pop told me, to end a fight, you punch them in the nose
(I picked up my glasses and said “what the hell is wrong with you”, I faced back to him, he hit me the 3rd time)

Q- What did you do then?
A- I threw another side punch

Q- When you first came face to face, did you stop?
A- I did not move, I did not pivot my feet or Lunge

Q- After 3rd hit, what did you do?
A- He took a step back, a couple seconds went by, and he said "What's wrong with you?"
He stated that twice
(False-1 said it one time)

Q- Do you outweigh Talford?
A- By at least 100 pounds, I did not use full power of my body.

Q- You indicated that you had a co-worker at work Google your name and find the blogs?
A- Yes

Q- Have you ever physically threatened Talford?
A- No, I changed my route going to school

Q- When
A- A little longer than Jodi Pulk has

Q- Did you know that Talford is so called Disabled?
A- He refused to divulge that information

Loberg- So there is a pattern of contact since May RO, the Nov. 5th Issue, and the Dec. 2nd issue
are the reasons we are requesting the order be placed against Talford.

Q- Did you invite Talford onto your property?
A- NO

Q- Did you see him often?
A- Yes, he is known to walk a lot

Q- Has he ever stopped before?
A- No
(False- we have stopped by now and then outside visits)

Q- Are you apposed to a Order being placed against you?
A- Yes

Q- You feel your actions were justifiable for self defense?
A- Yes
(False- He was never threatened bodily or verbally)

Q- Are you ashamed mat your kids seen you do that?
A- Yes

Q- Is the Route past Talford's house the shortest to the school?
A- Yes
(False- the street he lives on, has the school doors on it)

Q- When did you change that?
A- 2 years ago

Q- So Talford is active in the meetings?
A- He is at every Committee and Board Meeting (False- not all committee meetings attended)

Q- What does he do at the meetings?
A- He always has comments, or legal threats or any other verbal threats

Q- Where did all this happen then?
A- In the driveway

Q- Where did Talford come from?
A- He came from around the corner of the garage
(I would have been in the alley then, I never left the roadway P)

Loberg- In closing, I can say that Talford was trespassing..

Talford - Objection Your Honor, that was never stated before now

Loberg- "If this person speaks again I want him removed from the courtroom," If he can't act civil in here or in public. His words are a verbal assault, "This is a man who has mental disabilities." He was looking to create a incident. He admitted that the call would displeasure Rupakus. That was Dick Tiffany Testimony, the bar owner said it was Talford, or he felt strongly that it was. "Talford's written statement is sort of Bravado," this big fellow did not knock me over. I took shots over and over (all an assumption of Loberg's)


In the Blog' he talks about Rupakus and Jodi P. being associates.
Talford claims that Rupakus made a false report, (He did, and the citations were thrown out by the Judge)
# 2, Bill, Bob, and Jodi are the problem.
# 3, Rupakus is running the show and the game.
# 4 The Oct. blog on Hail Rupakus.
# 5 The RO - Nov. Blog and May 2, incident. The RO Bob did not take the action, Jodi Did.
# 6 Are the allegations of assault on a disabled citizen.
# 7 is the Topix.com when all is said, there might be new board members and we may have new members.
# 8 Topix.com those members that read these blogs and read the issues, and more than just the chief.
Talford states that all the hate in the world will not make him stop what he is doing. Tiffany went outside to interact with Talford. Talford is uncivil and ill mannered behavior all the time. The defense issue is what this is.

Loberg- Commissioner Gehring, I do not want you to look at this case like a domestic and put an order
going both ways. There should only be one against Talford




Commissioner Gehring- Ruling - Injunction both ways for 4 years.

Talford enticed the incident with writing his blogs, so that is good for an order

Rupakus admits to hitting Talford, and I do not condone that type of behavior. “You cannot just go around
hitting people,” she stated to him

Both these two need to stay away from each other.

Commissioner Gehring then jumped on Loberg for trying to leave with all 8 exhibits.
“You can't just walk away with them, she said.”






