Catoosa County sheriff issues statement on attorney's request for GBI investigation; attorney responds with own statement
Feb 27, 2013 | 5197 views | 9 9 comments | 18 18 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Gary Sisk
Gary Sisk
slideshow
McCracken "Ken" Poston, Brent Marsh's attorney, from Ringgold
McCracken "Ken" Poston, Brent Marsh's attorney, from Ringgold
slideshow
Catoosa County sheriff Gary Sisk has issued this prepared statement:

“On February 22, 2013 the Catoosa County Sheriff's Office received a request from local attorney McCracken Poston to 'invite the Georgia Bureau of Investigations to look into matters' involving Federal Agent Ken Hillman of the FBI.

“These matters have to do with alleged indiscretions, policy and procedural violations involving agent Hillman and Mr. Poston's client’s soon-to-be ex-wife.

Mr. Poston did not allege any wrongdoing involving employees of the Catoosa County Sheriff's Office.

“Any issues Mr. Poston may have with Agent Hillman should be addressed with the Federal Bureau of Investigations. It is my understanding that they are conducting an internal investigation at his request. Neither the Catoosa County Sheriff's Office nor the Georgia Bureau of Investigations investigate policy and/or procedural violations of Federal Agents or get involved in civil divorce cases. I do not feel this is a wise expense of the taxpayer's money when it does not affect the duty of my office.

“The Sheriffs Office will fully cooperate with the Federal Bureau of Investigations internal investigation when and if the time comes.”

-----

In response to sheriff Gary Sisk’s statement, attorney McCracken Poston has issued this statement:

“The information regarding these traffic stops must be pretty hot for the Sheriff's office to try to shut it down like this!

“Once again, I am not the attorney of record for Emerson Russell. R. Kevin Silvey is his attorney.

“The matters requested of the Sheriff to review happened long before Agent Ken Hillman even knew the Russell family, and have nothing to do with any divorce action. The matters requested of the Sheriff to review are the decisions and actions of his department on how it conducted itself after a series of traffic stops that involved a federal agent.

“It is a clever ploy to try to cast these issues in the light of a divorce case, but as I said, these issues involve our Sheriff's department's actions, inactions and decisions long before the agent at issue met any of the Russell's.

“While the FBI has in fact conducted a preliminary investigation of Ken Hillman, the FBI will have no jurisdiction in the issue of the actions of the Catoosa County Sheriff's Department. Any series of decisions by our Sheriff's Department to authorize multiple suspected DUI stops on the same individual to become courtesy taxi services for the suspect are decisions that the taxpayers of Catoosa County would like to look into. Of course, Sheriff Sisk was a high ranking officer in the previous administration when these questionable decisions were made. I have no idea if he knew about them at the time, but his reluctance to conduct his office with transparency is troubling.

“I'm sure the Sheriff either knows or has at least done some level of inquiry in his own department. I think he should answer a few simple questions:

“1) Was his department involved in traffic stops of FBI Agent Ken Hillman? When, and what were the nature of those stops?

“2) What was the response of the Sheriff's Department to those stops? Who made the ultimate decisions?

“3) Was a federal agent allowed to “phone a friend” or was another person allowed to come pick up the agent to keep him from continuing to drive?

“4) Was a federal agent allowed to continue driving after a traffic stop when there was evidence that he should not have been allowed to continue driving?

“The citizens deserve to have confidence in their government, and because of the diversion tactics used today they will now go without the assurances that a review by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation could have given them.

“I am a citizen of Catoosa County. I do not think I am alone in wanting these questions answered.”

