Criminal Charges Mary and John Purkey Beliefs: Email

Lorraine A Valente filed this request with the Ross Murray, Jackson County Kentucky Attorney Prosecutor of Jackson County, KY.
Est. Completion None
Fix Required


From: Lorraine A Valente

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Kentucky Open Records Act, I hereby request the following records:

Please provide a copy of the email dated May 25, 2021 where you made the decision to not file criminal charges against John Purkey for vandalizing a new gate May 2021 based upon viewing a video of Mary Purkey trespassing my property July 2020.

Please provide a copy of your Conflict of Interest Policy.

Based upon Mary Purkey's posted signs on my legally surveyed property, she claims that you are her legal representative. On which date did the Purkey's become your clients? When did you insert yourself as legal representative for the Purkey's?

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 3 business days, as the statute requires.


Lorraine A Valente

From: Ross Murray, Jackson County Kentucky Attorney Prosecutor

Dear Ms. Valente: The requested e-mail is 1 page long. A copy can be provided to you for $0.50, plus $0.60 in costs and postage if you desire us to mail you a copy. You may also inspect the e-mail here in my office. With regard to information concerning conflicts of interest of Kentucky attorneys, you can also inspect the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct here:

There are no other documents in the possession of the Jackson County Attorney's office that are responsive to your request.
DISCLAIMER: This email: 1) is not intended to serve as legal advice; 2) does not create an attorney / client relationship. However, if this message is directed to a client this communication and attached documents and/or files may contain confidential information belonging to the sender and/or intended recipient which is protected by the work product and/or attorney-client privilege. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure of the contents of this message or attached documents and/or files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify this office immediately and delete the message and attached documents and/or files.

CONSENT TO EMAIL: Email messages and information sent over the internet are unsecure and your response to email messages from us confirms you agree to email communication. This e-mail message may contain confidential information and SHOULD NOT be forwarded to anyone else as confidentiality and privilege may be lost.
MISDIRECTED MESSAGES: This message is governed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521. If you received this message and are not the addressee or intended recipient, you received this message in error. Retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by the wrong addressee or by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Please notify the person sending the message of the error and then delete the message.

From: Lorraine A Valente

Ross Murray
The email you sent was free of charge because it was an electronic communication. I will not be paying you .50 for a copy of your electronic communication but I have reported you to the Attorney General for multiple violations of FOIA, Trespassing my property with Mary Purkey, Coercing neighbor Chris Bowles to not return my original Gate and protecting domestic terrorist neighbor crimes.

Here is your email dated Mary 25, 2021 for the public to view
Ms. Valente: After speaking to you last Friday, I reviewed the video you sent me. (my comment: Video dated July 2020 video of Mary Purkey trespassing and posting signs threatening on my surveyed property)

I watched it numerous times because I wanted to be sure that I heard it accurately because Mary Purkey stated in it that she believes that they own that property across the road which you all are arguing over. (my comment: Both John and Mary Purkey have faulty belief systems and you Ross Murray appear to protect with manipulating years of events to justify not filing a criminal complaint against two trespassers, vandals, stalkers, menacers:

Because of what I heard on that video, (July 2020) I did not submit the criminal complaint on John Purkey
(my comment: Video of John Purkey tearing my gate and crushing it with his John Deere tractor May 20, 2021 with signed Witness Statement)
because I needed to verify whether Mr. and Mrs. Purkey believe that they own the property in question where the gate was. I then had my secretary call the Purkeys yesterday and made Mary Purkey an appointment to speak with me this morning. Without prompting, Mary Purkey stated unequivocally that they have owned that property for more than 30 years and the gate that was removed was on their property. I believe that she believes this because of the fact that the amount of property you are claiming because of your survey is a small amount on the other side of Sand Lick Road. That does not mean that they own the property, it only lends credibility of her belief that they do because it is likely that they have treated it as such and this is why they built the roadway there up to the cemetery. I do not claim to have any idea who owns this property, I am just saying that it is not clear cut and should be settled in a court of law.

Prior to watching your video, I was of the belief that the Purkeys did not believe they owned the property, but were only upset because they could not use the roadway to get to the cemetery. Removal of the gate on your property would have been a criminal act. But because they believe they own the property and ownership of that property would be a key factor in any criminal charges that I might file, I do not believe we have enough to charge them criminally. You can, of course, count this as damages in your civil lawsuit if you win and ask a judge to award damages to you.

I now understand this situation from both sides and can understand why this is so upsetting to you and the Purkeys. You both have reason to believe that you own this property. Who has the better claim, I cannot say. I will tell you the same thing that I told Mary Purkey this morning. I advise you all to stay away from each other and that you should both get attorneys and file a civil lawsuit over ownership of this property and use of this roadway. This dispute can and should be handled by a court and continuing to argue over it, accomplishes nothing other than inflaming tensions.