Contacts During Restraining .Order. Case:
12-21-07 Loberg request for case 07-00432 vs Rupakus be dropped for the following reasons:
1- Uncontested that there were several contacts.
(Only stated 2 dates, and one was simply looking into the bar and saying nothing)

2- Defendant . Did not deny blocking narrow path,
(False-yes, I said I stayed in the road

3- Defendant. Did not deny stating the comments,
(False -yes I did deny stating all of it)

4- Petitioner of case 07-437. Did not deny hitting Talford
(False - He lied 3 times to the cop)

5- Petitioner. Felt he was under attack,
(was never even swung at though)

6- Petitioner. Changed route for the last 2 years

7- Petitioner. Had reasonable fear, and perceived the trespassing as a threat
(False- I never stepped off roadway)

8- Defendant. Has been shadowing, Petitioner &. Blocked the walkway for the girls.
(False- I never looked at girls)

9- Respondent, testimony believable If he would have used his power, the
Petitioner. Would have been seriously injured.

10- Closing argument- He is a Polaris Defense Employee and this could have Repercussions.
His customers are in defense, and he considered this to be proper Course of action.
Proper action would be to dismiss this all together.

11- The court did not state that the Respondent, acted in “Self defense”

12- The same request again to dismiss the order against Rupakus. “Request order Reversal”

12-24-07 Talford reply to Loberg's request "Response to motion for reconsideration"

The request by Robert Loberg is no more than an attempt to waste the Courts time. The defendant verified more than once that he in deed, did strike me in the head three times, in which I have filed the Restraining Order for that reason. He also testified that I never attempted to strike him, nor did I ever touch him hi any way. To go through the Attorneys letter of reasoning, I am disputing much of what he states as his facts.

1. There have not been several incidents with Robert Rupakus and I, unless you count the items that are in the packet of exhibits that I filed as the petitioner for the hearing, The blog I write is for the Village Board following that I do, and report to the citizens! This has never been used to threaten harm in any way to anyone. That was testified to in the hearing. The Tavern is being used to try and state I was threatening him, yet all I did was look into the bar, stating absolutely nothing to anyone, then closed the door and left, Never entering the bar completely at any time, the owner threw me out, one year prior for coming in and telling him good luck in the April election, he has treated me poorly since,. The contact on Dec. 2,2007 was not intended to be a threat to his family at any time, but the false assumption he had, made it that way. It was a political statement from me to him, as runners for the Board position. Since the termination of our police chief started in Elmwood, the beginning of October, he has been seen at the bar a considerable amount of time, and the view of this by many people in the community, is that the board is processing information in the bars, which is not correct in any manner. That is why I have been paying attention, and only when I am out and about. I have never went looking for Robert Rupakus for any reason, especially to harass him. I was never allowed to tell the past history between Robert Rupakus, yet he was allowed to hi the hearing
.
2. Yes I did deny blocking any path made by Rupakus. I was standing at least 1-2 feet in the southbound lane of County Road P (Public Ave.) when this incident occurred. I never at any time, stepped onto his property, yet his first words to me, where, "why don't you step over here?" I at no tune, ever looked behind me, at his kids. I did not know they where anywhere close to me. I seen two older kids sitting on the hillside across the street from his home, and a couple younger kids walking from the sliding hill. I only paid attention to Robert Rupakus in front of me, and after each hit, I looked directly back at him, and after the third hit, I left southbound towards my home, never making any verbal remarks to his kids or even making eye contact at any time.

3. At no time did I make any statements about crossing the line to him, he stated "step over here to me," (which I felt was asking me to step onto his property so he could become physical against me, I did not. I stayed where I was at, hi the street as he continued towards me) then proceeded to get face to face with me, then started striking me, without any words being stated, either way, until I asked him, what the hell he was thinking after the second hit knocked my glasses off.

4. The defendant clearly stated in the testimony that he swung his arm hitting me. That is not pushing. The EMT and ER reports show and verify how my ear was swollen. This would not happen from a simple push.