Comments
(9)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
smith4354
|
March 05, 2013
I find it odd that as Juvenile Judge to represent our youth in a time of need is representing a child predator. Does anyone else see this wrong?

catsport
|
March 07, 2013
Seems OK to have the best representation possible, like Poston, then if they are found guilty it certainly won't be overturned in a higher court due to incompetent attorney errors. If they are found guilty, lock them up for good.
Frankenchrist
|
February 28, 2013
I wish I knew more about how the law worked to know whether the public servant Mr. Sisk has any right to refuse the requests and questions presented to him. Seems like little cost is involved so possibly the hold up is embarrassment and/or discipline within his department up to and including Mr. Sisk himself. That's motivation to not answer Mr. Poston in my book, however wrong and/or illegal that may be.
CCRES40
|
February 28, 2013
This is being done as part of a divorce. He is trying to win a case for his client. Our police officers need to be on the street answering calls for people in trouble. Not providing insane depositions for a divorce attorney that frankly has his case all sewn up with this news story being leaked. The wife needs to settle the case with the husband and move on. Leave the cops out of it.
Frankenchrist
|
February 28, 2013
Mr. Poston does not directly "allege" any wrong doing from the sheriff's office employees, but it's clear he suspects there was favorable treatement given to another law enforcement officer that wouldn't be given to another regular Joe like me. Don't tell me all officers are "on the street answering calls". BS. There are desk jockeys meant to handle document retrieval and questions like these. I simply wonder how far can Mr. Poston go to force the issue? Seems like public servants must answer to the public, no?
CCRES40
|
February 28, 2013
Who cares if the cops do favors for the FBI! Mr. Poston is only interested in doing his divorce client a favor. Is that really what our officers need to be spending their time on? NOPE. I would be pissed if I knew I couldn't get an officer to help me because they were tied up in a stupid deposition interview with a divorce attorney that can frankly win his case without dragging the police force into it.
Frankenchrist
|
February 28, 2013
Who cares if a drunk FBI agent ran over a homeless person crossing the street and a CCS deputy helped him cover it up? Not seeing much of a difference. Terribly horrified you do CCRES40.

Cops give depositions, cops take craps, cops eat lunch, cops are generally busy, and sometimes they have to do things they don't like. If these questions would gobble up too much time, I say hire more, and do a much better vetting process from the get go.

And then there's this. "Once again, I am not the attorney of record for Emerson Russell. R. Kevin Silvey is his attorney." Ken Poston. Hmm.

CCRES40
|
March 01, 2013
Apparently you've never been tied up answering stupid questions by an attorney who's paid by the hour. They ask the same question over and over and over. Not how I want my tax dollars spent. If an officer is being questioned about a crime against our community as in a burglary or murder, fine. Wanting to tie them up for hours because he's getting rich handling a divorce for a rich man, not fine.

Also, we aren't talking about them doing favors for a murder. Law enforcement agencies scratch each others backs and have since they began. He drove an agent and his drunk girlfriend home. No he shouldn't have done it. He should have called them a cab but that's his mistake. Let it go!
Ccres39
|
March 29, 2013
@ccres40- I CARE!!! A drunk driver is a drunk driver, I don't care if they work for McDonald's or carry an FBI badge!! Obviously you are a cop, you have that, as a GA State Trooper put it once, "cop mentality, it is us against you (referring to citizens)"! No, there was no murder, but the possibility of any drunk driver causing an accident resulting in loss of life is just as great regardless if they are plain Jane or Deputy Dog! Isn't that the reason for this law, the road checks, etc., to decrease that possibility and save a life! If not, then why are you arresting anyone who drinks and drives. As for tied up given depositions instead of patroling our county, are you seriously making that statement with a straight face? Don't you mean keeping them from sitting at "someone's" house, or in the park, or down in that pull-off beside the funeral home in Ringgold...I could list most all the "hiding to meet my girlfriend" spots in this county, but I will leave you with a few. The fact is simple, IF YOU TAKE AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THIS STATE DO IT, and IT DOES NOT GIVE YOU A LICENSE / BADGE TO BREAK THOSE LAWS!! If you want to scratch someone's back, let that citizen go when he rolls through a stop sign, not a drunk FBI agent who might ram his car into yours if he loses control and kills you. Public Servant answering to the public, now there's a concept unheard of in this county! Keep going Poston, we don't want you leaving our cops along. Sisk, I'm just shaking my head in disgust at you, shame on you for not holding your deputies to a higher standard. @Smith4354, I know who you are, I also know your involvement, you should really change display name.
Postings are not edited and are the responsibility of the author. You agree not to post comments that are abusive, threatening or obscene. Postings may be removed at our discretion.