5. We never got within 2 inches of each other after the first swing. I looked at him, after picking up my hat, and he swung just that quickly, there was no getting within 2 inches. Self defense would mean that I was swinging at him, or hat struck out at him, and in the hearing the defendant clearly stated that I never swung at him, nor did I ever touch him. Again I never turned my attention to any kids that may have been around. I was looking at Rupakus,

6. The defendant states that he has stayed away from my premises for over two years, yet was just at our home on Oct.30th for Halloween. He has came to our home regularly for that night. He also claimed the shortest route for him was Shaw Ave. to get to the school, yet he lives next to Wilson Ave. which the school building entrance is on the same Street Wilson Ave. is a direct walk for nun, yet he claims he needs to come two blocks over to Shaw for his straightest route. This was testified to in the hearing. As far as not making any comments in the Board meetings, that is false. I have filed Police Reports against Robert Rupakus for Slander in open board meetings. He has on a number of incidents, publicly slandered me and my family hi the board meetings, (and this is all oh Taped audio cassettes if needed for proof.) At no time did the defendant ever make the statements that I needed to leave, he was forcefully trying to state that. All I did was pick up my hat, and get hit again, then I picked up my glasses and got another hit to the face. This was an attack period.



7. He states that my stopping on the street by his home, after he started a conversation to me, was threatening to him, yet I never touched him, nor did I ever swing at him was his testimony. "Displeasure" does not give anyone the right to assault another person.

8. (a.) shadowing the respondent was never done. I eye witnessed this and made a political comment towards him, and he responded by assaulting me. His where about's were only stated on the blog over one weekend, and it has never been on any regular basis, in order to suggest harassment. One time,
(b) I made the call, as a political reason, not in any manner to threaten harm to anyone, ever, again, this only happened one time in the 6 years of knowing each other, and being on opposite sides of the table on the issues in our community,
(c) I never went to the respondent home to make any contact. I was oh my way from my home to a residents home where I plowed snow earlier in the day, and then to the local station. I was simply walking past his home, as I have hundreds of times since our knowing each other. The making contact with the Village Clerk and Village President proves that he makes everything a village issue. This has been denied by the Village President, yet Rupakus continues to contact them with every issue he has about me.
(d) this is false allegation. I never was on his property. I never came around his garage. (I would have had to be in the alley for that to happen. I was walking on the street, from South to North.)
(e) no children where involved at any time. This again is false. The Police tried to speak to the children, and Rupakus refused to allow them to. (this shows more intent to lie)
(f) the statements being made by Attorney Loberg are false. There was no push at any time, there was only swinging fists at my head. The defendant stated in his testimony that I never swung at him, nor did I ever touch him. This is the only factual information and he continues to keep that information out of his request
There was only one time that we where within inches of each other, and that was when he walked up to me in the street, and got nose to nose (intimidating act) then he swung at me, taking my hat off. I picked my hat up, looked back to him, and the second swing then was thrown hitting my glasses of my face and cutting my nose. I picked them up, and looked back at him, stating "What the hell are you thinking" and he swung a third time, hitting me in the nose again. I had my glasses in one hand, and my hat in the other, yet he claims I jumped into his face. This was false from the start.

9. Attorney Loberg likes to point out that this guy could have done much more damage to me. I wonder if that is why I was assaulted. He was told by the Attorney he could keep him out of trouble if he did. Loberg labeled me as a mental case, and a threat to society in his final statement, and even tried to have me thrown out of the courtroom for one objection I made, It disrupted him, and he lost his train of thought.
He became very abusive after that, verbally. And he showed how aggressive he could get in just a second that it took. I told the truth about the incident, and he tries to make more of a story out of it. It did not knock me to the ground, does not mean that it was ok for him to do

10. The attempt to continually push that Rupakus works for Polaris is nothing but a ploy, to get the Court to believe he would not do anything wrong. He falsely uses the Polaris name in the Village Elections also. Listing himself as Polaris Bob. This is no} proper to be done either, but he feels because he works for the company, he can claim their name too. The fact is still the same, Mr. Rupakus should have controlled his temper and not assaulted someone while they where walking past his home. Liking or disliking cases is being brought up by Attorney Loberg inappropriately also, he is trying to give


Rupakus the ok for what he did, by trying to prove that I have done so many things wrong. It is also the Courts rights and knowledge that I have never one time, violated any order that they have placed, even though I have felt they have placed these orders wrongfully against me, I still did nothing to further case trouble. Many of the citizens agree with me, that if you are a member of the board, then you are 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week as long as you are in the village. These things have been reported simply for political reasons concerning the village board. He (Rupakus) was the filing official to get rid of our Chief Of Police and the Tavern owner has publicly stated that "Elmwood should not have any cops, they are nothing but trouble." This creates the animosity to the to the courts. Attorney Loberg continues to manipulate the truth and the words used to create a case, where there is not one.

11. Attorney Loberg again restates information that was written already. no further reply.

12.1 would ask that the Court look at this case, and take the order placed against Rick Talford off, being that a poor political decision that was never intended in being any form of threat or harassment to his family was done. I have been very much involved with the Village Board for 5-6 years, and there has been continued attempt to remove those rights by the same individuals, including Robert Loberg. My actions have only been controlled by trying to keep the Community informed on those who have been controlling the safety part of our community. We have not had any Police Protection since the termination of our Chief and the information being provided to the community has not been all that truthful. I never asked to be assaulted for my opinion. I never thought my opinions where considered to be threats in any manner. I have never been contacted by anyone, stating that anything I wrote was perceived that way. I have had many threats myself, and know exactly what threats are, and I have not done that to anyone. I at no time have ever stated I entered his property, and I did not on Dec. 2nd, 2007 in which the incident happened in the street. The front of the Rupakus home is on Winter Ave. This happened on Public.

I was told by Rupakus to step onto his property, but never did. I have been told the order placed against me, was probably for my own safety. I ask that it be taken off though. I may not have made a good call, but I did not start any physical altercations by any actions I made. I never made any comments, or blocked any children's path either, and I want the court to be sure of that. This attempt by Loberg is nothing but an attempt to make his Client feel it is ok for him to go around and assault and then lie to the Police, when he represents the Head of our Police Committee in our Village. This proves that he should have more common sense against throwing his fists at others he does not like. I do feel that he seems to be above the law, because of his position and who he knows. He made two calls each to the Village Clerk and the Village President, also a County Officer and decided there was not enough to be concerned over, to just wait for Robbie Jaeger to write out citations for them the following week, yet the 911 was used by us to get help after the assault. There has been threats towards anyone that signs my nomination papers made online, the threats where placed online the same day as this request was written by Loberg. The proper authorities have been contacted on that as well.

Dated: December 24,2007
Rick A. Talford
123 W Shaw Ave.
Elmwood, WI 54740
(715)639-2313
fax-2314


12-28-07 Loberg's reply to my response - stated "second opinion is often the best" applies here
“Talford recites and relies on facts not the evidence”
(Nice statement to Piss off the Commissioner)

1-3-08 Commissioner Gehring Denied reconsideration request by Loberg
"I believe both injunctions should stand"

1-7-08 Talford request to amend order, with correct info. From request of order. I started receiving threats via
websites, to stay away from the Board meeting or face going to Jail. No Court Order stated this, and
I called the DA Victim Services and she told me twice “They cannot do that, it must be court ordered”
"Talford can attend meetings as general audience" was in the request, by the Petitioner of Case 07-437
but never Transferred by the Commissioner from the request order, to the final order.

1-9-08 Loberg reply to “Amendment. Request“- strongly apposes my request- stating Sheriff and DA Agree
to his idea. It is all speculation to if he will win in election


1-11-08 Commissioner Gehring denies making any changes, period "This was after the court Made a decision on the plaintiff request, “Injunction stays as written.” Every bit against Her statements that everyone has the
right to attend open meetings. “Now she is changing her mind from what she said, just 6 months
prior, everyone has the right to be involved in their local government, and I will not take that away
from anyone” This statement is in the Transcripts of the May 2007 Jodi Pulk Order that was rec’d by
fraudulent and falsified information. Appeal for that Order was filed and denied without anyone
investigating the false information being used.